RIP School Survival Forums
August 2001 - June 2017

The School Survival Forums are permanently retired. If you need help with quitting school, unsupportive parents or anything else, there is a list of resources on the Help Page.

If you want to write about your experiences in school, you can write on our blog.

To everyone who joined these forums at some point, and got discouraged by the negativity and left after a while (or even got literally scared off): I'm sorry.

I wasn't good enough at encouraging people to be kinder, and removing people who refuse to be kind. Encouraging people is hard, and removing people creates conflict, and I hate conflict... so that's why I wasn't better at it.

I was a very, very sensitive teen. The atmosphere of this forum as it is now, if it had existed in 1996, would probably have upset me far more than it would have helped.

I can handle quite a lot of negativity and even abuse now, but that isn't the point. I want to help people. I want to help the people who need it the most, and I want to help people like the 1996 version of me.

I'm still figuring out the best way to do that, but as it is now, these forums are doing more harm than good, and I can't keep running them.

Thank you to the few people who have tried to understand my point of view so far. I really, really appreciate you guys. You are beautiful people.

Everyone else: If after everything I've said so far, you still don't understand my motivations, I think it's unlikely that you will. We're just too different. Maybe someday in the future it might make sense, but until then, there's no point in arguing about it. I don't have the time or the energy for arguing anymore. I will focus my time and energy on people who support me, and those who need help.

-SoulRiser

The forums are mostly read-only and are in a maintenance/testing phase, before being permanently archived. Please use this time to get the contact details of people you'd like to keep in touch with. My contact details are here.

Please do not make a mirror copy of the forums in their current state - things will still change, and some people have requested to be able to edit or delete some of their personal info.


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Healthcare
Author Message
Thought Criminal Offline
Frame 313

Posts: 10,133
Joined: May 2007
Thanks: 12
Given 106 thank(s) in 80 post(s)
Post: #1
Healthcare

I've been watching this shit with the 9/11 workers and the republicans out and out saying "LOL FUCK YOU" to all the people they hailed as heros and its really gotten me to thinking about healthcare. I mean, The biggest (most would argue best) country in the world and we don't offer our citizens universal healthcare! We throw toss them to the side to be eaten up and spit out by the insurance companies. We offer better healthcare to the (supposed) terrorists in Gitmo than OUR OWN FUCKING CITIZENS not to mention the 9/11 workers ruined their lungs trying to save American lives from a disaster caused by the aforementioned terrorists.
People rave about how healthcare will be run like the US postal service. If helathcare in America we half as reliable as the post office I would eat my fucking hat. Yes government run medicine would be so bad, I mean look at France, Canada and Britain! they are just having a god awful time! For fucks sake, Cuba takes better care of its people than we do!
this shit just makes me want to punch babies!
12-30-2010 01:25 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
~Mystery~ Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,788
Joined: Jan 2009
Thanks: 0
Given 22 thank(s) in 18 post(s)
Post: #2
Re: Healthcare

hey lets just all give the government even more money now that our money is inflating and further rape the middle class.

If you want healthcare go to the library like an independent human and do it yourself. Or better yet stop eating cheeseburgurgers 24/7

People act unaware that the human body is a walking pharmacy![Image: rolleyes.gif]~David Icke~
Religion was invented to keep the poor from harrasing the rich"~Napoleon Bonaparte~
Do As Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole of The Law! ~The Secret Order of Thelema~
"Respect goes to those who do not want it" ~TrueAnarchist~
"The only limitations that a person has are those that are self-imposed." ~Unknown!~
“Attraction is an emotion.~Dr. Alex~
“Life is an illusion albeit a very persistent one” ~Albert Einstein

I Am A Messenger From The Seduction Community!
Mint Member
12-30-2010 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sociopath Offline
©o℗yright Infringe®

Posts: 3,692
Joined: Mar 2008
Thanks: 682
Given 160 thank(s) in 104 post(s)
Post: #3
Re: Healthcare

If you don't want health care, just don't get sick/injured. Simple.

Hidden stuff:
TRIGGER WARNING: THIS TRIGGER WARNING CONTAINS TRIGGER WARNINGS!

Dear Tumblrites: Despite your wrongly self-diagnosed PTSD, no line of scientific evidence suggests people can be triggered over the internet. Triggering works through the senses (i.e. smell, taste, touch, vision, hearing.) but it goes through real time; if you're not experiencing it in real life as it's ACTUALLY HAPPENING in your ACTUAL life, you CANNOT be triggered. The only exception to this is if you have a seizure, but then again, that's triggered by epilepsy (i.e. rapidly-changing flashing lights) NOT PTSD. Remembering a bad incident is NOT the same thing as having a flashback. When you remember, you think; when you flashback, you feel.

#HashTagsAreForIdiots

[Image: violator_blackbg_110x32.gif]
Max Stirnir Wrote:"In the time of spirits thoughts grew till they overtopped my head, whose offspring they yet were; they hovered about me and convulsed me like fever-phantasies -- an awful power. The thoughts had become corporeal on their own account, were ghosts, e. g. God, Emperor, Pope, Fatherland, etc. If I destroy their corporeity, then I take them back into mine, and say: "I alone am corporeal." And now I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property; I refer all to myself." The Ego and Its Own, pg. 15
Charles Manson Wrote:“Look down at me and you see a fool;
look up at me and you see a god;
look straight at me and you see yourself”
HeartofShadows Wrote:"Life is nothing more than a druggie trying to get their quick fix of happiness while dealing with the harsh withdrawal of reality"
Osip Mandelstam Wrote:"I divide all of world literature into authorized and unauthorized works. The former are all trash; the latter--stolen air. I want to spit in the face of every writer who first obtains permission and then writes." The Fourth Prose, 1930.
Lukas Foss Wrote:That is why the analogy of stealing does not work. With a thief, we want to know how much money he stole, and from whom. With the artist it is not how much he took and from whom, but what he did with it.
PIRATE Pirate2 MEMBER
 Pirate Join the crew!Pirate
12-30-2010 01:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartofShadows Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,557
Joined: Dec 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 80 thank(s) in 73 post(s)
Post: #4
Re: Healthcare

People are greedy.

Stop believing in humanity so damn much.

[Image: WARZONES_subs_hostility.png]
image hosting jpg
12-30-2010 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Thought Criminal Offline
Frame 313

Posts: 10,133
Joined: May 2007
Thanks: 12
Given 106 thank(s) in 80 post(s)
Post: #5
Re: Healthcare

~Mystery~ Wrote:hey lets just all give the government even more money now that our money is inflating and further rape the middle class.
lol yeah because giving it to the corporations that have absolutely ZERO accountability makes more sense. The government has more to worry about if they misuse funds than a company (granted they do it all the fucking time) but there would be a much bigger backlash from the community if corruption was exposed in government rather than the private sector.

Quote:If you want healthcare go to the library like an independent human and do it yourself
LOL Pardon me while I go to the library, read a few books and learn how to treat my cancer. Oh and maybe I can read up a little on how to remove that brain tumor my wife has while I'm at it.
12-30-2010 02:53 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
over_9000 Offline
Renegade

Posts: 97
Joined: Nov 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 1 thank(s) in 1 post(s)
Post: #6
Re: Healthcare

Thought Criminal Wrote:
~Mystery~ Wrote:hey lets just all give the government even more money now that our money is inflating and further rape the middle class.
lol yeah because giving it to the corporations that have absolutely ZERO accountability makes more sense. The government has more to worry about if they misuse funds than a company (granted they do it all the fucking time) but there would be a much bigger backlash from the community if corruption was exposed in government rather than the private sector.

If a company misuses funds and the people are bothered by it they stop giving money to he company. Misuse of funds is bad for business. If people stop giving money to the government they get arrested. Who has less accountability?
12-30-2010 04:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Aya Offline
Banned

Posts: 2,712
Joined: Aug 2005
Thanks: 3
Given 45 thank(s) in 36 post(s)
Post: #7
Re: Healthcare

Thought Criminal Wrote:I mean look at France, Canada and Britain!

Yes, let's take a look at Europe shall we?

This is the average french woman
[Image: marion1.jpg]

This is the average swede

[Image: elin-nordegren%2520tiger%2520%2520woods%...255B2%255D]

And this is the average American

[Image: obesity-epidemic-fat-lady-smoking-cigare...g-soda.jpg]





Now can you think of a few reasons why UHC works in Europe but is impractical in America? 'Cause I can think of about 200.
12-30-2010 05:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
over_9000 Offline
Renegade

Posts: 97
Joined: Nov 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 1 thank(s) in 1 post(s)
Post: #8
Re: Healthcare

Average Europeans do not look like that.
12-30-2010 05:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Absnt Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 6,075
Joined: Dec 2009
Thanks: 13
Given 184 thank(s) in 127 post(s)
Post: #9
Re: Healthcare

over_9000 Wrote:Average Europeans do not look like that.

Verily.

Blog I post to now:
http://blog.darknedgy.net

Edfreedom.org -- An organization for more freedom in education.
http://www.edfreedom.org/join-us/
12-30-2010 05:45 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jesusaurisrex Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,493
Joined: May 2009
Thanks: 0
Given 19 thank(s) in 15 post(s)
Post: #10
Re: Healthcare

heathcare:
Hidden stuff:
[Image: Pigeons.jpg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXMA34CeoQ
12-30-2010 05:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aaaaaaasd Offline
Grorious Moddu

Posts: 7,344
Joined: Oct 2007
Thanks: 1
Given 50 thank(s) in 38 post(s)
Post: #11
Re: Healthcare

god bless free healthcare
12-30-2010 10:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Thought Criminal Offline
Frame 313

Posts: 10,133
Joined: May 2007
Thanks: 12
Given 106 thank(s) in 80 post(s)
Post: #12
Re: Healthcare

over_9000 Wrote:
Thought Criminal Wrote:
~Mystery~ Wrote:hey lets just all give the government even more money now that our money is inflating and further rape the middle class.
lol yeah because giving it to the corporations that have absolutely ZERO accountability makes more sense. The government has more to worry about if they misuse funds than a company (granted they do it all the fucking time) but there would be a much bigger backlash from the community if corruption was exposed in government rather than the private sector.

If a company misuses funds and the people are bothered by it they stop giving money to he company. Misuse of funds is bad for business. If people stop giving money to the government they get arrested. Who has less accountability?
Except your life depends on these insurance companies. It's not like burger king where if someone spits in your food you go across the street to McDonalds.

Also, the majority of Americans are not overweight whales. Europe has just as many. If you think the issue at hand here is the money (having to pay for the supposed whales) it can be done. For starters GTFO the middle east. And second give the rich real taxes. They used to pay 80 and 90 percent and now they can't even be arsed to pay 30? Bite me.
"oh but we are in a recession, now isn't the time for healthcare reform" bullshit, the british built theirs after the motherfucking blitz. Think about 9/11 but all over the city and it lasting for months. If the British can do it why can't we?
The answer is GREED. Pure and simple.


Someone put the pigeon shit in a hidden box. it stretches the whole page.
12-31-2010 12:37 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
psychopath Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 4,845
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 60 thank(s) in 54 post(s)
Post: #13
Re: Healthcare

Do you americans actually pay to go to the hospital?
12-31-2010 01:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AngryCollegeDude Offline
Renegade

Posts: 87
Joined: Dec 2010
Thanks: 0
Given 7 thank(s) in 5 post(s)
Post: #14
Re: Healthcare

Thought Criminal Wrote:Except your life depends on these insurance companies. It's not like burger king where if someone spits in your food you go across the street to McDonalds.

Also, the majority of Americans are not overweight whales. Europe has just as many. If you think the issue at hand here is the money (having to pay for the supposed whales) it can be done. For starters GTFO the middle east. And second give the rich real taxes. They used to pay 80 and 90 percent and now they can't even be arsed to pay 30? Bite me.
"oh but we are in a recession, now isn't the time for healthcare reform" bullshit, the british built theirs after the motherfucking blitz. Think about 9/11 but all over the city and it lasting for months. If the British can do it why can't we?
The answer is GREED. Pure and simple.

Totally agree. The reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is because the rich get all the tax breaks at the expense of the middle class. They should at least pay the 40% the middle class has to pay. Even if those 1% billionaires that own most our wealth did have to pay 90%, they'd still have more than enough to live like kings. I mean, do they even use all that money or do they just save it up and let it waste?

I find it funny that we can afford to spend billions in a war, we can afford to bail out CEO's and banks (banks that screw over the average joe none the less), yet we can't afford basic healthcare for our people? At least according to the republicans that is...

Someone put the pigeon shit in a hidden box. it stretches the whole page.[/quote]
12-31-2010 02:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Aya Offline
Banned

Posts: 2,712
Joined: Aug 2005
Thanks: 3
Given 45 thank(s) in 36 post(s)
Post: #15
Re: Healthcare

over_9000 Wrote:Average Europeans do not look like that.

Maybe not, but two thirds of Americans are either over wieght or clinically obese1. Another 25% regularly consume tobacco2 and 7.2% are estimated to abuse drugs or alcohol3. In fact if you look on the CDC's page of most leading causes of death in this country, 9 out of 10 are direct or indirect results of either obesity, substance abuse or some combination thereof.4

Call me a greedy capitalist but I don't think that my tax dollars should go towards treating people who are the direct cause for their own misfortunes. Fuck 'em.

Hidden stuff:
1: http://www.win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/index.htm
2: http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-sm ... -down.aspx
3: http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmed ... gabuse.htm
4: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Note: According to Gallup only 21% of americans of are confirmed smokers. I rounded that up to 25% because the survey does not take into account teenagers, those without phones, non english speaking immigrants and people who use chew instead of smoke.
Hidden stuff:
CDC Top Causes of Death in the US

Leading causes are detailed in parentheses as Tobacco (T), obesity (o), and drug abuse (DA)

Heart disease (T, O, DA)
Cancer (T, O, DA)
Stroke cerebrovascular diseases (T, O, DA)
Chronic lower respiratory diseases (T, DA)
Accidents (unintentional injuries): *
Alzheimer's disease (T, O, DA)
Diabetes (O)
Influenza and Pneumonia (T)
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis (T, DA)
Septicemia: 34,828 **

*I don't know if they include dui related deaths or drug overdoses as accidents so I didn't count them.

** Septicemia (blood poisoning) is more of a symptom than a disease. However it is commonly caused by peripheral vascular disease, and/or diabetes which are in turn direct results of smoking and obesity respectively.
Hidden stuff:
Hey Faby, how's this for a 'thoughtful comment'?
12-31-2010 03:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
over_9000 Offline
Renegade

Posts: 97
Joined: Nov 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 1 thank(s) in 1 post(s)
Post: #16
Re: Healthcare

I agree. And even if the citizens were much healthier, government health care doesn't work well at all (in my country at least). There are extremely long waiting periods and the doctors are all corrupted and rude. Private healthcare works much better. Also why should I be forced to pay for other sick people?
12-31-2010 04:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartofShadows Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,557
Joined: Dec 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 80 thank(s) in 73 post(s)
Post: #17
Re: Healthcare

over_9000 Wrote:I agree. And even if the citizens were much healthier, government health care doesn't work well at all (in my country at least). There are extremely long waiting periods and the doctors are all corrupted and rude. Private healthcare works much better. Also why should I be forced to pay for other sick people?

1. Some healthcare is better than no healthcare.
2. See number 1 and of course private doctors are nicer with the money they make.
3. Thats a society for you and societies are suppose to be for the betterment of everybody.

Still gotta admit I hate having to take care of the fat whales and idiots who do themselves in.
Now I don't mind people being fat or having some weight on them but when I see these gigantic human tubs on motorized scooters going around it makes me feel rage(specially if they are employed).

[Image: WARZONES_subs_hostility.png]
image hosting jpg
12-31-2010 04:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
over_9000 Offline
Renegade

Posts: 97
Joined: Nov 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 1 thank(s) in 1 post(s)
Post: #18
Re: Healthcare

Should someone get arrested or possibly killed if they don't want to allow the government to take their property, to "better" everyone?
12-31-2010 05:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartofShadows Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,557
Joined: Dec 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 80 thank(s) in 73 post(s)
Post: #19
Re: Healthcare

over_9000 Wrote:Should someone get arrested or possibly killed if they don't want to allow the government to take their property, to "better" everyone?

Its not a matter of should.
People put a government over them and the government got more powerful than they can handle so they pretty much do whatever it tells them to do.
Those with power call the shots in this world.

[Image: WARZONES_subs_hostility.png]
image hosting jpg
12-31-2010 05:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
over_9000 Offline
Renegade

Posts: 97
Joined: Nov 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 1 thank(s) in 1 post(s)
Post: #20
Re: Healthcare

Unfortunately, that's true.
12-31-2010 05:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Aya Offline
Banned

Posts: 2,712
Joined: Aug 2005
Thanks: 3
Given 45 thank(s) in 36 post(s)
Post: #21
Re: Healthcare

HeartofShadows Wrote:Its not a matter of should.
People put a government over them and the government got more powerful than they can handle so they pretty much do whatever it tells them to do.
Those with power call the shots in this world.

To paraphrase Thoreau: When a law is unjust a citizen has both a right and a responsibility to disobey it.
12-31-2010 05:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartofShadows Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,557
Joined: Dec 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 80 thank(s) in 73 post(s)
Post: #22
Re: Healthcare

Ayliana Wrote:
HeartofShadows Wrote:Its not a matter of should.
People put a government over them and the government got more powerful than they can handle so they pretty much do whatever it tells them to do.
Those with power call the shots in this world.

To paraphrase Thoreau: When a law is unjust a citizen has both a right and a responsibility to disobey it.

In my opinion rights don't really exist in this this world, only you can.

To some people are wrong and troublemakers for disobeying and to some they are just and honorable.
Rights were just made to make people think that they have some sort of guaranteed option to live like they have some kind of entitlement to doing what they do.
So yes you hate the law and yes you can disobey it but at the cost of big brother imprisoning you.

It takes much more than idealism to face reality.

[Image: WARZONES_subs_hostility.png]
image hosting jpg
12-31-2010 05:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Aya Offline
Banned

Posts: 2,712
Joined: Aug 2005
Thanks: 3
Given 45 thank(s) in 36 post(s)
Post: #23
Re: Healthcare

HeartofShadows Wrote:In my opinion rights don't really exist in this this world, only you can.

Some books for you to look into;

Anthem by Ayn Rand
Two Treatise of Government by John Locke
On Liberty By John Stuart Mill
Phaedo (AKA The Death of Socrates) by Plato

Human rights exist. People have fought and died for them for thousands of years. Don't let anyone tell you different.
12-31-2010 06:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Thought Criminal Offline
Frame 313

Posts: 10,133
Joined: May 2007
Thanks: 12
Given 106 thank(s) in 80 post(s)
Post: #24
Re: Healthcare

Nobody is forcing you to use this new system. If you want to stay with your private insurance company be my fucking guest but don't come crying to me when you cant pay the premiums once your husband has 3 heart attacks or they just out and out dump you due to some pre-existing condition. sure your going to have more taxes TOUGH FUCKING SHIT! If you don't want to pay these taxes demand that the rich get REAL taxes. Demand that we pull the fuck out of this pointless "war". MAKE THE GOVERNMENT FEAR YOU!
If universal healthcare is so damn bad why is the infant mortality rate in places like france and canada lower than in the U.S.? Why is the average lifespan longer? You complain about smokers, More people smoke in europe than in America! You people are just gobbling up all of these blatant lies! Universal healthcare runs perfectly fine! It's not going to be some slow lumbering labyrinth of paperwork like the DMV. The government will not be RUNNING healthcare they will be PAYING for it!
12-31-2010 07:01 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartofShadows Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,557
Joined: Dec 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 80 thank(s) in 73 post(s)
Post: #25
Re: Healthcare

Ayliana Wrote:
HeartofShadows Wrote:In my opinion rights don't really exist in this this world, only you can.

Some books for you to look into;

Anthem by Ayn Rand
Two Treatise of Government by John Locke
On Liberty By John Stuart Mill
Phaedo (AKA The Death of Socrates) by Plato

Human rights exist. People have fought and died for them for thousands of years. Don't let anyone tell you different.



Hidden stuff:
Natural Rights Don't Exist
By Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So wrote Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. We were taught in school that these words are beautiful, but today I regard them as dishonest or lazy, depending on whether or not Jefferson was aware of the problem with them.

If you and I are arguing about something and I reply, "It is obvious that I am right," I have added nothing to our dialog. I may as well have said, "I declare victory." If Jefferson--so often a golden-tongued hypocrite--was not consciously engaging in a debater's trick, he was taking an intellectual short-cut, using a tautology: "It is true because....it is true."

How can there be "self evident" rights? Jefferson was writing under a British system which did not recognize the rights that he described, and which was the legal government of the colonies until they succeeded in separating themselves and forming a new one. Had Jefferson written, "We want the following rights," he would have been making a simple, clear statement easy to understand. Language allows us to construct phrases which are grammatically correct but which do not mean anything (or do not mean what they appear to). Does the statement "We hold these rights to be self-evident" in fact mean anything more profound than "we want them?"

Jefferson's and the other framers' views on natural rights were derived from John Locke's highly influential Second Treatise of Government, first published anonymously in 1690. In Chapter 2, "Of the state of nature", Locke describes the "state of nature" in which men exist before forming governments:

....a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection....

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions....

Permit me an "aha!" Is not this prose exactly the kind Hume was thinking of in his famous condemnation of deriving an "ought" from an "is"?

In every system of morality which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a god, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find that instead of the usual copulation of propositions is and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought or an ought not. This change is imperceptible, but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought or ought not expresses some new relation or affirmation, it is necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason ought to be given for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others which are entirely different from it.

Now note what Locke did: In the state of nature, "all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal" and therefore all men "should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection...."

And he does it again: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it" which teaches that "no one ought to harm another".

Locke's view of the state of nature is more placid than that of Thomas Hobbes, who believed that all men begin in a state of war of "every man, against every man." Locke by contrast could imagine men living together "according to reason", that is, peacefully, "but without a common superior on earth with authority to judge between them" (Chapter 3, "Of the state of war").

OK, lets watch Hobbes conjugate an ought from an is.

To this warre of every man against every man, this also is consequent, that nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice, have there no place. Leviathan, ch. 13

Seeming to say that there are no natural rights, just a state of chaos before government. In the state of nature, "Force and Fraud" are the two cardinal virtues; "there be no Propriety, no Dominion, no Mine and Thine distinct."

But then we make the rough transition to Chapter 14, "Of the first and second Natural Lawes, and of Contracts":

The Right of Nature, which Writers commonly call Jus Naturale, is the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgement, and Reason, hee shall conceive to be the aptest means thereto.

"Rights" language, as these two philosophers illustrate, is among the trickiest of human concepts: it is an area in which we all think we know what we are talking about when in reality we have no idea. Hobbes starts by saying that in a state of nature, there is no Justice, no property, etc., therefore no possible founding of "rights"; but in his next chapter he appears to say that without human rulebooks (criminal laws, laws of property) we each should have the right to do whatever preserves our life and our enjoyment.

Hobbes (and many others) seems to me to confound three concepts: what we physically can do; what we desire, which may be different; and what we ought to do, which again may be entirely distinct from the first two categories.

Looked at this way, Locke and Hobbes commit very different versions of Hume's fallacy. Locke reverse engineers the way things are from the way he believes they ought to be: people should be peaceful and respectful of one another, and therefore are this way in a state of nature, which exists only because they lack a common judge. Hobbes goes in the other direction and elevates the way he believes things are (nasty and brutish, constant war of all against all) to a moral imperative, that we (ought to) have a right of mutual destruction until we adopt rules which say otherwise.

What we physically can do

This seems to me to be the single most dangerous foundation for a claimed "right", as we have the physical ability to do all the things we make rules against (there would be no point in banning them if we couldn't do them.)

If we regard rights as a human-generated rulebook, not engraven in the fabric of the universe, we can analyze many circumstances in which the rule-makers must mediate between conflicting interpretations. For example, our courts answer questions like the following every day: Does your right of free speech trump my right of privacy? In this scheme of things, rights are a binary switch, and the rulemakers simply decide which way to set the switch. If you have a right to do something, I have an obligation to respect it and not to interfere with it. It would be illogical to say you have a "right" to do something which I have a "right" to prevent.

But this is exactly the case in the Hobbesian state of nature. I have a "right" to kill you if you get in my way, but you have an equal "right" to kill me. If I am stronger and I succeed, your family nonetheless has a "right" to take revenge, and so forth. ("An eye for an eye," said Gandhi, "makes the whole world blind.")

But if we think strictly in terms of language, what do we add by speaking of "rights" in this context? When we are speaking of human rulebooks, it is much easier to answer that question. A right can be defined as a rule which protects you in taking an action and prevents me from interfering with it.

But in a Hobbesian state of nature, the word "right" seems to be stripped of any content not already contained in the word "can". Compare these two statements:

In a Hobbesian state of nature, I can kill you.

In a Hobbesian state of nature, I have a right to kill you.

There is no meaning communicated by the second statement not already contained in the first. But there appears to be. I have written elsewhere that the word God is often used as a semantic stopsign, meaning simultaneously "Stop asking questions" and "I have won this argument." The word "right" is used similarly. People frequently use it in a context where it has no other possible meaning, like a child at the dinner table proclaiming angrily "I have a right to speak!"

I have a pet cockatiel named Chandler, who lives in a cage and eats a seed and pellet mixture. I let him out of his cage for about an hour a day. Does it make any sense to you, if instead of saying that Chandler eats seeds, I say "Chandler has a right to seeds"? Does he have a "right" to his cage, or to be let out of it? If "Chandler has a right to seeds" has no more meaning than the statement "Chandler eats seeds", why does "man has a right to self defense" mean anything more than "men defend themselves"? The answer can only be in a tautology, a prejudgment of our conclusion: that there is something special about man which dictates that natural rights exist (essentially because we want them to.)

This is why rights language is not only fuzzy but dangerous; for many of us the word "rights" communicates an imprimatur of moral authority, causing us to behave respectfully even in contexts where it is completely meaningless. Like an automobile, we should never buy a right until we have looked beneath the hood.

In Language, Truth and Logic, Alfred Ayers concurs that not only rights language but that of morality in general communicates far less than it purports to:

[F]undamental ethical conceptions are unanalysable, inasmuch as there is no criterion by which one can test the validity of the judgments in which they occur....[T]hey are mere pseudoconcepts. The presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content. Thus if I say to someone, "You acted wrongly in stealing that money," I am not stating anything more than if I had simply said, "You stole that money." In adding that this action is wrong I am not making any further statement about it. I am simply evincing my moral disapproval of it. It is as if I had said, "You stole that money," in a particular tone of horror, or written it with the addition of some special exclamation marks.

In a debate with gun rights people year before last, I rapidly discovered that they all believed that the right to bear arms was a natural right, engraved in the fabric of the universe, and merely affirmed, not created by their beloved Second Amendment. For these people, Locke and Hobbes are living philosophers (and more particularly Hobbes, I think.)

The concept of natural rights was used by many of my gun rights correspondents both as a club and a credit card on which to charge up selfishness. Club: "I have a natural right to self defense, so therefore I win this argument," was the gist of many of the messages I received. Credit card: When I proposed that we sit at a table together to make a rulebook about guns, accomodating the interests of those who do not want them along with those who do, many people responded: "My natural right to bear arms trumps your desire not to have guns around. Therefore there is no basis for discussion."

You hear in such debates not only that it is "natural" for us to defend ourselves but that animals are equipped with claws, horns and teeth to do so. Somehow this fact, that people and other animals defend themselves when endangered, is extrapolated into a "right."

Twenty years ago, I watched fascinated in a park in Athens as a male tortoise encountered a female. He rushed at her, biting at her neck and forelegs, while she desperately tried to escape. Finally, she gave up and withdrew her head and limbs into her shell, and he mounted her from behind. Five years ago (the month the first issue of the Spectacle was published) I stood on a beach in the Galapagos and watched female sea turtles congregating in the shallow water. A biologist explained that the females enter the shallow water during mating season to escape the males who are unable to force themselves on them if the water is not deep enough. It seems general that in many turtle species the females derive no pleasure from copulation and do everything they can to avoid it. The actions of the males if performed by humans would be characterized as rape.

Rape is physically possible; if we derive natural rights from anything which can be done in a state of nature we could just as easily say there is a right of rape as to claim there is one of self-defense. Yet in our society we lock up anyone who acts on this belief. But I challenge anyone who believes there is a natural right of self defense to explain to me why there is no right of rape.

Here is the answer: We believe there is a natural right to do anything which we think should be permitted (or mandated) under a human rulebook. Anything which should be forbidden under a human rulebook therefore cannot be a natural right, even if it is physically possible and can be justified by the same arguments used to support the idea of natural rights.

What we desire

This is just another way of saying that we like to believe that our desires are greater than ourselves; that what we want is necessary, that there is no choice, that the universe has dictated that we must pursue it.

One of the functions of our legal system is to analyze acts of violence to determine whether they involved acceptable acts of self defense ("justifiable homicide"). If a man attacks me with a knife and I shoot him in reasonable fear of my life, I will not be held legally responsible. But there is a chasm between the reality of self-defense, which involves a legally acceptable choice to kill rather than die, and the familiar statement, "I had no choice. It was him or me."

Like natural rights, the concept of necessity is used as a debaters' trick, to win arguments before they have begun. If it was "necessary" to kill the man who attacked me with the knife, is it similarly "necessary" for me to kill and eat the other denizen of a lifeboat? After all, if I do not, I will die, so in that sense it is either "him or me".

Note the similarity to the natural rights discussion? In a state of nature, I can kill and eat the other passenger; I want to, because I desire to survive; and therefore I should have a "natural right" to do so.

The nexus between desire and rights is a highly interesting one. On the one hand, we want to believe we have a right to that which we desire, so we appeal to ideas like necessity or natural rights to justify it. On the other, there is the form of panic I have referred to as the Dostoyevsky fear: if morality is based simply on our desire for a rulebook then it it is founded in quicksand ("Without God, everything is permitted"). As one correspondent pointed out to me, without God, the statement "I like a moral system" is indistinguishable from "I like ice cream". (Actually, I don't believe these two statements are equivalent, even without God.)

It is a by-product of the human mess that we wish to project both our desires and our prohibitions (read "human rulebook") outside ourselves. We justify our desires by viewing them as universal mandates, but we are also frightened by the idea that the things we are drawn to, but which feel wrong or otherwise terrify us, are prohibited only by fragile human rules.

In both cases, we are abdicating our responsibility as free agents. We can choose not to eat meat or bear arms even if humans have done so since the time before language. We can choose to make rules protecting homosexual marriage even if they contradict the rules allegedly given by God in the Old Testament.

What we ought to do

While deriving "rights" from physically possible acts or our own desires shortcuts moral debate and human freedom, projecting our own rulebooks onto the universe is equally insidious (and usually more subtly expressed than the crude language used by proponents of these other beliefs.)

Lets look at Locke again:

[R]eason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions....

While I would not allow Hobbes to guide me down a blind alley, because of my distrust of his ideas, Locke could easily get me in all kinds of trouble, because he wants what I want: peace among humans. But he has committed the same fallacy as the more brutal Hobbes. A Hobbesian says, I want your property, therefore I have a right to it; but a Lockean says, I want peace, therefore we all have a right to it.

The theme of three thousand years of human moral discourse has been the attempt to plant moral rules on some firmer foundation than our own freedom. God, Jesus, Platonic forms, pure reason, categorical imperatives, genetic rewards for altruism, all come to the same thing: the fear and loneliness inspired by human freedom.

One of the more interesting things you learn about in law school is the evolution of human custom into law. Codes based on custom and practice, like the Uniform Commercial Code, tend to sparkle with common sense, and are easy to apply. I ship you goods "freight on board": they are my legal responsibility until they are on board your ship. I send them "cost, insurance, freight": they are your responsibility from the moment I accept your order.

Now imagine the spectacle of an assembly of businessmen and lawyers, tasked with creating a uniform commercial code, trying to derive their rules from the behavior of lions or bears or of humans in a state of nature. Even if they were trying to base their legislation on the old and new Testaments they would find these "precedents" to be of partial help, and rather contradictory. Instead, we all acknowledge that the act of legislating is (and should be) an exercise of determining the rules we want and which make sense from a practical standpoint.

Next, imagine the even stranger spectacle of this assembly weeping and wailing, and abandoning its work, because it has determined that there is no natural rule-set, engraved in the universe's fabric, to determine who has the responsibility for freight which is destroyed between the warehouse and the boat.

Freedom

The natural rights debate leads us down a false road. The energy spent in arguing which rules exist should better be spent deciding which rules we should make. The "perfect freedom" Locke described "to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit... without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man", does not dictate the existence of rights; instead it leaves us perfectly free to legislate them.

I prefer this freedom, which seems to me simple and clear: we are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe.

[Image: WARZONES_subs_hostility.png]
image hosting jpg
12-31-2010 07:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Aya Offline
Banned

Posts: 2,712
Joined: Aug 2005
Thanks: 3
Given 45 thank(s) in 36 post(s)
Post: #26
Re: Healthcare

Wow! Yelling at people over the internet and providing no sources for your claims really proves that you know what the fuck you're talking about!

And for the record I am being forced to participate in the current system. Do a google search for the term 'individual mandate'. Come 2014 I'll be punished for being a healthy young individual by being forced to either buy health insurance (premiums for which are already rising) or pay a tax.

Also whenever a government pays for something they tend to sieze control of whatever thier subsidizing and dictate what can and can't be done. That's what they did

Quote:You complain about smokers, More people smoke in europe than in America!

They also have higher rising rates of lung cancer than America.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/19/1444.full

A bit of advice: Calm the fuck down and do some research before you open your mouth about shit you don't understand. kthxbye
12-31-2010 07:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Thought Criminal Offline
Frame 313

Posts: 10,133
Joined: May 2007
Thanks: 12
Given 106 thank(s) in 80 post(s)
Post: #27
Re: Healthcare

I've done plenty of research, I'm actually writing a paper on it for my AP english class. If it makes you feel better I can post sources but most of what I'm writing is pure opinion anyway. I suppose some of the stuff like smoking rates and the like but alot of that kind of stuff I just know, information I've picked up over the years.

Also, I never said anything about agreeing with the half assed plan they came up with. It's just a product of endless lobbying by the insurance companies. We would be better off without it.
As for the government dictating what goes on they will not be doing crap like making people wait, not allowing certain procedures etc.. because there would be total backlash from the tax paying public. They only thing they are worried about is money which you don't ever see or touch. Having them dictate paying less for things wont be an issue because the prices charged are exorbitant to begin with. The hospitals may bitch and whine for a little bit the quality of healthcare wont change because people will take exception. You people fear the government and all it dose (which is justified) but are to damn afraid to scare them back in the places that count.
12-31-2010 07:40 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
psychopath Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 4,845
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 60 thank(s) in 54 post(s)
Post: #28
Re: Healthcare

Quote:Human rights exist. People have fought and died for them for thousands of years. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Inalienable rights? Not really, I've never seen any evidence for the existence of an inalienable right, there isn't some universal law written in the universe. It's really something we've made up ourselves.

That said, violating someone's right means disturbing their peace and therefore it's uncalled for which is why I support "inalienable" rights.
01-01-2011 02:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartofShadows Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,557
Joined: Dec 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 80 thank(s) in 73 post(s)
Post: #29
Re: Healthcare

psychopath Wrote:
Quote:Human rights exist. People have fought and died for them for thousands of years. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Inalienable rights? Not really, I've never seen any evidence for the existence of an inalienable right, there isn't some universal law written in the universe. It's really something we've made up ourselves.

That said, violating someone's right means disturbing their peace and therefore it's uncalled for which is why I support "inalienable" rights.

Agreed and my thoughts exactly.

[Image: WARZONES_subs_hostility.png]
image hosting jpg
01-01-2011 03:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LOON_ATTIC Offline
A NERD

Posts: 5,158
Joined: May 2009
Thanks: 9
Given 60 thank(s) in 49 post(s)
Post: #30
Re: Healthcare

We're already being forced to pay for taxes on war, school, etc. And I guess it's all relative, I think it depends on how much tax people would have to pay for it... health care right now on the US is extremely expensive and a lot of people die when they could have been saved because they didn't have $50,000 to treat a brain tumor.

[Image: glorious666.png]
01-01-2011 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Obama's healthcare bill passed aerftghyjk 82 12,769 04-19-2010 06:55 AM
Last Post: Swift
  Universal Healthcare Bob Dole 53 8,324 11-12-2009 10:08 AM
Last Post: True Strasserist
  stimulus bill on healthcare classclown 31 5,937 02-23-2009 12:46 PM
Last Post: classclown
  Free Healthcare Vatman 2 1,081 05-14-2007 05:03 AM
Last Post: Vatman

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | School Survival | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication