Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:56:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
924 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
<snip>
> > Each can pay according to his or her ability. All will be treated
> > according to their need.
<snip>
> To have a debate you have to have a common ground, and I have no common
> ground with those who espouse the second statement. There are only two
> reasons for espousing it. Either you believe it to be true, or you
> don't, but you espouse it anyway.
I stated this more or less to get your blood boiling. I believe people
in need ought to be helped. I believe there are many people in need of
health insurance in this country and that they ought to be helped by our
government. I also believe that they should pay what they can for such
services as a matter of self-respect and as a way to learn
self-reliability. However, if they are helpless in that regard, they
should still be given treatment for disease because we live in a
compassionate society and it will be for the society's good in the long
run to have a healthy populace.
>
> To truly believe that it is valid, workable, or moral means that your
> morals are flawed, as you have no respect whatever for property rights.
I do respect property rights. I also respect the rights of people. I
believe it is a right of the people to receive medical help when
necessary whether or not they can afford it at that moment in time.
> As you may recall at the time of the great RTL price tag debate, my
> standing on this point is rather firm and unalterable. All rights are
> property rights and anyone who claims that they have the right to
> redistribute my property or anyone else's property as they see fit
> ("according to need") is morally flawed. Until and unless you repudiate
> this evil morality, we have no basis for discussion. Come and get my
> property, if you think you're tough enough.
I am not going to steal from you - I don't want the government to steal
from you either. I would rather you see the benefit of freely giving
your tax money to support government health care. Now, how would it
feel if instead of resenting the government for taking your money, you
thought of all the people you were helping when you wrote out a check to
the IRS. And if you don't like the way the government is handling your
money - tell them how to spend it better. If you feel the government
has no moral right to take your money - don't give it to them (I really
don't advise this, of course, but revolutions need marty...er, leaders)
>
> Thomas, we have done deals before. Would it have been OK if I promised
> to send you goods, took your money, then claimed that my need for the
> goods was greater than your need for the money you sent me and did not
> send them? Suppose I had a perfectly valid reason for claiming it to be
> the case, at least from my perspective. It's irrelevant whether you
> agreed or not, after all... my need is paramount, isn't it. If you can't
> see the parallel to free goods that society provides then you need to go
> off and think a while.
Well, this happened with me and Chris Garner. I pursued my property
through proper legal channels (to no avail). I do not think C.G. had a
need for the goods moreso than I. If your property has been unjustly
taken by the government - pursue it. You will be morally justified even
if you have the same result as I did with C.G. Meanwhile, I want to
work within the pre-existing system of taxation and services and see how
those services can be distributed for the good of all that are within
the system.
> Those who espouse that statement and believe it have been brainwashed,
> have not thought it through, or are evil. It's that simple, that cut and
> dried, that easy, at least under my moral code. Those who really espouse
> it are not to be trusted, so if you really mean it, you just moved to my
> Cash In Advance list. Sorry about that.
The problem with moral codes is that they are usually inflexible. I
suppose that's the power of them also. I would hope that someone trusts
me not because of my political beliefs (or misbeliefs) but because they
want to. Trust is a contradiction in that way - in order to trust
someone you have to take it on blind faith that they will not abuse your
trust.
>
> Now, those who espouse it and do NOT believe it are in some respects
> worse. They have figured out how to ride the gravy train of pain,
> skimming off a little (2) off the top while doling out lump free gravy
> to the needy. I'm sure Stalin didn't buy it, he just went along for the
> ride.
And the role of politics is, in part, to correct the abuses.
> 1 - I'm back. That felt better.
;)
>
> 2 - 65 cents on the dollar according to a recent study of the
> administrative costs of delivering welfare benefits in NY state.
And 50 cents on the dollar would still be abhorrent - but it's something
i'm ewilling to work toward rather than ditching the system.
>
> --
> 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 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
