Split - Politics of space exploration

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
You are going through a lot of logical contortions

What?! Look at a logical contortion:

Money is green paper... actually, money is the value given for goods and services, the physical manifestation of which is the green paper, though, it could very well be a herd of cattle, a few shiny gold coins, etc.

If money is nothing, and life is life, and there is no parallel, why is money so important for you to take from others in order to give to another? They have life, you have life, I have life. Money is nothing, so if they don't have money, since money is nothing, they don't have nothing. And if I have money, and money is nothing, then I have nothing.

Money is ****. If you're dead it's worthless to you. If there were a nuclear war it'd be toilet paper. Tell me how your "straightforward" logic beats this "contorted" logic.

If people were less obsessed with money and property and the acquisition and protection of such, we'd be a much happier civilisation.

I refuse to accept the notion that money is equal to life.

If that's contorted logic, I'd like to see you give a simple, one-sentence statement to prove how money is logically equal to life.

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
If people were less obsessed with money and property and the acquisition and protection of such, we'd be a much happier civilisation.

I refuse to accept the notion that money is equal to life.

If that's contorted logic, I'd like to see you give a simple, one-sentence statement to prove how money is logically equal to life.

Its more along the lines of obsessed with keeping it away from the ones that DID NOT EARN IT.

If money, or the things I can get with it, is the result of my life's labors, then how is it not part of my life?

 

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Last points before I'm outta here too...

I think the resistance by some conservatives to address this issue is the fear that a "universal healthcare system" will not achieve what is promised, but will result in a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy which in effect nationalizes a somewhat private industry, limits everyone's choices to a minimum amount of care, and does little if anything to police abuses (see: illegal immigration). Not to say that's what would inevitably result, but it might.

Plus, there is the "slippery slope" argument that, well, if we're guaranteed a right to "the pursuit of happiness", could that mean for example that taxpayers should finance an aspiring model/ actor's liposuction, facelift, or stomach reduction surgery? Could not some lawyer argue that to deny this is to deny not only a better lifestyle, but potential employment? I know that's not what you guys are arguing for, but what seems preposterous at first might not seem so in a decade.

I think I've made it clear I don't want poor people to die. Maybe preventive care, even at taxpayer expense, would be cheaper than the current system. If conservatives could be convinced of that, I doubt there'd be much argument from that quarter.

Sorry I misquoted Marx. As I said, it's been a long time...

IJ, the reason I've stayed away from your healthcare thread is that it's not the debate I was interested in the first place, but I guess I'm probably as guilty as any in allowing the drift to continue. However, I'll take a look at the thread out of curiosity... and to see if Rower has had to shut it down yet

I gotta go now and check the news about Opportunity...

Two things. First, if elective surgery is not covered as it isn't in most health plans, then I don't know what the big change would be. I'm all for not creating a huge bureaucracy, which is why I support a single payer system like Canada not the National Health system ala the UK. Let’s just get the insurance companies out of the business of making our health care decisions.

Second, you didn't misquote Marx - you only partially quoted him. The "to each according to his needs" part is the principle Marx saw as governing the second stage of a Communist society. This utopia was supposed to be after the state "withered away" and all class oppression was ended. Needless to say such a society has never been built and is only a dream of some who still embrace Marxist dogma.