Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Jul 1999 17:21:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
953 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 15:06:30 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following
profundities...
> Richard Dee wrote:
>
> > I do not have these federalist papers to which you refer, so
> > must trust your *interpretation* of them. Assuming a copy
> > exists on the 'net, I shall read them. (Open invitation for
> > someone to e-mail me a copy of them, text-format, zipped, blah, blah).
>
> It does. A quick search will turn it up online. I shan't provide the
> free good of doing your research for you in this case. I went out and
> bought a copy in the bookstore because I wanted to be able to read it on
> the plane. Note that the papers themselves are in the public domain at
> this point, but the most popular edition has commentary and is therefore
> copyrighted.
Requested on the off-chance someone had them? I do have a fair few
documents from wiretap.spies or whatever it was called, I downloaded
almost everything there. I doubt I have that one, though.
> > You should therefore be opposed to government-funded and -run
> > innoculation programs, which have helped to protect *your*
> > children from many diseases, as well as others'.
>
> Your wish is granted. I am opposed. They're a free good, after all.
Hmm. Have you refunded the government for the service yet?
> > And by
> > innoculating the masses, have further helped to protect
> > your children.
>
> Please show that this benefit can only be provided by having the
> innoculation free. Certainly you're not going to allege that we could
> not require everyone to get these, and pay for them themselves (with
> those totally without funds getting it added to their back taxes they
> need to work off)?
I can't. You and I both know that, but it is a means to ensure
as many as possible are innoculated. I wouldn't be totally opposed
to those with insurance, that the insurance cover it. For those
who can't, they should be innocu
> However I dispute that 100% innoculation is required, or morally
> justified. My sister-in-law, damnfool that she is, refused on moral
> ground. Her kids and mine mix, and they may well die from diseases mie
> are immmune to and spread to them. Oh well.
>
> > Or would you leave that, too, to
> > ability to pay and merit of position? (Class-based, non-
> > democratic, etc.) --
>
> Please elaborate, I don't follow. How is merit "class-based" or
> non-democratic?. We have equality of opportunity, or did, here.
>
>
--
_____________________________________________________________
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 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
|
|
|
|
