Conversation with a very liberal friend of mine about Obama care.

[mconder]

I am having a very difficult time penetrating the better senses of my very atheist and very liberal friend.

Heres the initial message I sent her in response to some Obama heathcare propaganda she sent me earlier in the day. I know I sound a little agitated and heartless here:


Actually, it's the poor that are the non contributors to society. They are the dead weight. In my early marriage my wife and I managed a 70 unit apartment complex in a very rough neighborhood. I can tell you that the vast majority of them were not out trying to better themselves, but rather were engaging in activities that were harmful to themselves. Most of them were on some form of government assistance. As you know, humans have a strong instinct for survival. If you removal all the incentive for humans to sit on their ass while the rest of us work for and earn the products and services we need, then people will find away. The worlds smallest violin should be playing for the leeches of society, the ones we should have put out in the street a long time ago, including some very wealthy liberal politicians. You put a mans back up against a wall and they're instinct to survive will get them through just fine every time. As far as big business it concerned, there are the businesses that produce, and we should make it very easy for them to stay in business. Then there are the businesses who exists because of what the government has done for them. These tend to be the very largest businesses. The entire housing bubble was caused by government operating in an inappropriate partnership with certain banks and institutions. The very existence of Fanny and Freddie may caused massive mal-investment in loans that would have never been made if the free market would have been allowed to do it's job. After all that, the government didn't learn it's lesson and they are still busy keeping real estate prices artificially high. Who do you think suffers the most when housing is artificially high. Gee, that would be the poor. Who do you think suffers in these massive bailouts for dying or dead industries and companies? When the government bails someone out, do you know they just print more money to pay for it? That money if given to rich robber barons to save the most powerful and defunct corporations on the planet. Do you know what happens when a surplus of dollars enters the marketplace? The currency is devalued. Do you know who the devalued currency hurts the most? That's right again, the poorest among us. You see, a rich guy really doesn't think to much about the fact that his bread which was once 1.50 a loaf is now 3 dollars a loaf. Big deal, he's got a million dollars in the bank. Now the poor person on a fixed income who is a man or woman of integrity and will not take government assistance if forced into the system for help, because he can no longer make his way honestly. He is forced to take government assistance, because the system is rigged to make people dependents of the government, to make them slaves. There is absolutely no dignity for the person who can only say that they exists and survive because of what someone else does for them. It's like the 30 year old kid that never leaves home because his parents keep giving him the basics. A warm bed, food, perhaps a computer with world of warcraft on it. Because people generally choose the path of least resistance to get their needs met, this boy will probably never leave home, just like most people on government assistance usually never leave the system. Sure, there are those that are helped out of the ashes by liberal programs, but they usually become social workers, liberal activists, or politicians. All three of which still belong to a select group of leeches sucking the life out of society. If the goods or services offered by these people cease to exists tomorrow, society at large would skip a beat or two then move on. People are survivors. People on these social programs who get off their asses and get jobs that provide value. That's just how it works.

My liberal friend's reply:


It does amuse me that you did exactly what the author claimed:

Stripped of facts, your conversation partner will soon turn to unscientific terrain, claiming it is immoral to "steal" and "redistribute" income via taxes. Of course, he will be specifically railing on "stealing" for stuff like health care, which he insists gets "redistributed" only to the undeserving and the "lazy" (a classic codeword for "minorities").

-Julie

I guess organized theft of ones productive efforts for the benefit of someone who has done nothing to earn what they are recieveing does not concern her in the slightest. So, I need facts on why universal health care will fail.

[mconder]

Here's my second response.


Ya, I am claiming it's immoral to steal what one has earned in a legal or ethical way and give it to someone to use for something they are not entitled through their own industy. It doesn't make this author some kind of oracle to predict that there are some out there who would say stealing if wrong.

[mconder]

Here's anoher reply I made to her:

Where's the science that says killing is right or wrong. Perhaps we should start killing if it makes sense scientifically. Hitler thought so. Stealing is wrong for the same reason killing is wrong. Someone is deprived it justice for whatever reason. If liberals have no sense of justic or right or wrong outside the absence of science, we really are fucked as a species.

[coyote_sprit]

You're friends with that person? I tend to sway away from people who jump to the race card first chance they get...

[disorderlyvision]

...

[paulitics]

Who is this author? It sounds like she is letting the author do all of the thinking for her, and even more it seems like it the author has scripted some canned responses, almost like a sales pitch rehearsal, to eliminate any critical thinking.

Also, she just passively aggressively called you a racist too by citing this liberal author's dead horse rebuttal about codeword for "minorties". Do not let her get away with that.

I find that once you go down the antagonizing route of poor vs rich, you almost always lose the argument. You should focus more on the consequences of government control of our lives, and how that power will be abused. The poor will end up losing in the end, just like with socail security and other ponzi schemes. They will be forced to pay a regresive tax. That should be the basis of your argument. Just my opinion.

[Pericles]

Which "helps" poor people more?

1. A system that gives the poor a bare minimum of money, to ensure that they will remain poor the rest of their lives. Meanwhile, taking that money from those who have done things others find useful and have been paid to do.

2. A system that rewards more productive work with higher wages, so there is an incentive to do something others find valuable. Charity provides relief for the poor in an attempt to make being poor temporary condition, on the way to other employment.

[Epic]

link to some Mises articles on health care

Reisman has one and Dilorenzo has a good one

[boat6868]

Funny that the original poster referenced exposure to leeches while running apartments. I recently got involved with managing some apartments and it has absolutely increased my awareness and disgust at the money that is wasted "helping" lazy people. My exposure has been to caucasion people...no racism here!!

[Feenix566]

Ask your friend Julie if she thinks that poor people living in disadvantaged communities should be forced to send their kids to underperforming schools. When she says no, tell her you're glad she's on board with school choice, and you're sure she'll see the light on the rest of the libertarian points of view eventually.

[Feenix566]

The thing about people like Julie is that they really are well-intentioned, and they really think that they're doing what's best for the poor. They're just misinformed.

[Stary Hickory]

The thing about people like Julie is that they really are well-intentioned, and they really think that they're doing what's best for the poor. They're just misinformed.

Well then we should show them how they actually are advocating using guns and force to oppress people for ideas that are broken to begin with. It's important to show them that what they wants involves using threat of violence to achieve it's ends.

If they can still accept that and continue I can no longer consider them well-intentioned.

[lx43]

People like this woman is the very reason this country in 200 years has gone from free (or almost free) to socialism. I can't stand to associate with people like this it just makes my skin crawl.

She is advocating the forciable removal of money at the point of a gun from people who earned their money to give to to someone who didn't; she is making the person that the money is being taken from also a ward of the state because they can't save for their own retirement, pay off debt, buy disability insurance etc. It is also keeping that person who is recieving welfare that much more dependent. Its a vicious cycle that once someone gets invovled in welfare its next to impossible to get them off. This woman is not well intentioned at all.

Now that is not to say that I am against charity. No, I am not against charity in the least. If you want to help the poor by all means do so but don't expect to steal 50% of my income to do it.

[Bucjason]

True Story: I talked to a british cancer surivor today. He has been fighting various cancers for 15 years. He looked me straight in the eye and told me that the american health care system saved his life , and if he was still in England he'd be dead.
That was the final confirmation I needed to know we are RIGHT in this debate...

THIS is the line in the sand over which we MUST NOT let government cross. If we do , there is no going back , and we are all fucked. Dumb bitches like this are who we will continue to have to defeat , probably until the day we all die.

All these people who want universal health care should pursue it at the state level , where it's constitutional . Why won't they?? Because they know it wouldn't fit in a state budget. A state can't print money like the Feds can , so when they go over budget on healthcare ( and they would) they would go BANKRUPT. If you want to turn your state into the next California , go for it , but leave the rest of us THE HELL OUT OF IT. The Federal government has NO AUTHORITY to impose this on all the states ! So, just because it makes Mrs."I Care About the Poor Minorites" feel better , is irrelevant to the fact that it is unconstitutional. Tell her to piss off and move to Cuba.