Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 86

Thread: Paying For Health Care

  1. #41
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrShrike View Post
    You do realise that the original role has expanded exponentially because the people have voted for governments based on the expansionist policies they promoted (or opposed). It's not arbitrary at all.
    I didn't say the changes were arbitrary, I said their valuation as "good" or "bad" was arbitrary.

    Sure, but Benjamin Franklin and other framers also held any number of views which most people would consider fringe now. So what? Benjamin Franklin and other recognized that times change as does the opinions of the people; hence they created a Constitution which allowed laws to be created, modified and revoked, as well as which allowed itself to be modified.
    Again, you miss my point. Syme already explained it pretty well.

  2. #42
    Why so delirious?
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161
    Credits
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrShrike View Post
    Sure, but Benjamin Franklin and other framers also held any number of views which most people would consider fringe now. So what? Benjamin Franklin and other recognized that times change as does the opinions of the people; hence they created a Constitution which allowed laws to be created, modified and revoked, as well as which allowed itself to be modified.
    Yes well they certainly did. Just like Jefferson said: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." They realized that people would have to earn their liberty and be willing to fight to keep it. Though as Jefferson predicted, we are willing to make plenty of small compromises in liberty to let mommy government take care of us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Syme
    I'm not sure exactly what views you are trying to attribute to Jefferson and Franklin here, but people who, for instance, hold public education in contempt are definitely not in agreement with Jefferson and Franklin. Both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were outspoken proponents of public education. Just google their names and the words "public education" and you'll find out all about it. As for police, I'm not sure what their views were, but would be quite surprised if they had contempt for the idea of the government organizing a force to prevent crime.
    I did this, and found a quote that seems to sum up Jefferson's views quite nicely: "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

    This DOES include the use of a government-organized police force to ensure people don't harm one another, which is perfectly in line with libertarian views. But yeah it looks like I found out about it, they don't agree with using force to have people pay for the education of others.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    I did this, and found a quote that seems to sum up Jefferson's views quite nicely: "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

    This DOES include the use of a government-organized police force to ensure people don't harm one another, which is perfectly in line with libertarian views. But yeah it looks like I found out about it, they don't agree with using force to have people pay for the education of others.

    "I... [proposed] three distinct grades of education, reaching all classes. 1. Elementary schools for all children generally, rich and poor. 2. Colleges for a middle degree of instruction, calculated for the common purposes of life and such as should be desirable for all who were in easy circumstances. And 3d. an ultimate grade for teaching the sciences generally and in their highest degree... The expenses of [the elementary] schools should be borne by the inhabitants of the county, every one in proportion to his general tax-rate. This would throw on wealth the education of the poor."

    --Thomas Jefferson in his autobiography, 1821

    "The less wealthy people,... by the bill for a general education, would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government; and all this would be effected without the violation of a single natural right of any one individual citizen."
    --also from Thomas Jefferson's autobiography

    "I think by far the most important bill in our whole code, is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness... The tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."
    --Thomas Jefferson, 1786

    "[No] tax can be called that which we give to our children in the most valuable of all forms, that of instruction... An addition to our contributions almost insensible... in fact, will not be felt as a burden, because applied immediately and visibly to the good of our children."
    --Thomas Jefferson in a note to the Elementary School Act, 1817

    "My bill proposes, 1. Elementary schools in every county, which shall place every householder within three miles of a school. 2. District colleges, which shall place every father within a day's ride of a college where he may dispose of his son. 3. An university in a healthy and central situation... To all of which is added a selection from the elementary schools of subjects of the most promising genius, whose parents are too poor to give them further education, to be carried at the public expense through the colleges and university."
    --Thomas Jefferson writing to M. Correa de Serra, 1817

    Libertarians like to try to paint Thomas Jefferson as a minarchist because of quotes like the one you gave, but the fact is that although he may have sometimes expressed minarchist philosophical sentiments, he was no minarchist in practice and clearly believed that government monies could be put to legitimate use in fields like public education. His conception of the proper role of government did not stop at the defense of the populace, it included other things beyond that. Next time, try to find out a little more about it.
    Last edited by Syme; 05-31-2009 at 02:43 PM.

