America - The Official Thread

[Biggles]

It should be strictly about Russia. The 12 indictments sent to Russia are ok, getting people for simply lying and busting their balls for unrelated info is way beyond "any other matters within the scope".
It's like when the police stop you cause there is an "increase in burglaries in the area" and you end up going to jail for a joint or an unpaid ticket, it's entrapment. I'm telling you from personal experience.
Like Stormy, what in gods name does she have to do with Russia? Nothing! Yet a convenient no knock search warrant of Trumps lawyer unearthed her, or confirmed her... IMO this whole sham IS a witch hunt. section (b) point (i) is the investigation, point (iii) is to find ANYTHING to try and impeach Trump. I don't care what the news says.

In politics, what goes around comes around. I realize you may be too young to remember this, but as a matter of record, Kenneth Starr was not appointed as Special Counsel in order to investigate blow jobs in the White House.

And I just read the VF artical, it has as much proof he actually paid for it as I do it was given to him...

In other words, you don't have ANY proof it was "given" to him, but absent any actual proof you're still happy to jump to the conclusion that suits your preferred narrative?

For starters her "foundation" was a fraud... Herman Cain still has his foundation even after his campaign drop out. How convenient she shuts it down after the loss. Sounds like a money laundering schem, and that isn't Hannity or Herman in my ear. You don't just shut down a foundation cause you lost.

What "foundation" are you referring to? The Clinton Foundation? What makes you think it was "shut down"?

 

[TexRex]

It should be strictly about Russia.

Why? If anyone, local or abroad, acts to disrupt proceedings dictated by the Constitution, why the hell should they not be held accountable?

getting people for simply lying and busting their balls for unrelated info is way beyond "any other matters within the scope".

You get that a significant portion of an obstruction of justice charge revolves around the individual charged lying to...well...obstruct justice, right?

It's like when the police stop you cause there is an "increase in burglaries in the area" and you end up going to jail for a joint or an unpaid ticket, it's entrapment.

Euhm...

Like Stormy, what in gods name does she have to do with Russia? Nothing!

Euhm...well, yeah, you're right that Stormy has nothing to do with Russia. Or at least not in any mainstream narrative.

Are you familiar with the concept of campaign finance violations and the investigations launched to determine if any have been committed?

a convenient no knock search warrant of Trumps lawyer unearthed her, or confirmed her...

Pretty sure Stormy was pretty well unearthed before said warrant. Indeed said warrant was served as part of the aforementioned campaign finance investigation. Can you offer anything to support a claim that said warrant was acquired on false pretenses?

section (b) point (i) is the investigation, point (iii) is to find ANYTHING to try and impeach Trump. I don't care what the news says.

Euhm...do you care what the law says?

I don't see "impeach" or "Trump" anywhere on there.

I should have specified Strock

Fair enough; I'll request the same of you that I did of the Inspector General hearing.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?44795...or-peter-strzok-testifies-2016-investigations

If you can indicate any timeframe in that 8 hour video during which Strzok smirks, I'll review it myself. I hope you'll recall that you did state that "he sat with a smirk on his face during the whole interview" and for the life of me I couldn't find a single instance during my 20-minute scan.

You're welcome, I'm sorry it came off as being rude or dismissive last time.

I appreciate that, and I apologize for getting short as a result of my interpretation. As far as I'm concerned, it's now water under the bridge and I will ask you to call me out on it if I hold it against you in the future.

And again, if a response comes, it comes, but I don't expect (of course I won't forbid either) an acknowledgement of my comments until you're prepared to address them fully, in your own time, as you see fit.

And I just read the VF artical, it has as much proof he actually paid for it as I do it was given to him...

Hate to leave those niceties in the rearview mirror, but I'm going to need to be apprised of proof of the latter, and gut instinct or, if you will, "if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck it must be illegal activity" just doesn't cut it.

For starters her "foundation" was a fraud...

