Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:01:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1049 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Thomas Main wrote:
>
> > I believe people
> > in need ought to be helped.
Admirable quality, I wish more humans felt this way. People *should* feel this
way, as it is good for all.
>
> > I believe there are many people in need of
> > health insurance in this country and that they ought to be helped by our
> > government.
>
> That's where you go too far.
Why? Because he feels the government should try to take care of the people it
was created to protect and serve? I think you, Larry, go too far in asserting
we shouldn't need to feel compassion towards the less fortunate. To make this
a better world for everyone, we humans *need* to respect and feel compassion
for people, who for reasons beyond their control, can't afford to take care of
themselves.
> Certain worldviews are fatallly flawed, and fail a utilitarian argument, as
> well as a moral one. I can refute Marx all day long but he's so discredited,
> why bother. I got better things to do, so I just refuse to recognise any
> common ground.
How can something fail a moral argument? Wouldn't that mean those morals are
wrong? How do you determine what morals are wrong? Or better yet, what gives
you the right to determine which morals are wrong? Also, not making an effort
to find common ground prevents problem solving and perpetuates conflict, which
is bad.
>
> As I said before, I am not my brother's keeper, and I reject the notion
> that I must feel compassion for those who refuse to make an effort on
> their behalf. I also reject the notion that I have an obligation to
> anyone other than myself and those I have contracted with, and I do not
> recognise an implied social contract that requires me to give up goods
> to help those that I would not choose to help of my own free will.
Now you are judging people based on vast generalizations that because they are
not successful, they must be lazy. Disgusting.
I pity your selfish and introverted views on life and people. I guess humanity
isn't in your vocabulary?
>
> > 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.
>
> We have a fundamental disagreement about rights. I reject the notion
> that anyone has a RIGHT to a good that they have not earned. For to
> assert that right is to violate the right of another to a good that they
> HAVE earned. Goods do not appear out of thin air. To give a good to one
> person who does not pay for it is to take it from another person who
> did. I'm not sure how much more plainly I can say this. Wealth transfer
> is stealing and stealing is morally wrong.
How does one earn the "good" of medical attention? Hold a job, make money
and pay for it? So only fully functional, successful adults should get medical
attention? Babies, children, and some disabled and senior citizens don't
usually hold jobs and earn an income, so how can they earn the "good" of
medical attention? Personally, I believe medical attention is part of a
person's right to life and the pursuit of happiness. And I *know* that my
morals are *not* flawed, because only *I* can determine that. They are *my*
morals, after all, and all morals are are opinions on what is right and wrong.
The only thing that can render an opinion false is fact, and you can't get
facts on intangible objects.
>
> One can prattle all one wishes about how one respects property rights
> but in the final analysis either you do or you don't. If you persist in
> that assertion, you don't. Cut and dried. Game over.
So because I feel citizens have an obligation to pay taxes, and because I feel
some of that money should go to help those who are less fortunate, I don't
respect property rights, period? That's just idiotic!
What is your definition of property? How do you determine who owns what?
>
> > 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.
>
> If you're going to try a utilitarian (1) argument here instead of a
> moral one like you were using (that is, the benefit of providing free
> health care is positive even if it's morally wrong), you're toast.
>
> Public health care is particularly perniciously non utilitarian. There
> is no way that you can demonstrate a utilitarian benefit to me or to
> anyone else in society that I cannot get in a more cost effective way in
> a fully private system. Not a debatable point to me. I have satisfied
> myself on that point, and you're welcome to dig up the references. I
> shan't provide the free good of digging them up for you.
Don't you believe in virtues? Compassion is a Virtue! Some people didn't get
the same oportunities that you have gotten. So we should just ignore their
needs and rights?
>
> > 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)
>
> Thanks for your attempted sanction of not paying, but I don't require
> it.
>
> An important note: The government has big guns.
So you think they government would kill you if you didn't pay taxes? I'm
sorry, but that has got to be one the most idiotically paranoid statements I've
ever heard. Why the hell are you living here, then?
>
> Since I can't vote with my feet, I begrudgingly pay my taxes to the
> extent I absolutely have to and to the extent that I think I can get
> away with. I don't grant the government the sanction they crave. I view
> what they do as stealing but I go along... see "the government has big
> guns" above. I am a victim but I have not granted sanction to my
> oppressor. As such, admonitions by those that disagree with me that I
> should leave fall on deaf ears. I don't have to leave, it's as much my
> country as the next schlub's.
Not if you don't support it. As far as I'm concerned, you're just a
rabble-rouser. Oh, and if the Government was reformed into your views of how
it should work, not only would I be out of a job, I'd leave. Why? In the
state you propose, Anarchy would reign, and all the gun nuts with assault
rifles and uzis and such would rule.
>
> I strongly believe that Libertarianism is defensible both from first
> principles (it is the best system for securing the individual rights of
> all)
What kind of rights protection is there for animals that cannot voice their
opinions?
> and from a utilitarian basis (it is the system that will get us all
> the most personal wealth and happiness and the least suffering) and try
> to distinguish between which argument I am making whenever I can.
How does it help those who don't get the same oportunities as you get? Does it
guarentee anything for them?
Jeff
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
