Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 18:44:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
906 times
|
| |
|
|
Thomas Main wrote in message <3779144D.DC72D75@appstate.edu>...
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I was hoping not to engage Larry in this debate because I believe my
> viewpoints are valid even though I might not be able to defend them as
> aptly as Larry can defend his. I am not a good debater and Larry, as I
> think we all know, is a masterdebater.
Ah, just what the doctor ordered - good, teenage humor. When you can't
argue, just hit 'em below the belt. Thomas, I don't know you very well,
but I have now read a couple posts of yours, which, to me, are very
debatable. Please do not take my defense of my beliefs as an insult to your
person.
> > 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.
>
>
> I can't begin to understand insurance companies and how they operate and
> how they're regulated. I will continue to look into these subjects.
Good plan. When prices for a good are out of whack, check the government
first - therein usually lies the cause.
> > > 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.
>
> Not if its the only game in town. And if you mention competition - why
> wouldn't the government be a worthy competitor.
You are joking??
> > A business that is forced to serve all who come regardless
> > of ability to pay will soon perish for want of revenue.
>
> Each can pay according to his or her ability. All will be treated
> according to their need.
Where did you get that? Lenin? Or maybe Stalin? Although, I fear it is
too late, you should check your premise before carrying on with this
argument. I should stop now...
> > > 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.
>
> Quality of life may be becoming a right in our advanced society.
> Healthcare is a service that costs money and is treated like a commodity
> in our society. But in the end it's about helping people achieve a
> better quality of life and that can't be measured as a good. Our
> government has secured the right of people to have freedom, healthcare
> is a way in which government can secure the right of people to be free
> from disease.
So we are acquiring more unalienable rights because we are more advanced?
This goes with your previous logic I suppose. Not with mine. The more
unregulating our country goes through, the more advances we seem to make.
> > > 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.
>
> Has this happened in European countries where national health care is
> available? Think of this scenario. Larry and I are both sick. Larry,
> choosing to quickly remedy his malady goes to a private doctor whereas I
> go to the public health department. Larry pays $80 for the doctors
> visit and $20 for medicine. I pay $20 for the visit and $10 for the
> medicine (thanks to a gov. prescription card). Larry chooses to go to
> the private doctor because:
>
> * He trusts the doctor and has established a relationship there
> * He is in and out of the office with his medicine in 1 hour
>
> I choose to go to the health dept. where I spend 3 hours waiting and see
> a doctor who I may or may not know. Both of us are treated. Larry has
> spent more money - but he *chose* to because of the service provided by
> his private doctor. I have less money to spend, but I still received
> adequate treatment. We both win. The government health care clinic and
> the doctor wins too. Nobody's money is driving anywhere. There's a
> balance :)
I thought Larry's point was if there are two competing companies, where
one offers a free service, the better company (the one which is not free)
will go out of business. For example, people have a chance to get their
health care for free, and many many people choose this. Then the other
company has to raise prices because it has lost customers. Then more people
must choose the free service, and again the company that charges raises its
prices. Until it is wiped out. Beyond that, why should I pay for your (or
anyone's) health care? Because they voted for a guy who said I should? I
don't like that, honestly.
> > > 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.
>
> And the government could ask for service in exchange for the healthcare
> it provides. Compulsory military or community service (in lieu of
> further taxation) could be the ticket to "purchasing" these goods the
> government lavishes on us. As for the right of the government to take
> what doesn't belong to it - that's the price of admission for living in
> a government regulated society. While I appreciate the philosophical
> ideals of individuals rights and permissions, the government must
> intrude in this way or it will disappear.
I am sure the people who are sick and dying because they have inadequate
insurance would be of great use to our over manned military. Your words are
true, though, the government may lose a lot of itself if it does not find
another place to squeeze out some cash. By taking over healthcare, they
could remedy their deficits for a few more years, until that turned into an
annual loss as well. As in note (2) from Larry.
> Now, I believe Libertarians think that once the government is no longer,
> all we'll be left with is a bunch of self-regulating, responsible adults
> who pass around colored paper, smile and respect each other's rights. I
> think chaos will ensue.
I am not sure what Libertarians think, but I think your belief is pretty
far from accurate. Maybe we should both try to find out. Whether I have
the same vision as the Libertarians or not, I know their moral code is very
similar to my own. Again, I feel like you are hitting below the belt,
making up a big crock and saying that is what Libertarians think. If
deflation of the dollar and a second industrial revolution is chaos, then
yes, that would ensue.
> >
> > > 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.
>
>
> The government collects taxes and spends the money it gets for the
> welfare of its people. Where would we be without this system? We need
> libraries, art, healthcare, roads to build a society. America is a
> great country in part because it is rich....its citizens are rich and
> they have paid for a multitute of government projects that have
> benefitted all. For instance, we have a fabulous highway infastructure
> without which interstate commerce and the trasfer of good would be
> impossible...now the same companies who benefit from the government's
> munificence scoff at paying taxes. We all win with proper government
> spending programs...and we have a voice to choose which programs our
> government adopts.
Then choose the right ones, thats all thats needed. I could be wrong,
but you seem to have the impression that none of these roads would be here
without our wonderful government to make them. I humbly disagree!
> > > 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?
>
> Because life is unpredictable and john may have invested badly, or not
> realized the importance of preparing for the future until it was too
> late, or the stock market crashed and because we live in a
> compasssionate society we have a fail-safe.
Again I wonder if you are for real! Do we really live in a compassionate
society? Or does it make you personally feel better to believe that?
Perhaps if this person wasn't trained (brainwashed as Larry put it) to
believe that the world would take care of him, he would have planned
better??
> > 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.
>
> --
> Thomas Main
> main@appstate.edu
> Webpage: http://members.xoom.com/brickenplate/index.html
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
