| poeTV | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook
Desc:Some new and exotic crazy from the Rand camp.
Category:News & Politics
Tags:Libertarians, obamacare, Health Care reform, Rand Paul, fuck you i got mine
View Ratings
Register to vote for this video
Buy Song:iTunes - Amazon

People Who Liked This Video Also Liked:
A lost dog finds his way home
Best Axl Rose Clip EVER!
Pastor calls for concentration camps for gays, horrible woman tries to defend it to Anderson Cooper.
Ronald Sings the Song That Ends the World
Video from 07/21/13: My death approaches
Miss Fat and Beautiful
Dredd - Hot Shot
Bava Bava Panneeru rhyme - 3D Animation Telugu Nursery rhymes for children
Some Christian views on gay marriage
Alan Moore: Glycon and Fundamentalism
Comment count is 34
theSnake - 2015-05-22
Im sorry is what hes saying wrong or what are we making fun of here
theSnake - 2015-05-22
The girl behind him made a funny face lo

Smitty - 2015-05-23
Yes, he is wrong to a degree that becomes comedy. We are laughing at the bizarre hyperbole of a high profile politician.

Cena_mark - 2015-05-23
Hyperbole seems to be the Republicans main offering. The 2012 "if Obama is reelected" hyperbole really took the cake. Then there's the gay rights = Christian persecution hyperbole.

theSnake - 2015-05-22
so because you choose a profession that peoples live depend on you should work for free, teachers unions take note!
SolRo - 2015-05-22
We have universal(ish) fire and police protection...not sure, but those guys seem to get paychecks.

Cena_mark - 2015-05-23
Where in the world are doctors forced to work, and for free?

EvilHomer - 2015-05-23
I understand what you're getting at, theSnake, but I think the counter-argument that would be made here, is that the doctors aren't actually going to be forced to work FOR FREE. They will still be paid, it's simply that they will be paid through funds extorted from everyone else in society - in much the same way a soldier, Coastie, or prisoner is compensated, despite being bound by the state. In other words, the burden of the physician's slavery will be diffused throughout society! We will all endure a *little* bit of slavery, in order to make up for the physician's conscription. (note: I am not necessarily saying _I_ endorse that argument, just that in my experience, it is the standard rationale)

And yeah, that girl's face is teh funneh. She's all like, mrrrhhhhh. Sill would, tho.

Meerkat - 2015-05-23
Up here in Canadianistan we get free health care, but only at the cost of using our medical professionals as test subjects for new medicines.

Our doctors and nurses are kept in special buildings and although the nurses are free to roam the hallways, they are forced to check into each room at some point to report to their oversees who we quaintly refer to as "patients".

Anyway the doctors have to stay in certain areas of the buildings and we don't pay them. Instead they are paid by the drug companies as test subjects for experimental medicines and also by universities for clinical trials and that sort of thing. The pay for testing from the companies is higher because the drug companies can use that pay as a deduction against their taxes so they have no problem meeting the minimum forced wage.

Sometimes you will go to see your doctor and he has some sort of weird contraption bolted to his head, or his eyes or taped up or whatever, but that's just the cost of doing business around here.

Gmork - 2015-05-22
So what does that make the defense budget? "Being ground into a fine paste"?
Xenocide - 2015-05-22
It was really awful how white people came to Rand Paul's ancestral homeland, put him on a boat and forced him against his will to get a PHD.
Hooker - 2015-05-23
Universal healthcare is Hitler.
Hooker - 2015-05-23

RabbitMountain - 2015-05-23
Also your a doctor

Meaning you are FORCED to have relevant qualifications and abide by strict rules about how you go about your work.

Also since when does universal healthcare mean forced work? You apply for a position at a hospital/clinic, then you abide by the conditions set by your employer. Just like any other wage slave job; you can quit.
That guy - 2015-05-23
maybe if he was worried about ANYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD being a wage slave, he'd have some ground to stand on here

Bort - 2015-05-23
New rule, if you're a libertarian (or claim to be), you have no business discussing rights. Libertarians recognize only individual liberties and treat them as absolutes, leading to dumbass conclusions.

This country runs on CIVIL liberties, which means we try to respect individual liberties but also recognize the need to compromise and look for the least onerous middle ground.

