04 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFRight, you're right. Said so in the very post you quote from, just the line above the quote. An employer says "Here is the work, here are the conditions, take it or leave it. An employee says "Here I am, these are my skills, these are the minimum conditions I require, take it or leave it." If there is some overlap they get together and do business, if not they go their separate ways in search of an employer or employee that will accept their terms.
And, as you've said explicitly several times, a decent working wage for those that DO work, is not a right, either. Right?
04 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by Wajoma
And, as you've said explicitly several times, a decent working wage for those that DO work, is not a right, either. Right?
Right, you're right. Said so in the very post you quote from, just the line above the quote. An employer says "Here is the work, here are the conditions, take it or leave it. An employee says "Here I am, these are my skills, these are the minimum conditions I require, take it or leave it." If there is some overlap they get together and do business, if not they go their separate ways in search of an employer or employee that will accept their terms.
Decency doesn't enter into it, then. Don't expect the victims of your ideology to treat its propenents with any decency when the pyramid scheme topples.
04 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaHence your society sucks the peanuts out of faeces through a straw.
Do I need to write this on a piece of 2 X 4 and batter it across your face so you won't miss it.
Guvamint doesn't pay for health care, they take money off you to pay for your health care. That is if you are a productive individual, if not, if you are a parasite, guvamint then takes money off some one else to pay for your health care.
A "right" is the s ...[text shortened]... is not a right.
A decent working wage for those that don't work, is not a right.
You're all gonna die!!!
hahaahahah
04 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaAnd your phrase becomes "A decent living wage is not a right".
Right, you're right. Said so in the very post you quote from, just the line above the quote. An employer says "Here is the work, here are the conditions, take it or leave it. An employee says "Here I am, these are my skills, these are the minimum conditions I require, take it or leave it." If there is some overlap they get together and do business, if no ...[text shortened]... ey go their separate ways in search of an employer or employee that will accept their terms.
The employers in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair would agree with you.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" M.K. Ghandi
04 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFDecency? From the employers perspective or the employees perspective?
Originally posted by Wajoma
[b]Right, you're right. Said so in the very post you quote from, just the line above the quote. An employer says "Here is the work, here are the conditions, take it or leave it. An employee says "Here I am, these are my skills, these are the minimum conditions I require, take it or leave it." If there is some overlap they ...[text shortened]... of your ideology to treat its propenents with any decency when the pyramid scheme topples.
That's up to you if 'decency' is one of the criteria you choose as an employee or employer.
04 Dec 08
I don't think the libertarian contributors to this thread make it clear enough that what they mean by a right is, in Isaiah Berlin's terms, a negative right - that there should be fewer limits on possible actions. Other philosophies also accept the concept of positive rights, such as the right to a minimum basic standard of living. Of course, to guarantee a positive right sometimes involves an infringement of a negative right - thus, we levy taxes (infringing the right to own property) in order to house the homeless (guaranteeing them the right to shelter).
Libertarians assert that, since these different conceptions of rights conflict with each other, we should dispense with the idea of positive rights entirely. But most societies accept that there should be some form of compromise betwen the two forms of rights.
And we don't have to look to "socialist" Europe for examples of positive rights and negative rights being presented as both of vital importance. Can one get more American than Norman Rockwell? Well, his Four Freedoms include two negative rights - Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship - and two positive rights - Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear.
04 Dec 08
3 edits
Originally posted by caissad4Agreed, and really this is at the heart of the whole debate regarding health care which is poverty. Having said that, how do we combat poverty? Is it by simply printing money and/or taxing the crap out of the populace? Obviously the American government seems to think so right now, however, the end game to this line of thinking is not so appealing.
And your phrase becomes "A decent living wage is not a right".
The employers in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair would agree with you.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" M.K. Ghandi
For me, the issue is, how do we create prosperity to combat poverty? I think it unwise to think that poverty can be blotted out completely, however, the percentage of those in poverty can be improved. For example, is their a society that has ever existed that has blotted out poverty altogether? I think that this would be a resounding NO!!
So this brings us back once again to health care. Health care is such an expensive proposition that it makes me nervous that the government may be willing to guarantee it to everyone. In effect, no cost is high enough not to guarantee health care to everyone even if it means wrecking the economy and sending many more people into the abyss of poverty. In addtion, what happens if the economy becomes so overburdened that the government ceases to function? How many people will then be thrown into poverty at that point? As a result, I view the whole affair as a balancing act of sorts. There is no one right solution, however, to go too far in either direction of not providing for those in need or providing for everyone in need does not seem to be the answer from my perspective.
04 Dec 08
Originally posted by TeinosukeThis libertarian would consider the first category "rights". That is in line with the traditional Lockean formulation.
I don't think the libertarian contributors to this thread make it clear enough that what they mean by a right is, in Isaiah Berlin's terms, a negative right - that there should be fewer limits on possible actions. Other philosophies also accept the concept of positive rights, such as the right to a minimum basic standard of living. Of course, to guarantee ...[text shortened]... and Freedom of Worship - and two positive rights - Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear.
I don't consider the second category "rights". However, IF the majority of a society want to collectively do positive acts to aid their fellow citizens (or even non-citizens) I see nothing wrong with that. We are social emphatic creatures after all. It can be convincingly argued that some of these positive acts are morally required. However, I think the traditional concept of "rights" is sufficiently clear and the distinction important enough to make the claim that "health care is a right" an inaccurate statement.
04 Dec 08
Originally posted by whodeySociety pays for health care in one way or another. Your obsession with whether that payment is made collectively by the government or individually by members of the society makes no sense unless your position is that many members of society should be left to suffer and die from illnesses and conditions that can be treated so that society can save some money. Is that what your position is?
Agreed, and really this is at the heart of the whole debate regarding health care which is poverty. Having said that, how do we combat poverty? Is it by simply printing money and/or taxing the crap out of the populace? Obviously the American government seems to think so right now, however, the end game to this line of thinking is not so appealing.
For ...[text shortened]... se in need or providing for everyone in need does not seem to be the answer from my perspective.
04 Dec 08
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMy position is, health care, like any other industry, is driven by supply and demand. If no one can afford it they won't be able to make money so they MUST drive down the costs or find another line of work. However, like with other industries, if Big Brother sticks its nose in and "bails" you out, this sends the whole supply and demand model askew. For example, we could keep afloat failing auto corporations indefinitely so long as Uncle Sam continues to pay the bill, however, this creates massive debt for which society as a whole will someday be held accountable to pay. I guess what I am saying is, the option is to pay now or pay later. If we pay later, we will be driven off a precipice compared to sliding down a hill. Neither option is desirable but at least with the later society may be able to remain intact to a greater degree and, in addition, perhaps the costs will decrease naturally on their own.
Society pays for health care in one way or another. Your obsession with whether that payment is made collectively by the government or individually by members of the society makes no sense unless your position is that many members of society should be left to suffer and die from illnesses and conditions that can be treated so that society can save some money. Is that what your position is?
04 Dec 08
Originally posted by whodeyYour ridiculous hysteria is amusing. Of course, there are plenty of countries with universal health care and they seem to somehow have avoided the total ruin you say is inevitable.
My position is, health care, like any other industry, is driven by supply and demand. If no one can afford it they won't be able to make money so they MUST drive down the costs or find another line of work. However, like with other industries, if Big Brother sticks its nose in and "bails" you out, this sends the whole supply and demand model askew. For exa ...[text shortened]... to a greater degree and, in addition, perhaps the costs will decrease naturally on their own.
Supply and demand doesn't work for health care. The demand curve is inelastic as people will pay virtually anything to avoid life threatening illnesses. This mean suppliers can pretty much charge anything they want. People can either pay or die. Of course, people who don't have a lot of money will die prematurely. That seems OK with you but it seems most members of even primitive societies are willing to accept that sick people should be treated even if it is somewhat inconvenient or costs something to other members of society. Imagine that.
04 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWell the issue at hand is the US and not the rest of the world. So tell me what other country has driven up a debt of over $10 trillion? Does Washintons spending habits need to change or else? You tell me.
Your ridiculous hysteria is amusing. Of course, there are plenty of countries with universal health care and they seem to somehow have avoided the total ruin you say is inevitable.
Supply and demand doesn't work for health care. The demand curve is inelastic as people will pay virtually anything to avoid life threatening illnesses. Thi n if it is somewhat inconvenient or costs something to other members of society. Imagine that.
As has been said else where, the US currently has universal health care via medicare/miedicaid only it is impracible and WILL lead to our ruin if not reformed as are other socialistic programs that are broken such as Social Security. So why is the US government so dysfunctional compared to the other governments in the world? Who knows, maybe we should just blame conservatives?
04 Dec 08
Originally posted by whodeyThe argument that we already have universal coverage thru Medicare/Medicaid is rubbish. What if you aren't 62 years old? Nor drawing disability, but you don't have a job? Those people aren't on Medi-anything. So, where is their "universal health care"?
Well the issue at hand is the US and not the rest of the world. So tell me what other country has driven up a debt of over $10 trillion? Does Washintons spending habits need to change or else? You tell me.
As has been said else where, the US currently has universal health care via medicare/miedicaid only it is impracible and WILL lead to our ruin if n ...[text shortened]... red to the other governments in the world? Who knows, maybe we should just blame conservatives?
