Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:34:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1811 times
|
| |
|
|
Scott:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > Maybe part of the dilemma is coming from confusion between the "right to
> > health care" and the "right not to be prevented from obtaining health care."
> > Certainly there's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to health
> > care or housing, and no one worth talking to would suggest otherwise. Beyond
> > the Constitution, though, I would support the premise that everyone has the
> > right "not to be prevented from obtaining health care," certainly not
> > a guaranteed right to have health care. For me, it's similar to the "pursuit
> > of happiness" line; we're not granted the right to happiness, but the right
> > to its pursuit.
>
> Well, whatever form it may be, it is still the same. My point is that
> whether you talk about providing health care, being prevented from
> having health care, etc., someone still has to pay for it. Whether that
> be the government, or individuals.
D'oh! I forgot to address that! With "not being prevented from obtaining
health care" I was trying to avoid implying that "the people" should pick up
the bill. My oversight!
> > I will assert, though, that arguments based on "this country was founded on"
> > must be examined carefully for their relevance and validity in today's world.
> > Today's nation is sufficiently different from its 18th century counterpart to
> > require additional support for an argument, even if that argument is based
> > largely on what was written 200 years ago.
>
> I disagree. Without what founded this country over two hundred years
> ago, we would not enjoy the prosperity, freedom, and unparalleled
> opportunity that we have today. I think most people wrote off, IMO, some
> of the most important writings on how the people and government
> interact.
Well, the easiest criticism against this is that circumstances have arisen
in the subsequent centuries which could simply not have been foreseen by the
founders and which their document could therefore not reasonably be expected
to address. Which is to say that basing our current actions and views on the
opinions generated 200 years ago by the circumstances of 200 years ago is
risky at best and frankly anachronistic.
> We certainly would not have the internet, or LUGNET, for that matter, if
> the Nazi flag or some other dictator took over. The world would be a
> very different place.
We have Al Gore, and only Al Gore, to thank for the Internet. No one else.
Ever.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
188 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
|
|
|
|
