Debate : 1302


Off-Topic / Debate / 1302	1301 \| 1303

Subject:	Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:15:08 GMT
Viewed:	986 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: > 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. > 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 have a huge problem with this inane argument. Larry is avoiding the basic issue and circumventing it with property gibberish. It is simply this - all Doctors take a Hypocratic oath - that they will provide medical service irregardless of the ability of the patient to pay for that service. The intention of that oath guarantees service to those that cannot afford it. From his arguements, one could only presume that all Doctors must be Libertarians as defined by Larry. Larry's view of the entire world as property - his property - sounds infinitely more red-neck Republican than Libertarian. That is morally flawed. From the opinions he has stated above, and in other posts in this topic, if those in need of medical service cannot pay for their own healthcare, then die and reduce the surplus population because there is no way he is going to let anyone take a red cent from him to allow them to live. Thank you Scrooge Pieniazek

Message has 3 Replies:

		Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
(...) Have you read Larry's response to my question about the ideals of Libertarianism? Your last comment is a gross mischaracterization of Larry's position. If you read one of his other responses, you will even see that he does in fact support (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
(...) Which basic issue is he circumventing? I thought the basic issue was determining who should pay for Random Joe's medical care. Larry thinks Random Joe should and Thomas thinks that Larry should. (...) Hippocrates developed the oath, but I (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
(...) I have a huge problem with the characterisation of my cogent and lucid statements (:-))as inane, or gibberish. Perhaps to someone who'd rather not honor property rights and doesn't understand why property rights matter, they're gibberish. But (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
(...) Please please please, don't anyone remove that key syllable, thank you. The new Victoria's Secret catalog just came, you'll have to excuse me while I go study it closely. (1) (...) I certainly understand the first quoted statement you make in (...) (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

Custom Search