In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
My point, repeated several times, is that there are public health concerns that are not necessarily statism, or the road to hell, and they are legitimate functions of government.
Using a twisted definition of "public health" doesn't make your opinion any more valid.
There isn't a "public health" matter here, only a private health matter.
quote:
Please do not extend my statements to serve your purposes.
Please do not extend the definition of common terms to suit your purposes.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Please identify any remarks that I have made in this thread that involve areas which are not legitimate public health concerns.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
While Hodgkin's Lymphoma is not a communicable disease as far as we know, the implications are clear.
Yes, society does have a common shared interest in things that present threats to it's very existence.
Please explain how the treatment of this child's disease is a public health concern.
No answer because it isn't a concern.
I also see that he has not responded to LT496's post that should truly be of concern to him if infectious diseases and vaccines are on his personal hit parade for our safety as Americans.
We have a number of Government employees here, and they have been indoctrinated with the feel good attitude.
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
I am no fan of big government...but since the kid cannot make an informed decision and is essentially relying on the parents' decision and whatever BS they told him...can this be construed as manslaughter?
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Classic095
I guess just because the kid dont want it, dont give it to him???...Well, Hell kids all across the country fight getting injections that save their lives. so I guess we stop giving any kid that dont want a shot , a shot???
I remember as a kid , kicking and screaming about getting a shot..I got it anyway, whether I wanted it or not..
This is a question of Religion VS Medicine...Do you want your kid to die because of your belief...???
Mighty convenient that you skipped over that whole pesky "parent" thingy....
Nor did you choose to tackle the issue of a free society vs. governmental authority to meddle with said individual liberty.
Go figure....
so if parents are religious whackjobs they should be able to sign their child's death sentence?
This is not too different from sacrificing your kid at an altar for crying out loud!
let's expand this discussion:
if a kid has a broken limb do the parents have a right to "macgyver" a splint instead of having it fixed properly by a doctor???
My personal belief is that this would be cruetly/neglect.
So how is the chemo question different? They are choosing quackery over a proven treatment and thus essentially guaranteeing the death of their kid. They might as well have put a gun to his head and blown him away [:(]
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
let's expand this discussion:
if a kid has a broken limb do the parents have a right to "macgyver" a splint instead of having it fixed properly by a doctor???
My personal belief is that this would be cruetly/neglect.
So how is the chemo question different? They are choosing quackery over a proven treatment and thus essentially guaranteeing the death of their kid. They might as well have put a gun to his head and blown him away [:(]
Okay, let's......
Well, in a free nation, they would indeed have the ability to self-treat, or treat a minor child if that is the parental decision.
From where would your "nanny" government derive the just authority to intervene, using a constitutional system of course, not the current anti-constitutional collective-mode it operates in?
"Your" version of cruelty and neglect is not at issue. This government was instituted to protect the individual and/or the minority, from the tyranny of the majority; the majority such as a whole herd of people who view something as being.....wrong or improper.
Some people make bad and/or piss-poor decisions, sometimes for their children too. There is a price to pay for having a free society. Part of that price is allowing people the latitude to live their lives and make decisions directing the lives of their minor children, even if bad results derive from those choices and decisions.
This "price" and that "liberty" are concepts that most find frightening and abhorrent. Nanny government is not allowed to dictate individual choices in most cases and where others outside the individual and family unit are not affected.
*A proven treatment for gun violence is the absolute elimination of all guns. Should we treat the epidemic of gun-violence in this manner with this proven treatment?
*A proven treatment for most auto fatalities is to ban individuals from the ability to own cars and to drive. Public transportation only, thus minimizing the number of drivers on the road and drastically reducing traffic fatalities.
*A proven treatment for massive reductions in cancer would be for a total ban on anyone's ability to ingest food additives, tobacco products or other substances that are proven to be linked to that disease.
*Some people die from contacting peanuts, should we prohibit the growth, sale, possession and trafficking in peanuts. Someone may come into contact with one, or its residue and sicken or die.
I could do this all day, but you should get the picture.
The key point in your post is "they are choosing". Enough said, if nobody elses rights are being encroached upon. Your sense of right and wrong, or your version of morality notwithstanding, of course.[;)]
It is abundantly clear that many people do not want to live in a society where people are free to make choices within the framework of what effects them/their family unit and no one else.
*Commission of malum en se "bad acts" are a different matter.
The parents are guilty... of being a couple of morons who will most likely see their child die. So long as the kid stays home and isn't being sexually or physically abused(as defined by the Penal code of their state) I don't see how the government can tell anyone how or what to do with their kid. If the parents decide to home school the kid and never innoculate them fine--if they decide to send them to public school then they need to play by the rules and get the shots. Since these two Darwin Award nominee's belive in Native American healing so much they should grab some peyote ASAP as that will most surely cure what ails them[xx(]
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
let's expand this discussion:
if a kid has a broken limb do the parents have a right to "macgyver" a splint instead of having it fixed properly by a doctor???
My personal belief is that this would be cruetly/neglect.
So how is the chemo question different? They are choosing quackery over a proven treatment and thus essentially guaranteeing the death of their kid. They might as well have put a gun to his head and blown him away [:(]
Okay, let's......
Well, in a free nation, they would indeed have the ability to self-treat, or treat a minor child if that is the parental decision.
so MORONS should have the ability to essentially murder their kid...as long as the cause of death is "natural"???
What if the self-splinted broken limb became gangrenous and the kid dies? isn't that manslaughter? it sure sounds like it to me!
regarding your gun and peanut analogies:
minors can't buy guns...and generally when a kid got hold of a gun and shot someone and/or themselves, the parent was held responsible.
Regarding peanuts...people can tell early on when someone is allergic...the case of withholding chemo is more like if the parents knew the kid was deathly allergic and made them eat peanuts anyway...that would essentially be murder!
my only consolation in this whole sordid mess is that the moron offspring of two morons will probably die and natural selection will be fulfilled. So I guess the Darwinist in me says: let idiots kill tehmselves/ thei offspring...its better for the re3st of us...but part of me is sickened by these "parents"
I believe the decision should be reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Even though you won't give your opinion, its quite obvious.
If you believe the decision should be reviewed by a "court of competent jurisdiction", you are acknowledging that the government has the authority to pursue action in this case.
quote:I do not think that God has instituted government to allow the deaths of children, especially in matter such as this, sacrificed to some sort of idol of paranoid personal freedom.
Interesting.
God may well have "inspired" government, but it was instituted by men; men who advocated specifically for the liberty of the individual and the draconian restriction of government's ability to interfere with that individual liberty, particularly from the tyranny of those who believe as it seems that you do.
Your statement gives me a whole new insight into your world-view and on your view of individual liberty. An "idol of paranoid personal freedom" you say?
I do not have sufficient information to determine God's will in this matter; are you now suggesting that you do ?
In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't care less about "God" or his will......I just think bringing God into the debate his pointless, especially if one is a believer.
If it is God's will that the child dies, the child will die...despite whatever medical intervention(s) his doctors use.
If it is God's will that the child lives, he'll miracle up a cure and the child will live.....despite the lack of modern medical intervention.
I would think that the true believer would see the parents as instruments of God's will........but then again, I was never interested in this becoming a theological debate.
The problem here is that the CHILD most likely has a BIRTH certificate and a SSN. This makes him a WARD of the STATE. The state has a vested interest in the childs health and well being. If the parents of child did not declare their sovereignty, which few have figured out, they are all basically under the law of the corporation and can be ordered to do whatever they wish.
Chemo is real nasty. There are several places here in europe with alternative and successful methods of treating cancer classifying it as a fungi and not an unknown. One of the more interesting and effective methods is a saline solution of baking soda. Since sodium bicarbonate is cheap and already available in any town in america, you know damn well they would never allow a doctor who has a state liscense to administer a potential cure even if it has no side effects.
If you believe that big pharma and the state have a true passion to cure disease, I will pray for your revovery. Even the Cancer Society would shun something that would put them out of business.
My opinion is that the government may try to take your body but may never take your soul. They may never make a religous or medical decision for any MAN. But since your NAME IS IN ALL CAPS. You signed up for the kool=aid unless you know how to correct your identity.
Some governments may also be inspired, but none inspired have ever been inspired contrary to the word of God. Men implement that government, be it inspired or not.
Those who wrote the constitution wrote it in the light of a social contract that all men must share as a basis for social organization. I believe that contract should maximize the potential for individual liberty, but it is certainly not the case that absolute individual autonomy was envisioned by any of the founders.
That is called anarchy. Not anarchy in a bad sense, necessarily, but anarchy all the same.
You really need to get a grip on your feelings about this topic, and make some sense. Read what I have written, and not just cry "tyranny", but relate your fears to something that I have actually said and make some sense. If you wish to continue this discussion.
Please.
Setting God aside, since God is not a part of my argument, but seemingly is a major part of yours, I have not advocated anarchy, period. Neither have I advocated totally unrestrained, or unlimited individual liberty.
For you to suggest that my position, related to this topic, is "anarchy" is disingenuous at best.
What I have advocated is constitutionally limited government, restrained to those 17 powers enumerated in the actual Constitution and with a full view upon the Bill of Rights which were instated to prohibit certain actions to the Federal Government.
What is that you are advocating and from whence does that government "authority", not "power", derive?
It seems as if all you have to offer, is to divert from what is my actual position, in a direction that makes it look "out there" as opposed to your calm whisperings of trust in government.
Talking about reading what someone has written, methinks that this concept should be more applicable to you.
What I have attempted to do is to address the topic and the ramifications of government intervention in such cases. You are the one who is dragging religion into it, which, by the way, does not guide everyone, nor was it intended to, here in America.
Religious principals and/or Judeo-Christian beliefs are fine in our society, since this is partially what we were founded upon, but these religious concepts are to be balanced with the rights of the individual, which are expressly to be protected by government.
There are a myriad of personal freedoms that are and should continue to be exercised, free of government interference, which I am sure contradict your version of religious morality or righteousness before God.
You know, that part about the constitutionally enumerated "social contract" and all.
On another note, I have a firm grip on my feelings and on the concepts related to this topic. Your attempt to marginalize my views by categorizing them as "fears" notwithstanding. Nice try though.
My informed concerns and subsequent written observations of excessive government intervention, which you term as "fears", have zero to do with anything YOU have said. It really matters not what "you" say, but rather, the positions I articulate are designed for the other readers, so that they can have a clear picture of our two opposing positions on governments proper role in society.
Don't be so full of yourself as to assume that I am writing in response to YOU. I have grabbed onto such examples of excess/tyranny in government for years and framed these arguments to illustrate what historical fact shows as the proper role of government related to constitutional principals and its clear text, this, in an effort to stimulate thought and study.
It simply ain't about you Barzillia, I am playing for the audience, sorry dude.
If my views make no sense, that speaks directly to your views relative to government power and what should be governments just authority, far more than it does to my framing the individualist/limited government position, now doesn't it?
Finally, I have not simply cried "tyranny", but, rather, used that term to illustrate the reality of the collective-approach. I have framed a position, in detail, which stands directly contrary to that you framed, yours which is more supportive of government intervention in the lives of individuals; your attempts to marginalize my position and arguments notwithstanding, again.
Now, if you are finished with your diversions and wish to further debate the topic, lets get to it.
Please.
What is your actual position on the OP, specifically? It is not clear to me, since you have diverted into generic "social" areas and "public health laws", without directly addressing the topic, I think.
Do you support that the government has the just and constitutional authority to force medical care in this specific case and if so, where do they derive the legitimate constitutional authority, in your view?
quote:Originally posted by storm6490
If you believe that big pharma and the state have a true passion to cure disease, I will pray for your revovery. Even the Cancer Society would shun something that would put them out of business.
Storm,
A 100% absolute truth, and it's amazing so few recognize it.[;)]
The cures for cancer, alzheimer's, etc. are known, but there are too many folks that stand to loose a bushel friggon basket of money if said diseases did not exist.
so Barzillia what about the Amish? they self treat all the time , very seldom do you find them going to the doctor , would it make any difference if this boy was a Amish boy ?
Jesus loving a child and then translating that belief to government forcing some action against the wishes of that child and his family, are two different things.
Allowing, or authorizing the government to use brute force in such an anti-family/anti-individualist action, under guise of religion, is just as bad as allowing government to use brute force in some other action, with the motivation being for someone elses version of "doing good".
It could be a socialist/communist who is a true believer and who believes a "greater good" is done for "society" by a forced taking of an individuals labor, or the fruits of their labor.
It could be a despotic leader, believing he/she knows best, using brute force of government to force compliance with some seizure of property, for the State.
It could be a true believer in the guise of a gun-controller, who honestly believes that a total ban on firearms will save children and be best for "society" as a whole.
It could be an avowed Atheist, who is in power, who subjugates religion, because he feels it is a detriment to an orderly and productive society, through a belief in something other than "the State".
Using God, Jesus, or religion in general as a motive and/or a justification for government force, in a quest for "something", is absolutely no different.
Collectivism vs. Individualism.
No matter how it is boiled down, or how collectivism is framed, the end result in the same. Collectivism leads toward totalitarianism, inevitably.
Comments
My point, repeated several times, is that there are public health concerns that are not necessarily statism, or the road to hell, and they are legitimate functions of government.
Using a twisted definition of "public health" doesn't make your opinion any more valid.
There isn't a "public health" matter here, only a private health matter.
quote:
Please do not extend my statements to serve your purposes.
Please do not extend the definition of common terms to suit your purposes.
Please identify any remarks that I have made in this thread that involve areas which are not legitimate public health concerns.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
While Hodgkin's Lymphoma is not a communicable disease as far as we know, the implications are clear.
Yes, society does have a common shared interest in things that present threats to it's very existence.
Please explain how the treatment of this child's disease is a public health concern.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Please identify any remarks that I have made in this thread that involve areas which are not legitimate public health concerns.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
While Hodgkin's Lymphoma is not a communicable disease as far as we know, the implications are clear.
Yes, society does have a common shared interest in things that present threats to it's very existence.
Please explain how the treatment of this child's disease is a public health concern.
No answer because it isn't a concern.
I also see that he has not responded to LT496's post that should truly be of concern to him if infectious diseases and vaccines are on his personal hit parade for our safety as Americans.
We have a number of Government employees here, and they have been indoctrinated with the feel good attitude.
We have a number of Government employees here, and they have been indoctrinated with the feel good attitude.
I'm a gub'mint employee, and I'm still a dick [:)]
I may or may not agree with the above court decision on several different levels, but I have not ventured any opinion on the decision, pro or con.
Either you did not read this in an earlier post above, or you need it explained to you. I will be charitable and figure you missed it.
You may have not said, point-blank "This is a good thing", but the inference was quite clear.
Since you insist that you really haven't given your opinion, here's your chance.
[
If you cannot tolerate a divergent opinion, upon what do you base your claim for dignity and freedom?
I thought you hadn't given an opinion. [:)]
I mean they pretty much DECIDED FOR HIM!!!
quote:Originally posted by Classic095
I guess just because the kid dont want it, dont give it to him???...Well, Hell kids all across the country fight getting injections that save their lives. so I guess we stop giving any kid that dont want a shot , a shot???
I remember as a kid , kicking and screaming about getting a shot..I got it anyway, whether I wanted it or not..
This is a question of Religion VS Medicine...Do you want your kid to die because of your belief...???
Mighty convenient that you skipped over that whole pesky "parent" thingy....
Nor did you choose to tackle the issue of a free society vs. governmental authority to meddle with said individual liberty.
Go figure....
so if parents are religious whackjobs they should be able to sign their child's death sentence?
This is not too different from sacrificing your kid at an altar for crying out loud!
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
We have a number of Government employees here, and they have been indoctrinated with the feel good attitude.
I'm a gub'mint employee, and I'm still a dick [:)]
You said it,.....not me![:0][:D]
if a kid has a broken limb do the parents have a right to "macgyver" a splint instead of having it fixed properly by a doctor???
My personal belief is that this would be cruetly/neglect.
So how is the chemo question different? They are choosing quackery over a proven treatment and thus essentially guaranteeing the death of their kid. They might as well have put a gun to his head and blown him away [:(]
let's expand this discussion:
if a kid has a broken limb do the parents have a right to "macgyver" a splint instead of having it fixed properly by a doctor???
My personal belief is that this would be cruetly/neglect.
So how is the chemo question different? They are choosing quackery over a proven treatment and thus essentially guaranteeing the death of their kid. They might as well have put a gun to his head and blown him away [:(]
Okay, let's......
Well, in a free nation, they would indeed have the ability to self-treat, or treat a minor child if that is the parental decision.
From where would your "nanny" government derive the just authority to intervene, using a constitutional system of course, not the current anti-constitutional collective-mode it operates in?
"Your" version of cruelty and neglect is not at issue. This government was instituted to protect the individual and/or the minority, from the tyranny of the majority; the majority such as a whole herd of people who view something as being.....wrong or improper.
Some people make bad and/or piss-poor decisions, sometimes for their children too. There is a price to pay for having a free society. Part of that price is allowing people the latitude to live their lives and make decisions directing the lives of their minor children, even if bad results derive from those choices and decisions.
This "price" and that "liberty" are concepts that most find frightening and abhorrent. Nanny government is not allowed to dictate individual choices in most cases and where others outside the individual and family unit are not affected.
*A proven treatment for gun violence is the absolute elimination of all guns. Should we treat the epidemic of gun-violence in this manner with this proven treatment?
*A proven treatment for most auto fatalities is to ban individuals from the ability to own cars and to drive. Public transportation only, thus minimizing the number of drivers on the road and drastically reducing traffic fatalities.
*A proven treatment for massive reductions in cancer would be for a total ban on anyone's ability to ingest food additives, tobacco products or other substances that are proven to be linked to that disease.
*Some people die from contacting peanuts, should we prohibit the growth, sale, possession and trafficking in peanuts. Someone may come into contact with one, or its residue and sicken or die.
I could do this all day, but you should get the picture.
The key point in your post is "they are choosing". Enough said, if nobody elses rights are being encroached upon. Your sense of right and wrong, or your version of morality notwithstanding, of course.[;)]
It is abundantly clear that many people do not want to live in a society where people are free to make choices within the framework of what effects them/their family unit and no one else.
*Commission of malum en se "bad acts" are a different matter.
"but I have not ventured any opinion on the decision," does not mean that I have not given any opinion on anything else.[:D]
well, have at it. Give us your opinion on whether the court's actions, in this instance, are justified.
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
let's expand this discussion:
if a kid has a broken limb do the parents have a right to "macgyver" a splint instead of having it fixed properly by a doctor???
My personal belief is that this would be cruetly/neglect.
So how is the chemo question different? They are choosing quackery over a proven treatment and thus essentially guaranteeing the death of their kid. They might as well have put a gun to his head and blown him away [:(]
Okay, let's......
Well, in a free nation, they would indeed have the ability to self-treat, or treat a minor child if that is the parental decision.
so MORONS should have the ability to essentially murder their kid...as long as the cause of death is "natural"???
What if the self-splinted broken limb became gangrenous and the kid dies? isn't that manslaughter? it sure sounds like it to me!
regarding your gun and peanut analogies:
minors can't buy guns...and generally when a kid got hold of a gun and shot someone and/or themselves, the parent was held responsible.
Regarding peanuts...people can tell early on when someone is allergic...the case of withholding chemo is more like if the parents knew the kid was deathly allergic and made them eat peanuts anyway...that would essentially be murder!
my only consolation in this whole sordid mess is that the moron offspring of two morons will probably die and natural selection will be fulfilled. So I guess the Darwinist in me says: let idiots kill tehmselves/ thei offspring...its better for the re3st of us...but part of me is sickened by these "parents"
I believe the decision should be reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Even though you won't give your opinion, its quite obvious.
If you believe the decision should be reviewed by a "court of competent jurisdiction", you are acknowledging that the government has the authority to pursue action in this case.
Screw 'em. The boy doesn't want it. His parents don't want it.
Why waste time and resources fighting them?
+1, the kid is old enough to know the score.
When the ends, in this case "liberty", require that we close our eyes to the higher law and ignore the will of God in any matter
Oh, so now its "God's will" that the kid gets chemotherapy.....
Please
[:D]
Interesting.
God may well have "inspired" government, but it was instituted by men; men who advocated specifically for the liberty of the individual and the draconian restriction of government's ability to interfere with that individual liberty, particularly from the tyranny of those who believe as it seems that you do.
Your statement gives me a whole new insight into your world-view and on your view of individual liberty. An "idol of paranoid personal freedom" you say?
Interesting.
I do not have sufficient information to determine God's will in this matter; are you now suggesting that you do ?
In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't care less about "God" or his will......I just think bringing God into the debate his pointless, especially if one is a believer.
If it is God's will that the child dies, the child will die...despite whatever medical intervention(s) his doctors use.
If it is God's will that the child lives, he'll miracle up a cure and the child will live.....despite the lack of modern medical intervention.
I would think that the true believer would see the parents as instruments of God's will........but then again, I was never interested in this becoming a theological debate.
Chemo is real nasty. There are several places here in europe with alternative and successful methods of treating cancer classifying it as a fungi and not an unknown. One of the more interesting and effective methods is a saline solution of baking soda. Since sodium bicarbonate is cheap and already available in any town in america, you know damn well they would never allow a doctor who has a state liscense to administer a potential cure even if it has no side effects.
If you believe that big pharma and the state have a true passion to cure disease, I will pray for your revovery. Even the Cancer Society would shun something that would put them out of business.
My opinion is that the government may try to take your body but may never take your soul. They may never make a religous or medical decision for any MAN. But since your NAME IS IN ALL CAPS. You signed up for the kool=aid unless you know how to correct your identity.
Some governments may also be inspired, but none inspired have ever been inspired contrary to the word of God. Men implement that government, be it inspired or not.
Those who wrote the constitution wrote it in the light of a social contract that all men must share as a basis for social organization. I believe that contract should maximize the potential for individual liberty, but it is certainly not the case that absolute individual autonomy was envisioned by any of the founders.
That is called anarchy. Not anarchy in a bad sense, necessarily, but anarchy all the same.
You really need to get a grip on your feelings about this topic, and make some sense. Read what I have written, and not just cry "tyranny", but relate your fears to something that I have actually said and make some sense. If you wish to continue this discussion.
Please.
Setting God aside, since God is not a part of my argument, but seemingly is a major part of yours, I have not advocated anarchy, period. Neither have I advocated totally unrestrained, or unlimited individual liberty.
For you to suggest that my position, related to this topic, is "anarchy" is disingenuous at best.
What I have advocated is constitutionally limited government, restrained to those 17 powers enumerated in the actual Constitution and with a full view upon the Bill of Rights which were instated to prohibit certain actions to the Federal Government.
What is that you are advocating and from whence does that government "authority", not "power", derive?
It seems as if all you have to offer, is to divert from what is my actual position, in a direction that makes it look "out there" as opposed to your calm whisperings of trust in government.
Talking about reading what someone has written, methinks that this concept should be more applicable to you.
What I have attempted to do is to address the topic and the ramifications of government intervention in such cases. You are the one who is dragging religion into it, which, by the way, does not guide everyone, nor was it intended to, here in America.
Religious principals and/or Judeo-Christian beliefs are fine in our society, since this is partially what we were founded upon, but these religious concepts are to be balanced with the rights of the individual, which are expressly to be protected by government.
There are a myriad of personal freedoms that are and should continue to be exercised, free of government interference, which I am sure contradict your version of religious morality or righteousness before God.
You know, that part about the constitutionally enumerated "social contract" and all.
On another note, I have a firm grip on my feelings and on the concepts related to this topic. Your attempt to marginalize my views by categorizing them as "fears" notwithstanding. Nice try though.
My informed concerns and subsequent written observations of excessive government intervention, which you term as "fears", have zero to do with anything YOU have said. It really matters not what "you" say, but rather, the positions I articulate are designed for the other readers, so that they can have a clear picture of our two opposing positions on governments proper role in society.
Don't be so full of yourself as to assume that I am writing in response to YOU. I have grabbed onto such examples of excess/tyranny in government for years and framed these arguments to illustrate what historical fact shows as the proper role of government related to constitutional principals and its clear text, this, in an effort to stimulate thought and study.
It simply ain't about you Barzillia, I am playing for the audience, sorry dude.
If my views make no sense, that speaks directly to your views relative to government power and what should be governments just authority, far more than it does to my framing the individualist/limited government position, now doesn't it?
Finally, I have not simply cried "tyranny", but, rather, used that term to illustrate the reality of the collective-approach. I have framed a position, in detail, which stands directly contrary to that you framed, yours which is more supportive of government intervention in the lives of individuals; your attempts to marginalize my position and arguments notwithstanding, again.
Now, if you are finished with your diversions and wish to further debate the topic, lets get to it.
Please.
What is your actual position on the OP, specifically? It is not clear to me, since you have diverted into generic "social" areas and "public health laws", without directly addressing the topic, I think.
Do you support that the government has the just and constitutional authority to force medical care in this specific case and if so, where do they derive the legitimate constitutional authority, in your view?
Please.[:)]
Also still no answer about the illegals and immunization, and the danger they pose to us in the US.
I find that surprising.[:0]
If you believe that big pharma and the state have a true passion to cure disease, I will pray for your revovery. Even the Cancer Society would shun something that would put them out of business.
Storm,
A 100% absolute truth, and it's amazing so few recognize it.[;)]
The cures for cancer, alzheimer's, etc. are known, but there are too many folks that stand to loose a bushel friggon basket of money if said diseases did not exist.
"It simply ain't about you Barzillia, I am playing for the audience, sorry dude."
Then you will have no problem if I suggest that you play by yourself.
None at all. You invited yourself anyway. [:)]Bye-bye.
Allowing, or authorizing the government to use brute force in such an anti-family/anti-individualist action, under guise of religion, is just as bad as allowing government to use brute force in some other action, with the motivation being for someone elses version of "doing good".
It could be a socialist/communist who is a true believer and who believes a "greater good" is done for "society" by a forced taking of an individuals labor, or the fruits of their labor.
It could be a despotic leader, believing he/she knows best, using brute force of government to force compliance with some seizure of property, for the State.
It could be a true believer in the guise of a gun-controller, who honestly believes that a total ban on firearms will save children and be best for "society" as a whole.
It could be an avowed Atheist, who is in power, who subjugates religion, because he feels it is a detriment to an orderly and productive society, through a belief in something other than "the State".
Using God, Jesus, or religion in general as a motive and/or a justification for government force, in a quest for "something", is absolutely no different.
Collectivism vs. Individualism.
No matter how it is boiled down, or how collectivism is framed, the end result in the same. Collectivism leads toward totalitarianism, inevitably.
It is what it is.