"Freedom" thread or something

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: I'm not saying there should be unlimited health care for all, in the sense that I get to see a doctor 365 days a year if I so choose, there should be benefit limits, especially when it comes to minor things.  But I do think everyone has the right to basic coverage for medical emergencies, life-threatening illnesses and necessary prescription drugs.  And a huge part of the responsibility for seeing that patients do not abuse their benefits comes from the doctors.  A "right" in the US must never infringe on another's right.  In this case, a right to basic coverage means someone has to be a doctor.  If no doctors existed in the US, could there be such a right?  And if you insist there was, how would you get health care to people?  Slavery?

Thank you, Rob, for putting the issue in such clear terms. People tend to get bogged down in the details of things like this, but it's really very simple: what gives you the right to force other people to pay for your health?

I got into an argument with someone about this the other day and she said "So you think we should just let people die?"

I don't know what she meant by "we" since neither of us are doctors. If a doctor wants to treat a patient for free, fine. If people want to donate their money to hospitals so that they can provide free care, fine again. But I certainly have no right to demand my doctor practice his very expensive profession without compensation, or demand that some unrelated third party provide that compensation. I don't see why that is hard for people to grasp.

Big Tobacco sneaks in a regulation to shut down competitors.

But it's a tax so that hurts rich people and big business! 

Loose tobacco is my sh*t. :)

The Doctor wrote:    it is often necessary to take others' property in order to secure liberty for oneself.  If there are two people alive and one has all the resources and the other has no resources, the one with no resources is a slave of the one with all the resources.  He has two options, give up his liberty to the one with all the resources, so that he can survive, or forcibly take some of the resources for himself.

So you believe theft is morally permissible if you need to steal to survive? That doesn't sound like a totally unreasonable position (even though I strongly disagree with it) but it raises a lot of further questions. What if your position of lacking resources is your own doing? What if there are only enough resources for one person to survive, is it then fine for both parties to keep stealing back and forth from each other forever. Does the method of originally acquiring the resources matter at all? (e.g. is it equally justifiable to steal from  someone who acquired their property through diligent hard work as one who got it from fraud?)

I find the European notion of freedom very puzzling, in that you are not regarded to be free unless you possess certain things such as food, shelter, medical care, a job, a good job, retirement benefits, birth control, viagra and an iPad. That definition of the term makes no sense to me.

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote:    it is often necessary to take others' property in order to secure liberty for oneself.  If there are two people alive and one has all the resources and the other has no resources, the one with no resources is a slave of the one with all the resources.  He has two options, give up his liberty to the one with all the resources, so that he can survive, or forcibly take some of the resources for himself.  So you believe theft is morally permissible if you need to steal to survive? That doesn't sound like a totally unreasonable position (even though I strongly disagree with it) but it raises a lot of further questions. What if your position of lacking resources is your own doing? What if there are only enough resources for one person to survive, is it then fine for both parties to keep stealing back and forth from each other forever. Does the method of originally acquiring the resources matter at all? (e.g. is it equally justifiable to steal from  someone who acquired their property through diligent hard work as one who got it from fraud?) I find the European notion of freedom very puzzling, in that you are not regarded to be free unless you possess certain things such as food, shelter, medical care, a job, a good job, retirement benefits, birth control, viagra and an iPad. That definition of the term makes no sense to me.

Yes, I believe it is morally permissible to steal to survive.  Who is to say whose fault it is that one lacks resources.  Of course, there is always the self to blame, but often society as a whole and perhaps other individuals (one's parents, one's employer, one's bank, the government, people you've never met before, etc.) are often also to blame.  If there are only enough resources for one in the group, I would say the ideal method would be for them to share and accept the fact that they will both survive for a shorter period of time.   And the answer to the method of originally acquiring the resources is both yes and no, in some sense it is more justifiable to steal from someone who acquired their property through fraud, but that doesn't in my eyes make it unjustifiable to steal from someone who acquired it through diligent hard work.  Aside from a few people who actually have a negative impact on society, I would say that everyone contributes to society as a whole, whether through diligent hard work, kindness to others, compassion, etc.  Why is only diligent hard work rewarded?  It always amazes me that, while not a religious person,  the seven deadly sins include both greed and sloth, yet only sloth is reviled here in this supposed Christian country.  Greed is not only accepted, but rewarded and praised as "diligent hard work". 

Finally, I agree 100% with the European notion of freedom.  How can you have any power over your life if you do not at a minimum possess at least food, shelter, medical care and a good job.  I would also throw in retirement benefits and birth control as important to a person's freedom.  But viagra and an Ipad I would count as extras.  I find the conservative idea of freedom to be puzzling.  How can anyone be free if they cannot feed or shelter themselves or provide for their life and health?  Am I free if I am forced to work for slave wages, so that I can barely survive, because I have no other options?  I would say no.

The Doctor wrote:   But the solution is not to give in to people's greed and selfishness but rather to temper it and teach people compassion and cooperation.

You consider a system which forces people to buy a product at the threat of a fine or imprisonment to teach compassion? You expect a law written to force a group of people to give services to another people to teach compassion?

We need cooperation and compassion. A body of a few hundred people in a 68 square mile portion of the country dictating our behavior via force is neither of those things. We need a system where charity is real charity. Doctors performing services pro bono.  Not Doctors falling into the moral hazard of a subsidized fund. To call something as morally depraved as this law compassionate belittles the entire concept. It's ersatz compassion. It's the kind of compassion you can brag about at dinner parties while never having to do a damn thing yourself.

 We need an insurance market which is actually open to competition. Demand and supply need to be realigned. We need to get rid of the laws which funnel this money into the hands of a few mega companies and hospitals.

The Doctor wrote: life>liberty>property.

You act like those are mutually exclusive, independent, singular quantities.

We want neither situation. However, we're going to have one. I'd rather have one where rationing occurs by price, as this process tends to bring the price down in the long-run, reducing the amount of rationing which must occur. In the meantime, we rely on humans to willingly pick up their fellow man and provide for him in times of need.

We do not shun a bureaucratic rationing of services because of a per se superiority of the initial tradeoff. It's the long-run behavior of the choice which makes it inferior (refraining from a moral argument). Bureaucratic rationing has the opposite effect on prices leading to a system resting either at an unstable equilibrium or spiraling down into itself. In addition, in this scenario we trust that the enormous incentive to abuse the system will be attenuated.

I say this just to preempt the criticism that the market does not solve the rationing problem but instead only obfuscates the process under a monetary system of exchange. I agree with this criticism. This is exactly what the market does. However, it also creates the necessary impetus in the process to alleviate the shortage of supply which demands the rationing. For this reason, we as a shorthand say that the market solves problems of shortages.

Private fire protection in Colorado. 

That is unbelievable. I guess the first amendment doesn't apply in Phoenix. Hopefully he sues the pants off the city for such an injustice.