Debate : 1310


Off-Topic / Debate / 1310	1309 \| 1311

Subject:	Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:49:00 GMT
Viewed:	1028 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: > 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. OK, you state "people do not have a RIGHT to free goods." I am simplying stating that some people, through no fault of their own, do not have the ability to pay for those goods but, in the name of humanity, should "have a RIGHT to free goods". I propose the following moral decisions: Person "A" is jobless after spending 35 years at a plant that closed down overnight. "A" no longer has medical benefits and "A"'s skills are no longer marketable. "A"'s savings are gone and is on the verge of losing "A"'s house. "A" gets hit by a bus. Should "A" be left by the side of the road to die? "B" is 3 years old, mentally retarded and physically disabled and must be kept in a home. "B"'s parents pay for "B"'s medical coverage. "B"'s parents are suddenly killed in a car accident. "B"'s medical coverage is gone. Should "B" be thrown into the street? 13 year old "C" was raped on her way home from school. Should she be denied medical attention and rape counseling because her family is penniless and homeless?

Message has 4 Replies:

		Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
(...) I think that in a perfect liberatopia, all three of these people would have no problem getting the care they need, through charity. Person A may still be helped by some kind of unemployment coverage. Person B's family should also invest in a (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
Your little moral problems are a sucker's trap, because you haven't stated enough assumptions and preconditions, so whatever I say will be twisted around. But hey, look up sucker in the dictionary... see that picture? that's me. (...) Why? No one (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
(...) His savings are gone so soon? What did A do for 35 years? I have only been actively saving for a short while now and I could last a few months without my job, minimum. Inside of a year I'll be able to last a lot longer. Why would A have so (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
(...) I hear ya brother Larry. (...) No. Never. But, they should have a RIGHT to earn goods. (...) Others have hashed this one out pretty well, but basically, f@*k him. 35 years is a long time to not sock something away for the future. One of my (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		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)

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