Also, none of our founding documents mentioned "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
EvilHomer - 2015-05-23
Rand Paul is not a libertarian. His father was, sort of (technically wasn't, but his voting record and his political work were pretty solid), although so far his son hasn't shown himself to be anything more than a vaguely lukewarm Republican. Some people speculate that this is simply Rand's way of "playing the game to get his foot in the door", but we all said that about Obama, too, and look how that ended up.

Anyway, Mr Bort, four things. 1) you are going to have to go into more detail about your claims re: civil liberties, and your belief that they conflict with individual rights. Define both terms, as you use them, and show precisely why you believe they are in conflict.

2) I must ask you to explain why it is you think people should no longer be allowed to discuss their rights, If that's actually *true*, then liberalism is far deader than even the most pessimistic of observers have claimed. (however, I suspect that when you said that, you were just playing a character)

3) LLatPoH was mentioned in the Deceleration of Independence, which was as founding a founding document as you can get. Regardless, should one be assuming, based upon your dismissive attitude towards the famous phrase, that you do not agree with the doctrine of LLatPoH? Do you honestly think that the government is no longer responsible for ensuring that individual citizens have a right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of their own happiness? And if so, why?

And finally, 4) historically, constitutional rights have been entirely about delineating the limits of state authority; spelling out precisely what the state can do to people, and forcing the state to justify why this new power should be accepted by the workers over whom the state claims coercive authority. What are your thoughts on that?

Bort - 2015-05-23
Individual liberties: I get to do what I want. Falls apart as a workable model of society as soon as your society expands to two people, because the two of them could want conflicting things.

Civil liberties: All people have rights, and where they come into conflict, society strives to come up with a solution that impinges as little as possible on any party's rights.

As applies to this particular case: an "individual rights" proponent (read: a retard like Rand Paul) might claim that one person's right to health care means that doctors lose all their rights. But a society that runs on civil rights recognizes that, while all citizens may have some kind of right to medical care, doctors also have the right to live their lives, including going home at the end of the day or even taking a day off like any non-slave can do.

As applies to the Civil Rights Act, another one Rand Paul takes issue with: the right of people to participate in our economy is more important than the right of people to deny other people opportunities in the name of bigotry. Bigots lose that battle because they are shitty people, and recognized as such by law.

Sanest Man Alive - 2015-05-23
Knowing what an avid fact-checker you are, Homer, I am shocked, SHOCKED I say, that you don't recognize that the Declaration of Independence is technically not, in fact, a "founding document" of any sort. To be fair, it did set in motion a series of events significant to all of us, and it certainly has a bunch of pretty and very important signatures, but it is, in essence, a much more eloquent and less insane version of your average freeman-on-the-land's anti-taxation screed, and like said screed, it doesn't actually lay out the groundwork for any sort of self-government beyond "well, not what YOU'RE doing, that's for certain!" Now if you want to dig Life, Liberty and all the rest out of our Constitution, or even just the Articles of Confederation for partial credit, that ball's in your court, but please recognize the difference between a protest and a plan.

Old_Zircon - 2015-05-23
You do all realize that the modern, western concept of the "individual" didn't even exist yet when those documents were written, right? When we talk about the individual/individualism today we're using a 20th century concept that was, to a large degree, deliberately cultivated by the advertising industry. The idea of the individual existing in isolation from or even opposition to the social collective isn't even close to universal, historically or culturally.

EvilHomer - 2015-05-23
So where are you getting your ideas on what constitutes a civil liberty, versus what constitutes an individual liberty? Because in my experience, neither definition you have offered is correct; correct-'ish', and you do make at least one VERY intelligent observation (more on that in a few minutes), but some of the things here, I'd disagree with.

In fact, ALL individual liberties are, and always have been, measured against the liberties of other people; that is the very essence of government, at least at it's most liberal (the very essence of state is coercion and the monopolization of power, but I don't want to get off topic, so nvm). Does my right to happiness mean that I can intrude upon your right to life and liberty by raping you; no, course not, hence the need for government mediation between our individual liberties. Hence the need for the state to decide what DOES and DOES NOT constitute an "individual right" - to head off conflicts between things we, as individuals, might like to do. Meanwhile, *Civil liberties* (which are related to, but not always interchangeable with, the term "civil rights"), refer specifically to those safeguards put in place to protect citizens against governmental authority. They are the freedoms that our government cannot abridge - things like our freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, our right to bear arms, our right to free speech. Civil liberties are a special subset of rights which refer, simply and solely, to the individual's Constitutionally-defined relationship towards the hierarchical power structure which claims rulership over him.

>> might claim that one person's right to health care means that doctors lose all their rights.

Not so! Even a slave does not lose ALL his rights; of course he is allowed to sleep at night. He is allowed to eat food, sing songs, raise a family. He might even be allowed free healthcare, if and when his masters decide he needs it!

Congressman's Paul's point is about duties. Rights imply duties - if you have a "right" to something, what that really means is that everyone else has a "duty" not to take certain actions against you e.g. if you have a right to life (which is an individual right), then I, as a fellow member of society, have a duty not to try and kill you. If you have a right to free speech (civil liberty), then the government has a duty not to censor you - although private institutions MAY still censor you, as the right to free speech is a civil liberty, and only applies to the state (yes, John Holmes Mothfucker, civil liberties do not forbid you from blocking comments on your Youtube page)

A "right" to healthcare would mean that physicians suddenly have "a duty" to provide healthcare services, and any failure on their part to provide this service would mean that they are in violation, not just of the strict professional and ethical codes of conduct they are already held to, but of *violating your individual rights*. This is a insignificant complication. Now, Congressman Paul is NOT saying that people should not have access to healthcare, as it is entirely possible for a person to have access to healthcare without it being formally defined as "a right", just as it is entirely possible to have access food, air, internet, even sex, without those things being formally defined as rights, either. This is not about access to healthcare, but rather, about the legal, ethical, and political ramifications of granting "rights" status to healthcare.


Going back to your original statements about the conflict between individual rights {paragraphs 2 and 3, 'Bort" post beginning with "I do what I want" above} - and please bear with me on this, Mr Bort, because this next bit is important - the point being raised by Congressman Paul, is precisely what you were talking about in the comment above!!! That is to say, the individual right in question - the proposed "right to healthcare" - comes directly into conflict with the individual rights of other people in society (in this case, the individual rights of physicians). As YOU YOURSELF SAID, it is therefore "on society (...) to come up with a solution that impinges as little as possible on any party's rights"!

Ironically enough, Mr Bort, Rand Paul is saying exactly the same thing as what you just said above. You and he are in total agreement, and working towards the same purpose!

EvilHomer - 2015-05-23
Sanest Man -


You are free, of course, to argue with the Library of Congress about what is and is not meant by the term "Founding Document", but the real question here is neither one of terminology nor of semantics, but rather about the *meaning* behind the statement: "they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness".

Specifically, whether Mr Bort, or anyone else for that matter (you, I suppose?), still believes those words to be true, and if not, then a) why, and b) how could one support a right to healthcare without first acknowledging a right to life and to the pursuit of happiness (assuming one does support the proposed right to healthcare, of course)?

The way I see it, any "right to healthcare" would have to first be derived from a recognition of an individual's right to both life and to the pursuit of happiness; without both of these rights respected and solidly in place, then there is absolutely no reason for anyone to care about the state of your health. You're sick and dying? Well, if you don't have an inalienable right to life, then what business is it of ours, why should we care?

Bort - 2015-05-23
"Ironically enough, Mr Bort, Rand Paul is saying exactly the same thing as what you just said above. You and he are in total agreement, and working towards the same purpose!"

No, we're saying opposite things. Rand is saying that "healthcare as a right means that doctors lose their rights", while I am saying "fuck no, that's retarded".

EvilHomer - 2015-05-23
Well, yes, but at worst, it's one of the better perks of slavery.

Also, why can't people just call it "state-managed healthcare"? "Universal" healthcare is certainly a better term (i.e. more accurate, less bullshitty) than "free" healthcare, but from a linguistic standpoint it is still very problematic. I think most, if not all, people are in favour of having "universal" healthcare; the question that must be debated is, what is the best way to go about realizing this goal? Using the term "universal healthcare" in lieu of what you really mean (state-managed healthcare) is simply sophistry: an attempt to circumvent rational discourse and frame the debate as being between two starkly delineated, packaged deals (which is not true at all). To illustrate this point, what if Congressman Paul et al began referring to their own anti-governmental position as "universal healthcare"? How would we react to this? Why?
Binro the Heretic - 2015-05-23
If you want to be truly free, you can become a hermit and live in some wilderness were there are no people around to tell you what to do.

Bowing to pressure from neighbors is the dues you pay for being part of a society.

Deal with it.
EvilHomer - 2015-05-23
>> Bowing to pressure from neighbors is the dues you pay for being part of a society.

From neighbours, or from powerful men you've never met, who live in a city your neighbours will never visit? Is the bowing done voluntarily, or is the bowing coerced? And if you do decide to opt-out, can you *really* just go off and live in the woods, without being bothered by people who want you to "rejoin" society? The experiences of hippies, survivalists, and free-men-on-the-land seem to suggest otherwise, not unless you're lucky enough to annex your own SeaLand.

Can a contract be signed for you, without your consent? If it is, is that contract valid?

EvilHomer - 2015-05-23
Besides which, nobody is suggesting that we abrogate all social contracts, at least here in this video. All that is going on is a discussion about the what the *terms* of our social contract should be, and about the deeper ramifications of certain assumptions we make whilst drafting this contract. This is the sort of debate that *always* happens in the democratic process; the self-reflective rational discourse that democracy itself is predicated upon.

What you are addressing here is not a simple binary, Mr Binro. Similar to what I mentioned in my OP post above, this is not a case of two starkly delineated, packaged deals: either Absolute Freedom, or Whatever it is Congressman Paul is Currently Against. On the contrary, there are many positions that can be taken here, and no-one, certainly not arch-conservative politico Paul, is advocating a cartoonish, one-dimensional form of anarchy.

Corpus Delectable - 2015-05-23
It was close. If he'd have said the same exact thing 10 times, I would have signed on the dotted line. But he only said it 9 times, so no dice.

Libertarian utopia will have to come another day.
Cube - 2015-05-23
People don't have a right to water in the US?

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Doing.
StanleyPain - 2015-05-23
Republicans and their stooges need to get together and figure out whether slavery is good or bad. Whenever Obama wants to pass a law it is "like slavery", but whenever someone wants to talk about or honor the history of slaves and slavery, it was "not so bad" and "benefited black people." So which is it, dudes?
SolRo - 2015-05-23
It's both.

Schrödinger's Opportunistic Douche

PegLegPete - 2015-05-23
This is one of the most privileged people in the world, who lives off the exploitation of the environment and other people, telling us that everything in this world is done at the threat of violence.

He's describing civilization. It's kinda true - if I don't pay rent, I'm going to get evicted, and if I don't leave, the police will come and make me with the threat of violence. If I need water because I may die, I'm going to take it with violence if I have to - assuming there's water.

The absurdity lies in the obvious double standard - most people have no choice but to be forced to work for business owners or starve. Most people have no choice but to go to a doctor if they're sick, otherwise they might lose their job or die. We have largely no choice but to get water out of a tap, buy cloths in a store, or fuel our transportation with petrol. These are unwritten rules however - not "laws" - and because they are controlled by people with privilege and power, they are left unspoken of, dutifully, by politicians.

The only way to guarantee "physical comfort", in our society, is to play by the rules of those who have taken material things at threat of violence, whether that threat be backed by the government, or a private security firm - though the government is perfectly willing to do it for, say, Goldman Sachs. We live in a system where we have to beg for a job to survive; we are dependent on it, and are helpless without it, especially since most land that people could "live off" is owned by someone else.

So, if we have any humanity, or if we don't want the rich and powerful to hold all of the power - whether with violence or not - it stands to some reason that we should share, dare I say, "redistribute" some of the resources for the benefit of all. All us plebeians do provide labor at least.

Rand Paul is basically saying that might makes right, but trying to shame us/red herring with the world "slavery" so he can pretend that it's only bad when the masses demand quality of life improvements.

As an aside, look into what slaveowners wrote about wage labor.
Smitty - 2015-05-23
Ah, the convoluted psyche of the right wing libertarian, where the wealthy are conscripted slaves and the hungry are welfare kings and queens. Ayn would be proud.
Sudan no1 - 2015-05-23
I thought it was WORSE than slavery, all of this is so confusing.
Register or login To Post a Comment

Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement