You didn't address the premise at all.
My point was that virtue does not consist of forced distribution of other people's money to aid the needy (the "Robin Hood Principle." If you want to make a case that it's immoral to do other things with taxpayer money, address that separately.
Wealth is not "transferred" by the government to the wealthy from the middle class. The tax rolls and numbers should make it obvious to even the dimmest bulb that the money is flowing through government by the ton in the other direction.
Again, if "health care" is a right, provided to all regardless of whether they can pay for it, or whether or not the providers are considered in the equation, then you can make an equal case for food, housing, and all the other things that are essential for life.
Some countries have actually been run like this. They were hellholes.
Flame » in reply to A good argument except for the fatal flaw.
re: fatal flaws
The whole thread (51 posts)
- What would happen if - - - ?
- That was interesting.
- How can an invention be a basic right?
- re: How can an invention be a basic right?
- A good argument can be made
- re: "Things that must be paid for by others are not inherent rights."
- In my state
- Government health care
- It is a bad situation for those in the category of Eri and Alcaray
- It's a good thing we're on flame.
- Are you saying that clean water and a house are innate and basic rights?
- A good argument can be made
- Not necessarily so.
- re: How can an invention be a basic right?