Please elaborate, with the obligatory sources.**

Herman Cain still has his foundation even after his campaign drop out.

Great? I fail to see what one has to do with the other.

You don't just shut down a foundation cause you lost.

Who offered that as a reason? [he asks, expecting a source to backup any claims]

Moreover, why not? If said foundation is a voluntary effort, one is under no obligation to sustain it any longer than they wish.

And if I was one of those Democrats with his head in his hands at the notion that Trump won over the Electoral College and, subsequently, the Presidency, I have to imagine the one who actually ran against had to be pretty heart-throbbed heart-broken at the defeat, lacking the motivation to do much of anything. I seem to recall Hillary all but completely disappeared for a period after that.

And the 30k emails...

Ah yes, the proverbial emails--just what are they indicative of?*

*Substantive information free of conjecture, please.

**Edited to include a quote that fell through the cracks and the subsequent response.

 

[PocketZeven]

I get that, but not a single one of those professions precludes an individual from being ignorant with regards to politics. That said, since politics affects us all, one ought to strive to be as informed as possible regardless of their profession, therefor I don't understand how one's profession is pertinent in a political discussion.


While I appreciate you acknowledging my comments and establishing the intent to respond, I don't need you to tell me--if a response comes, it comes. I also appreciate very much the approach you used to establish that intent, rather than the previous "I don't have time". So thank you for that.

Onward.


I think I'm going to need a source for that.


I'm definitely going to need a source for that. I'm aware that he acquired a $575,000 1,800sqft lakefront property in Vermont, which is said to be roughly three times the median home value in VT (approximately $190,000), a purchase that necessitated the sale of a Maine property that had been in his wife's family for a century.

The story was originally reported by Seven Days and can be read here.

Edit: The "mansion" in VT can be seen here.

One's profession is often linked to ones political preference. One of the biggest ironies in politics I always thought is that the left try to fight for equal pay, healthcare, higher tax for rich etc. The ones they are trying to benefit often are rightwing. The mid- lower income people. At least in my country. The thing is with rightwing politics is that they focus on agenda's that appeal either the rich or the ones from a lower income:

• lower tax
• less regulation (guns, finance etc,)
  
• stronger borders
• anti-immigration

As I can see it rightwing seem to win that lower income bracket solely by convincing that the reason why they have a lower income is because of foreign immigrants and that less tax will benefit them too somehow. But the reality is that by voting concervative/right they trap themselves in a vicious circle where the rich get richer, the poorer get poorer and blame the immigrants and high taxes?!?! Also people from the lower-mid class income are kept from being more enlightened because college and higher education just becomes more and more out of reach, because it is so expensive.

In a best case scenario you pick a middle ground that benefits everybody, but also makes compromises. Like in my country you are able to vote for a variety of parties who all have their own agenda. The only way to form a government however is to make a coalition and therefore sometimes make compromises on key issues. That is one of the prime reasons politicians are accused of lying in our country. I see it as a neccesary compromise for the greater good. In the USA there are however only 2 choices and it depends heavily on which candidate wins the nomination on how extreme left or right the party will be. There is less compromise. And the lower-mid class seem to favor hate politics (immigration, foreign relations) above healthcare, education etc.

Also seem to have vilified communism as an evil system, which actually is far from the truth. Only because communism has its roots in socialism conservative americans seem to see it as evil. European socialism is far, far away from the communism of the days of the USSR and even modern China is totally different.

So my question is, why the lower- mid class conservative righwing are so against universal healthcare and universal education? Or is it just because they dont want any immigrants from certain countries coming to their country? It is even more ironic that the US was made great by immigrants in the first place.

 

[Famine]

mid class conservative righwing are so against universal healthcare and universal education?

That'd be because they're socialist (fiscal left) policies that involve government paying for things, and thus in opposition to the fiscal right which does not believe in government paying for things.

Or is it just because they dont want any immigrants from certain countries coming to their country?

