Universal Healthcare | Politics | The Libertarian Atheist

You must be logged in to post

Forum

Politics

Universal Healthcare

Page: 1 2

User

Post

2:06 am
August 29, 2009

mdr

posts 175

Print this Post

Post edited 2:08 am – August 29, 2009 by mdr

I believe that the grand majority of proponents of a social healthcare system in the United States are well meaning. Though I think that they, for the most part, over look the broader consequences of such a system.

The true crux of the argument shouldn't be "what is humane and what is not?" The true crux of the argument should be based on rights. The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights has this to say:

Article 25. Section 1:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Ignoring the welfare, we are well travelled down that road indeed regardless of my displeasure, perhaps the argument could be made that healthcare is in fact a right, though the consequences of this particular right frightens me.

I believe that the word "health" could be seen as a kind of slanted euphemism for "body". If not for the body, what purpose would health and wellness serve? If not for the body, what else could represent an individual person? If you own a gun, does it not fall upon you to maintain and clean that gun? If you own property, is it not your job (if you so choose) to maintain it? What about your house? If it became the job of the state to clean and maintain your house, could you still rightly call it your own? What about your gun? Property? My fear is that if the responsibility for your health falls upon the state, it would in fact negate many of your rights. A home, a gun, or property is not yours if you can't rightly dispose of it. Would we not expect any organization to protect it's assets and responsibilities to avoid the otherwise costly side-effects? If you cannot dispose of your own body as you will, for better or worse, what other rights to it do you have? In which way could it still be called yours if you can't do with it whatever you see fit? I don't believe you could. If your body is no longer yours, are you still an individual?

Princeton's Definition of Slave

a person who is owned by someone

If the state is allowed to own your body and decide for you what you will do with it, they not only control your health, they control your body and, for all intents and purposes, your whole person. You are by definition a slave.

So I ask you, fellow forum members, what is your opinion of Universal Healthcare and the right to healthcare in general?

"Don't believe in the two big G's"

7:10 pm
September 20, 2009

Philosophiate

Providence, RI

posts 3

Print this Post

I concur with everything you remarked about the philosophical implications of universal healthcare. I would add that implementing such a system would be one among other forms of systematic coercion (i.e. taxes, mandatory schooling, etc.). Not to mention that its support largely rests on emotivist claims.

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." - Frederic Bastiat "Without deviation progress is not possible." -Frank Zappa "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." -Richard Dawkins

12:49 am
September 30, 2009

RestrictedAccess

posts 28

Print this Post

While you make it sound worse than I believe it could be, your point does remind me of an article I once read a year or two back, about Japan requiring those who participate in the government's health care program to maintain a certain weight, lest they lose their coverage. While I'm sure their system is nothing like ours is intended to be, judging by how the government has already been making power grabs when it comes to the health of OUR bodies (even if it's at the expense of another's rights) I wouldn't trust the government with my health care.

I don't remember who said it, but what they said was the best statement I've heard about this issue. The gist of it was: "Everything our government touches seems to fall apart – and yet we want place our health care in their hands?"

I submit to you, sir, that there is no God, because everything came from pudding.

12:10 pm
October 5, 2009

mdr

posts 175

Print this Post

RestrictedAccess said:

While you make it sound worse than I believe it could be, your point does remind me of an article I once read a year or two back, about Japan requiring those who participate in the government's health care program to maintain a certain weight, lest they lose their coverage. While I'm sure their system is nothing like ours is intended to be, judging by how the government has already been making power grabs when it comes to the health of OUR bodies (even if it's at the expense of another's rights) I wouldn't trust the government with my health care.

I don't remember who said it, but what they said was the best statement I've heard about this issue. The gist of it was: "Everything our government touches seems to fall apart – and yet we want place our health care in their hands?"

Love the quote, thanks for that, very funny. I do believe that once you give up your responsibility for something, it stops being yours. Now, that is not to say that it couldn't take time for the full ramifactions to take effect. . . the whole system could start out being quite pleasant and help a LOT of people, that's the part that scares me. It becomes that much harder to be rid of.

"Don't believe in the two big G's"

12:11 pm
October 5, 2009

mdr

posts 175

Print this Post

Post edited 12:46 pm – October 5, 2009 by mdr

Philosophiate said:

I concur with everything you remarked about the philosophical implications of universal healthcare. I would add that implementing such a system would be one among other forms of systematic coercion (i.e. taxes, mandatory schooling, etc.). Not to mention that its support largely rests on emotivist claims.

Those driven by emotions would side with us, if only they had a broader perspective of the subject, me thinks.

"Don't believe in the two big G's"

8:48 am
October 17, 2009

Kultabugi

Finland

posts 13

Print this Post

Also the banning of drugs can also be justifyid on universal healthcare. As we would all have to pay for the misuse of drugs in a socialized health care system. In a private system we could just legalize drugs and nobody would have to pay for other peoples mistakes including alcoholics and smokers or obese people.

Live Free or Die!

5:33 pm
October 17, 2009

Homunclus

posts 11

Print this Post

Post edited 6:11 pm – October 17, 2009 by Homunclus

mdr said:

My fear is that if the responsibility for your health falls upon the state, it would in fact negate many of your rights. A home, a gun, or property is not yours if you can't rightly dispose of it. Would we not expect any organization to protect it's assets and responsibilities to avoid the otherwise costly side-effects? If you cannot dispose of your own body as you will, for better or worse, what other rights to it do you have? In which way could it still be called yours if you can't do with it whatever you see fit? I don't believe you could. If your body is no longer yours, are you still an individual?

If the state is allowed to own your body and decide for you what you will do with it, they not only control your health, they control your body and, for all intents and purposes, your whole person. You are by definition a slave.

National health care is optional. You can still go to the private if you wish. Also, even if you use national health care that doesn't mean the state gets to do what they want with your body.

First of all, the state has really no say, its the doctors that treat you (who granted are public workers) who make the decisions. Secondly, medical ethics don't suddenly get thrown out the window, you still have about as many rights as you have in the private. No one can force you to take a procedure you don't want to

11:11 pm
October 17, 2009

mdr

posts 175

Print this Post

Homunclus said:

National health care is optional. You can still go to the private if you wish. Also, even if you use national health care that doesn't mean the state gets to do what they want with your body.

First of all, the state has really no say, its the doctors that treat you (who granted are public workers) who make the decisions. Secondly, medical ethics don't suddenly get thrown out the window, you still have about as many rights as you have in the private. No one can force you to take a procedure you don't want to

National health care has yet to be established so we haven't a clue as to what it will look like when it is finalized.

It is not logical to trust that everyone will do the right thing all of the time. In fact, it is a lot more logical to assume the opposite. It is not fair to say, this (a) will be ok because these people over here (b) will never leverage their advantage. It is safer to assume that, if it can happen, in a given system, it will happen eventually. It is much much better to keep (b) the hell away from (a) completely.

Holding free medical care as an axe, the wielder will be given a great deal of power. Power will be exerted, perhaps not today, perhaps not in our generation, but it will. The systems that we build today will lead to much broader effects in the future.

The state would be granting the power to treat you to your public worker doctors but somehow the state doesn't have any sway (according to you) over your treatment?

Homunclus said:

. . . No one can force you to take a procedure you don't want to

Well, then all my fears in the world are pacified, since no one can apply force upon me, ever. All my reasons for being anti-authoritarian are illogically founded and I apologize. Since I no longer have any reason to be Libertarian or Classical Liberal, thanks to your revelation, I suspect I can just go ahead and shut these forums down. Laugh

"Don't believe in the two big G's"

12:46 pm
October 18, 2009

Homunclus

posts 11

Print this Post

mdr said:

National health care has yet to be established so we haven't a clue as to what it will look like when it is finalized.

We haven't a clue? There is a plan, we can have a pretty good clue about what it will look like. Besides, realistically speaking, the government doesn't have the power too end private health care. Hell! they don't even seem to have the power it instate any type of public health care.

It is not fair to say, this (a) will be ok because these people over here

"These people over there" happen to be the rest of the western world. So ok, I can't say you guys will definitely be fine because we are, however I could very well say that since the rest of us are fine you will probably be fine too.

Why? The government is always accountable to the people, if they don't supply proper health care they end up suffering the consequences. In that respect it's not that different from private enterprise.

The state would be granting the power to treat you to your public worker doctors but somehow the state doesn't have any sway (according to you) over your treatment?

Well, they don't so much as grant the power to treat people as much as they pay them to do it, since there is no law against treating people. And you know, in health any case is a case. It's the doctors assigned to treat the patient who decide what the treatment is. They don't have an officer from the ministry of health breeding down on their necks. Point being you get treated by doctors not the government, the role of the government is a bit tad peripheral.

Just saying, because you have public health care that doesn't mean doctors are suddenly going to throw away their humanity and medical ethics, as your post seems to heavily imply.

6:10 pm
October 18, 2009

mdr

posts 175

Print this Post

Post edited 6:11 pm – October 18, 2009 by mdr

Homunclus said:

We haven't a clue? There is a plan, we can have a pretty good clue about what it will look like. Besides, realistically speaking, the government doesn't have the power too end private health care. Hell! they don't even seem to have the power it instate any type of public health care.

There's more than just one plan in the works, they are all different.

I'm arguing for a private health care SYSTEM. In England and other countries, what they call "private health care" are simply "odd and ends" and usually the relegation of specialists. In those systems, you have your GP inside of the national health care system and then are often referred to a private practitioner, I'd hardly call that private, especially when the results and records of any tests or surgeries are given back to the GP and filed with everyone else's.

"These people over there" happen to be the rest of the western world. So ok, I can't say you guys will definitely be fine because we are, however I could very well say that since the rest of us are fine you will probably be fine too.

"These people over there" are the doctors and the bureaucracy that will over see the system. Please read above again with that in mind.

Why? The government is always accountable to the people, if they don't supply proper health care they end up suffering the consequences. In that respect it's not that different from private enterprise.

If it is no different from private enterprise, why do it at all? If it is no different, what advantage is there in doing it? If it's not broken don't fix it and if you're going to replace a broken door but with only another busted door, why bother at all?

Well, they don't so much as grant the power to treat people as much as they pay them to do it, since there is no law against treating people. And you know, in health any case is a case. It's the doctors assigned to treat the patient who decide what the treatment is. They don't have an officer from the ministry of health breeding down on their necks. Point being you get treated by doctors not the government, the role of the government is a bit tad peripheral.

They do now, the government gets to decide who can and cannot practice medicine, claiming to be protecting people. A unified health care system is simply one more step in this direction, we've been heading down it for quite some time. The insurance companies represent an extant and fractured body of a health care system, not free enterprise, and certainly not private sector. (almost nothing is "private sector" anymore, not even in the States) It's not peripheral when the state's current economic situation will decide when you will get your surgery. You get put on a waiting list and that waiting list is partially reliant upon the budget.

Just saying, because you have public health care that doesn't mean doctors are suddenly going to throw away their humanity and medical ethics, as your post seems to heavily imply.

It's happened before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..rilization

No implications necessary my friend. Laugh

The doctors will do whatever they are told to do. Sure there will be some brave ones that will stand up for what is right and I would commend them for that, as they are forced to watch their families killed, condemned from practicing medicine anymore and put in a prison camp (if they are lucky), and/or shot in the head as traitors.

The goal is not to see a problem and find a solution, the goal I would propose would be of finding what is causing the problem and curing that.

Nobody will argue that the health care system in the United States isn't a pile of shit but piling more shit on top of it is not a solution. Simply because you think you are fine, in whatever country you are from, does not mean that you are.

Freedom is not arbitrary, it IS definable and does not exist in a fiat sense. Freedom is not arbitrarily being allowed to do what you want, freedom is simply other people not having the ability to restrict you from doing what you like. Once somebody has the legal ability to restrict you, freedom no longer exists. A slave that is allowed to go down to the store whenever they like, is still a slave, and making an argument that the master would NEVER take away that slave's ability to go to the store when they want is not an argument for freedom. The difference in concepts is crucial:

Positive Liberty: Everything is to be assumed not a right until otherwise proclaimed; the government ALLOWS you to do certain things.

Negative Liberty: Everything is to be assumed to be a right until otherwise proclaimed; the government DISALLOWS you from doing certain things.

It may seem nuanced but it is not. Granted freedoms are no freedoms at all, the threat of arbitrary restrainment IS restrainment.

You say, it's okay because you think that they won't use it, I say it's not because I KNOW, and anyone could know from even the most cursory examination of history, that they WILL!

To quote myself:

"Tu facultas pro unus creo, tyrannus advebit."

"Tools for one you build, come a tyrant will."

If you create the structure with which a tyrant COULD use to control, it WILL be used to control.

