Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 18:45:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
834 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> 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.
I was hoping not to engage Larry in this debate because I believe my
viewpoints are valid even though I might not be able to defend them as
aptly as Larry can defend his. I am not a good debater and Larry, as I
think we all know, is a masterdebater.
>
> 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.
I can't begin to understand insurance companies and how they operate and
how they're regulated. I will continue to look into these subjects.
> > 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.
Not if its the only game in town. And if you mention competition - why
wouldn't the government be a worthy competitor.
> A business that is forced to serve all who come regardless
> of ability to pay will soon perish for want of revenue.
Each can pay according to his or her ability. All will be treated
according to their need.
> > 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.
Quality of life may be becoming a right in our advanced society.
Healthcare is a service that costs money and is treated like a commodity
in our society. But in the end it's about helping people achieve a
better quality of life and that can't be measured as a good. Our
government has secured the right of people to have freedom, healthcare
is a way in which government can secure the right of people to be free
from disease.
> > 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.
Has this happened in European countries where national health care is
available? Think of this scenario. Larry and I are both sick. Larry,
choosing to quickly remedy his malady goes to a private doctor whereas I
go to the public health department. Larry pays $80 for the doctors
visit and $20 for medicine. I pay $20 for the visit and $10 for the
medicine (thanks to a gov. prescription card). Larry chooses to go to
the private doctor because:
* He trusts the doctor and has established a relationship there
* He is in and out of the office with his medicine in 1 hour
I choose to go to the health dept. where I spend 3 hours waiting and see
a doctor who I may or may not know. Both of us are treated. Larry has
spent more money - but he *chose* to because of the service provided by
his private doctor. I have less money to spend, but I still received
adequate treatment. We both win. The government health care clinic and
the doctor wins too. Nobody's money is driving anywhere. There's a
balance :)
>
> > 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.
And the government could ask for service in exchange for the healthcare
it provides. Compulsory military or community service (in lieu of
further taxation) could be the ticket to "purchasing" these goods the
government lavishes on us. As for the right of the government to take
what doesn't belong to it - that's the price of admission for living in
a government regulated society. While I appreciate the philosophical
ideals of individuals rights and permissions, the government must
intrude in this way or it will disappear.
Now, I believe Libertarians think that once the government is no longer,
all we'll be left with is a bunch of self-regulating, responsible adults
who pass around colored paper, smile and respect each other's rights. I
think chaos will ensue.
>
> > 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.
The government collects taxes and spends the money it gets for the
welfare of its people. Where would we be without this system? We need
libraries, art, healthcare, roads to build a society. America is a
great country in part because it is rich....its citizens are rich and
they have paid for a multitute of government projects that have
benefitted all. For instance, we have a fabulous highway infastructure
without which interstate commerce and the trasfer of good would be
impossible...now the same companies who benefit from the government's
munificence scoff at paying taxes. We all win with proper government
spending programs...and we have a voice to choose which programs our
government adopts.
> > 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?
Because life is unpredictable and john may have invested badly, or not
realized the importance of preparing for the future until it was too
late, or the stock market crashed and because we live in a
compasssionate society we have a fail-safe.
>
> 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.
--
Thomas Main
main@appstate.edu
Webpage: http://members.xoom.com/brickenplate/index.html
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
| 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 (...) (25 years ago, 29-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
|
|
|
|
