Ok, first off - you insulted the Amish. Unlike you, I actually have met and known Amish and Mennonite people.... and they dont typically "die at 30", have 12 kids, or live in "shacks". Sure, they have a different lifestyle than you or I, but I have found them to be polite, industrious, clever in the application of technology (yeah they live "off grid" and have at time seemingly odd religious regulations about tech, but that doesnt mean they are primitives... you should see some of the innovative steam powered heat pumps, or greenhouse cooling systems they have engineered.) and generally healthy. Their agriculture practices help keep them such, using time tested methods for producing and preserving food combined with an active lifestyle.

Your insulting them simply because they have a different world view than you, simply highlights a high degree of arrogance and ignorance.

-

Next, your misuse of hierarchy of needs. You are trying to seriously say that people do not participate in civic life unless they are full and perfectly healthy? Pick up a history book sometime, I beg of you. I would however agree that govt should facilitate the ability of the populace to be full and healthy - I just think your means are ineffective, and your presentation and the way you advocate those means even worse.

-

You try to say I would deny people these basics? I would deny people nothing. Why would I wish to interfere with other people obtaining such things? You seem to equate not wanting to abdicate my own moral obligation, and instead transfer it to a large Federal Govt as denial of service. Obviously, this is a fallacy.

-

Going even further.. you try to assert that I think healthcare is slavery? Your lack of reading and comprehension skills are showing again. I said and say that using violence to force provisioning of said services arbitrarily based on mob opinion is slavery. For you to take it a step further and claim that this is voter suppression suggestions you do not know the working definition of the word "suppression".

-

Public highways are a bad analogy for several reasons.

1) The original intent was military. So they serve a larger purpose than just convenience.

2) Highways are largely, and should be, paid for with usage fees and taxes. Things like costs of drivers licenses, car plates, and etc. You mostly can, and *should be able to* opt out of the bulk of those expenses. It actually is possible to not own a car. Transportation companies pay large fees for transporting good on highways, which is fine.

-

Now, at the end of your post you get into the good stuff. Suddenly the type of health care you are talking about goes from providing all services to all people.... to "not letting people bleed in the streets".

Previously, it had all been about good or poor general health. Now it is suddenly an emotional appeal regarding acute trauma? So which is it? Cant you at least maintain some sort of consistency for one short post? Or are you actually incapable of discerning the difference between a societal mentality of not letting people bleed to death.... and a massive Govt apparatus that forces the provision of care for all, even long term self-inflicted ills as you were previously advocating in your posts?

Talk about disingenuous.

But still, there is a difference between the things an individual has a *right* to and the things one is generally morally obligated to provide. However, you seem to think that these things need to be dealt with at by an unaccountable FedGov , instead of by civic society.

Apparently you trust unaccountable bureaucrats, but people who would have a representative body that was accountable deal with these types of baseline standard of services - and determine locally the means to provide them - are all amoral crazies.

I find it ironic, because in my experience the lefties are most often the ones who most resent their moral obligations. They cannot bear the thought of providing to "the unwashed masses" unless they are comforted by the fact that men with guns (though they claim to hate guns) ensure that everyone else is as well. So out of their desire to offload their own responsibility onto others, they take a faux moralist position that the proper way to give back to society is by abandoning personal responsibility and simply forcing everyone to pay taxes toward a problem that "someone else now can deal with". Whereas many other people prefer to use their resources to take a personal hand in civic life and personally allocate their own resources based on their own judgement and involvement.

So, they confuse the faux morality of using violence to attempt to mold society according to their whim with taking responsibility for their own personal morality. Because it sure is a lot more convenient to grandstand on a supposed moral superiority than it is to actually take part in civic life, isn't it? Get to comfort that self-righteous ego, while still not having to pay social problems any additional thought beyond one liners that make you look good at a cocktail party - plus the added comfort that noone is getting ahead of you in life because armed thugs are making sure everyone else is "contributing" at least as much as you.

How convenient it is to be a lefty.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)