Immigration is a social policy rather than a fiscal one, so nothing to do with opposing policies that involve the government paying for things. It's possible to be anti-immigration and pro-socialism, and pro-immigration and pro-capitalism, you know. In fact both are fundamentally consistent with each other, and the former is not only pretty much required but has been the foundation of several governments in history world-wide. Some quiet famous ones.

 

[PocketZeven]

That'd be because they're socialist (fiscal left) policies that involve government paying for things, and thus in opposition to the fiscal right which does not believe in government paying for things.

Immigration is a social policy rather than a fiscal one, so nothing to do with opposing policies that involve the government paying for things. It's possible to be anti-immigration and pro-socialism, and pro-immigration and pro-capitalism, you know. In fact both are fundamentally consistent with each other, and the former is not only pretty much required but has been the foundation of several governments in history world-wide. Some quiet famous ones.

I specifically meant the lower to mid income people, who have difficulty to afford healthcare or higher education.

 

[Dotini]

So my question is, why the lower- mid class conservative righwing are so against universal healthcare and universal education?

Who would pay for it? Already the federal government, most/many states, counties and municipalities are deep into the red, some with no hope and no way up.

Constitutionalists, conservatives, republicans, libertarians and moderate democrats understand services need to be paid for. We cannot afford what we are spending for already. The super-burden of universal healthcare and universal education would ensure catastrophic failure of the financial system. Taxpayers will not stand for it.

 

[Famine]

I specifically meant the lower to mid income people, who have difficulty to afford healthcare or higher education.

That doesn't change the answer in any way, because it's not relevant.

Socialist fiscal policies like single-payer healthcare are socialist fiscal policies (fiscal left), and thus opposed by those on the fiscal right.
Immigration is a social policy, not a fiscal policy, and thus not related to fiscal left or fiscal right, so you can't directly link an anti-immigration social policy to opposition to single-payer healthcare fiscal policy.


However, both fiscal and social policies are defined by the amount of control government has over the matter. Fiscal left is more control, fiscal right is less control. A social mindset that features more government control (such as reducing immigration) is more consistent with a fiscal mindset that features more government control (such as single-payer healthcare) rather than one that reduces government control.

 

[PocketZeven]

Who would pay for it? Already the federal government, most/many states, counties and municipalities are deep into the red, some with no hope and no way up.

Constitutionalists, conservatives, republicans, libertarians and moderate democrats understand services need to be paid for. We cannot afford what we are spending for already. The super-burden of universal healthcare and universal education would ensure catastrophic failure of the financial system. Taxpayers will not stand for it.

Almost every country in Europe has some form of universal healthcare and some form of free or financed college. The US can bailout bankers and farmers, but not help pay for healthcare as a right? And how can one justify the enormous budget for military.

 

[Dotini]

Almost every country in Europe has some form of universal healthcare and some form of free or financed college. The US can bailout bankers and farmers, but not help pay for healthcare as a right?

There are many forms of government assistance for those in need of social services, including healthcare and education. But universal healthcare and universal education is a socialist bridge too far for us. You go do what you want over there. Your model does not interest us. We reject it. Accept that.

 

[PocketZeven]

There are many forms of government assistance for those in need of social services, including healthcare and education. But universal healthcare and universal education is a socialist bridge too far for us. You go do what you want over there. Your model does not interest us. We reject it. Accept that.

But what is the origin of the hate towards socialism? Is this still the remnants from the propaganda campaign against communism during the cold war?

 

[Dotini]

But what is the origin of the hate towards socialism? Is this still the remnants from the propaganda campaign against communism during the cold war?

We flirted briefly with communism/socialism during the 30's, and both before and after. My uncle Fred was an open communist in the 40's, 50's and 60's, and he suffered for it. But at the end of the day, we are now as we were in the beginning. We believe in freedom, free markets, competition, and profits for hard work and self improvement. It's not a matter of hating socialism. If that works for you, then fine, go for it. Just don't try to come over here and suck off our tit for free.

 

[PocketZeven]

We flirted briefly with communism/socialism during the 30's, and both before and after. My uncle Fred was an open communist in the 40's, 50's and 60's, and he suffered for it. But at the end of the day, we are now as we were in the beginning. We believe in freedom, free markets, competition, and profits for hard work and self improvement. It's not a matter of hating socialism. If that works for you, then fine, go for it. Just don't try to come over here and suck off our tit for free.

Nobody is doing anything for free. In essence everyone in this world should have access to healthcare. Its not like we are paying for someones titjob or facelift. A child, someones father/mother/grandfather/mother should not die, because he/she can't afford healthcare.

 

[Dennisch]

Its not like we are paying for someones titjob

Yeah, you are. The system is still being abused for boobjobs by the scum of society.

 

[Dotini]

In essence everyone in this world should have access to healthcare.

Fine, you are an idealist. We need some of those. On the other hand, there is a case for realism. I understand you do not want to hear about it. But that's not my concern.

 

[BobK]

In essence everyone in this world should have access to healthcare.

Who pays for it? More importantly, who supplies this healthcare? If someone is entitled to something, then somebody is obligated to supply it. Are you going to force people to treat others at gunpoint?

 

[Biggles]

We flirted briefly with communism/socialism during the 30's, and both before and after. My uncle Fred was an open communist in the 40's, 50's and 60's, and he suffered for it. But at the end of the day, we are now as we were in the beginning. We believe in freedom, free markets, competition, and profits for hard work and self improvement. It's not a matter of hating socialism. If that works for you, then fine, go for it. Just don't try to come over here and suck off our tit for free.

Who's the "we" whose tits you're worried about? I take it you don't mean the indigenous peoples of North America who lived there for thousands of years without capitalism? Oh ... you must mean the Europeans who came over in the last two or three hundred years? Those people - hardworking immigrants - had all sorts of ideas ... including communism/socialism.

There was a reason why many people were drawn to socialist ideas - it's because they saw the wealthy elite exploiting them in a corrupt system that resulted in ferocious boom & bust cycles that left them poor & sometimes starving. In Europe, the capitalist system resulted in an appalling war that left millions dead & was followed, in both Europe & The US, by a crippling depression that left tens of millions unemployed & desperate. This was then followed by an even more appalling war that left more tens of millions dead & entire countries destroyed. It wasn't really a stellar record.

If after the Second World War the developed countries, including the US, turned to a moderate form of democratic socialism it was because they were conscious of the failure of nationalistic, competitive capitalism & wanted to forestall the rise of extreme communism. I would say that route has proven pretty successful, leading to decades of unparalleled peace & prosperity.

 

[Joey D]

The US can bailout bankers and farmers, but not help pay for healthcare as a right? And how can one justify the enormous budget for military.

We shouldn't bail out anyone, nor should we have a massive military budget.

But what is the origin of the hate towards socialism? Is this still the remnants from the propaganda campaign against communism during the cold war?

At the heart, socialism is theft. I'm working to make money and the government is then taking that money to give away. I like my money and work hard for it, I feel like I should be able to determine where it's spent.

In essence everyone in this world should have access to healthcare. Its not like we are paying for someones titjob or facelift. A child, someones father/mother/grandfather/mother should not die, because he/she can't afford healthcare.

I agree people should have the right to healthcare, but being a doctor is not a cheap profession to get into. Between the cost of medical school and the insane amount that malpractice insurance costs, doctors need to make a high wage. There's also a shortage of doctors in the US, if you don't pay people the wage they expect, the shortage will get worse.

Thankfully, nearly every area I've ever been too has charity based healthcare. This gives lower income people a chance to get basic healthcare needs and prolong their lives. I even currently work for an organization that provides a ton of charity based care across the state and it works really well.

 

[PocketZeven]

We shouldn't bail out anyone, nor should we have a massive military budget.



At the heart, socialism is theft. I'm working to make money and the government is then taking that money to give away. I like my money and work hard for it, I feel like I should be able to determine where it's spent.



I agree people should have the right to healthcare, but being a doctor is not a cheap profession to get into. Between the cost of medical school and the insane amount that malpractice insurance costs, doctors need to make a high wage. There's also a shortage of doctors in the US, if you don't pay people the wage they expect, the shortage will get worse.

Thankfully, nearly every area I've ever been too has charity based healthcare. This gives lower income people a chance to get basic healthcare needs and prolong their lives. I even currently work for an organization that provides a ton of charity based care across the state and it works really well.

It isnt theft, but a contribution to the greater good. Thumbs up for your contribution to charity 👍. I maybe be an idealist, but also a business owner. And I really dont mind contributing money out of my 60-80 hour workweek so that everyone can have healthcare. But I agree that there are limits. But It's the fierce opposition that always surprises me.

To be clear I am in no way a leftwing myself and consider myself right wing centrist. (which an american still consider as leftwing)
My gripes with leftwing politics in my country is the difficulty to fire someone. The rules and regulations around personnel contracts. I am also not a big fan of minimum wage and welfare. And personally I dont think those beliefs need to contradict eachother.

Edit: added some opinions

Who pays for it? More importantly, who supplies this healthcare? If someone is entitled to something, then somebody is obligated to supply it. Are you going to force people to treat others at gunpoint?

Healthcare in the Netherlands isnt totally free either by the way like perhaps in france and England. (which system I admire). But definately affordable for every income.

In our country it comes out of the insurance everyone is required to purchase from a choice of various insurance companies. The price of insurance varies from 70-130 per month If someone cannot puchase insurance they can apply for a healthcare allowance. And there are mandotory deductables up to 385 per year. The price varies with the choice of coverage (basic care is always covered) and the amount of the deductable.

You are fined if you are not insuranced. But in my experience they are very lenient towards these violations. Insurance companies are also not allowed to discriminate against pre-existing conditions.

edit: added answer to @BobK

 

[Famine]

It isnt theft, but a contribution to the greater good.

I know the answer, but remind me... what happens if you choose not to make that contribution?

 

[PocketZeven]

I know the answer, but remind me... what happens if you choose not to make that contribution?

It is cut from your wage or you get fined. And no you wont be jailed, in worst case scenario you have to pay a fine + backfees of the insurance.
And even if you are uninsured you are paying costs much and much lower then the US.

Seeing you are british, do you actually prefer a healthcare system like the one in the US?

 

[Northstar]

And no you wont be jailed,

Um, actually you can.

The IRS is much more forgiving with people who can’t pay as opposed to non-filers who don’t pay. So late filing penalties are much higher than late payment penalties. The IRS will not put you in jail for not being able to pay your taxes if you file your return. The following actions will land you in jail for one to three years:

• Tax Evasion: Any action taken to evade the assessment of a tax, such as filing a fraudulent return, can land you in prison for 5 years.
• Failure to File a Return: Failing to file a return can land you in jail for one year, for each year you didn’t file.
• Helping Someone Evade Taxes: Helping someone else get out of paying their taxes can carry a three to 5 year prison sentence depending on what action is alleged.

 

[Famine]

It is cut from your wage or you get fined.

Just to recap on that then, if you don't want to "contribute", it is taken from you regardless (sometimes with a little extra for your refusal).

Now, remind me. What do we call the act of taking something that belongs to someone, against their wishes, with intent to permanently deprive them of it?

And no you wont be jailed, in worst case scenario you have to pay a fine + backfees of the insurance.

You absolutely can be jailed for refusing to contribute...

... but even if you don't think that you can, what do you think happens if you refuse to pay the fine and "backfees of the insurance"?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Now, remind me. What do we call the act of taking something that belongs to someone, against their wishes, with intent to permanently deprive them of it?

Nothing. If the legal system that invokes a definition of 'theft' doesn't exist then nor is there a social contract that can enforce 'taxation'. Either both exist or neither does.

 

[Famine]

Nothing If the legal system that invokes a definition of 'theft' doesn't exist then nor is there a social contract that can enforce 'taxation'. Either both exist or neither does.

Nonetheless (and I do not concur in any case), I'm sure we do refer to the act taking something from someone without their consent with the intent to permanently deprive them of it by some word, whether it's legally recognised or not...

Of course here's the daily reminder that the act of making something legal isn't necessarily the same as making it right, and vice versa. Killing another person is homicide whether it's legally permitted (which it sometimes is) or not, and slavery was legal until it wasn't. It's still not legal to punch James Corden or Piers Morgan, despite both being clearly acceptable conduct.

social contract

Interesting concept. Is it subject to contract law?


Whether you agree with the destination of the exchequer's funds or not, taxation is the forced collection of wealth. You don't contribute - it's taken from you. If you try to withhold it, you are pursued by legal structures until you allow the money to be taken from you (plus extra for the trouble you put the legal structures to) or your freedom.

Most of us do not, because the threat of force is a deterrent (or because we haven't thought about it). Some of us rely on the movement of cash rather than other forms of payment, to evade it. Some of us have accountants and advisers who help minimise our tax burden and avoid it. Surprisingly few of us, even those who think everyone should pay more tax, pay more than the bare minimum that we have to by threat of force...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Nonetheless (and I do not concur in any case), I'm sure we do refer to the act taking something from someone without their consent with the intent to permanently deprive them of it by some word, whether it's legally recognised or not...,Interesting concept. Is it subject to contract law?

I've grouped these two parts of your post together as my answer covers both - the idea of the 'social contract' (according to Kant, Rosseau and others) is the idea that absolute freedom of personal rights results in anarchy and the inability to form a coherent, cogent society. The 'social contract' is the ability of free men (or people) to form sets of rules that allow the common (or democratically majorative) in order to establish frameworks of civil rights and to protect them for those unable to protect themselves. Of course that makes one immediately think of 'the tyranny of the majority' which is quite likely exactly who's taking your tax

Is it subject to contract law? No, but it enables contract law. There is no justice in Platonic nature, after all.

Most of us do not, because the threat of force is a deterrent (or because we haven't thought about it).

Justice systems are not the original bringer of force as a deterrent to absolute freedoms - nature itself is a good illustration of that.

Of course here's the daily reminder that the act of making something legal isn't necessarily the same as making it right, and vice versa.

No, and part of the 'social contract' is the existence of a system of justice that examines whether something is legal or not.

Killing another person is homicide whether it's legally permitted (which it sometimes is) or not, and slavery was legal until it wasn't.

Killing a person is always homicide because that's the dictionary definition of that contraction. Whether or not it's murder, manslaughter etc. (and those definitions are jurisdiction-dependent) depends on a system of justice that can evaluate the circumstances. Slavery was legal simply because the 'victims' as we might call them now were not considered eligible for protection, a great example of tyranny of the majority.

Whether you agree with the destination of the exchequer's funds or not, taxation is the forced collection of wealth. You don't contribute - it's taken from you. If you try to withhold it, you are pursued by legal structures until you allow the money to be taken from you (plus extra for the trouble you put the legal structures to) or your freedom.

And that ultimately is the cost of actual freedom rather than theoretical freedom. If we want the systems in place to deter me from simply taking your car, libelling you, impersonating you for financial gain or any other crime against your personage then they have to be funded. If somebody wants you to undertake an action on their behalf then you have right to recompense and therefore so do the people who undertake systemic implementation on behalf of the social contract.

 

[LeMansAid]

Killing a person is always homicide because that's the dictionary definition of that contraction. Whether or not it's murder, manslaughter etc. (and those definitions are jurisdiction-dependent) depends on a system of justice that can evaluate the circumstances. Slavery was legal simply because the 'victims' as we might call them now were not considered eligible for protection, a great example of tyranny of the majority.

The word "homicide" just assigns a name to the meaning, similar to how a law will assign a rule to a right. There is no place on earth, and no circumstance where any person who has not infringed another's rights is without the right to life, the right to not be enslaved, and the right to not be stolen from. Word for it or not, law for it or not.

There are situations where we've become accustomed as a society to not considering theft as theft. That doesn't change the fact that before we give names to our rights, and before we create laws for our rights, we have those rights. We don't have to opt in to a social contract to have those rights, therefore there's no "If you want your right to property you must submit to taxation". There's no package deal there, these rights are a closed circle, and laws only enter the conversation after the fact.

 

[Imari]

There is no place on earth, and no circumstance where any person who has not infringed another's rights is without the right to life, the right to not be enslaved, and the right to not be stolen from. Word for it or not, law for it or not.

Right to life, sure. Right to freedom, sure. Property rights...that's a societal concept.

We no longer consider that you can own humans, because it conflicts with number 2. We still consider that you can own animals, which could be pointed out as a little contradictory. We absolutely consider that you can own land, which seems mildly insane when it amounts to whoever got there first has dibs. There's a lot to be said for the value to a society of rewarding people for their skill or effort, and ownership is one way of doing that, but I think it's stretching it to say that it's a fundamental right.

In as much as a monetary system exists more or less solely at the behest of the government anyway, one could argue that using that monetary system is an implicit agreement to all the things that come along with that monetary system, such as taxation. Monetary systems that are beyond government control, like Bitcoin, do not require taxation (although it doesn't stop governments from trying). If you disagree with how your country's monetary system is set up, then I'd imagine you're free not to use it. Although that might make your life rather difficult, as a common monetary system is quite practical. One could see it as a socialist system, from a certain point of view.

We don't have to opt in to a social contract to have those rights, therefore there's no "If you want your right to property you must submit to taxation".

See above. If you want to use your country's money, you must submit to taxation. It doesn't really strike me as that different to using GT Planet; if you want to post here then you agree to abide by the rules.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The word "homicide" just assigns a name to the meaning, similar to how a law will assign a rule to a right.

I can't agree with that conflation, there is no right to kill, no right not to be killed, no right to not kill... rights only exist through law. Legally administered death penalties are an example of some bodies having a right to kill. A similar right does not exist across all territories that have a similar legal code in other respects. In a place with no law there is no right to life, only a natural compulsion to survive through whatever means necessary.

 

[Dotini]

...rights only exist through law.

I somewhat tend to agree with this, although it depends upon your point of view. From the point of view of someone within a broad society under the rule of law, it is very tempting and convenient to believe certain rights to be intrinsic. Viewed from another perspective far outside that society and not under its jurisdiction, those same "rights" could easily lack any meaning or validity.

 

[PocketZeven]

Um, actually you can.

Sorry but we werent talking about US law but about the healthcare system in the Netherlands.

Just to recap on that then, if you don't want to "contribute", it is taken from you regardless (sometimes with a little extra for your refusal).

Now, remind me. What do we call the act of taking something that belongs to someone, against their wishes, with intent to permanently deprive them of it?

You absolutely can be jailed for refusing to contribute...

... but even if you don't think that you can, what do you think happens if you refuse to pay the fine and "backfees of the insurance"?

Would you give up your healthcare in favor of paying no taxes, no more use of public roads and facilities? The idea that taxes are equal to stealing is just absurd. The country you live in has a certain standard of living because of those taxes, if you dont want to pay taxes you always have the freedom to migrate to another country. I am a business owner and would benefit from less taxes, but that would have negative results on the standards of living in my country.