Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
Unless, of course, they have "rights" also and they don't need a license either. Is that what you're proposing?

I'm proposing that you learn a little about the Constitution. The arguments that I made are based on our country's history and the intent of those who gave us our current form of government.

I believe that I have a right to drive a car on roads built and paid for with taxes. That doesn't mean that I have a right to have someone else buy the car or gas that I use. The cost of the car and gas are dictated largely by the market, and I'm not arguing that I have a right to have the government dictate to the market what I should pay.

The same principle applies to healthcare. I have a right to the healthcare that I can afford in a free or relatively free market. I can and do advocate that some policies be enacted to control certain aspects of the market. For instance, the cost of medical malpractice is inflating the cost of healthcare. I advocate tort reform that will bring these costs back under some control so that healthcare will be more affordable. I do not advocate that doctors should be slaves of society and forced to provide people with care at a cost that doesn't compensate doctors for the efforts they made to become doctors or the work that they do as doctors.

I believe that drug use is a wrong and that it is wrong enough to warrant punishment. I don't think that there's a right to use recreational drugs.

Minors don't have the same rights as adults, so there isn't a specific right to wear blue hair to school. On the other hand, blue hair is not what's wrong with our schools. It may be a symptom, but it's not a cause. I guess you just joined the list of people who believe that their pet cause should be a law that is forced on everyone else. People who believe that their pet causes should be laws are a big part of the reason that the laws that we truly need are so hard to pass. No one trusts the government when it is seen as a vehicle to force everyone to follow some group's pet causes.

Bill

39 posted on 08/10/2004 6:45:45 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: WFTR
Congratulations! Five paragraphs and no answer to my question.

Let me try again. Are you suggesting that we also not license doctors, dentists, private & commercial airline pilots, truckers, bus drivers, boat captains, etc.?

Of course, if you wish to maintain the licensing of a certain group, I am going to ask where you get the constitutional authority to do so since, given your condescending remark, it is obvious that you know so much more about that document than I.

40 posted on 08/11/2004 6:32:39 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: WFTR

Oh, btw, drivers licenses are issued by the state in which you live, not by the federal government. What does the U.S. Constitution have to do with it?


41 posted on 08/11/2004 6:38:58 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson