Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Jeremiah65

Why are you not really free?

39 posts in this topic

Do 1.6 million Americans seek healthcare abroad?

Doubt you can find that many Canadians doing the same.

Considering that there are many more Americans, you’d have to use percentages. But under Obamacare, we’ll probably see that number go up because many treatments that European nations offer may not be allowed or covered under a BHP. Oh, it is expected to go up 35%. I didn’t explore further but I wonder what the breakdown between facelifts to by-pass surgery is? Plus, what is the percentage of wealth Americans going abroad as opposed to the percentage of wealthy Canadians going abroad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RavenHawk, Your views make me curious... i'm wondering what you think about the interstate highway system begun during Eisenhower's administration. Do you view that as some evil socialistic endeavor ? What are we to do with PUBLIC funds if not spend them , socialistically, for the general welfare and benefit of our society as a whole ?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it outlawed to wear the hijab in France? What are the gun laws in England? Do Canadians come to this country for healthcare? How many governments in the world are made up of multi-party Parliaments that form coalitions and once they do that, they no longer represent the people but the state? I've visited Europe a few times.

The US has had no problem restricting freedoms so not sure what point you're trying to make. And while some Canadians go to the US for healthcare it is only under certain circumstances. Canadians are happy with their healthcare system and don't want anything like the US has. To suggest otherwise is political suicide up here. As for the multi-party government the issues with them is that there are too many voices and power is spread too thin. The exact opposite of an oligarchy. And I would have thought that traveling in Europe, seeing that people aren't being crushed under the evils of socialism, would have cured you of your fears. It's fine that you wouldn't want to live there but don't make Western socialism out to be this naturally evil thing when it clearly isn't.

No it's not. You just don't understand what I'm saying. My personal definition is precisely correct. As I've stated many times, I use Socialism as a generic term because people understand it better than Oligarchy. It is not the differences between the various flavors; it is the similarity in totalitarianism that concerns me. The following clip could also be called "Governments 101". It is a very simple definition just so that anybody can understand (even you).

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Oligarchy: a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

You're using political theories that are the opposite of each other as interchangeable terms. This is wrong and any first year political science student will tell you this. As for the video while it makes some points it's rather simplistic and is actually more focused on driving the point home that the US isn't a democracy. And YouTube...not the best of sources.

Where do you think I look? I'm somewhat a fan of Italian film. If you want to know the mindset and soul of a nation, watch its films. Italy seems to have a high number of escapism type movies, very similar to what we had before WWII. There are surprisingly many very good films. I see Socialism just dripping off these works. It's quaint but it's not for me. I'll go there any time for a visit, but that's all.

Fine it's not for you. Doesn't make it evil. Is New Zealand a soul crushing totalitarian hell hole? No? Well I guess social policies aren't so horrible.

No. That is incorrect. That has been the point all along. A Republic cannot be an Oligarchy. That is the difference between the rule of one man and the rule of law.

...so Republics are magic? No...just no. Republics just like every other form of government can become an oligarchy. Just look at the Roman Republic, Republic of Venice, and South Africa.

They were stepping away from Oligarchy, tyrants, and totalitarian style rule. Socialism is just Monarchy but with the King removed.

...no it is not...at all. Again read the definition of socialism. Please read it. Because I don't think you have.

They knew about Socialism, they just didn't call it that. What myth? You haven't even shown it to be a myth.

Unless you can provide documentation of the Founding Fathers decrying the evils of socialism (again read the definition) than the idea that they were trying to get away from it is a myth. It's just you using revisionist history to try and give basis to your own political views.

One could make the argument but that would be the myth here. As was established, an Oligarchy cannot be a Republic.

You have established no such thing. Rome, Venice, South Africa. Historical fact has established an oligarchy can be a republic. Hell swing a dead cat in these forums and you'll hit someone who thinks the current US is an oligarchy.

Well, again you may be technically correct but at the time, there were only rich white men that were in a position to rule. Like you said, they were toying around with the idea of setting up a Monarchy but they rejected it. A Monarchy would perfectly suit such a band of men but they rejected it. These men were the first in the Age of Enlightenment. You're attributing things to them that they were breaking away from. This was a time where the world still considered certain types of conquered people as subhuman. Many of the Founding Fathers knew this to be wrong and it took time for that mindset to change. And because they setup a Republic, that change occurred. Every race, color, or creed that came to these shores had to struggle to find their niche. Some had a harder path than others but we all made it under the rule of law, not the rule of man. No one man or group of men made it for them, they built it for themselves. Yes, a few men made it possible, they led the way but it wasn't exclusive to only rich white men.

The Founding Fathers were among those who viewed current groups as sub-humans. As a group they has no problems with slavery and massacring Natives. They might have been better than many men of that time but they were far from saints who were selflessly trying to better mankind.

I'll just make one last point because I see this going no where. Raven I get that you think socialism is scary. That if the US takes on some socialist policies it'll become a nightmare. Well let me tell you, I'm living your nightmare. And it's not that bad. Better than what's in the US in my view. But I don't think that system is evil. And neither is the socialist system practices throughout the Western world.

Edited by Corp
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RavenHawk, Your views make me curious... i'm wondering what you think about the interstate highway system begun during Eisenhower's administration. Do you view that as some evil socialistic endeavor ? What are we to do with PUBLIC funds if not spend them , socialistically, for the general welfare and benefit of our society as a whole ?

imho the goverment shouldn't collect "PUBLIC" funds. what kind of comment is this "We stole this money from you so we can use it to better your life"

that is why we are not free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I think the line in bold says it all. It's harder to cast off what you know and move into the unknown, than it is to continue dealing with what you know. It's because of this that Americans have allowed more and more regulations and surveillance to creep into their lives. Its because of this that most people, anywhere, will stay in a situation (government or otherwise) that isn't ideal and encroaches on their rights and happiness, because it's more difficult to face the unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imho the goverment shouldn't collect "PUBLIC" funds. what kind of comment is this "We stole this money from you so we can use it to better your life"

that is why we are not free

If i understand your point.. i agree, if by public funds you mean Income tax? ..which we managed to get along without until 1913? Any monies collected by the government in the form of tariffs or excise tax or what have you, would still be Public funds when it was spent on the public ? Unless you want no government at all it must be funded somehow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RavenHawk, Your views make me curious... i'm wondering what you think about the interstate highway system begun during Eisenhower's administration. Do you view that as some evil socialistic endeavor ?

Not at all. For one, it was established for national defense. To transport troops based on the concept of interior lines. The other reason is for increasing commerce between states and cities.

What are we to do with PUBLIC funds if not spend them , socialistically, for the general welfare and benefit of our society as a whole ?

Building public works (such as the interstate highway system) with public funds so that the people (all) may benefit from them and use them for their self interest is how the government Promotes the General Welfare. This allows the people to be free, not enslave them with Entitlements.

Providing dole for the people is a waste of public funds. It only benefits a limited number of people. That is no guarantee of Promoting the General Welfare. It may even harm many more. Passing out dole does not benefit our society as a whole. It destroys the wealth of a nation. You saw that in the Soviet Union and you are currently seeing it in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the line in bold says it all. It's harder to cast off what you know and move into the unknown, than it is to continue dealing with what you know. It's because of this that Americans have allowed more and more regulations and surveillance to creep into their lives. Its because of this that most people, anywhere, will stay in a situation (government or otherwise) that isn't ideal and encroaches on their rights and happiness, because it's more difficult to face the unknown.

Exactly right! It is time to throw off the old. It doesn’t have to be done by the gun but by the ballot. Vote out the incumbent. But I think that Jefferson was a bit of a Shakespearian. I’m sure that when he was writing the Declaration of Independence, he was deep in contemplation and probably read many works seeking an answer and Hamlet was one of them. In a way, The Undiscovered Country is also the United States. Do we continue to suffer Socialism or by opposing end it?

To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them. To die—to sleep, no more; and by a sleep to say we end the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; to sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub: for in that sleep of death what dreams may come, when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause—there's the respect that makes calamity of so long life. For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, the pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay, the insolence of office, and the spurns that patient merit of th'unworthy takes, when he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary life, but that the dread of something after death, the undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn no traveller returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, and thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pitch and moment with this regard their currents turn awry and lose the name of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imho the goverment shouldn't collect "PUBLIC" funds. what kind of comment is this "We stole this money from you so we can use it to better your life"

that is why we are not free

The 16th Amendment in 1913 sent us on this path. We need to repeal it and the income tax and the Federal Reserve and fractional banking. I’m not really opposed to an income tax but it should only be used for public works and defense (and temporary obligations). Not Entitlements. But we should return to a consumption tax and if it can’t be paid for out of that, then we don’t need it. Just because Congress has the authority to raise taxes means that they need to.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. For one, it was established for national defense. To transport troops based on the concept of interior lines. The other reason is for increasing commerce between states and cities.

Building public works (such as the interstate highway system) with public funds so that the people (all) may benefit from them and use them for their self interest is how the government Promotes the General Welfare. This allows the people to be free, not enslave them with Entitlements.

Providing dole for the people is a waste of public funds. It only benefits a limited number of people. That is no guarantee of Promoting the General Welfare. It may even harm many more. Passing out dole does not benefit our society as a whole. It destroys the wealth of a nation. You saw that in the Soviet Union and you are currently seeing it in Europe.

Thanks RavenHawk, that's right.. intestate system was ,basically, defense contracts. I didn't think of that part , i was just curious as to your views on how public funds are spent... and if you would view that endeavor as too "SOCIALISTIC!* :) Otherwise, I find myself agreeing with nearly everything you have to say today!

But, i don't agree on your equating "entitlements" with "dole" . 'Entitlements' are paid into by the people who will , hopefully, get something for THIER MONEY.

They are called entitlements because the person that has PAID in is entitled to it. Social Security and Medicare are not welfare or dole ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US has had no problem restricting freedoms so not sure what point you're trying to make.

The main point is that Socialism is well entrench in other parts of the world. The other point is that the Socialists here are finding a way to get around the Constitution to impose their will. And it appears that it will continue.

And while some Canadians go to the US for healthcare it is only under certain circumstances.

Of course – for certain circumstances.

Canadians are happy with their healthcare system and don't want anything like the US has. To suggest otherwise is political suicide up here.

Shhhh, Of course not. You won’t have to worry much longer if Obamacare somehow stays in place. That’ll close the border and keep the Canadians in their own country.

As for the multi-party government the issues with them is that there are too many voices and power is spread too thin. The exact opposite of an oligarchy.

No, not the exact opposite. It is precisely the environment for Oligarchy. Because of the multi party, it becomes rule of the backroom deal not representation of the people. When that happens, the people lose.

And I would have thought that traveling in Europe, seeing that people aren't being crushed under the evils of socialism, would have cured you of your fears.

Traveling through Europe, it is ever clearer. They have already been crushed into submission as I brought out with my example of the elephant. It’s tell-tale in their aurora. And that’s the best way I can explain it at this time. They wear that chain anklet. Sometimes they rise up as we’ve seen this past year or so but it’s quelled quite easily. I think that the Muslim Spring has even outlasted the TEA Party. That’s a sad comment on the West. It’s not a fear. I am quite comfortable traveling abroad. I wish I could do it more often. But what I see cannot be dismissed.

It's fine that you wouldn't want to live there but don't make Western socialism out to be this naturally evil thing when it clearly isn't.

It’s not so much as an evil as it is the primordial slim that man emerge from. It destroys freedom even if the government is at that moment in time benevolent. It could never guarantee that it will always be. Wouldn’t you want something that is more stable rather than base?

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Oligarchy: a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

You're using political theories that are the opposite of each other as interchangeable terms. This is wrong and any first year political science student will tell you this. As for the video while it makes some points it's rather simplistic and is actually more focused on driving the point home that the US isn't a democracy. And YouTube...not the best of sources.

Those are general definitions but as I said before, the academic differences are not a concern. Under socialism, who directs the production and distribution? A select few. Because there are multiple parties, coalitions are formed in order to rule. When the coalition is formed, it negates the representative attributes of a Democracy or a Republic. Given that, Socialism and Oligarchy (and Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, and all the other isms) are interchangeable. If you watched the clip and you expect to debate me, it would behoove you to at least understand it. It explained how it considers all totalitarian forms as the same. I have no argument with that clip’s intent. The confusion comes in trying to keep the definitions of all the other flavors of socialism (or Oligarchy) separate. You lose focus of the point. Again, it’s not the differences but what makes them the same. They all approach 100% control over the people.

Fine it's not for you. Doesn't make it evil. Is New Zealand a soul crushing totalitarian hell hole? No? Well I guess social policies aren't so horrible.

Didn’t say it did but I’m not the one calling it evil. Our Founding Fathers did that. Not “crushing totalitarian hell” but on that path and the US is beginning to follow that very same path. Sort of a *killing us softly with his benevolent song*. You seem to think that it has to be at 100% before calling it evil? It just has to be on the path. Because it tends to lean toward 100% within time.

...so Republics are magic? No...just no. Republics just like every other form of government can become an oligarchy. Just look at the Roman Republic, Republic of Venice, and South Africa.

Only you may think it’s magic. But a Republic can become an Oligarchy. That’s why it takes an active public to keep it from slipping into Oligarchy. The rule of law prevents one man from taking control. Obama has been very active at positioning his pieces to make that fundamental change to the system in his second term.

...no it is not...at all. Again read the definition of socialism. Please read it. Because I don't think you have.

Instead of being closed minded and hung up on definitions, of which you have been told it is not of importance here, try understanding what is being said here. This is not rocket science. Trying to defend Socialism by setting it apart from other authoritarian types of rule is not distracting.

Unless you can provide documentation of the Founding Fathers decrying the evils of socialism (again read the definition) than the idea that they were trying to get away from it is a myth. It's just you using revisionist history to try and give basis to your own political views.

I don’t have to. Another poster already did.

You have established no such thing. Rome, Venice, South Africa. Historical fact has established an oligarchy can be a republic. Hell swing a dead cat in these forums and you'll hit someone who thinks the current US is an oligarchy.

I don’t need to give a dissertation to establish that. A Republic can become an Oligarchy but at that point, it is no longer a Republic. I.e., the two are mutually exclusive. However, there is a transition period (of indeterminate length of time) and that is where the US finds itself, in that transition period. It has lasted for about a century and is still struggling from crossing over all together. Too many are suffering the slings and arrows. It’s time to reawaken American Exceptionalism.

The Founding Fathers were among those who viewed current groups as sub-humans. As a group they has no problems with slavery and massacring Natives. They might have been better than many men of that time but they were far from saints who were selflessly trying to better mankind.

They were men of their times meaning they lived with the sensibilities of that time. To the Founding Fathers of the South, slaves were their economic base. Slavery had been a long accepted endeavor in world history. Only until the mid 19th Century did slavery turn into a bad thing. The Founding Fathers in the North eventually set their slaves free. Probably for two reasons. One was the beginning of industrialization and two, because they were beginning to believe the words they put down on paper. When you sit down and study the period in which the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. were written, it is truly inspiring and transformational.

I'll just make one last point because I see this going no where. Raven I get that you think socialism is scary. That if the US takes on some socialist policies it'll become a nightmare. Well let me tell you, I'm living your nightmare. And it's not that bad. Better than what's in the US in my view. But I don't think that system is evil. And neither is the socialist system practices throughout the Western world.

Well, at least that was honest. But the whole key to what you just said is “And it's not that bad”. That is very telling. It tells me that you have given up. You have given up your Rights to your government. Just because it is the Western World and apparently at this point in time is benevolent. I can guarantee you that your government cannot guarantee that it won’t infringe on your Rights at any time. That is the basis of the American government. Not that it guarantees our Rights but that our Rights will not be infringed upon. That’s a fundamental difference that no one else has. Only a Republic can make that promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks RavenHawk, that's right.. intestate system was ,basically, defense contracts. I didn't think of that part , i was just curious as to your views on how public funds are spent... and if you would view that endeavor as too "SOCIALISTIC!* :) Otherwise, I find myself agreeing with nearly everything you have to say today!

But, i don't agree on your equating "entitlements" with "dole" . 'Entitlements' are paid into by the people who will , hopefully, get something for THIER MONEY.

They are called entitlements because the person that has PAID in is entitled to it. Social Security and Medicare are not welfare or dole ?

Your point about the words "entitlement" and "dole" is right on!

There is a large effort to make those words synonyms and they are not.

I was forced by law to play the social security game starting in 1963. So, I am entitled to get my money back, plus interest.

There are many flaws with the SS system, no doubt, but I'm entitled to get my money back. Giving the word a negative connotation is not fair, and seems to reflect some sort of agenda.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, i don't agree on your equating "entitlements" with "dole" . 'Entitlements' are paid into by the people who will , hopefully, get something for THIER MONEY.

They are called entitlements because the person that has PAID in is entitled to it. Social Security and Medicare are not welfare or dole ?

A couple of things here. Yes, you pay in but Congress can and will raid it and it (FICA/SS) is included as part of the budget. Plus, what you get in SS is calculated on your last two years of income, not what you pay in. At that point, Entitlements become dole.

If you start working at 15 not even making minimum wage but by the time you are 60, you are now making $100K but two years before you retire, you lose that job so you have to go work at a place that only pays $30k for the next two years. Your SS check is then calculated from that $30K job. Now let’s say you never worked a day in your life, at 65 you get hired with a $100K job. Work there for two years then retire. Your SS check is then calculated at $100K. If you live longer than two years, you are stealing from someone else. Now these are extremes but it goes to show you that Entitlements are really dole and it’s not really your money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t need to give a dissertation to establish that. A Republic can become an Oligarchy but at that point, it is no longer a Republic. I.e., the two are mutually exclusive. However, there is a transition period (of indeterminate length of time) and that is where the US finds itself, in that transition period. It has lasted for about a century and is still struggling from crossing over all together. Too many are suffering the slings and arrows. It’s time to reawaken American Exceptionalism.

Just going to quickly touch on a few points here. So if a Republic becomes an Oligarchy it is no longer a Republic but if a Socialist state becomes an Oligarchy it's still Socialist? Bit of a double standard there is it not? As for American Exceptionalism every country think it's exceptional. The US is hardly unique in this area. And to be honest the position that the US needs to spread freedom throughout the world tends to annoy other countries.

Well, at least that was honest. But the whole key to what you just said is “And it's not that bad”. That is very telling. It tells me that you have given up. You have given up your Rights to your government. Just because it is the Western World and apparently at this point in time is benevolent. I can guarantee you that your government cannot guarantee that it won’t infringe on your Rights at any time. That is the basis of the American government. Not that it guarantees our Rights but that our Rights will not be infringed upon. That’s a fundamental difference that no one else has. Only a Republic can make that promise.

Given up? No. The only thing telling about my statement is admitting that the system I live under isn't perfect, because no system is. And you cannot guarantee that your rights won't be infringed upon at any time because the American government has done just that several times in its past. When it comes to protecting the rights of the citizen the US is on the same level as Canada, Britain, New Zealand, France, Norway, etc etc etc. Each has its own version of the constitution and bill of rights. The US is not special in this regard but just like every other Western country.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.