Spoiled rich teenager commits fraud - you gotta read this

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

For those who consider health care a "right", it then becomes a question of whose rights take precedence? I consider fundamental personal liberties to have precedence over the so-called "right" to health care. In any case, I do not consider health care to be a "right" in the same moral or legal sense as the more traditional rights.

What more traditional rights? The ones you deign to recognize?

That's one of the fallacies of libertarianism: there has never been a libertarian form of govt in this country, or in any country from which the USA draws its legal or historical roots. Libertarians operate from a hypothetical, never-before-seen society.

Those who wish to pay taxes (or who do not mind paying) for a "free" health care system, are certainly free to do so. My point is that it should be a personal choice, not a government imposed "choice".

Many people don't consider the police to be necessary, or the fire department. They would prefer not to pay taxes to support those things, either. Their disagreement doesn't get them a special exemption to paying for those services, however.

For that matter, I disagree with the military and foreign policy of the Bush administration. Where do I go to get my tax refund, hmmm?

I concede the point that as things are today not everyone who needs health care can get it. It is an unfortunate fact of reality and is a natural consequence of the law of supply and demand.

Interesting that this problem is far less severe in other countries, however.

In fact for most of human history, the modern notion of health care was pretty much non-existant for most people.

So was the concept of voting rights. The fact that something did not exist throughout all time does not disqualify it from being a right.

There are privately run charity organizations that do a much better job than the government in helping those who cannot afford health care.

Well, in point of fact this is totally false, especially when viewed on the grand scale. The history of the US (as well as Europe) shows that when health care was left up to charities, they were totally overwhelmed and unable to cope.

[lpetrich]

What xouper says about health care can also be applied to military and police and judicial protection -- that the government doing it for everyone only rewards social parasites, that it's stealing from Tom and Dick to protect Harry.

Which is one reason I find libertarianism irrational.

For more, see Mike Huben's Critiques of Libertarianism; it's an excellent site.

[xouper]

If Sauron is posting more of his nonsense about me, I'd like to remind everyone that I have him on ignore. I do not consider his ignorant opinions about me worthy of a response.

[xouper]

lpetrich: What xouper says about health care can also be applied to military and police and judicial protection -- that the government doing it for everyone only rewards social parasites, that it's stealing from Tom and Dick to protect Harry.

That's not an accurate interpretation of my position. My taxes that pay for military, police, etc are providing me a service. I am willing to pay for such services.

Which is one reason I find libertarianism irrational.

A comment like that leads me to suspect you do not have much skill in identifying rational arguments.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

If Sauron is posting more of his nonsense about me, I'd like to remind everyone that I have him on ignore. I do not consider his ignorant opinions about me worthy of a response.

If you want to be a drama queen, no one is going to stop you.

However, I can still see your posts. And if you post something totally ridiculous, I have no qualms about pointing it out. I'm not obligated to ignore your comments merely because you've decided to sit out this discussion.

[xouper]

I'll say this again. I do not consider Sauron's ignorant opinions to be worthy of my time to respond.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

I'll say this again. I do not consider Sauron's ignorant opinions to be worthy of my time to respond.

Which changes nothing, Xouper.

I can still see your posts. And if you post something totally ridiculous, I have no qualms about pointing it out.

I'm not obligated to ignore your comments merely because you've decided to sit out this discussion.

And quite frankly, the idea of an opponent who doesn't fight back is not a problem for me.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

My taxes that pay for military, police, etc are providing me a service.

1. So would taxes that pay for universal health care. You could use health care just like anyone else could. That's the point of the word "universal."

2. Currently the Bush administration military is NOT providing me with a service; it is, in fact, making my existence more dangerous. So where do I go to get my refund? Because I sure as hell don't want the "services" that Dubya is providing.

I am willing to pay for such services.

Ah. Now we come to the real crux of your problem. Some services you are willing to pay for, others you are not.

Which brings me back to my other comment: why should you be granted an exemption to paying for service XYZ, merely because you don't want to pay for it? What makes you special?

Why is your unwillingness to pay deserving of special consideration? When my unwillingness to pay for Dubya's foreign policy escapades is not deserving of the same consideration?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by xouper

I'm not saying that at all.

However, there is no such thing as "free" health care. Not even in Canada.

Okay, okay. Point taken.

Let me preface my response by saying that I don't know squat about economics and I absolutely hate talking about politics, since my attempts to do so usually get drowned out in people yelling and calling each other names. Of course it's understandable since we're all deeply and personally affected by politics, but it just makes it hard for me to stay focused and learn anything.

Anyway...

In any case, I do not consider health care to be a "right" in the same moral or legal sense as the more traditional rights.

I'll make it even more personal, and add a little autobiography.

My Mom married and had 10 children with a guy who turned out to be physically and sexually abusive toward his children. As a result, she was forced to divorce and leave him. He did not diligently pay child support and/or alimony (I don't know if he simply couldn't or wouldn't) and as I remember it his health insurance no longer completely covered us, if it covered us at all.

Fortunately, we lived in a country that provided food stamps, Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) and I think other assistance (although I really don't remember the details). So we survived. 11 people living in a 100 yr. old, 3 bedroom, 1 1/2 bath house with barely enough money to get by, but we survived.

What you seem to be saying, though, is that since my dad turned out to be a nutjob and my mom was uneducated and couldn't afford to support us, my siblings and I had no right to food or healthcare. Presumably we should've been left to starve or die of sickness unless some nice charitable group decided (and was able) to support us. I hope it's obvious why I don't agree with that. If it's not, I believe that I had a right, as a human being who had no say in being brought into this world, to food and healthcare. I do not think letting children who are unable to care for themselves starve and/or die of sickness is ever morally justifiable.

If you would not steal money from your neighbor to pay for your health care, then why is it any more moral to let the government be the middle man in that theft?

I think the best answer I've seen to the theft analogy is this one Raskolnikov posted (in response to you, I think ) last week, over at the Skeptic Friends Forum.

Originally Posted by Raskolnikov at SFF

The "taxation is theft" argument is really incomprehensible to me. Those using it seem to think that "legal theft" is just a semantic game, but it isn't. It as an oxymoron. Theft is a legal concept.

While there is certainly a moral component to it, that concept makes no sense outside of a socio-legal environment.

Which is to say that I don't think taxation to provide healthcare is any more 'theft' than taxation to provide any other basic services. And I really do think that food and healthcare are basic services that all humans should be provided with.

At the very least, until they are old enough to beat up their neighbors and take their stuff.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by xouper

That's not an accurate interpretation of my position. My taxes that pay for military, police, etc are providing me a service. I am willing to pay for such services.

What happens if Person B says his personal liberties trump having to pay taxes for the military or police ?
You've stated your general principle in hard terms; you've stated that personal liberties trump all enforced taxes.
So.......
let's get to what really happens if your general principle is implemented.
What happens when too few want to pay taxes for the police ?

[xouper]

I'm going to bow out of this thread. I can see that educating people in these matters would take more effort than I am willing to make. To those of you who think it's morally acceptable to take what you need from others, all I will say at this point is that I strongly disagree with your ethic.

I have no further interest in justifying my position to anyone here, even though I am fully able to do so. To those of you who disagree with my position, I've seen all your arguments before and I consider them flawed. And no, I'm not interesting in the effort it will require to explain why.

[Gurdur]

ufff.
Second time I've been plonked in effect in a few days: odd reasons, too.
Oh well, saves wear and tear on the keyboard.

[godfry n. glad]

Damn...

The target ran before I could get back to the thread.

Xouper is as libertarian as I imagined.

He did make one nice point, though. There is no such thing as "free" healthcare. Every decision made has a cost and establishes a relative value. I make it point to discuss single-payer health insurance, largely because it has the same effect as a public benefit, albeit one that operates by income transfer (or wealth transfer) from those who have the means and a relatively small need, to those who have no or little means, in order to protect and maintain basic health of every individual as a public heath measure. We can argue over what qualifies as "basic health".

Current healthcare is NOT free market, by any stretch of the imagination. There is a very tight level of control in market entry of physicians, which acts to give that very actor within the market excessive economic power in the exchanges of goods and services. So much so that an increase in supply often leads to an increase in the cost per unit, counterintuitive and counter expectation.

Then, the market is also inhabited by players who have excessive political and economic power, thanks to their government granted powers: pharmaceutical companies. Thanks to patent laws and economic concentration, these corporations have the ability to effect legislation to their increasing benefit through lobbying and candidate funding. That this has increased the power of the consumer is doubtful.

So... Protecting the market as it is now is hardly libertarian. There is no free market in health care. I'm dubious about a healthcare industry that is unregulated for quality. Anybody want to have a splenectomy at Joe & Thelma's Corner Discount Surgery?

Thus, from my view, the best we can expect is for the government we elect to protect us to oversee the various actors in the provision of healthcare...it seems that pooling funds so that everybody gets basic health care is a compassionate and worthy thing to do. Not just to children, but to everybody. A single-payer system with rationing would be the most equitable.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

ufff.
Second time I've been plonked in effect in a few days: odd reasons, too.
Oh well, saves wear and tear on the keyboard.

'Tis the season, evidently.

[xouper]

godfry n. glad: The target ran before I could get back to the thread.

Bite me.

[godfry n. glad]

Hey...

Can anybody tell me -

Are Canucks streaming across the border to get high quality "free market" health care?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by xouper

Bite me.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Xouper

Health care always comes at a cost to someone. My position is that the cost of someone's health care should not be imposed on other people against their wishes. In my strongly held moral opinion, taking money from someone against their wises is a violation of their fundamental liberties.

Interesting.

If I had to make a choice between:


Option A

Taking (even against their wishes) a sum of money from everyone in the country, based on their income, to pay for a national health service.

and

Option B

Letting those without the means to pay for healthcare suffer from illness and disease that were preventable by choosing option A.


I'd choose option A every time. I guess I just prefer government endorsed theft to the sickness and death of those without finance.

[xouper]

For those who didn't see it the first time:

I'm going to bow out of this thread. I can see that educating people in these matters would take more effort than I am willing to make. To those of you who think it's morally acceptable to take what you need from others, all I will say at this point is that I strongly disagree with your ethic.

I have no further interest in justifying my position to anyone here, even though I am fully able to do so. To those of you who disagree with my position, I've seen all your arguments before and I consider them flawed. And no, I'm not interesting in the effort it will require to explain why.

[Dingfod]

xouper, it's called sharing. Didn't your mama teach you to share? Or were you an only child?

[livius drusus]

Dragar, I think you mean you'd choose option A.

[Dragar]

Thank you, livius! Typo corrected.

To those of you who think it's morally acceptable to take what you need from others, all I will say at this point is that I strongly disagree with your ethic.

I'd rather have a system of enforced sharing-

Oh, why beat around the bush? I'll say it plainly: I prefer government endorsed theft to allowing people to die or suffer from curable illness.

If you have different preferences, that's fine. The world would be a very boring place if we all liked the same thing.

[xouper]

Dragar: I prefer government endorsed theft to allowing people to die or suffer from curable illness.

I don't suppose anyone would care to explain the multiple fallacies in that statement.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

I'm going to bow out of this thread. I can see that educating people in these matters would take more effort than I am willing to make.

Several people have challenged your claims. All you need do is defend your claims against the specific questions that have been asked.

To those of you who think it's morally acceptable to take what you need from others, all I will say at this point is that I strongly disagree with your ethic.

Then you disagree with all taxes.

Either that, or you *do* agree with "taking what you need from others" in the form of taxation. And what we're really talking about here is where to draw the bright line between acceptable and unacceptable taxes.

In which case, your moral high ground isn't really a moral high ground at all; it's just a ordinary difference of opinion about where to draw said bright line.

It's just that libertarians magically, mysteriously, always draw that bright line in such as fashion as to maximize their personal wealth, and minimize their obligations (financial, social, etc.) to other members in society.

Which is precisely why my earlier statement stands: I've never met a libertarian that wasn't of the "Fuck everyone else, I got mine" viewpoint.

The comforting thing about libertarianism is to remember that it will never be anything more than an asterisk in the political history of the world. Oh, once in awhile they elect a dogcatcher to public office in West Texas, or some god-forsaken timber town in Idaho. But in the long view, it's just another political cult that will wind up relegated to footnotes in the history books.

I have no further interest in justifying my position to anyone here, even though I am fully able to do so.

Apparently you are not able to do so, as several people here -- people you are on good terms with, and people *besides me* -- have asked for a clarification.

To those of you who disagree with my position, I've seen all your arguments before and I consider them flawed. And no, I'm not interesting in the effort it will require to explain why.

Inability to respond dressed up as a temper tantrum. Historically not a convincing tactic.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

I don't suppose anyone would care to explain the multiple fallacies in that statement.

Sheesh.

Xouper - either join the discussion, or don't.

But don't try to cover your ass by exiting, and then prompt others to defend your positions in threads that you (claim to) abandon.