  4. #44
    Why so delirious?
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161
    Credits
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post

    "I... [proposed] three distinct grades of education, reaching all classes. 1. Elementary schools for all children generally, rich and poor. 2. Colleges for a middle degree of instruction, calculated for the common purposes of life and such as should be desirable for all who were in easy circumstances. And 3d. an ultimate grade for teaching the sciences generally and in their highest degree... The expenses of [the elementary] schools should be borne by the inhabitants of the county, every one in proportion to his general tax-rate. This would throw on wealth the education of the poor."

    --Thomas Jefferson in his autobiography, 1821

    "The less wealthy people,... by the bill for a general education, would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government; and all this would be effected without the violation of a single natural right of any one individual citizen."
    --also from Thomas Jefferson's autobiography

    "I think by far the most important bill in our whole code, is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness... The tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance."
    --Thomas Jefferson, 1786

    "[No] tax can be called that which we give to our children in the most valuable of all forms, that of instruction... An addition to our contributions almost insensible... in fact, will not be felt as a burden, because applied immediately and visibly to the good of our children."
    --Thomas Jefferson in a note to the Elementary School Act, 1817

    "My bill proposes, 1. Elementary schools in every county, which shall place every householder within three miles of a school. 2. District colleges, which shall place every father within a day's ride of a college where he may dispose of his son. 3. An university in a healthy and central situation... To all of which is added a selection from the elementary schools of subjects of the most promising genius, whose parents are too poor to give them further education, to be carried at the public expense through the colleges and university."
    --Thomas Jefferson writing to M. Correa de Serra, 1817

    Libertarians like to try to paint Thomas Jefferson as a minarchist because of quotes like the one you gave, but the fact is that although he may have sometimes expressed minarchist philosophical sentiments, he was no minarchist in practice and clearly believed that government monies could be put to legitimate use in fields like public education. His conception of the proper role of government did not stop at the defense of the populace, it included other things beyond that. Next time, try to find out a little more about it.
    Weird, I wasn't able to find any of those quotes. Well I guess I misjudged the man.

  5. #45
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    This DOES include the use of a government-organized police force to ensure people don't harm one another, which is perfectly in line with libertarian views. But yeah it looks like I found out about it, they don't agree with using force to have people pay for the education of others.
    Society's imperative is to ensure that it's members are as well equipped to integrate into that society as possible. Ignorance begets violence, poverty and ultimately over reliance on the government. Your knee-jerk idealism greatly misses the point (as is often the case with big-L Libertarians).

    And, of course, you are factually incorrect.
    Last edited by ephekt; 05-31-2009 at 03:53 PM.

  6. #46
    Why so delirious?
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161
    Credits
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt View Post
    Society's imperative is to ensure that it's members are as well equipped to integrate into that society as possible. Ignorance begets violence, poverty and ultimately over reliance on the government. Your knee-jerk idealism greatly misses the point (as is often the case with big-L Libertarians).
    If you have a point then state it.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    If you have a point then state it.
    I think his point is exactly what he said: "Society's imperative is to ensure that it's members are as well equipped to integrate into that society as possible. Ignorance begets violence, poverty and ultimately over reliance on the government." He is defending the idea of public education, in response to your suggestion that public education is not a valid role for government.

  8. #48
    Why so delirious?
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161
    Credits
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    I think his point is exactly what he said: "Society's imperative is to ensure that it's members are as well equipped to integrate into that society as possible. Ignorance begets violence, poverty and ultimately over reliance on the government." He is defending the idea of public education, in response to your suggestion that public education is not a valid role for government.
    That quote doesn't at all look like a point to me, but ok.

    I didn't say it was my view that public education is not a valid role for government. However, based on government's track record of programs, they are really good at making things worse whenever they control more. If education is to be public (which there's no way the public would even CONSIDER anything else at this point even if it made way more sense), then there at least needs to be some sort of voucher system in place to ensure competition between schools. Competition is what makes things better, but a government monopoly where you must go to a certain public school if you live in a certain district encourages mediocrity. Not to mention the stupidity of teachers unions. Sure they are great for the teachers (or so some would say), but not so great for the kids.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    That quote doesn't at all look like a point to me, but ok.
    ....If a direct assertion of a principle and an explication of it's merits, offered as a counter-argument to a previous (implied) argument, isn't a point, then what is??

  10. #50
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt View Post
    Society's imperative is to ensure that it's members are as well equipped to integrate into that society as possible. Ignorance begets violence, poverty and ultimately over reliance on the government. Your knee-jerk idealism greatly misses the point (as is often the case with big-L Libertarians).

    And, of course, you are factually incorrect.
    Who said that's society's imperative?
    well i mean

    Quote Originally Posted by Mang View Post
    I need to see a girl getting penetrated in 4 orifices

  11. #51
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    If you have a point then state it.
    You could've just put a little thought into that comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    I didn't say it was my view that public education is not a valid role for government. However, based on government's track record of programs, they are really good at making things worse whenever they control more. If education is to be public (which there's no way the public would even CONSIDER anything else at this point even if it made way more sense), then there at least needs to be some sort of voucher system in place to ensure competition between schools. Competition is what makes things better, but a government monopoly where you must go to a certain public school if you live in a certain district encourages mediocrity.
    OK, so your argument is that bureaucracy ruins everything. I can agree with that, but it seems to be a necessary evil in most cases. I agree that parents should be able to choose within a district.

    Not to mention the stupidity of teachers unions. Sure they are great for the teachers (or so some would say), but not so great for the kids.
    Unions are a double edged sword, really. On one hand, lower education has some of the most horrid wages in academia - 30k/yr is generally considered very good for lower education. On the other, you have unions that potentially act as thugs. I don't know what can be done here to actually make progress, rather than simply realigning ideology. Any input?

    I'd say stuff like NCLB needs to go first, as does the over-reliance on standardized testing. From what I've seen (family full of teachers of all levels), kids are taught to pass these test and nothing more; they don't learn critical thinking or problem solving - just rote memorization.

    Quote Originally Posted by benzss View Post
    Who said that's society's imperative?
    Well, I did. Look at the evolution of social structures and you'll notice that the one thing they require is complex language (and to a lesser extent the reference that comes from this.) I can't think of any better way to evidence the importance of education than this. Education 'for all' is a social imperative, as it's the only way to make a best effort in assuring that citizens are productive members of said (modern) society.

  12. #52
    Why so delirious?
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161
    Credits
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt View Post
    OK, so your argument is that bureaucracy ruins everything. I can agree with that, but it seems to be a necessary evil in most cases. I agree that parents should be able to choose within a district.
    I'd argue it's necessary in very few cases. I linked to a very interesting speech awhile ago dealing with these ideas: http://www.casualdiscourse.com/forum...ghlight=speech
    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt
    Unions are a double edged sword, really. On one hand, lower education has some of the most horrid wages in academia - 30k/yr is generally considered very good for lower education. On the other, you have unions that potentially act as thugs. I don't know what can be done here to actually make progress, rather than simply realigning ideology. Any input?
    Allowing schools to compete (i.e. school vouchers) coupled with getting rid of the unions I think would ultimately make things better for everyone. Competition makes things better. Having teachers competing to get paid based on their performance rather than falling into a lull of mediocrity as is often the case with unions is great for everyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt
    I'd say stuff like NCLB needs to go first, as does the over-reliance on standardized testing. From what I've seen (family full of teachers of all levels), kids are taught to pass these test and nothing more; they don't learn critical thinking or problem solving - just rote memorization.
    Yeah we studied NCLB extensively in one of my public policy classes, and some of the actual things in it are just ridiculous. I'm not sure if saying that kids are just taught to pass the tests and nothing more is a worthwhile argument against it though. If the tests are designed properly, critical thinking and problem solving will be required to pass them, short of knowing all the answers and giving them to the students. Though the tests are likely not designed in the ideal way, and NCLB is certainly crap that's for sure.

  13. #53
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    I'd argue it's necessary in very few cases.
    I'll watch the speech later, but I think you're going to have a hard time showing that these ideas will work in practice, given that we don't have a real world libertopia to look to.

    Competition makes things better.
    Perhaps you haven't heard of the US insurance system.

    Having teachers competing to get paid based on their performance rather than falling into a lull of mediocrity as is often the case with unions is great for everyone.
    Teachers already have standards to meet for employment criteria, so I'm going to write this off as ideology until you expand. Let's say we remove unions, now what?

    I'm not sure if saying that kids are just taught to pass the tests and nothing more is a worthwhile argument against it though.
    Good thing that wasn't my point.

  14. #54
    Why so delirious?
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161
    Credits
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt View Post
    I'll watch the speech later, but I think you're going to have a hard time showing that these ideas will work in practice, given that we don't have a real world libertopia to look to.
    Well it seems to have done pretty well in Hong Kong when it went closer to that type of system on the economic side of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt
    Perhaps you haven't heard of the US insurance system.
    Could you please explain what you mean here?

    Quote Originally Posted by ephekt
    Teachers already have standards to meet for employment criteria, so I'm going to write this off as ideology until you expand. Let's say we remove unions, now what?
    What do you mean? Are you asking how things can work without unions? Just like any other non-union job.

  15. #55
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    What do you mean? Are you asking how things can work without unions?
    No, he was saying that it is ideological to claim that teachers unions remove any incentive for teachers to excel and lull them into mediocrity, and that it is possible to attain the desired level of teacher competence by having mandatory standards for them to meet, rather than by having them compete with each other (though I personally do support the idea of merit pay for teachers).

  16. #56
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    Could you please explain what you mean here?
    Tbh, I can't remember what point I was trying to make there. Perhaps it was an idiot moment.

    What do you mean? Are you asking how things can work without unions? Just like any other non-union job.
    Basically what Syme said. I'm open to merit-based pay, but I was looking for your explanation of why it's better, rather than simple off-hand dismissal of unions as evil. I shouldn't be expected to accept your assumptions.

  17. #57
    Ambulatory Blender MrShrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    438
    Credits
    325
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I do not understand how someone can philosophically supports the concepts of free market capitalism in the form of companies, but in the next breath decry workers unions as evil.

    Particularly given that a significant portion of the working conditions they almost undoubtedly enjoy can be directly attributed to the historical activities of workers unions.

  18. #58
    Scito Te Ipsum TheOriginalGrumpySpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    I am not a citizen of Athens or of Greece but of the world.
    Posts
    4,609
    Credits
    2,229
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    If this is AI then I don't need to read the thread to realize that it's probably devolved away from the original argument into something more philosophical.

    My points are this:
    • In a single-payer system there is actually more choice and freedom for patients
    • While efficiency does not equal low overhead, the government has indeed had some success managing medicaid.
    • An income-tax-like bracket system for health-care?

    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." -Anne Frank


    “We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.” -Buddha

    Identity


  19. #59
    Why so delirious?
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161
    Credits
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrShrike View Post
    I do not understand how someone can philosophically supports the concepts of free market capitalism in the form of companies, but in the next breath decry workers unions as evil.
    I don't understand how this is different from saying: "I don't see how someone philosophically can be a democrat, but in the next breath state their support for Barack Obama."

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
    My points are this:

    * In a single-payer system there is actually more choice and freedom for patients
    * While efficiency does not equal low overhead, the government has indeed had some success managing medicaid.
    * An income-tax-like bracket system for health-care?
    I don't at all understand your first point, please explain how that makes sense.
    For your second point, what successes are you referring to?
    I think I'd rather stay away from your third point for now.

  20. #60
    Scito Te Ipsum TheOriginalGrumpySpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    I am not a citizen of Athens or of Greece but of the world.
    Posts
    4,609
    Credits
    2,229
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    1. In a private network you are referred to a doctor this doctor is connected with certain hospitals you must visit. Each doctor refers you to his network of specialists and physicians regardless of quality. With the other choice you have many more options based on your personal preference and seek your own quality of care without being subjected to the limitations of the private network.

    2. Medicaid has actually reduced their overhead and some consider it a fairly efficient system..run by the government.

    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." -Anne Frank


    “We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.” -Buddha

    Identity


  21. #61
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy View Post
    1. In a private network you are referred to a doctor this doctor is connected with certain hospitals you must visit.
    In a broad sense, sure, but certain HMOs have more freedom. For example, Oschner in my area gives you pretty much free reign, even outside of their facilities.
    Each doctor refers you to his network of specialists and physicians regardless of quality.
    In my experience, referrals were generally done between doctors with at least working relationships. I won't say that 'blind' referrals don't happen, but you're making a pretty big assumption here.

    With the other choice you have many more options based on your personal preference and seek your own quality of care without being subjected to the limitations of the private network.
    I've actually been on Tricare. Dependents definitely do not get much say in where they go etc. And any govt-employed doctor is immune to malpractice suits.

    2. Medicaid has actually reduced their overhead and some consider it a fairly efficient system..run by the government.
    Some meaning proponents of UHC... ? I'd have to look at the numbers again, but I'm pretty sure Medicaid is slated to run out of funding somewhere around 2015.

  22. #62
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy View Post
    2. Medicaid has actually reduced their overhead and some consider it a fairly efficient system..run by the government.
    Who?
    well i mean

    Quote Originally Posted by Mang View Post
    I need to see a girl getting penetrated in 4 orifices

  23. #63
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I think we can all agree that UHC in the US, whatever form it eventually takes, will not simply be a bigger version of Medicaid.

  24. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gismo View Post
    I am from the UK, here we have the National Health Service (NHS), which is a socialised model. People pay national insurance in the form of tax and this money is then used to fund the healthcare system. The only time when you need to pay a bill is when you need entirely elective procedures, dental care and in some cases prescription charges (if you can afford them). The system has its flaws.

    Alot of people take it for granted, waste valuable time with minor complaints. There is a problem with waiting lists for operations. At the moment I am waiting to see someone, god knows how long that will have to take. But I will wait, and I won't complain, as this beats having to pay in full out of my own pocket, I just cannot afford it. Of all the possible uses of tax money, this is probably the least objectionable in my opinion. I feel comforted knowing that people in my country get taken care of when they need it.

    Trojan, the free market does not have all the answers. If I am lying injured, I don't have time to shop around, there is only one thing on my mind and that is getting medical attention. And I am glad I live in a country that recognises that. In the UK, healthcare is a right not a privelage. That will enrage alot of Americans, and it dissapoints me that it would, it is a very cold attitude toward healthcare, and indeed their fellow citizens when they would deny them healthcare if society as a whole needs to pay for it via very small deductions from their income that wouldn't cripple them. The idea of viewing healthcare as nothing more than a comodity as opposed to an essential service disturbs me to an extent. I find it exceptionally cold hearted.
    I disagree

  25. #65
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,881
    Credits
    1,940
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Paulson View Post
    I disagree
    Well that was an insightful first post.

  26. #66
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Well gismo's post was basically an appeal to tradition and an appeal to emotion. Can't see anything insightful for anyone to reply to.
    well i mean

    Quote Originally Posted by Mang View Post
    I need to see a girl getting penetrated in 4 orifices

  27. #67
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,881
    Credits
    1,940
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Yet if anyone made the same comment in response to a right-oriented post you wouldn't be the first to jump down said offender's throat?

    Hypocrisy is urprisingly easy to live with, isn't it?

  28. #68
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Ok...

    ???
    well i mean

    Quote Originally Posted by Mang View Post
    I need to see a girl getting penetrated in 4 orifices

  29. #69
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,881
    Credits
    1,940
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Relax. I'm fiddling with ya.

  30. #70
    Why so delirious?
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161
    Credits
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gismo View Post
    In the UK, healthcare is a right not a privelage.
    This particular sentence disturbs me. You're saying then, that you have a right to someone else's labor. Which I can see how someone would be in agreement with, but that certainly isn't freedom.

  31. #71
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    This particular sentence disturbs me. You're saying then, that you have a right to someone else's labor. Which I can see how someone would be in agreement with, but that certainly isn't freedom.
    Would you then argue that people have no right to, say, police protection against criminals (which is provided by the labor of policemen), or military protection against foreign invasion (which is provided by the labor of soldiers)? These are two things that even the most hardline libertarians usually accept as legitimate functions of government. Would you say that the provision of these services "certainly isn't freedom"?

  32. #72
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    This particular sentence disturbs me. You're saying then, that you have a right to someone else's labor. Which I can see how someone would be in agreement with, but that certainly isn't freedom.
    What is your definition of freedom?

    Do you feel entitled to your mail?

  33. #73
    Why so delirious?
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161
    Credits
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Would you then argue that people have no right to, say, police protection against criminals (which is provided by the labor of policemen), or military protection against foreign invasion (which is provided by the labor of soldiers)? These are two things that even the most hardline libertarians usually accept as legitimate functions of government. Would you say that the provision of these services "certainly isn't freedom"?
    Correct, I wouldn't say police protection is an inalienable right, or that we have a right to "military protection against foreign invasion." If a country were to invade I would certainly be out there risking my life to protect my freedom, but I would absolutely NOT consider it my right to have other people risk their lives for me.

    I do see what you were getting at though. However, my assertion was simply that you don't have a RIGHT to someone else's labor, and I really don't see how someone can reasonably think that they do.

  34. #74
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I think the most hardline libertarians believe in the private provision of security, but y'know
    well i mean

    Quote Originally Posted by Mang View Post
    I need to see a girl getting penetrated in 4 orifices

  35. #75
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
    Correct, I wouldn't say police protection is an inalienable right, or that we have a right to "military protection against foreign invasion." If a country were to invade I would certainly be out there risking my life to protect my freedom, but I would absolutely NOT consider it my right to have other people risk their lives for me.

    I do see what you were getting at though. However, my assertion was simply that you don't have a RIGHT to someone else's labor, and I really don't see how someone can reasonably think that they do.
    I see your point in turn, but I think that describing government-provided services as a "right to someone else's labor" is somewhat obtuse. Let's take your statement that you would willingly enlist if a foreign country invaded; if this happened, and you really did enlist, you'd be providing your own labor to other people, whether that was your intent or not. Your labor would be helping to ensure the protection of the rest of your country's citizenry, including the ones who didn't enlist to protect their own freedom. If someone becomes a doctor in a country with UHC, aren't they doing the same thing? Willingly providing their own labor when they know that it will be used by the government to serve the citizenry?

  36. #76
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    I see your point in turn, but I think that describing government-provided services as a "right to someone else's labor" is somewhat obtuse. Let's take your statement that you would willingly enlist if a foreign country invaded; if this happened, and you really did enlist, you'd be providing your own labor to other people, whether that was your intent or not. Your labor would be helping to ensure the protection of the rest of your country's citizenry, including the ones who didn't enlist to protect their own freedom. If someone becomes a doctor in a country with UHC, aren't they doing the same thing? Willingly providing their own labor when they know that it will be used by the government to serve the citizenry?
    Well, isn't that the difference between tax and charity?
    well i mean

    Quote Originally Posted by Mang View Post
    I need to see a girl getting penetrated in 4 orifices

  37. #77
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benzss View Post
    Well, isn't that the difference between tax and charity?
    Not sure what you mean. A volunteer soldier, and a doctor in a UHC country, are both willingly entering professions where they know that they will work for the government in order to provide services to the public. Unless the soldier is a draftee, or the doctor was forcibly enrolled in med school, their labor is not being extracted from them against their will. Whether someone else "has a right to their labor" strikes me as immaterial, since the labor is being voluntarily given. UnreasonablyReasonable seems to be laboring under the misapprehension that if we have UHC, government thugs will force doctors to work against their will because someone else "has a right to their labor".

  38. #78
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Not sure what you mean. A volunteer soldier, and a doctor in a UHC country, are both willingly entering professions where they know that they will work for the government in order to provide services to the public. Unless the soldier is a draftee, or the doctor was forcibly enrolled in med school, their labor is not being extracted from them against their will. Whether someone else "has a right to their labor" strikes me as immaterial, since the labor is being voluntarily given. UnreasonablyReasonable seems to be laboring under the misapprehension that if we have UHC, government thugs will force doctors to work against their will because someone else "has a right to their labor".
    I figured UnreasonablyReasonable was referring to the means the government uses to pay these doctors and soldiers, i.e. confiscation of property from private individuals.

    Those who choose to work aren't being coerced, but it's easy to argue that the money that pays them has been.

    And maybe you could read something into the sewing up of the market which happens with UHC but that'd be a bit tenuous.
    well i mean

    Quote Originally Posted by Mang View Post
    I need to see a girl getting penetrated in 4 orifices

  39. #79
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Yeah, the taxation angle occurred to me, but his comment about having a "right to the labor of others" was in specific reference to the idea of health care being a right, and he said it's why he was disturbed by the idea of a right to health care, so I figured he was talking about the labor of doctors rather than of taxpayers. I guess we'll have to wait for him to clarify, though.

  40. #80
    Why so delirious?
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    161
    Credits
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    I see your point in turn, but I think that describing government-provided services as a "right to someone else's labor" is somewhat obtuse.
    Whoops, I apologize that it sounded like I meant that. I was just saying that having a right to healthcare translates itself into having a right to someone else's labor. I'm not saying that just because they're employed by the government that we have a right to their labor. I wouldn't say that these government programs are things we have a right to, therefore I wouldn't consider myself to have the right to the work that government employees perform.

    I hope that makes sense. I'm afraid I may be very poor at articulating my thoughts.

Similar Threads

  1. Free sample of Vitaxin from ProMedX Health
    By Drunkmike in forum Freeconomics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-21-2009, 11:36 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •