Rand Paul: 'Right to health care' is slavery

[aGameOfThrones]

A hearing of the Senate HELP Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging looked at emergency room use and took an odd turn Wednesday when Sen. Rand Paul compared the “right to health care” to slavery.

“With regard to the idea whether or not you have a right to health care you have to realize what that implies. I am a physician. You have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. You are going to enslave not only me but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants, the nurses. … You are basically saying you believe in slavery,” said Paul (R-Ky.), who is an ophthalmologist.

"Our founding documents said you have a right to pursue happiness, but there’s no guarantee about physical comfort. When you say you have a ‘right’ to something there is an implication of force. ... I will always treat people who come into the ER because that is what we always have done and because I believe in the Hippocratic Oath.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54769.html

[Vessol]

Woo! Go Rand!

[teacherone]

ohh man... the spin that will come out of this...

[aGameOfThrones]

ohh man... the spin that will come out of this...


Read the few comments.

[SWATH]

Well if getting free healthcare is a right I need to call the government and get my free guns too. I should also sue them for all the ones I had to pay for.

[jct74]

Awesome. This should be in Rand Paul forum though.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

Ok, it's silly to use the word slavery to describe this - and there will be negative backlash.

It's not slavery because he can still choose not to do it. Slavery implies no choice whatsoever - plus no fiscal compensation.

That being said - I'm not defending the govt. Just the poor use of word.

[Wesker1982]

It's not slavery because he can still choose not to do it. Slavery implies no choice whatsoever.

Just like a slave could choose to not work in the field etc. There is a choice, but its like saying when a mugger holds a gun to your head and says "give me your wallet", you can still choose not to give him your wallet.

[jct74]

Here's the video:
http://help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=c4d004ce-5056-9502-5d46-58410b00ed72

I skimmed through it briefly and Rand speaks at the following times:

18:00
42:15
79:55
96:55 (slavery remarks)

I think that is all of them but not sure.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

Just like a slave could choose to not work in the field etc. There is a choice, but its like saying when a mugger holds a gun to your head and says "give me your wallet", you can still choose not to give him your wallet.

And what would happen if a slave refused to work in the fields?

And what would happen if Rand Paul refused to treat a patient?

Rand Paul could walk away. The slave cannot. Bad, bad choice of words.

[S.Shorland]

Of course it is slavery.If Healthcare is a right,the consumer has control over the provider.

[low preference guy]

And what would happen if a slave refused to work in the fields?

And what would happen if Rand Paul refused to treat a patient?

Rand Paul could walk away. The slave cannot. Bad, bad choice of words.

If someone has a right to another person's labor, then the latter is a slave. It's that simple. Perfect choice of words by Rand.

[Vessol]

And what would happen if a slave refused to work in the fields?

And what would happen if Rand Paul refused to treat a patient?

Rand Paul could walk away. The slave cannot. Bad, bad choice of words.

What happens if I decide I don't want to pay the taxes that support that "free" healthcare?

[Guitarzan]

And what would happen if a slave refused to work in the fields?

And what would happen if Rand Paul refused to treat a patient?

Rand Paul could walk away. The slave cannot. Bad, bad choice of words.


So what happens to the 'right' if Rand, and every other person who provides the service walked away?

[Cutlerzzz]

How much money, and how much time, does it take to become a doctor? That could not an easy profession to walk away from.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

What happens if I decide I don't want to pay the taxes that support that "free" healthcare?

Taxes would be more akin to slavery - because you have no option of walking away from taxes.

But doctors (as bad as option as it would be) do have the right to walk away - and do something else. They are still free.

The ones that stay would be voluntary slaves (but is a volunteer slave a slave?) - or possibly indentured servitudes (if there is debt preventing them from walking away.)

But using the word slavery to describe doctor's plight is just a bad analogy.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

So what happens to the 'right' if Rand, and every other person who provides the service walked away?

Perhaps it would become slavery then if enough doctors truely walked away.

But more likely the system would be altered to appease them.

[teacherone]

although to be truly consistent then "defense" is not a right either.

no one should be forced to fund my (nation's) defense.

