Subject:
|
Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:18:59 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@noveraSTOPSPAMMERS.com
|
Viewed:
|
801 times
|
| |
|
|
The following responses are rather Libertarian macho flash because they
were composed hurridly. That's OK, since the original poster was
bemoaning no spirited debate. If the following statements don't provoke
a great deal debate, I've misread the audience. (1)
And I'm not picking on Thomas out of perfidiousness, he's just been
brainwashed.
Thomas Main wrote:
> Unfortunately, many people are not in a position to pay the outrageous
> premiums insurance companies require.
A fruitful line of inquiry might be into what causes premiums to be
"outrageous". Check into things like barriers to entry, subsidised
competition, and regulations, and report back.
> And even if people do want to
> pay, insurance companies get to pick and choose who they'll insure
> (often denying insurance to those who need it most). Insurance
> companies and hospitals are profit-motivated businesses. They are not
> here to serve the people.
A business that does not serve its customers will soon perish for want
of customers. A business that is forced to serve all who come regardless
of ability to pay will soon perish for want of revenue.
> Government, on the other hand, is here to
> serve the people.
No, the proper role of government is to secure the rights of people, not
serve them with free goods. You seem to have these two points completely
reversed.
> The government has a responsibility to provide access
> to health care and insurance when insurance companies and hospitals
> won't. This does not mean that private insurance and medical treatment
> will disappear, or even that it will diminish.
But indeed it will. Whenever a paid good competes against a free good,
the paid good is soon driven out of the market. Bad money drives out
good.
> Normally, you get what
> you pay for - and that will keep private doctors and hospitals and
> insurance companies swimming in money. But for those that need a
> minimum level of support - they should be able to look to their
> government for subsidizing their health care needs.
Once more, slowly. In the libertarian view of rights, there are no
rights to free goods. In other words, you do not have the RIGHT to the
fruits of someone else's labor unless that person chooses to grant it.
When john doe speaks of the government having an obligation to help him
(with goods such as medical care) what john doe actually is saying is
john doe has the right to expect the government to take goods away from
someone else to give those goods to john doe. That's basically just
stealing using government thugs instead of your own hired muscle.
Once more, slowly. There is no right to goods. Rights speak to
behaviours only. Goods can only be purchased with other goods or labor.
> The government
> supports libraries, museums, and artists for the intellectual health of
> its citizenry.
The reasons why the government do this are rather different than for
"intellectual health" but no matter. Libertarians oppose this wealth
transfer from taxpayers to politically correct artists just as they
oppose other wealth transfers. Therefore using it as justification
fails.
> It should support basic universal health care for its
> citizens also. After all, the people give their tax dollars, patriotism
> - some even give their lives - for the government.
Libertarians oppose the draft. If the government, as a recruitment
enticement to get people to enlist, wishes to promise health care to
veterans, that's fine.
But to say "we're going to steal from jack so we can pay john doe
because we might draft john doe some day" seems rather foolish to me.
Similarly, to say "we're stealing from john now so we'll later steal
from jack so we can give free goods to john"(2) seems rather foolish
too. Why not let john save his pennies now and buy his own goods later?
1 - For instance, expect Jasper or Richard to weigh in about how well
the Euros do at transferring wealth to provide free goods... :-) Their
bubble hasn't burst yet, but it will.
2 - boil down the social security trust fund and this is what you're
left with, by the way.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) Unfortunately, many people are not in a position to pay the outrageous premiums insurance companies require. And even if people do want to pay, insurance companies get to pick and choose who they'll insure (often denying insurance to those who (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
