Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:01:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1038 times
|
| |
|
|
Man, Larry, I go away for a few days, and this explodes on my e-mail. :)
Oh, and I agree with Larry 100%, even if I am a Republican (Some moral
differences with the Libertarians, but nothing us "right-wingers" can't work
out!).
By the way, not all Republicans are red-necks, I am afraid. Just like all
Democrats are not liberal, and all Republicans are not conservative. (NOTE: This
is defined by US standards of political theory, not by the world political
thoughts!) There are a lot of Republicans in Michigan, and Michigan is not
exactly a "red-neck" state. Amen, Larry, keep those leftists in line! :)
Scott "Conservative before a Republican" Sanburn
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Ed Jones wrote:
>
> > I have a huge problem with this inane argument. Larry is avoiding the basic
> > issue and circumventing it with property gibberish.
>
> 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 that's symptomatic, and Ed's making a bit
> of an ad hominem attack here.
>
> More slowly. What is medical care? It's a good. Who is going to pay for
> this free medical care? Somebody certainly is, as it doesn't fall from
> the sky, a gift of angels. Your right to a free good translates into a
> thug taking that good, or the money to pay for it, away from someone
> else. What is so hard to understand about this?
>
> Now, if you say that I have a moral obligation to voluntarily pay, by
> all means, make your case. I'll get out my checkbook and let you know
> what I'm willing to freely contribute based on my evaluation of the
> efficiency at which you deliver servicies and the situation of the
> beneficiaries. I bet I give more of my income to charity than the
> average american does, by a lot, measured either in absolute dollars or
> proportionally. But I do it because of the virtues of the beneficiaries,
> not because of their need. "From each according to his desire, to each
> according to his virtue" might possibly fly with me, but never "ability"
> or "need".
>
> But when you say that you have a RIGHT to my earnings, you better first
> be living on 2000 calories a day in a 100 square foot share of a
> community shelter, walking to work and donating ALL your wages to that
> cause you claim to be morally just, or you're just a thief. Bring a
> really big gun.
>
> > 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.
>
> Thanks Chris, for the pointer to the oath, it's been a while since I
> read it closely. Fascinating. I found a number of interesting points in
> it, but not yours. Quoting without permission for purposes of criticism
> under the fair use act:
>
> > I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses,
>
> -- jurisdiction is claimed for the gods to enforce this
>
> that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and
> this stipulation - to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to
> me as my parents, to share my substance
> with him, and relieve his necessities if required;
>
> -- my prof at Columbia Med School has a claim on my earnings if his
> stock market investments don't play out.
>
> to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, ant
> to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or
> stipulation;
>
> -- and I get to put his kids through med school on my nickel, unless I
> can teach them myself
>
> and by that precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I
> will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my
> teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to
> the law of medicine, but to none others.
>
> -- my sons have to be doctors whether they want to or not (daughters
> are off the hook, though) and I get to teach/finance med school for
> anyone who shows up on my doorstep and takes this oath, too. I have to
> keep everything I know about medicine secret from those who won't take
> it.
>
> I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and
> judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from
> whatever is deleterious and mishievious. I will give no deadly medicine
> to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel;
>
> -- Dr. Kevorkian, call your office, please... So much for a patient's
> right to self determination.
>
> and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce
> abortion.
>
> -- de jure, pessaries are out, but the spirit here is no abortions
> whatever. That should warm Pat Robertson's heart, but it rather bothers
> mine.
>
> With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I
> will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be
> done by men who are practioners of this work.
>
> -- this one lost me. Is this applicable to free masons, or what?
>
> Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the
> sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and
> corruption;
>
> -- When I am treating people or visiting their houses or hospitals,
> it's with the intent to heal them, not to steal stuff.
>
> and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and
> slaves.
>
> -- and no screwing the patient's daughters (or sons, depending on
> personal preference) either. Nor even a peck on the cheek, much less a
> pecker. Because, remember, if I get them pregnant, I can't give them a
> peccary. Or pessary. That's a pisser. (I'm such a pistol.)
>
> Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in
> connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not
> to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such
> should be kept secret.
>
> -- doctor patient confidentiality is important.
>
> While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me
> to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all
> times! But should I trespass and violate, may the reverse be my lot!
>
> -- a good luck charm and a promise that the boogieman is gonna get me
> if I don't abide.
>
> -- end cite --
>
> C'mon people. While it's charming and quaint that we still make
> physicians recite this(1), it's gotta be for historical reasons only. No
> one feeds their professor's kids any more, or teaches them for free.
> Apollo doesn't smite folks the way he used to either.
>
> But let's stipulate it holds... I missed the part (and I cited the whole
> thing) where free care was promised. So your appeal to the H oath is
> specious.
>
> > Larry's view of the entire world as property - his property - sounds infinitely
> > more red-neck Republican than Libertarian.
>
> Bzzt. you haven't been paying attention. Overlooking the ad hominem
> against republicans, who are a bunch of rednecks anyway, :-) they're
> property confiscators, not defenders of property. Go read the GOP site
> and try again. I must have missed the part where I claimed the entire
> world as personally mine, though, and I'm fairly familiar with what I
> write. Cite me please?
>
> The entire world is property, just not mine. If it were all mine I would
> not be suffering from such chronic red train window shortages... OK, OK,
> it IS all mine. Everyone send me your Lego(tm) please.
>
> > 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,
>
> or can't find a charity to cover them.
>
> > 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.
>
> Take. But I may well freely give. Make your case for it and let's see.
> Life is not free. People do not have a RIGHT to free goods. This is so
> stunningly obvious to me that I come across as rather strident when
> debating those who do not fathom this basic principle.
>
> > Thank you Scrooge Pieniazek
>
> Any time. Really, Ed, 3 ad hominems in one post, and mangled facts?
> You're a better debater than that. Why don't you cancel your post and
> try again, that was weak.
>
> 1 - In general, an inquiry into the licensing practices of the various
> states as regarding professions/guilds that have state granted
> monopolies is extremely fruitful if you're in search of trampled rights.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
> Fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ use member lar, 1/2 $$ to
> lugnet.
>
> 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 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
|
|
|
|
