Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:05:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
776 times
|
| |
|
|
I was catching up on this group when I read this post. This post by Lar
is 100% right on. Why are there 46 more posts left in this thread for me to
read??? I hope its a bunch of puns, as I can't see anything left to debate.
I guess all hell has broken loose and you will probably hear from me again
soon.
--
Have fun!
John
AUCTION Page
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/ig88888888/
TRADE Page http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego/index.htm
MOC,CA[cl,bf,cr,fm,bk+++ wp,dm,rk,df++ fk-]++++(6035)
SW,TR,old(456)+++ TO++ PI,SP+ DU-- #+++++
ig88888888@stlnet.com & IG88888888 on AOL
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <3778D5D3.F90073A7@voyager.net>...
> The following responses are rather Libertarian macho flash because they
> were composed hurridly. That's OK, since the original poster was
> bemoaning no spirited debate. If the following statements don't provoke
> a great deal debate, I've misread the audience. (1)
> And I'm not picking on Thomas out of perfidiousness, he's just been
> brainwashed.
>
> Thomas Main wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, many people are not in a position to pay the outrageous
> > premiums insurance companies require.
>
> A fruitful line of inquiry might be into what causes premiums to be
> "outrageous". Check into things like barriers to entry, subsidised
> competition, and regulations, and report back.
>
> > And even if people do want to
> > pay, insurance companies get to pick and choose who they'll insure
> > (often denying insurance to those who need it most). Insurance
> > companies and hospitals are profit-motivated businesses. They are not
> > here to serve the people.
>
> A business that does not serve its customers will soon perish for want
> of customers. A business that is forced to serve all who come regardless
> of ability to pay will soon perish for want of revenue.
>
> > Government, on the other hand, is here to
> > serve the people.
>
> No, the proper role of government is to secure the rights of people, not
> serve them with free goods. You seem to have these two points completely
> reversed.
>
> > The government has a responsibility to provide access
> > to health care and insurance when insurance companies and hospitals
> > won't. This does not mean that private insurance and medical treatment
> > will disappear, or even that it will diminish.
>
> But indeed it will. Whenever a paid good competes against a free good,
> the paid good is soon driven out of the market. Bad money drives out
> good.
>
> > Normally, you get what
> > you pay for - and that will keep private doctors and hospitals and
> > insurance companies swimming in money. But for those that need a
> > minimum level of support - they should be able to look to their
> > government for subsidizing their health care needs.
>
> Once more, slowly. In the libertarian view of rights, there are no
> rights to free goods. In other words, you do not have the RIGHT to the
> fruits of someone else's labor unless that person chooses to grant it.
>
> When john doe speaks of the government having an obligation to help him
> (with goods such as medical care) what john doe actually is saying is
> john doe has the right to expect the government to take goods away from
> someone else to give those goods to john doe. That's basically just
> stealing using government thugs instead of your own hired muscle.
>
> Once more, slowly. There is no right to goods. Rights speak to
> behaviours only. Goods can only be purchased with other goods or labor.
>
> > The government
> > supports libraries, museums, and artists for the intellectual health of
> > its citizenry.
>
> The reasons why the government do this are rather different than for
> "intellectual health" but no matter. Libertarians oppose this wealth
> transfer from taxpayers to politically correct artists just as they
> oppose other wealth transfers. Therefore using it as justification
> fails.
>
> > It should support basic universal health care for its
> > citizens also. After all, the people give their tax dollars, patriotism
> > - some even give their lives - for the government.
>
> Libertarians oppose the draft. If the government, as a recruitment
> enticement to get people to enlist, wishes to promise health care to
> veterans, that's fine.
>
> But to say "we're going to steal from jack so we can pay john doe
> because we might draft john doe some day" seems rather foolish to me.
> Similarly, to say "we're stealing from john now so we'll later steal
> from jack so we can give free goods to john"(2) seems rather foolish
> too. Why not let john save his pennies now and buy his own goods later?
>
> 1 - For instance, expect Jasper or Richard to weigh in about how well
> the Euros do at transferring wealth to provide free goods... :-) Their
> bubble hasn't burst yet, but it will.
>
> 2 - boil down the social security trust fund and this is what you're
> left with, by the way.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
>
> NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
> will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
| The following responses are rather Libertarian macho flash because they were composed hurridly. That's OK, since the original poster was bemoaning no spirited debate. If the following statements don't provoke a great deal debate, I've misread the (...) (25 years ago, 29-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
|
|
|
|
