Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:31:46 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.missouri.(Spamless)edu
|
Viewed:
|
996 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.
I hear ya brother Larry.
> 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".
No. Never. But, they should have a RIGHT to earn 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?
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 grandfathers was a manual laborer for sixty years - busting
ass and providing his family with a lifestyle and a future. It worked.
My grandmother (not his wife, the other one) had to skip 1/3 of the
Elementary school year in Oklahoma to pick cotton so the family of eight
could eat...every one of them worked hard. She decided to go to college
(only one from her generation, and certainly the first in the family)
and became a teacher. She's living on her savings now driving around
the US in an RV while her son tends her $200K home in Anaheim that she
bought for $4K in the fifties.
> "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?
If you don't think so, you should feel free to contribute to baby B's
trust fund. I'm sure many people would. Otherwise, I disagree with
Mike. Yes. Sometimes life sucks.
> 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?
See the answer to B's dilemma.
The fact is that there are (and would be more) charities and trusts set
up to help people like this. I am a "member" of a hospital group that
refuses to deny life-saving attention. My money voluntarily supports
this stance. (It is coincidentally the best hospital around - being
tied to the university.)
For those of you who think that medical care is a right, where does it
end? Who deserves what kind of medical care? Should pharmaceutical
companies have prices regulated in order to discourage new drug
production? Do life-style choices (riding motorcycles with no helmet,
irresponsible sex, smoking, whatever) that cause a need for medical
attention get free treatment? All on my nickel?
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
