Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:30:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1068 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> 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,
Oh, come on!! You CANNOT have a "perfect" society with more than a small
number of people!! It is imposible! No matter what, there will be some that
take advantage of it. Why do you think Communism failed? Any type of society
that relies on people to "do what is right" is doomed to fail if the society is
larger than a small collection of people. The "perfect society" argument does
not work! It is a load of bull!
> all three of these people would have no problem getting the care they need,
> through charity.
Are there any charities that do this kind of thing now? How much of a
charities intake would actually go to medical care, anyways? What motivation
is there for someone to do this anyways?
> Person A may still be helped by some kind of unemployment coverage.
But Unemployment runs out. What if the only people hiring are minimum wage
jobs? Oh, wait! Larry doesn't believe in the Minimum Wage (I believe he said
so a couple months ago), does he! I guess "A" will be working in a sweat shop
for $1.10 an hour!
> Person B's family should also invest in a life insurance policy to guarantee
> the quality of life of their child.
1. They're dead now, but Hindsight is 20/20!
2. What if all they can afford is a $50,000 policy? That would be drained
very quickly, and then out on the street with him!
> Person C will also be able to recover costs from the perpetrator.
But it was in a dark place, he was wearing a hooded jacket and a ski mask. She
is in shock and remembers only that he was tall and had light skin. How would
she Identify him? How could she possibly get recompense from an unknown
assailant? If they do manage to catch the guy, she can only recover the costs
after a trial, which takes a while, and so she has to what 'til then to go to
the hospital?
>
> 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.
Okay, question for you Larry: Do you research the charities to find out which
ones actually use the most for charitable services? Some use less than 25% of
what they take in.
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
|
|
|
|
