652942c0
XPost: alt.politics.radical-left, alt.politics.socialism, alt.po
itics.libertarian
XPost: talk.politics.libertarian
From: bongofury@hotrats.org
Ron Peterson wrote:
> On Jun 9, 12:21 am, Aardvark wrote:
>
>> health care is not a right because it violates the rights of those
>> who do not want to have money extorted from the to pay for say, an
>> emergency room visit for someone with medicaid and a headcold or strep
>> throat.
>
> So, if someone finds you unconscious on the side of the road, you
> should be left to die?
Do you know the meaning of non sequitur? Free individuals can
help people in distress and for the record, most do. It's a matter
of free choice...imagine that.
The anecdotes that A.
alludes to exist in abundance. People without insurance or means
will come into an E.R. with a passle of kids and use the E.R. as
a "free" means of getting basic medical care. E.R.s are legally
bound to service these people without charge. The costs are passed
on to people who have worked hard and responsibly in order to be
able to afford healthcare. Now, one basic problem is that some
people breed beyond their means. This can be abused by E.R. visits,
expectation of public education, more direct and obvious welfare
handouts etc. The costs are passed on to productive individuals in
form of taxes (direct and indirect), higher fees, currency devaluation
and so forth. Let's back up a bit and give a definition of a free
man or woman. Basically, a free man is one who owns his own life.
The opposite of a free man is a slave. Now, I think it's a given that
people generally find the concept of chattel slavery in the 21st
century to be an evil thing. However, many, if not most, people
do not blink for a second when advocating that the state (at any
level) has a legitimate claim to enslave individuals in many and
various ways. Thus, when Clinton said "there is a limit to freedom"
what he was really saying is that some degree of slavery is
acceptable, at least when implemented by the state. By the way,
corporate welfare is just as prevalent and perhaps more costly
than social welfare.
>
> Police shouldn't protect you from criminals, because someone would
> have to pay?
First of all, police do not have a legal requirement to "protect
you from criminals". Second, they cannot do so. Third, in today's
environment, police are often the ones that individuals need to
protect against. Fourth, even if police were required to "protect
you from criminals", they are reactive rather than proactive. Fifth,
individuals have a responsibility to protect themselves, at least
free individuals.
>
> I don't think you're a Libertarian any more than Bob Barr is. You're a
> member of the religious right that has to resort to labeling people
> rather than having a reasonable discussion.
I can't speak for Aardvark, but to me a libertarian is somebody
who uses the non-aggression principle as a basic premise and uses
logic to build up a set of internally consistent principles that
respect the freedom of individuals. Aardvark seems to me to be
a little inconsistent in places, but generally to hold true to the
spirit of a little l libertarian. Big L libertarians, as represented
by the current LP seem to be a bit lost to me.
>
> You don't understand the difference between liberals and socialists.
Suppose you give an operational definition of the two terms? I'm
serious, because people throw around labels with reckless abandon and
expect that there is a common understanding of the terms, when by the
appearance of things, no such understanding exists.
>
> --
> Ron
>
--
They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for
one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in
your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.
-- Ernest Hemingway
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
