SI Member Vote 2004/SubjectMarks Only For Bush Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : SI Member Vote 2004/SubjectMarks Only For Bush

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Rarebird who wrote (636)	8/17/2004 6:27:53 PM
From: TimF	of 812

I know that at its core (from your putrid Libertarian point of view) a right is a claim of entitlement to something that others have an obligation to protect or provide. It requires only that others respect the right not that they provide anything. Many libertarians would call for the government to protect their rights but some (esp. those that border on anarchy) would not. In any case asking the government to stop people from shooting, enslaving, forcibly censoring or otherwise abusing you is not the same as asking other people to provide for you. You say there is a right to health care. What does that really mean? Do you mean people with the ability to provide health care have to help you and if you can't afford it its ok for you to forcibly take money from others to pay for your care or just force the doctor to treat you without pay? And why healthcare? Why not food? Water? Cable TV? OK the last is a luxury but would you argue that its ok to take money from others as long as you spend it on what you would consider basic necessities for yourself or others? I was hoping that you would use some logical reasoning instead and apply my reasoning as to why adultery is immoral to why a society without universal healthcare is immoral. The reasoning doesn't fit together. Adultery is breaking a vow, and is violating the trust of another (assuming its not an "open marriage"). Not having a huge public healthcare bureaucracy is not doing either of those things. I know that as yet, there is no legal right to health care. No one, under current law, has the right to demand medical treatment. Medical resources are not unlike other tangible resources such as food, housing, etc. So should I have not bought my house but rather just insisted that someone provide me with housing as my right. I'm also glad to here that food is my right. I'll be able to skip my next trip to the supermarket. You'll be coming by with some food for me right? What Libertarians like you don't realize, Wildstar, is that the basis for community is shared values and a society such as the USA may arrive at a consensus concerning certain basic values that might lead to the provision of medical care for all. One of our shared values is that people shouldn't be enslaved for the good of others. Another maybe less universal but widely shared idea is that we have rights not to have things done to us, but that we don't have the right to demand that others serve us, esp. without compensation. but because US society has determined it is compassionate and merciful to help people in times of need If I am in need and you help me, you are being companionate. If I am in need and you force Wildstar to help me then neither one of you is acting compassionately. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next