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

To: slowhandluke
That's your choice, as represented by the votes of your representatives. Giving to someone in a charitable spirit should not give you any rights over the recipient.

There is no choice really. The representatives are not going to turn away people from emergency rooms. Just like they are not going to stop requiring people to have auto insurance. Your original point that a person's health imposes no liability on others is incorrect.

580 posted on 01/12/2007 4:24:56 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies ]


To: plain talk
There is no choice really. The representatives are not going to turn away people from emergency rooms. Just like they are not going to stop requiring people to have auto insurance. Your original point that a person's health imposes no liability on others is incorrect.

Sure there is choice, every two to four years. You just don't want to pay for the charity your representatives have chosen on your behalf, so you force the recipients to pay.

Just because you don't have personal, immediate choice of whether or not to extend charity to a drunk with heart trouble doesn't give you any ethical or moral basis to force the drunk to do anything other than not drive a car.

581 posted on 01/13/2007 10:06:24 AM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard work to be cynical enough in this age)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | 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