Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Jul 1999 08:24:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
811 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:18:59 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following
profundities...
> > 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.
>
>
But your own Declaration of Independance states that everyone
is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness.
Health is necessary to life, yet society creates a system that
denies affordable, universal access to health care. Should an
amendment be made, such that "we believe these rights to be
inalienable, subject to ability to pay, of course." I know
that the DoI is more an historical document, and has no
real legal "meaning," but it was upon this document, and
premises contained therein, upon which your nation was
founded.
It is the contention of the group that a government's only
responsibility is to ensure the rights of its populace. If
the DoI declared that one of the rights of said populace was
life, of which relatively good health being implied as
necessary, should not a government provide access to some
degree of healthcare, regardless of an individual's ability
to pay? The lazy and work-shy are not the only ones without
access to decent healthcare.
It has also been quoted on this forum that people move about
in order to get the jobs that provide the health care. Here
exists a vicious circle, catch-22. To move takes money. If
you are poor, you won't necessarily be able to afford to move.
And if you live in an area where there is a higher proportion
of relative poverty, the quality of the state-provided and
-funded education will be somewhat less, resulting in less
marketable skills, with which to find work in a better area.
This also reduces the likelihood of any firms that might
provide a health plan from moving into such an area.
And now the point for anyone who has stuck with me, and hasn't
"bozo-binned" me long ago....
No one would seem willing to spend even a dollar more in tax
to assist those who don't have decent health care (1), but would
anyone be willing to spend more to ensure a better education
(2) for those less fortunate, that they may better market
themselves? Or would everyone continue to exhibit what
appears to be just a little bit of selfishness?
(1)of course, I am sure more than just a few give some form
of tax-deductible, charitable contribution that might
eventually assist in this manner :o)
(2)Better education does have the possible benefit of better,
cleaner living, resulting in healthier lifestyles, etc.
--
_____________________________________________________________
richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam.(lugnet excepted)
Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.dee/lego.html
ICQ 13177071 AOL Instant Messenger: RJD88888
_____________________________________________________________
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
