Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:56:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1113 times
|
| |
|
|
Ed Jones wrote:
>
> 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?
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 life insurance policy to guarantee the
quality of life of their child. Person C will also be able to recover
costs from the perpetrator.
If you read Larry's posts, he makes it quite clear that he contributes
to charity, probably well above the average US contribution. His
assertion is that these things should be handled by charities which can
be held accountable to their benefactors, rather than a government which
can't be held accountable because the contributions are involuntary.
Some of these people may even get some services from the government in a
liberatopia, if the citizens of that government CHOSE to provide these
services.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
