1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11003/a-petition-from-producers-of-everything-connected-with-healthcare/

A Petition from Producers of Everything Connected with Healthcare

November 9, 2009 by

Your so-called free public services are not only costly, they typically cost more than what could be provided privately. We in the private sector must survive by keeping costs low relative to revenue. You do not face this burden. FULL ARTICLE by Doug MacKenzie

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Bryan November 9, 2009 at 7:52 am


Being in a small business, even in a “pro business” state like Texas is disheartening when your livelyhood depends on working with and through local governments, much less the Federal gov’t.

Local City Hall boast of “partnering” with us and creating new law monthly, leading the consumer from their evils to the perceived light and the infinite wisdom of the halls of gov’t.

They give awards to projects that are not even in place to boast of their wisom before economic viability.

Ooops, I am venting. Good read, Thank you.

Mike November 9, 2009 at 8:22 am

I like it, but next to the Bastiat petition it’s a bit awkward as it’s not a true literary parallel (in Bastiat’s, the claims of the “petitioners” are clearly absurd; here it is the opposite)

Wealth November 9, 2009 at 8:36 am

Mr. MacKenzie wrote:

“You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the consumer”

Dear Mr. Doug MacKenzie, I am shocked that you give credence and acknowledgement to the notion that the government is concerned with the fate of the consumer…IT IS NOT !!!

Given that the government will forcefully mandate the consumer to buy health insurance or to pay heavy fines and face prison should they refuse should be enough to convince any sane person that the government is only concerned with increasing it’s power and control.

What will happen if an individual refuses to buy health insurance and resists arrest ? The resulting fire-fight might cost the lives of police officers and medical resisters.

How can you say that the government is concerned with the fate of the consumer when it’s willing to kill the consumer should the consumer refuse to buy insurance and resists arrest ?

In the eyes of the government, the life of the consumer is worth less than his obedience to the government.

It never ceases to amaze me that libertarians assume that governments have good intentions, they don’t.

Governments have bad intentions and they are only concerned with their own fate.

Next on their agenda is to mandate every individuals to subscribe to a 401(k) and they claim there will be an “opt-out” process but we all know this process will be difficult, tricky, might cost the individual’s job because of conflict with the employer on this subject and later on the opt-out option might be cancelled.

Argentina has nationalized the retirements of individuals, it has effectively robbed the private individual retirement savings and made them national, that means the individuals no longer have access to their savings are must depend on government for pension.

By mandating individuals to subscribe to a 401(k), the government is setting a first step towards nationalizing retirement savings. What will stop then to claim a stake on normal savings later on ?

No Mr. MacKenzie, the government is not concerned with the fate of the consumer, the government is only concerned with it’s own fate.

Wake up !

Art Thomas November 9, 2009 at 8:57 am


“You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the consumer”

Mr. MacKenzie goes on to refute that statement in his article. I think MacKenzie is paraphrasing the ostensible reason that Congress gives for intervention. Read his last three paragraphs

Wealth November 9, 2009 at 10:20 am

Dear Mr. Art Thomas,

The government is never sincere when it gives ostensible reasons of good intentions masquerading their power grabbing schemes.

What irritates me from the part of libertarians is that they always come from the hypothesis that government has good intentions and from that point on, goes on to show that the outcome is always bad or miscalculated etc.

Libertarians seem oblivious to the fact that governments rarely have good intentions and most oftenly have bad intentions and that it is never their intention to calculate to find the right solution etc.

Their intention is to grab power and to control. Power and glory never calculates and never looks after the fate of it’s subjects.

This bill is an evil government takeover of our healthcare, of 1/6th of the economy and a threat against private property, against capitalism and against our privacy.

There is nothing to argue about how bad it will fail.

Libertarians should instead concentrate on the fact that this bill is an evil assault against our freedoms and property instead of wandering in the maze of it’s technicalities and functional failures.

Wealth November 9, 2009 at 10:28 am

The only thing that I hate about this bill is the mandate to buy insurance, the rest I couldn’t care less.

This bill would be powerless if there were no mandates to buy health insurance because young healthy individuals would continue to boycott health insurance.

But Pelosi and Obama will mandate that all buy health insurance in order to save their political faces and avoid a massive rebuttal from the part of the public.

If people were allowed to choose, they would continue to boycott health insurance and Pelosi and Obama would be exposed as big failures they are. To avoid such a massive national humiliation, they mandate that all buy health insurance.

How can they genuinely claim that the public option is legitimate when they force everyone without private health insurance to buy the public option ?

It will not be because it’s successful, it will be because people will not want to pay fines or go to jail.

This is outrageous and I hope that many individuals will forcefully resist those mandates.

Mandatory health insurance ? … From my cold dead hands !

Dan November 9, 2009 at 11:12 am

Interesting juxtaposition between Bastiat’s “The Candlemaker’s Petition” and this petition. I agree with Bastiat’s conclusions in his piece, and I don’t disagree with MacKenzie’s.

The irony is that MacKenzie’s arguing for the candlemakers who succeeded in petitioning to have the sun blocked, and are now mad that the government wishes to get into the candlemaking business themselves. The real solution is to let the sun shine through.

For decades, health insurance companies have successfully lobbied for legislation that stifles competition in the marketplace. The situation we now find ourselves in is as a result of their consolidation of control over the market.

We don’t need universal health care. We need to deregulate the health care market and let competition run free.

Health insurance companies can’t compete against the government, no. And as they stand now, they couldn’t compete against companies actually focused on providing quality service to the marketplace. Companies for whom profits are a reward for a job well done, not the sole goal to the detriment of all else.

Art Thomas November 9, 2009 at 11:49 am

Dear Wealth,

What you decry in some libertarians I find true in virtually all people I know: If we can just elect the right people to office they will do the right thing. My friends and family don’t question or even think about the nature of government, or its premises, etc; government exists, elections are sacred. And most were born and raised in the welfare state.

I think intentions is not the issue. Politicians pass laws and the executive executes them. Are they sincere? I know some are. It’s what people are willing to do to reach the goals they believe in. And the sad fact is that while most people would not use or threaten the use of violence to reach their objectives they can easily justify and support their political representatives who do. They hold to a double standard which many are aware of and will justify. Even Ron Paul can justify the use of violence against innocent people to get them to finance a severely limited federal government. (As I understand him he does not support anarcho-capitalism.) But Paul strikes me as someone who would give anarchy serious consideration…way down the road. Right now he’s a politician who is trying to encourage people to return to their limited government roots.

T. Ralph Kays November 9, 2009 at 12:42 pm


Where did you get the idea that most libertarians assume government has good intentions? Not from any of the libertarians I know, in the company I keep the usual opinion of politicians and government bureaucrats is such that I cannot repeat it here. However when showing the foolishness of their actions we frequently do grant them the possibility that they are acting from good intentions, not because we believe that, but because it shows that even in the best possible case they are still wrong. We believe firmly that bad ideas should be rejected because they are BAD IDEAS, not because the people proposing them are malicious in nature.

THOMAS DYCHES November 9, 2009 at 1:21 pm

Thank you Doug for emphasizing the fact that government can never be a true “competitor” in the market because of the force mechanism of taxation. Very succinctly put.

Ribald November 9, 2009 at 2:11 pm

“…But the expense of lobbying for political privileges in our deeply politicized industry is itself a burden. Despite all there is to gain in winning your favor, we as an industry can easily expend as much in lobbying costs as there is for any of us to gain.”

This is one of the reasons it’s a waste of time to argue from the perspective of entrenched, anti-competitive industry players: it’s flat-out disingenuous to plead for the mercy of the government while stuffing congress’s pockets with campaign donations and making returns thousands of times larger than the so-called burden. Case in point, the individual mandate, which guarantees tens of billions of dollars in industry revenue that they wouldn’t have gotten otherwise. That is what they lobbied for.

Sure, there are many businesses that do not seek or rely on government largess, but the article doesn’t address this. Strangely, it claims to speak on behalf of producers of “all things” related to health care, when the largest interventions of the reform bills are targeted at insurance providers. Is this just a plea on behalf of large insurance industry players pretending to be a plea on behalf of all? On context alone, I’d guess that it was.(1)

That’s why, in spite of saying many things that are true, the article lacks credibility: it’s bereft of ethos. It’s like Obama opining on the virtues of accountability in government or George Bush extolling the virtues of deficit reduction.

Did we see anything like a Petition from Producers of Everything Related to Credit in the last year?

1: “Petition on behalf of all farmers: don’t hurt potato farmers” doesn’t sound right either.

Wealth November 9, 2009 at 2:43 pm

Dear Mr. Art Thomas,

“Even Ron Paul can justify the use of violence against innocent people to get them to finance a severely limited federal government. (As I understand him he does not support anarcho-capitalism.)”

Ron paul is against taxation on all forms. He is against income taxes and against sales taxes and he would abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing.

He would fund his very limited government with tarrifs on imports.

Also, Ron Paul is pro-life in public but I strongly believe he’s pro-choice when he’s alone in his hotel room.

I realize that many politicans don’t dare to proclaim what they truly believe in.

Wealth November 9, 2009 at 2:51 pm

T. Ralph Kays,

I understand your point of view in demonstrating the absurdity of their propositions, but by concentrating on the defects of their propositions instead of the evils of the proposition, you are exposing yourself to further argumentation that the right people could change things, that the propositions could be changed, that nothing is perfect etc.

When one debates on the technicalities of propositions, he sounds like he want to form a better government instead of less government.

The problem with the present health care reform is not that it won’t work, it’s not that it will cost trillions, it’s not that it makes 1900 pages etc., it’s that it is mandatory and therefore it is evil.

If the current health care reform was voluntary, then those who are for could buy in and those who are against could stay out and there would be no evil.

The real problem is not that their ideas are defective, expensive or incalculable, it’s that they are authoritarian and violent.

I would rather that Libertarians would concentrate on those facts.

By not emphasizing on the evils of government and intentions, you look like you grant legitimacy to those institutions.

Wealth November 9, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Thomas Dyches,

The government cannot be a competitor when it forces everyone to buy health care insurance all the while “offer” a “cheaper” alternative.

Of course if everyone is forced to buy health insurance and the government offers a cheaper alternative to the existing private ones, everybody will flock to the government plan.

But that’s not my definition of success.

People who don’t wish to spend on health care insurance would rather keep their money than spending it in a government plan.

Therefore, forcing people to buy health care insurance is not competition, it’s tyranny.

Forcing insurance companies to cover everybody and deny nobody and forcing them to lower their premiums is tyranny.

If I was the owner of an insurance company, I would close business thereby denying everybody coverage.

Obama is setting his administration to massive medical revolt from insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies etc.

They won’t just petition, they will get out of business, they will close their businesses and either retire, recycle or move their business to another country.

Ohhh Henry November 9, 2009 at 3:32 pm

Simply helping out big corporations by providing amenable legislation is a pretty big motivation for this legislation. But I don’t think that it is a sufficient reason or else something like this would have been passed back in Clinton’s day.

I believe that the main purpose of this bill, the one that is responsible for the incredible urgency (read: recklessness) with which it is being passed, is the so-called “public option”.

Many of the currently uninsured are actually healthy and fit people with jobs. Every dollar that can be taken from them in the form of public health care insurance premiums is a fresh, new dollar that would not otherwise fall into the government’s hands. Since the newly insured people will have little immediate use for health care services the money can be applied to other government spending.

Of course this is just another extension to the entire Ponzi scheme that is the federal government, but remember there is no penalty of any kind for politicians or bureaucrats who run a pyramid scheme. A complete meltdown with financial collapse, revolution, etc. would be bad for them but this new legislation is intended to help push that event a little bit further into the future and increase the odds that they can run out the clock in comfort and security. Like every other government program, in its essence it is really a social security plan for the people IN government.

T. Ralph Kays November 9, 2009 at 3:38 pm


And you look like you are conceding that their ideas would work but that you are opposed only because it violates your personal moral beliefs, that makes you sound like a totalitarian.

Bruce Koerber November 9, 2009 at 4:37 pm

Dear Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin,

Please do not pile onto our struggling Constitutional Republic more burdensome invasions of our rights. The health care proposal about to be voted on by the Senate is pernicious and full of arbitrary bureaucratic stipulations that will accelerate our move towards socialism. As a tribute to the fall of the Berlin Wall please reject the proposal.

art Thomas November 9, 2009 at 6:01 pm


A tariff is a tax.

T. Ralph Kays November 9, 2009 at 8:06 pm

Wealth does have a point in that eventually freedom will only win out if it becomes generally recognised that people like Pelosi and Obama are no better than the thugs mugging helpless little old ladies in our inner cities. That such people are treated with anything less than disgust is a terrible measure of how far we are from being a free people. The problem however is distinguishing ourselves from the unkempt wild eyed fanatic standing on a street corner screaming “repent sinners”. The very meaning of the word freedom has been so corrupted that it can be claimed by any political group on the planet, only through rational and logical arguments can we once again make that word whole.

Mart Grams November 9, 2009 at 8:32 pm

Please add my name to your petition. Well-stated, well-done.

On Saturday, November 7th, a partisan majority (unless one vote by J. Cao, makes it bi-partisan) of the House of Representatives made history by passing H.R. 3962, 220-215. The so-called Affordable Health Care for America Act will be a milestone in the turning of this once-free and intellectually bright spot on this planet into a nation similiar to that of the USSR depicted in novels by Solzenitzen, Ayn Rand and Huxley.

After nearly a century of false starts, this was the first time a chamber of Congress has completely ignored a popular fervor of town meetings, polls and protests against any form of government health care. The causes of today’s problems with health care and costs are those of government interference through Medicaid and Medicare, and incessant intervention and regulations in the insurance industry. Clearly more government involvement will solve the problem. Remember Mr. Reagan said that government is the problem, never the solution.

The Principles of Jefferson, Madison and Jackson of freedom of individuals and the market solve our problems best: never perfectly just the best. The House and the Party in charge claim this bill and solution is comprehensive health insurance reform. This is an ahistoric accomplishment and an UNCONSTITUTION action.

Those Representatives who voted for this bill deserve to be reprimanded, not only by this generation, but many generations that will never taste freedom. Thanks for resisting the truth of any economic analysis: that more use of a product or service raises the price, or creates shortages. The statement that more health care will be provided at lower costs is an absolute lie, or absolute foolishness, Econ 101 students even get this right on the exam. Thanks for ignoring 1000s of previous government programs which have never worked. Unless I am wrong! Please name one that has????? There has been tremendous pressure from the “majority” party to toll the line. It will soon will be leaving office with the next election in 2010. Thus the hurry. I also want to thank those Wisconsin “representatives” for standing against their constituents’ wishes.

Those who did not vote for this bill have another opportunity to request a future for my children and grandchildren by refusing to vote in the upcoming final House vote, should one appear. And they should do so. Those who voted in favor, ask your constituents their views. All people know how they best should spend the moneys.

A vote for this bill was a vote to take from those Americans with insurance (a property right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment), expand government control over a vital aspect of private life (violations of 9-10th Amendments) and force those who choose not to, to acquire insurance. Coverage for those who do not have insurance or choose not to, will be not forthcoming; and if so, horrendously provided. All that is to come: lower standards of care, lower choices and quality for families and businesses, and $1.2 trillion to add to the deficit to our posterity.

My God, why has Congress forsaken us?

Wealth November 10, 2009 at 9:26 am

T. Ralph Kays,

“And you look like you are conceding that their ideas would work but that you are opposed only because it violates your personal moral beliefs, that makes you sound like a totalitarian.”

Good point. But I tought that libertarians were all about the moral beliefs of non-aggression regardless of the outcome of ideas and proposals. For a libertarian, non-agression is not a relativist “personal” moral belief, it is an absolute.

Given your point of view, it does seem that I come from the postulate of “Even if it would work”.

So you guys start from the postulate “Even if there are good intentions”

And I seem to start from the postulate “Even if it would work”.

How can we therefore start an argument against government involvement without postulating either of those ?

How can we start an argumentation without concedeing to either workings or intentions of those ideas ?

Is it possible ?

Wealth November 10, 2009 at 9:39 am

T. Ralph Kays,

Because, if we start from your point of view, we are accused of being utilitarians and if we start from my point of view we are accused of being moralists.

How do we start from a neutral but effective point of view ?

But I still think that libertarianism is more about a set of individualist morals than the technicalities of outcome.

Also, doesn’t freedom require to take action and accept the consequences ? Freedom can only be revealed in practice, not in theory.

Freedom is not a word, it’s a daring gesture that requires guts.

T. Ralph Kays November 10, 2009 at 11:08 am


I am not talking about utilitarianism vs moralism, I am talking about being effective in supporting our beliefs. If I simply dismiss others and their ideas as evil without explaining why or how they are evil then I am nothing but a fanatic, even if I happen to be right. Have you ever thought about your definition of freedom and compared it to the definition used by someone like Ms. Pelosi? I guarentee you that Ms. Pelosi would insist that your definition of freedom is actually a form of slavery. Why are you right and why is she wrong? If you concede that Ms. Pelosi’s plans would work (meaning make the world a better place) but you are still opposed because you view her plans as evil and you make no further argument, why would anyone listen to you? The point I am trying to make is that libertarians have built an enormous intellectual edifice that confronts these issues head on, one based on reason and logic, and it is this that makes understandable our moral stance against the actions of people like Ms. Pelosi.

Wealth November 10, 2009 at 12:51 pm

T. Ralph Kays,

I understand your dread and caution about being a fanatic, but does it really require explanation when one asks to have his private property and individual freedoms respected ?

Am I a fanatic because I want to keep my full paycheck ? Am I a fanatic because I don’t want other people to limit my medical freedoms ?

Could it be that you are fanatic about not being fanatic ?

I think that moral relativism is a slippery slope.

If someone has to explain why he feels it’s bad to be robbed, then there is no hope for mankind.

What if I point a gun at you and ask you for your money and you tell me it’s evil to rob and then I tell you that it’s your opinion, not mine ?

What could you say to justify your refusal to let me rob you if every concept of moral is relativistic and subjective ?

Okay, for you it’s okay to keep your money and for me it’s okay to rob you. So don’t be a fanatic and give me your money.

See, you can’t argument about morals or utilities without a deterministic set of guidelines outside of the realm of subjectivity.

Take science for example, math formulas must be proven by other math formulas. Such mathematicians are not fanatics.

Maybe it is this moral problem with prompts you libertarians to use the utilitarian approach. Because dealing with the health care reform on the basis of the outcome instead of on the basis of evilness of intention allows you to put aside your moral values and mine.

But I find it slippery to not take position on your morals.

You can’t rob me, it’s wrong and if you try to rob me I will fight back. So excuse me if I’m a fanatic ;-)

Wealth November 10, 2009 at 12:54 pm

“I guarentee you that Ms. Pelosi would insist that your definition of freedom is actually a form of slavery.”

Keeping my hard earned money is slavery ?

“Why are you right and why is she wrong?”

Because it’s MY hard work, MY money and NOT hers.

And since she is the one who is proposing to take away my money and my freedom, she is the one who needs to explain herself, not me.

T. Ralph Kays November 10, 2009 at 3:05 pm


You are a fanatic because you refuse to define your terms or support your position. Because you feel that you can simply pronounce something ‘good’ or ‘evil’ and that is all there is to it. Because you refuse to understand that it is necessary to show the difference between your definitions, assumptions and arguments and those of Ms. Pelosi. By the way, in all honesty, she supports her position better than you support yours.
I am not using moral relativism when I say that it is necessary to establish ones beliefs on reason and logic, quite the opposite.
You may not have to explain why it feels bad to be robbed, but you do have to define what constitutes robbery and defend your position. The entire problem is that Ms. Pelosi and friends have successfully convinced a lot of people that what they are doing does not fall under the definition of robbery. You will not convince those people otherwise by simply saying nuh-uh. Every time you make one of these accusations against Ms. Pelosi and friends they simply respond that what they are doing is not in fact robbery, or coercion, that you are using these words improperly, or applying them to obvious exceptions, or any number of other obfuscations.
If you are going to accuse people of being evil it is incumbent on you to show what they are doing that is evil, how it is evil and what the alternative is. No person will, nor should they, accept a pronouncement of evil without any explanation behind it.
The saddest part of this discussion is that you apparantly don’t know why you believe in freedom, you just do.

T. Ralph Kays November 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm


“Because it’s MY hard work, MY money and NOT hers.”
That is not an argument, it is just a statement. She might just say to you “prove it” and dismiss you altogether.
More likely she will say that you live in a society from which you receive countless benefits and that by not paying your fair share you are the thief. Sadly many people would be fooled by this argument and support her in locking you in prison for your ‘theft’. If you are satisfied with simply saying nuh-uh to these people I wish you luck, personally I prefer being able to show exactly how their argument is wrong.

T. Ralph Kays November 10, 2009 at 7:51 pm


“But I find it slippery to not take position on your morals.”
Excuse me but you don’t know what you are talking about. I take definite positions on morals, how is being able to define my terms, rationally show the source of my morals and logically defend my position somehow “slippery”? I think what is slippery is thinking you can make moral pronouncements and expect people to respect your position. I did not say that the libertarian belief in non-agression was a relativistic “personal” moral belief, I said that you wanted people to accept your beliefs as absolute just because they were yours. You are the one who brought up moral relativism, I never suggested anything like that.

newson November 10, 2009 at 8:56 pm

to t. ralph kays:
i’m sorry i don’t follow you. if you accept the non-aggression principle as your starting premise, then what matter that a government plan be sensible or otherwise, in terms of achieving its stated objectives?

forcibly amputating a finger is less disfiguring than a leg, but shouldn’t this always be prefaced by decrying the surgery, period.

T. Ralph Kays November 10, 2009 at 9:41 pm

Do you not need to define what you mean by “non-agression”? Do you not have to explain once it is defined how it would work? Do you not have to show how the government policy violates “non-agression”? Do you not have to explain why the government does not get an exemption for “the greater good”? Why do you think it is ok to simply assert wrongdoing on someones part, without any proof?
The libertarian arguments are essential to showing how, where, and why the governments policies violate the non-agression policy.

newson November 10, 2009 at 10:30 pm

yes, i agree that these assertions need elaboration to win others over. like “wealth”, i felt that panning “bad” ideas, was somehow insinuating that “good” ones were ok. i apologize.

Wealth November 11, 2009 at 7:40 am

T. Ralph Kays,

No offense sir but I feel you are over-relativizing.

If you punch a random stranger in the face, he will instinctly punch you back without bothering about giving any philosophical explanations on non-agression.

Agression, violence is simple:
The use of force to compell a behavior which would not arise by itself.

So in a sense, even persuasion, charm, seduction or cunning could be seen as agression but I will not go that far. I will stick with physical force.

Why would one need to justify and define philosphical traits in order to defend his freedom, his integrity and his property ?

Surely you would not want someone to assault or rob you, surely you don’t need a post-doctorate explanation on non-agression to defend yourself and surely you won’t even justify yourself when you defend yourself.

Wealth November 11, 2009 at 7:41 am

T. Ralph Kays,

Does it really need proof to show that robbing and assaulting is wrong ?

Don’t you have any sense of private property ?

Must private property be proven and explained ?

What if the opposing party disagrees after all the explanation and continues to rob and assault ?

If the opposing party has no notion of private property and individual freedom, no amount of explanation will work and only brute force will work.

T. Ralph Kays November 11, 2009 at 9:06 am


Why are you argueing that it is wrong to argue? You have not bothered to listen to anyone on this blog and I don’t think you know what the word relative means. If you think that you will ever establish a free society SOLELY by the use of force you are sadly mistaken.

Wealth November 11, 2009 at 10:51 am

T. Ralph Kays,

“Why are you argueing that it is wrong to argue?”
Because it should be obvious to everyone that initiation of force, (e.g. robbing and killing) is wrong. If we need to argue about that and if you will start saying that those are my values not yours, then there is no hope.

When it comes to complicated policy, argueing is fine.

But when it comes to things as simple as robbery, why do you feel that one should explain himself about why it’s wrong to rob ?

You just want to argue and disprove my point, we can’t get any further.

So what is your point ? That the “evilness” of killing and robbing is a matter of subjective point of view ?

Everybody do what he wishes ? Isn’t that might is right ?

You are the one who is advocating force by saying there is no absolute morals. If there is no morals, then there is only force.

T. Ralph Kays November 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm


When you learn to read and the hallucinogenic drugs wear off get back to me, because at this point nothing you are saying has anything to do with anything I have said.

Wealth November 11, 2009 at 3:48 pm

T. Ralph Kays,

You are claiming that I should justify why robbing and killing is wrong.

You are the crazy one, not me.

T. Ralph Kays November 11, 2009 at 10:00 pm


Thanks for illustrating my previous point.

Wealth November 12, 2009 at 10:01 am

T. Ralph Kays,

“Thanks for illustrating my previous point.”

What point ? You are the one who needs to explain why I should justify that robbing and killing is wrong.

How is taxation and mandatory health insurance any different than street mugging. Just because it was decided by congress and voted upon by millions of people doesn’t make it right.

Why should I justify that it is wrong ?

How does it make me “crazy” ?

You are the one who lost this argument, not me.

T. Ralph Kays November 12, 2009 at 12:19 pm


There is no need for you to continue proving my last point, you have illustrated it perfectly already.

Wealth November 12, 2009 at 1:08 pm


“There is no need for you to continue proving my last point, you have illustrated it perfectly already.”

In your dreams.

Why should I have to justify that taxes and mandates are wrong ? Why can’t this be obvious by itself ? Why should I give a definition of non-agression ? Shouldn’t that be self-obvious ?

But then again, you won’t answer that question won’t you. Because you know you can’t answer it.

T. Ralph Kays November 12, 2009 at 1:21 pm

Really, you are going overboard in your attempts to prove me right, it really isn’t necessary, just because you have the reading comprehension of a third grader doesn’t mean everyone on this site does. The vast majority of people here can read and understand what I actually said on their own.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: