For my Libertarian friends

If Rob is prepared to admit medical care as a right; I believe he's required to admit several other things as rights which he would not be willing to do.

thellama73 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Okay, forget terrorism. A bum knocks at your door.  You let him in to charitably give him a sandwich.  While you're taking a piss he proceeds to beat your wife and tries to rape her.  You are cool with localized police but not with localized health care.  I'm trying to figure out why that is.  You haven't given good reasons why a locally tax-paid police department is okay but a locally tax-paid health care center for minimal needs is not. As for "only life threatening illness," I haven't made up my mind about that. My reason is that I don't think free medical care is a right. I don't think it's in the constitution, and it doesn't make sense to me to have it. Why are you letting bums into your house? You should have known what would happen. I wish Equality were here, I think he would be on my side. But I have to be awake in five hours and twenty minutes, so I'm going to bed.

Epignosis wrote: Okay, forget terrorism. A bum knocks at your door.  You let him in to charitably give him a sandwich.  While you're taking a piss he proceeds to beat your wife and tries to rape her.  You are cool with localized police but not with localized health care.  I'm trying to figure out why that is.  You haven't given good reasons why a locally tax-paid police department is okay but a locally tax-paid health care center for minimal needs is not. As for "only life threatening illness," I haven't made up my mind about that.

My reason is that I don't think free medical care is a right. I don't think it's in the constitution, and it doesn't make sense to me to have it. Why are you letting bums into your house? You should have known what would happen.

I wish Equality were here, I think he would be on my side. But I have to be awake in five hours and twenty minutes, so I'm going to bed.

JJLehto wrote: Yes, wasn't that what John Locke argued? That the intent of society is to enforce property rights (and contracts)? And that was it. But that's a different story. Maybe I'm confused, you guys are talking about right to life and doctors. I get what you are saying about right to life, but what is the applications? That there should be no healthcare....at all? Like solely private doctors? Since no one should have to pay for the health of others. I'm not putting words in your mouth, Im just confused is all

I never said no healthcare. I said no PUBLIC healthcare. Yes, I think all healthcare should be private. I don't believe that this would result in the massive deaths of Americans like most people do. Americans are charitable people, and I bet many hospitals would operate free clinics simply for charitable purposes and for their reputations.

Epignosis wrote: Your view lacks consistency though.  A tornado (theoretically) could have easily  brought down the Twin Towers as much as some planes could have.  Do you draw a distinction between the two as threats?

Of course there's a difference. One is a terrorist attack (essentially an act of war) and the other is a natural disaster. I'm not sure what your point is here. If you think the only reason those firemen were out there was because they were getting paid, I think you're crazy.

Answer my question about government healthcare treating only life threatening illness.
If your position is that it's the government's duty to protect its citizens from anything that could threaten their life, then what's to stop them taking away your beer on the grounds that you might kill yourself with it?


Edited by thellama73 - July 27 2010 at 23:24

Yes, wasn't that what John Locke argued? That the intent of society is to enforce property rights (and contracts)? And that was it. But that's a different story.

Maybe I'm confused, you guys are talking about right to life and doctors.
I get what you are saying about right to life, but what is the applications?
That there should be no healthcare....at all? Like solely private doctors? Since no one should have to pay for the health of others.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, Im just confused is all

extreme llama is extreme

I deemed it not funny enough.


Nor did it contribute to the thread in any way, why should it be there for no reason?
So I eliminated it.




Edited by JJLehto - July 27 2010 at 22:44

Epignosis wrote: Let me try again: Terrorists threaten your life, so the government steps in to protect you (Your right to life). You are cool with this. Cancer threatens your life, so the government steps in to protect you (Your right to life). You are not cool with this. I'm asking why.

Seems like one way you have freedom of choice, and the other you don't. You can voluntarily give up your rights.


Edited by stonebeard - July 27 2010 at 22:51

Epignosis wrote: thellama73 wrote: Epignosis wrote: thellama73 wrote: Don't misrepresent our views, T. No one is advocating privately owned courts (maybe Equality is, but I don't think so.) As I've said many times, the government's proper function is to enforce laws taht protect the rights of its citizens and defend the borders from invading hordes. I don't want private police, private courts or a private army. It's just everything else I want privatized.  See? I'm not so unreasonable, am I? So then you do believe in my moderate view of localized health care reform, yes? We have a right to life here.  Minimal health care helps to ensure that right.  So the government can help us live right?  The same way as the army protects us from certain death?  Sorry, no, although it's certainly better than what we have now. I don't interpret the right to life as free medical care. I think what the founders meant was that you don't have the right to take someone's life. If their life ends on it's own, that's not the government's business. So if your home is on fire and you and your family are in bed, you interpret that as what...?

I see little reason why volunteer and private fire departments couldn't work. Indeed, the volunteer ones do a pretty good job in most towns in America. I'll admit though, that it's not an iddue I have thought about a great deal.

I will say, you guys are dedicated to your ideals in here.

But then again, what would that make you if spoke against, but just took the government money anyway?
Besides a politician that is
hey ooooh!