"Don't believe in the two big G's"

5:34 pm
December 1, 2009

Socialistarian

posts 8

Print this Post

mdr said:

Post edited 2:08 am – August 29, 2009 by mdr

I believe that the word "health" could be seen as a kind of slanted euphemism for "body". If not for the body, what purpose would health and wellness serve? If not for the body, what else could represent an individual person? If you own a gun, does it not fall upon you to maintain and clean that gun? If you own property, is it not your job (if you so choose) to maintain it? What about your house? If it became the job of the state to clean and maintain your house, could you still rightly call it your own? What about your gun? Property? My fear is that if the responsibility for your health falls upon the state, it would in fact negate many of your rights. A home, a gun, or property is not yours if you can't rightly dispose of it. Would we not expect any organization to protect it's assets and responsibilities to avoid the otherwise costly side-effects? If you cannot dispose of your own body as you will, for better or worse, what other rights to it do you have? In which way could it still be called yours if you can't do with it whatever you see fit? I don't believe you could. If your body is no longer yours, are you still an individual?

Princeton's Definition of Slave

a person who is owned by someone

If the state is allowed to own your body and decide for you what you will do with it, they not only control your health, they control your body and, for all intents and purposes, your whole person. You are by definition a slave.

Well, seeing as I live in a nation with Universal Healthcare I guess I must be a slave. Don't you think you're being a little melodramatic?

It is my opinion that the only freedom that UH restircts is freedom to a few extra cents per week. And as someone who has had a major operation with no complication without paying a single penny, I happen to think it's worth it.

9:12 pm
December 1, 2009

mdr

posts 175

Print this Post

Socialistarian said:

Well, seeing as I live in a nation with Universal Healthcare I guess I must be a slave. Don't you think you're being a little melodramatic?

It is my opinion that the only freedom that UH restircts is freedom to a few extra cents per week. And as someone who has had a major operation with no complication without paying a single penny, I happen to think it's worth it.

Hello!

And welcome to our forums!

In reply:

Before I go any further, I would like to say that I'm happy to read that you got the medical attention that you needed.

When it comes to the single most important property you have? No, I don't think I'm being melodramatic at all. If the self, the endemicy of the individual, the ownership of one's own future is unimportant, if choice is not nothing to be concerned about, then I ask you, what else is there? What more is there worth fighting for? You see it simply as a switch in systems, I see it as a switch in axioms.

Money is not the only thing that it restricts, it also restricts choice. What good is that money (any amount of it) if you are not free to use it to sustain your own life in the best way you see fit?

I was in an argument with a very bright young man at the local college recently about "UH", he stated his case very well. I told him, given his intelligence, "I believe that you will be fairly wealthy if not completely well off in the future" and then I asked him, "Do you have intentions of being a father?", he replied "Yes". I said, "Imagine you have a daughter of the age of 17, plans for college and everything, she gets in an accident out in the middle of nowhere, you are at work and your work is closer than any available ambulances, you leave work immediately, get to the scene of the accident where you find her drifting and bleeding profusely. You take her to the nearest hospital just in time but are informed that the surgeons with the specialty she needs are all busy with another 17 year old patient in the same kind of situation and your daughter dies. You find out later that this other girl only got there before you because her father is unemployed."

Yes, you happen to think it's worth it because it benefited you but isn't this same kind of simple straight line thinking that you were criticizing in the thread on drug legalization? Shouldn't we also consider the consequences? Tu facultas pro unas creo, tyrannus advebit.

For the sake of argument, if you don't mind, what was the surgery and where was it first performed?

"Don't believe in the two big G's"

8:36 am
December 2, 2009

Homunclus

posts 11

Print this Post

mdr said:

"Imagine you have a daughter of the age of 17, plans for college and everything, she gets in an accident out in the middle of nowhere, you are at work and your work is closer than any available ambulances, you leave work immediately, get to the scene of the accident where you find her drifting and bleeding profusely. You take her to the nearest hospital just in time but are informed that the surgeons with the specialty she needs are all busy with another 17 year old patient in the same kind of situation and your daughter dies. You find out later that this other girl only got there before you because her father is unemployed."

I don't get what you are trying to say…how does this example support your point of view? And how come the fact that the other girls father is unemployed made her get there first?

7:32 pm
January 1, 2010

Warren Dew

Boston, MA, USA

posts 12

Print this Post

Homunclus said:

National health care is optional. You can still go to the private if you wish. Also, even if you use national health care that doesn't mean the state gets to do what they want with your body.

Participation is not optional. I have to pay for it whether I use it or not.

First of all, the state has really no say, its the doctors that treat you (who granted are public workers) who make the decisions. Secondly, medical ethics don't suddenly get thrown out the window, you still have about as many rights as you have in the private. No one can force you to take a procedure you don't want to

While true currently – private health care can currently cover anything that the doctor considers "medically necessary" – it will not be true under a national plan. National plans mean national guidelines on what can be covered. There have already been amendments to, for example, eliminate coverage of abortion.

That won't necessarily mean that one won't be able to get an abortion, but one will have to pay extra, and it will come out of posttax income, which typically makes it twice as expensive.

1:02 am
January 3, 2010

mdr

posts 175

Print this Post

Post edited 12:52 am – January 3, 2010 by mdr

Homunclus said:

mdr said:

"Imagine you have a daughter of the age of 17, plans for college and everything, she gets in an accident out in the middle of nowhere, you are at work and your work is closer than any available ambulances, you leave work immediately, get to the scene of the accident where you find her drifting and bleeding profusely. You take her to the nearest hospital just in time but are informed that the surgeons with the specialty she needs are all busy with another 17 year old patient in the same kind of situation and your daughter dies. You find out later that this other girl only got there before you because her father is unemployed."

I don't get what you are trying to say…how does this example support your point of view? And how come the fact that the other girls father is unemployed made her get there first?

The girl got there first because the father is not working and not busy, he had no prior engagements and nothing holding him back from going to his daughter's aid.

First come, first serve isn't all it's cracked up to be.

It means that if I have the resources to save the life of my daughter and you or anyone else tries to stop me from using them because "someone else got there first and we all deserve an equal chance", I am coming out shooting and I will seek revenge.

What is the point of working hard your entire life if it fails you at the single most critical event?

"Don't believe in the two big G's"

11:41 am
January 3, 2010

Homunclus

posts 11

Print this Post

Post edited 11:36 am – January 3, 2010 by Homunclus

mdr said:

Post edited 12:52 am – January 3, 2010 by mdr

The girl got there first because the father is not working and not busy, he had no prior engagements and nothing holding him back from going to his daughter's aid.

First come, first serve isn't all it's cracked up to be.

It means that if I have the resources to save the life of my daughter and you or anyone else tries to stop me from using them because "someone else got there first and we all deserve an equal chance", I am coming out shooting and I will seek revenge.

What is the point of working hard your entire life if it fails you at the single most critical event?

Ah, ok thanks

But believe me, if life was fair, I would be a libertarian too. But hard work doesn't always pay off, and that won't change no matter what anyone does. Though I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new.

In your hypothetical situation, the doctors might very well refuse to treat your daughter (and probably would), and pointing them a gun isn't exactly guaranteed to produce good results. In the end her life would be taken "by a roll of dice".

5:44 pm
January 3, 2010

mdr

posts 175

Print this Post

Post edited 5:34 pm – January 3, 2010 by mdr

Homunclus said:

Ah, ok thanks

But believe me, if life was fair, I would be a libertarian too. But hard work doesn't always pay off, and that won't change no matter what anyone does. Though I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new.

In your hypothetical situation, the doctors might very well refuse to treat your daughter (and probably would), and pointing them a gun isn't exactly guaranteed to produce good results. In the end her life would be taken "by a roll of dice".

I do NOT believe that life is fair. It is simply WRONG to FORCE a man to watch his daughter DIE when he has the MONEY available to him to insure the medical and surgical attention she needs. Neither situation is fair.

It's NOT fair to ask the poor father to watch his daughter to die but it is FAR worse to allow that daughter to live against the laws of nature that would place greater importance on the life of the daughter of the man with the resources to insure her life. GET it?

A gun doesn't guarantee anything but if I were the better off man forced to see my daughter DIE for the SAKE of fairness, with my being completely BANNED from seeking private healthcare. . . . I would be seeking out some politicians, I would be seeking out some doctors, I would be seeking out anyone with a direct hand in that kind of situation playing out. I would . . . For the death of a daughter directly to blame on the idiots in government that want fairness? I would seek revenge, you're damn straight.

I guess everyone should feel lucky I'm not having any children.

"Don't believe in the two big G's"

6:29 pm
January 4, 2010

Homunclus

posts 11

Print this Post

mdr said:

Post edited 5:34 pm – January 3, 2010 by mdr

I do NOT believe that life is fair.

It was not my intention to state otherwise, I was merely pointing out that there is a very large difference between having cash and being hard working. Some new-rich guy that hasn't done shit in live and lives of is inheritance could easily be the one to walk over you in such a situation. Not very fair.

but it is FAR worse to allow that daughter to live against the laws of nature that would place greater importance on the life of the daughter of the man with the resources to insure her life.

I disagree. There is only one law in nature, the survival of the fittest. And how do you determine what is the fittest? The fittest is the one that survives. The circumstances that lead to survival are irrelevant. If you have a "weak"person and a "strong" person, even if the probability of the "strong" to survive is greater, if somehow the circumstances stack up in such a way that the "weak" lives and the "strong" dies, that just means that the weak was the fittest. No laws of nature being bended over here. It's the same thing with your situation. Maybe you were the one with the recourses, but when the time came you were unable to use them, and it was the daughter of the one without them that lived.

Well, the point I was making is that, that situation could very well take place outside of governmental influence in a private hospital

I guess everyone should feel lucky I'm not having any children.

Laugh Mmmm…maybe we should push for a few governmental programs on safety on the road just in case Wink

8:50 pm
January 4, 2010

mdr

posts 175

Print this Post

Umm. . . like I said it has NOTHING to do with being fair or not, it has to do with who is successful in retaining resources. Has nothing to do with how much you work but if you're a hard worker, it's not very likely that you're going to have nothing to show for it. Hate to sound harsh here but if you work hard your whole life and have nothing to show for it, you're probably not worth saving.

And it wouldn't happen in a private hospital if it were the case that, if you don't have the insurance, credit or resources to pay for a multi-million dollar life saving operation you don't get it. I can understand basic operations necessary for life being given in extreme cases but there is a line that needs to be drawn.

Furthermore, survival of the fittest, in the purest sense, IS dependent on the situation but intervention doesn't lead to survival of the fittest and government is certainly not a force of nature. If the situation doesn't matter then why change anything? Why have this discussion? You're just purposefully avoiding the meat of this conversation.

This is the problem with government changing all the rules, the morons who want it don't realize that there are any ramifications. When you change all the rules you turn all the dynamics on their side.

"Don't believe in the two big G's"

5:32 am
January 10, 2010

keddaw

Glasgow

posts 33

Print this Post

Universal healthcare in a society that can afford it is a moral imperative, it shows a society is ethical and humane.

However, universal does not need to equal socialised, publicly run or even universal in the strictest sense.

I can imagine a scheme where each person pays a premium as part of his wages that covers health insurance up to a set level and leaves enough extra (profit or taxation) to cover the members of society that, for whatever reason, cannot afford healthcare of their own.

You could opt out of that scheme if you so wished, either having private insurance or taking a chance. Your choice. This scheme would be relatively expensive, but the premium would be fixed so if you got a raise at work you would not pay more.

I do agree with some of the fears in the OP as in the uK I already see the 'social problems' of smoking, drinking etc. being phrased in terms of what it costs the NHS to deal with each year, completely ignoring the punitive taxes on these things that cover the cost multiple times! We are being socially engineered to avoid certain activities and, worse, stigmatising people who choose to partake. This is an assault on our freedoms but no-one seems to care apart from those who are affected and they are classed as kooks or single issue freaks. As a non-smoker I abhor what is happening to smokers, and I can see it starting to happen to drinkers now too. Obese people are coming under fire too as the government regulates and legislates against our freedom but

for our own good.


Page: 1 2

About the The Libertarian Atheist forum
Most Users Ever Online: 13 Currently Online: 6 Guests	Forum Stats: Groups: 4 Forums: 11 Topics: 48 Posts: 350	Membership: There are 48 Members There has been 1 Guest There is 1 Admin There are 2 Moderators	Top Posters: RestrictedAccess – 28 Kultabugi – 13 upgrade01a – 12 Warren Dew – 12 Homunclus – 11 Aught3 – 11
Administrators: mdr (175 Posts) Moderators: keddaw (33 Posts), jeffersonianideal (10 Posts)

About the The Libertarian Atheist forum

Most Users Ever Online:

Currently Online:

6 Guests

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 11

Topics: 48

Posts: 350

Membership:

There are 48 Members

There has been 1 Guest

There is 1 Admin

There are 2 Moderators

Top Posters:

RestrictedAccess – 28

Kultabugi – 13

upgrade01a – 12

Warren Dew – 12

Homunclus – 11

Aught3 – 11

Administrators: mdr (175 Posts)

Moderators: keddaw (33 Posts), jeffersonianideal (10 Posts)

The Libertarian Atheist

don't believe in the two big G's