[Theocrat]

No one has a right to a physician's service. As a matter of fact, the job of a physician is to keep the patient from being dependent upon him, as best as he can, as well as to empower the patient to take responsibility for their own health. Physicians don't owe their work to the patient, for the patient did not provide for their schooling nor contribute to their training.

Reading some of the comments on that article almost makes me lose hope that the general public is ready for liberty. They reason like dependent little children, and they can't even rebut Rand's points without personal attacks. Slaves indeed.

[Guitarzan]

Perhaps it would become slavery then if enough doctors truely walked away.

But more likely the system would be altered to appease them.

I asked about the 'right'...not the system.

[aGameOfThrones]

Taxes would be more akin to slavery - because you have no option of walking away from taxes.

But doctors (as bad as option as it would be) do have the right to walk away - and do something else. They are still free.

The ones that stay would be voluntary slaves (but is a volunteer slave a slave?) - or possibly indentured servitudes (if there is debt preventing them from walking away.)

But using the word slavery to describe doctor's plight is just a bad analogy.



Of course you can walk away from taxes. But...

[gls]

IIRC he said the exact same thing during the campaign and a bunch of liberals pretended to be offended back then too.

It obviously didn't hurt him much though.

[Lothario]

the comments on that article are vomit inducing...

[awake]

Government monopoly, whether through democracy or dictatorship is slavery - alive and well. Democracy takes a hell of alot more propaganda to keep in place.

[jct74]

ThinkProgress
h ttp://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/11/rand-paul-health-care-slavery/


Conservatives have slung all kinds of hyperbolic, outlandish, and phony attacks on attempts to provide health care to all Americans over the years, but tea party darling Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) may have taken the cake today when he equated universal health care with slavery. Speaking at a Senate Health, Education, and Labor Committee hearing, Paul argued that if you believe people should have a right to health care, you believe in enslaving doctors, nurses, and hospital janitors:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_HVyoT2PgM


Full video of hearing is in post #9.

[AuH20]

Bump. I love this man.

[jct74]

LOL, this is the top headline on Raw Story right now in gigantic red letters.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/11/kentucky-senator-rand-paul-right-to-health-care-is-slavery/

It's also on the front page of gawker.com, which is a huge traffic website.
http://gawker.com/5801123/rand-paul-universal-health-care-is-basically-slavery

[JohnGalt1225]

So what happens to the 'right' if Rand, and every other person who provides the service walked away?
Get ready for Directive 10-289:

Point One. All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail. The penalty shall be determined by the Unification Board, such Board to be appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. All persons reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.

[nobody's_hero]

Too many people still equate slavery with chains and whips.

It's too hard for them to wrap their head around the idea that slavery can exist in mindset.

At the height of slavery in America, the worst possible liablity for a slave-owner was a slave who had learned to read (therefore, it was made illegal to educate slaves to be literate).

Ignorant slaves could be controlled.

Example: The United States, 2011

[Sentient Void]

Perhaps it would become slavery then if enough doctors truely walked away.

But more likely the system would be altered to appease them.

Then this *proves* that healthcare is *not* a right - and obliterates any argument that it is.

If they were to enforce the claim that healthcare is a 'right' if everyone tried to walk away from the profession, this would expose the slavery.

Here's a litmus test for if something is actually a 'right' or not... If your alleged 'right' violates any rights of others, then it is not a right.

Rights are negative or positive. Inherent rights (self-ownership, the fruits of one's labor, property, speeh, etc) are 'negative rights'. Positive rights (such as a 'right to healthcare') can only be made through voluntary contract between the involved parties or through restitution vis a vis a violation of one's negative rights.

Positive rights say what one can do to others or what's others can do to one, negative rights says what can't be done to or by others.

[Sentient Void]

And yes, Rand is the fucking man. He is a bad-ass motherfucker with brass balls.

[AuH20]

For the lib statists, to even concede this point would be to dissolve into nothingness. This is the type of shot across their bow that elicits a negative reaction:


Dear Mr Paul. Let me introduce you to the preamble of the US constitution. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare,..."

Definition of welfare: The HEALTH, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.

So Mr Paul why do you hate the constitution that you are sworn to uphold? Just askin...

:D:D

[Sentient Void]

If they want to get literal - yes, PROMOTE - not ENFORCE.

Can have it both ways, libtards.

[AuH20]

The libs are incapable of recognizing that aspects of slavery have been codified into our legislation, especially since many of their platforms are built upon these unscrupulous foundations!!! Rand is basically opening up coffins in the early hours and thrusting stakes through their hearts. I love this shit. It's Van Helsing like. More LOLs:


He's a fucking moron. I agree with 90% of what his dad says, but he's DEAD wring on health care his comparison to slavery. He clearly has no clue what he's talking about.


Spoken like a true silver spoon born brat who has never lacked any opportunities, especially health care. It is pathetic that he feels being a doctor equates to slavery by making him help the sick. A true disgrace to those who became doctors to help people, not for the money and prestige. "Do people have the right to water?" Duh, since we need it to live, I vote yes. His vision for American is the most frightening thing I can imagine.


And there you have it. Rand Paul's self-survival 'f*ck everybody else' philosophy of libertarianism on full display. It is what is in HIS best interest that matters, not the patient's.

[Sentient Void]

The libs are incapable of recognizing that aspects of slavery have been codified into our legislation, especially since many of their platforms are built upon these uncrupulous foundations!!! Rand is basically opening up coffins in the early hours and thrusting stakes through their hearts. I love this shit. It's Van Helsing like. More LOLs:

Hahah OMFG I love your post here. It's epic.

[AuH20]

We should all log onto Raw Story and ask what are the profound differences between a "public servant" and a slave? I'd love to hear the spin.

[AuH20]

Here's what I wrote:


Wow. This emotionally based reaction was highly predictable. Let's examine Rand Paul's comments logically. A right implies that it is non-negotiable. However, you cannot have a "right" that infringes upon the autonomy of others. That's the focal point of the discussion. Many of these doctors graduate with close to a half-million dollars in debt and now we have the government dictating to them who they should treat and what they should be paid? That's modern day slavery. With all this said, many doctors like Paul and his father take the Hippocratic oath and are bound by moral obligations to treat those in need of emergency care. But that is besides the point. To maintain any type of viable society, we must refrain from utilizing state forced coercion since its simply unjust and unamerican.

One response:


Slavery? Are you kidding me? We are not trying to set doctor's wages. We are only trying to state that every citizen has a right to health care. So, you are saying that a rich banker has more of a right to health care than a single mother with kids. Right?

My response:


Well, the real problem is the market dislocation, thanks to massive government intervention, specifically Nixon's idiocy in 1973 with the HMO act. Health care would be affordable if there weren't all these greedy middle men extracting their share from the subsidized trough of government funds. It never had to get to this point. There is no doctor-patient relationship any longer. Only an overbearing bureaucracy and a dominant health insurance cartel.

[aGameOfThrones]

Slavery? Are you kidding me? We are not trying to set doctor's wages. We are only trying to state that every citizen has a right to health care. So, you are saying that a rich banker has more of a right to health care than a single mother with kids. Right?


1, is not the government going to do that? I mean, they want every citizen to be part of the health care farce by force.

2, more emotional crap.

[eqcitizen]

Slavery? Are you kidding me? We are not trying to set doctor's wages. We are only trying to state that every citizen has a right to health care. So, you are saying that a rich banker has more of a right to health care than a single mother with kids. Right?


These types of posts just bug me. They equate rights with desires. They have the feeling that since a doctor is most likely rich and a poor person needs medical service that he should be made to provide the said services. They do not take their logic to its final conclusions which is that it would lead to a government employee putting a gun to the doctors head for non compliance. Plus a doctor cannot refuse to treat the patient legally. He would be fined and then arrested otherwise for refusing service to someone. These people cannot imagine freedom and do not want it; they like being sheep.

[AuH20]

ROFL. Rand was raised by wolves and found by his dad at age 12. Don't these people understand that Ron raised Rand and started him on his intellectual journey?


This guy is nothing like his dad. He's not very bright. Labeling healthcare, water services etc as slavery if they are considered a right is flawed. Does Europe or Australia or Japan mandate slavery? They consider healthcare a right. What about human rights? Are they slavery too? Is Paul saying that only those who can afford healthcare are entitled to it? What about water? Plumbing is another category, so are window treatments. Ok here's another analogy Rand Paul: denying people healthcare or water on the basis of affordability is similar to espousing the death penalty. It sentences people innocent of committing a crime to death. Unless of course it becomes a crime to be poor. And since absurdity is the name of the game in DC lately, that too may be next out of their dirty little mouths.

[AuH20]

all of us in here are hateful, corrupt con artists:


WE MUST STOP
LEGITIMIZING/VALIDATING NARCISSISTS, LIARS, THIEVES AND CON ARTISTS BY ACTING
LIKE THEIR “VALUES” ARE, BY ANY MORAL OR LEGITIMATE STANDARDS OF INTEGRITY,
WORTHY OF ANY CONSIDERATION!!!

I believe that reaching out to disparate opposing groups of opportunists,
mercenaries, corporatists, racists, teabaggers, birthers, deathers and
egomaniacal self-consumed lying career politicians/media hacks is more
self-defeating than judicious. It
EMPOWERS them by LEGITIMIZING there extremism!

If Obama fails to get reelected, his good intentions might very well have been
his and our undoing. Sometimes, you have to accept the unfortunate reality that
“reasoning” with the irredeemably corrupt, ignorant and or irrational is not a
viable option.

I believe that appealing to the "better angels" of people who believe
what Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Steve King, Jim DeMint, Rush Limbaugh,
Sean Hannity, Michelle Bachmann, Dick Armey, the Koch brothers or Rupert
Murdock "tell them
to believe" is a complete waste of time, energy and political capital.

I genuinely feel that believing that today's Republicans are
"reasonable" or “honorable” is a form of intellectual INSANITY.

We must AGGRESSIVELY REJECT their CORRUPTION and DISHONESTY and IMMORALITY
rather than take them SERIOUSLY. We must STOP trying to be politically correct
and or open minded about the HEINOUS words, motives and tactics of
INCOMPETENTS, LIARS, THIEVES and CON ARTISTS. Shame on Republicans for their
PATHOLOGICAL NAIVETE and INCORRIGIBLE IGNORANCE.

[aGameOfThrones]

ROFL. Rand was raised by wolves and found by his dad at age 12. Don't these people understand that Ron raised Rand and started him on his intellectual journey?

Well, damn! Nonsense gone wild!

[aGameOfThrones]

WE MUST STOP
LEGITIMIZING/VALIDATING NARCISSISTS, LIARS, THIEVES AND CON ARTISTS BY ACTING
LIKE THEIR “VALUES” ARE, BY ANY MORAL OR LEGITIMATE STANDARDS OF INTEGRITY,
WORTHY OF ANY CONSIDERATION!!!

I believe that reaching out to disparate opposing groups of opportunists,
mercenaries, corporatists, racists, teabaggers, birthers, deathers and
egomaniacal self-consumed lying career politicians/media hacks is more
self-defeating than judicious. It
EMPOWERS them by LEGITIMIZING there extremism!

If Obama fails to get reelected, his good intentions might very well have been
his and our undoing. Sometimes, you have to accept the unfortunate reality that
“reasoning” with the irredeemably corrupt, ignorant and or irrational is not a
viable option.

I believe that appealing to the "better angels" of people who believe
what Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Steve King, Jim DeMint, Rush Limbaugh,
Sean Hannity, Michelle Bachmann, Dick Armey, the Koch brothers or Rupert
Murdock "tell them
to believe" is a complete waste of time, energy and political capital.

I genuinely feel that believing that today's Republicans are
"reasonable" or “honorable” is a form of intellectual INSANITY.

We must AGGRESSIVELY REJECT their CORRUPTION and DISHONESTY and IMMORALITY
rather than take them SERIOUSLY. We must STOP trying to be politically correct
and or open minded about the HEINOUS words, motives and tactics of
INCOMPETENTS, LIARS, THIEVES and CON ARTISTS. Shame on Republicans for their
PATHOLOGICAL NAIVETE and INCORRIGIBLE IGNORANCE.


Sheesh. Coming from an irrational, illogical and ignorant Buffoon is comforting.

[AuH20]

Sheesh. Coming from an irrational, illogical and ignorant Buffoon is comforting.

Not only is your philosophy hopelessly flawed but you're evil. And on top of it, you're peddling these lies to people who don't possess the cerebral power to see through this scam. Shame on you. :)

[AuH20]

You know it's time to shut the lights, when you have posters championing the United Nations for their statement that health care is a right.

[AuH20]

I'm racking up the posts, but the material is so rich I can't pass this up. Rand has literally flushed them all out:


He believes in what he WANTS to believe in. And the rest he makes up. Show me where in the constitution it says that corporations are the same as humans. Funny, the word "corporation" is nowhere to be found in the constitution. But he AND his father think that corporations should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want, with no regulations to keep them honest or you safe. Both of them believe in the supremacy of profit and I for one find that revolting. The younger is just a less thought out, more knee jerk version of the older. He doesn't have the brains the older has, and in fact, thinks some very strange, uniquely unAmerican things. In fact, I have yet to hear him say much of anything that I though was defensible AT ALL.


He is a fool, and a selfish, arrogant one at that.

[aGameOfThrones]

A cellphone is a Right. An Internet connection is a Right. An xbox is a Right. An iPad is a Right. All these things are Rights and so the government must provide them, right?

My explanations are that:

Without a cellphone I can't call my friends. Without an Internet connection I can't watch porn. Without an xbox I can't play call of duty. Without an iPad I can't go on ronpaulforums. See why they are Rights?

[aGameOfThrones]

I'm racking up the posts, but the material is so rich I can't pass this up. Rand has literally flushed them all out:


He believes in what he WANTS to believe in. And the rest he makes up. Show me where in the constitution it says that corporations are the same as humans. Funny, the word "corporation" is nowhere to be found in the constitution. But he AND his father think that corporations should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want, with no regulations to keep them honest or you safe. Both of them believe in the supremacy of profit and I for one find that revolting. The younger is just a less thought out, more knee jerk version of the older. He doesn't have the brains the older has, and in fact, thinks some very strange, uniquely unAmerican things. In fact, I have yet to hear him say much of anything that I though was defensible AT ALL.


He is a fool, and a selfish, arrogant one at that.




Corporations are "persons" as that word is used in the first clause of the 14th Amendment; Covington & L. Turnp. Co. v. Sandford,17S.Ct.198,164U.S.578 ,41L.Ed. ~ black's law

[AuH20]

Okay. No more playing. I just dropped the Daisy Cutter:


Progressives and liberals are generally well-meaning, but you rubes constantly fall for these feel-good scams that these power merchants constantly concoct. Social Security (not an insurance program but a on-way "loan" to the federal government). Medicare (a giveaway to corporate interests, just look at Medicare Part D). Obama Care (40 million new customers to a select group of health care companies). The list of crimes go on and on. I can't comprehend why you like imprisoning your fellow man, while simultaneously creating division and contempt with these right violations. No one has a problem working within the confines of community and sacrificing our time for the betterment of the less fortunate, but when you stick a proverbial gun in our faces, people act surprised when we react negatively.

[Lothario]

This is why a democratic system will always fail. These people have no "right" being registered voters.

[tmg19103]

I think it would have been more accurate to equate a "right" to to health care as "theft" from doctors.

I understand where Rand is coming form on the slavery statement, and there is some sense to it, but I think that comparison is awful inflammatory and can be argued down by the fact that a slave is hunted down and returned to master or hung for not working in the fields while a doctor can just quit his/her job.

Sure, it is enslaving in a way, but not the best comparison.

I do understand how you can directly equate it to slavery, but boy is that divisive.

However, perhaps the headlines will help Ron with exposure as people debate this issue.

[Sentient Void]

I think it would have been more accurate to equate a "right" to to health care as "theft" from doctors.

I understand where Rand is coming form on the slavery statement, and there is some sense to it, but I think that comparison is awful inflammatory and can be argued down by the fact that a slave is hunted down and returned to master or hung for not working in the fields while a doctor can just quit his/her job.

Sure, it is enslaving in a way, but not the best comparison.

I do understand how you can directly equate it to slavery, but boy is that divisive.

However, perhaps the headlines will help Ron with exposure as people debate this issue.

It's called the 'Great Libertarian Macho Flash', and Rand has done it here with his (correct) calling it slavery, as well as his civil rights act comments on Maddow.

Very polarizing. Definitely energizes some, but certainly pushes tons of others away.

Learn more about the 'Late, Great Libertarian Macho Flask':
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?292350-READ-The-Late-Great-Libertarian-Macho-flash.-All-libertarians-must-***READ***

[AuH20]

It's called the 'Great Libertarian Macho Flash', and Rand has done it here with his (correct) calling it slavery, as well as his civil rights act comments on Maddow.

Very polarizing. Definitely energizes some, but certainly pushes tons of others away.

Learn more about the 'Late, Great Libertarian Macho Flask':
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?292350-READ-The-Late-Great-Libertarian-Macho-flash.-All-libertarians-must-***READ***

I'm not a neighborhood canvassing type of guy but anyone who breaks out the flask, could make me voluntarily eat dog food. It is so seductive and refreshing to hear. You always hear so many republican politicians who acquiesce to progressive institutional ideas and directly refuse to tackle the criminal rationale which fuels these destructive policies. Folks like Rand go right for the bullseye and literally paralyze their opponent.

[jmdrake]

And what would happen if a slave refused to work in the fields?

And what would happen if Rand Paul refused to treat a patient?

Rand Paul could walk away. The slave cannot. Bad, bad choice of words.

Right choice of words, bad choice of targets. It's not the doctor being enslaved but the taxpayer.

[schiffheadbaby]

Good point jmdrake, good point.

Medicare in some sense helps doctors by boosting aggregate demand that would be absent gov programs, but the industrious man in Nashville Tn will have to subsidize these absurd procedures no matter what.

[Diurdi]

Right choice of words, bad choice of targets. It's not the doctor being enslaved but the taxpayer. No, he's actually correct. A right to healthcare implies that someone must provide you healthcare or your rights are being violated. Imagine if a doctor refused to work because he didn't feel like it. That means he would be violating the right of someone by not providing him/her healthcare. Which means that either the doctors must be enslaved or the rights of people will be violated. Rand is absolutely correct.

[Lothario]

Right choice of words, bad choice of targets. It's not the doctor being enslaved but the taxpayer.

eh, it's essentially slavery of all the above - taxpayers, doctors, and anyone in between.

[AuH20]

On another board, I have this fellow arguing that licensing and standardizing implies controls that it's future physicians should be made aware of. Basically, he insinuated that you're a compensated slave.


Then your problem should be with the fact that we require certifications or licences and set minimum standards for the practice of certain regulated professions, which long predated the Affordable Health Care Act. The Act simply expands on the regulation of the health care insurance and health care practice that already existed. No one can be compelled to be a medical doctor. No one can be compelled to sell health insurance policies. But if you want to practice medicine or you want to sell health insurance policies, there are federal, state and local laws and regulations governing your practice within those arenas. That's not even remotely "slavery".

I replied with this:


You're stating that licensing conveys an implied state of ownership, that can be altered accordingly?

[EndDaFed]

Is Rand an anarchist? Only an anarchist can make that argument without being a hypocrite. Unless you want to dissolve the entire government you still support slavery in the form of taxes.

[low preference guy]

Is Rand an anarchist? Only an anarchist can make that argument without being a hypocrite. Unless you want to dissolve the entire government you still support slavery in the form of taxes.

I disagree. You can have a government without taxes. Would you call Ayn Rand an anarchist? She made an argument similar to this:


What about charging a voluntary fee for enacting or enforcing contracts? Only those who use contracts will pay. Since there is always a need of contracts to run big, long-term projects, that source of revenue will always be around. If government is small and only protects life, liberty, and property, it will be more than enough to pay for it.

I'm not an anarchist and I'm opposed to the existence of taxes.

[Joseph]

I like the one women who spoke about charity medical care and an idea for how to change the law. It was right up the ally of everything Ron Paul says about medical care.

[Joseph]

She appears at 56:30 and 92:40 here. She also talks about how food and housing is as important as health care and we don't give that away for free.

http://help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=c4d004ce-5056-9502-5d46-58410b00ed72

Rand is right, if healthcare is a right then doctors are forced to provide it at no cost and that is slavery.

[AuH20]

New Republic. Everyone is piling on. This is freaking awesome!

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88175/rand-paul-really-crazy

[EndDaFed]

I disagree. You can have a government without taxes. Would you call Ayn Rand an anarchist? She made an argument similar to this:



I'm not an anarchist and I'm opposed to the existence of taxes.

That is anarchy. It's just re-branded because anarchy is a spooky word. Given that in such a scenario it would be next to impossible to maintain a monopoly on force because there would be competing protectorates at play. There would be nothing to stop me from contracting with another "government" even if said existing government resisted. Given that it wouldn't have support from all the livestock.

[low preference guy]

That is anarchy. It's just re-branded because anarchy is a spooky word.

So you're saying Ayn Rand was an anarchist?


Given that in such a scenario it would be next to impossible to maintain a monopoly on force there would be competing protectorates at play.

I disagree this would necessarily happen.

[AuH20]

Add Salon. In retrospect, his election was worth every penny.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/12/rand_paul_dumb


Rand Paul is stupid. Or, at least, he is not very bright. I say that not because I disagree with him politically, but because he regularly says stupid things. Stupid things that he thinks are very clever. (Also, he seems pretty ignorant of the history of the state he was elected to represent and the powers of a senator but ignorance is different from dumbness.)

[aGameOfThrones]

Let's say there's a "Right to an ar15 act," would the same people in favor of the "Right to health care act" oppose this? Let's also say that the "Right to an ar15 act" has a mandatory clause with no exemption clause of any kind, would they be in favor of this?

[AndrewD]

I agree with Rand's comment, and as we can see here it has stirred up a good discussion. But this is the RP forums. Outside of this community the majority of people will probably be extremely put off (if not outright offended) by what he said. And it's the choice of wording. We can sit here all night long and talk about how right we know he is, but others don't always see it that way.

Rand needs to be a little more careful the way he words his views especially when speaking about delicate topics. Besides he's not getting through to the people he needs to this way. And whether we like it or not the world of smear politics remains and sometimes the "spin" on what he says can do more harm than good for his reputation. And once they get that racist label on you, the damage is severe.

Someone posted a video in response to his Civil Rights Act views, titled "White's only? As long as it's private."

I much prefer the way Ron handled the right to healthcare topic on Larry King. He didn't bring out any "brass balls", bold and in your face type of approach, and I would feel comfortable saying that the message was much better recieved by the public. And that's what is truly important.

[teacherone]

yeah - rand went from 0 to full bore anarchy.

he's talking in a completely different language here.

[low preference guy]

I agree with Rand's comment, and as we can see here it has stirred up a good discussion. But this is the RP forums. Outside of this community the majority of people will probably be extremely put off (if not outright offended) by what he said. And it's the choice of wording. We can sit here all night long and talk about how right we know he is, but others don't always see it that way.

He doesn't need to change anything. He'll be re-elected easily because he is in a conservative state and doesn't even have to do that for 6 years. He needs to talk about fundamental principles and change people's minds, which is exactly what he is doing. We need to get people to think about rights correctly. They need to see that a right to a good implies forced labor on part of the provider of the good, i.e., slavery.

[AndrewD]

He doesn't need to change anything. He'll be re-elected easily because he is in a conservative state and doesn't even have to do that for 6 years.

The thing is, Rand has more potential. I see him as being a mainstream Presidential candidate in the future....IF....he can build and sustain a solid reputation with his Senate career. Some of these statements (as true as they may be) are worded in a fashion such as to give the media live hand grenades, whereas the same point could be made, and even be portrayed more effectively by simply choosing his wording a little differently. In the future we can expect to a certain degree he will be subjected to some of the same media blackout and bias as his father. But in my opinion, he has been walking into hornets nests and stirring them up for no reason. The Civil Rights discussion especially. Believe me I like the bold side of Rand, and his ability to charge head on. But I think it would be more benefitial for his career as a whole to pick and choose which topics to choose that strategy.

[low preference guy]

The thing is, Rand has more potential. I see him as being a mainstream Presidential candidate in the future....IF....he can build and sustain a solid reputation with his Senate career. Some of these statements (as true as they may be) are worded in a fashion such as to give the media live hand grenades, whereas the same point could be made, and even be portrayed more effectively by simply choosing his wording a little differently. In the future we can expect to a certain degree he will be subjected to some of the same media blackout and bias as his father. But in my opinion, he has been walking into hornets nests and stirring them up for no reason. The Civil Rights discussion especially. Believe me I like the bold side of Rand, and his ability to charge head on. But I think it would be more benefitial for his career as a whole to pick and choose which topics to choose that strategy.

I just disagree that he should only focus about election. He needs to be elected after making the argument of the true conception of rights and having the electorate accept it, just like RP should be elected after arguing for a non-interventionist foreign policy. The issue of rights is too essential.

[Theocrat]

From the opposing side, I can understand why they find Sen. Paul's words distasteful. We need to understand that, from their perspective, when they say one has a right, he is assuming the right comes from the government. If people have a right to health care (which they do, but not in the way they think), then physicians should be obligated to support that right (as the government does in its funding of it) by providing them with health care and no questions asked.

Coupled with that is a foul misunderstanding of what the Hippocratic Oath is all about. The oath is not the physician signing away his life and duties for the sake of the patient. It is an oath that promises to take the best care and use the strictest precautions and respect for life when treating the patient without intentional harm.

It is a twisted way of thinking, both in terms of what rights entail and originate, but also in view of what health care actually is. All health care begins with the individual, but because we live in a political culture of "entitlement mentality" (coming from both typical conservatives and liberals), then it becomes strange for anyone to suggest that someone does not owe them the responsibility to take care of them in sicknesses.

[Joseph]

Rand Paul is correct I explain why here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekqs9QfEwTc&feature=channel_video_title

[low preference guy]

Drudge linked to the video in RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/12/sen_rand_paul_right_to_health_care_is_like_believi ng_in_slavery-comments.html), and now they have a bunch of positive comments.

[cindy25]

I agree with Rand, but he should have broadened it to include jury duty, or Wal-Mart workers being forced to do unpaid overtime. it sounded a bit elitist, and the sheep won't like it.

[low preference guy]

I agree with Rand, but he should have broadened it to include jury duty, or Wal-Mart workers being forced to do unpaid overtime. it sounded a bit elitist, and the sheep won't like it.

the posters at breitbart.tv and the right scoop are loving it.

[JustinTime]

Its slavery because it forces medical providers to provide their services when and how the government says, but its also slavery for the receivers of government 'provided' care as well.

I find that a scary number of people cant wrap their minds around the concept that being given something results in no choice, no option, no control for the receiver.

[AuH20]

And now it's Taibbi's turn. Apparently, Rand's opinion doesn't count because he's white and never worked in his life:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/rand-paul-public-health-care-just-like-slavery-20110513

[S.Shorland]

It isn't general welfare.It is welfare for the sick and slavery for the doctors.General welfare means the welfare of everyone.

For the lib statists, to even concede this point would be to dissolve into nothingness. This is the type of shot across their bow that elicits a negative reaction:



:D:D

[Wesker1982]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6n1FL42to8