10 Dec 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSure, but we aren't so primitive, and it is far better to care for the sick and to distribute heath care via a free market system which encourages more people to be providers, and more businesses to invent technologies which via the market become more affordable.
Even the most primitive societies took care of their sick.
Or we could go back to guaranteeing a prayer from the witch doctor!
Free markets distribute everything to more individuals, with higher quality, more variety, and with freedom of choice, and at lower costs.
10 Dec 08
Originally posted by Dace AceYup! A right to something, doesn't mean that someone else will provide that to which you have a right.
Again back to guns...you have the RIGHT to bear arms, so why arn't guns provided to us?
My right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that Smith and Wesson have to give me one free!
11 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI have no obligation to you.
Please explain how it follows that people's right to a decent standard of living obliges frogstomp to spend all his money on them. (It doesn't follow, but you're obliged now to show how it does.)
Not sure that I can state it any more clearly than ATY.
If frogstomp believes healthcare to be a right, and he has the means to provide healthcare but with holds those means he is violating a persons right to health care.
Where as I know what a right is, and you Boss have the right to live your life free from force, threats of force and fraud. A right is the sovereignty to act with out the permission of others, it can never be a glass of water, a hospital bed, a ham burger, a job, a roof or unemployment insurance, when you understand this you'll not be awash in a sea of indecisive, hypocritical, principleless porridge like frogstomp.
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHi ya Bosse
It's a terrible, mind-numbingly stupid point, ATY. How one-dimensional is your thinking.
.
It seems like they dont like being reminded what the Internation standard on health care is, prefering instead to use their own definition of rights.
It'a such a shame that such idiotic speech is still allowed.
Ah, but that idiotic speech is their right to make, I think maybe sensible people should vote to disallow that right for them. Since they have such a faulty conception of what a right is they ought not miss their free speech too much.
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by frogstomp
Hi ya Bosse
It seems like they dont like being reminded what the Internation standard on health care is, prefering instead to use their own definition of rights.
It'a such a shame that such idiotic speech is still allowed.
Ah, but that idiotic speech is their right to make, I think maybe sensible people should vote to d ...[text shortened]... h a faulty conception of what a right is they ought not miss their free speech too much.
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by frogstompWhat is the "Internation standard on health care"?
Hi ya Bosse
It seems like they dont like being reminded what the Internation standard on health care is, prefering instead to use their own definition of rights.
It'a such a shame that such idiotic speech is still allowed.
Ah, but that idiotic speech is their right to make, I think maybe sensible people should vote to d ...[text shortened]... h a faulty conception of what a right is they ought not miss their free speech too much.
Do you regard the "Internation standard on health care" as a right?
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaThe United Nation does
What is the "Internation standard on health care"?
Do you regard the "Internation standard on health care" as a right?
The General Assembly,
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction......
......
Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
13 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignThis has been refuted many times, but I'm happy to do it again: universal health care is cheaper.
Sure, but we aren't so primitive, and it is far better to care for the sick and to distribute heath care via a free market system which encourages more people to be providers, and more businesses to invent technologies which via the market become more affordable.
Or we could go back to guaranteeing a prayer from the witch doctor!
Free markets distri ...[text shortened]... individuals, with higher quality, more variety, and with freedom of choice, and at lower costs.
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraJust saying so, doesn't make it so.
This has been refuted many times, but I'm happy to do it again: universal health care is cheaper.
Cheaper than what? The US model? That is far from free market and the health insurance industry is far worse for regulation.
And I'll again point out the true test of your uhc is to make it voluntary. Let people opt into it, those that do believe in 'free health care' are welcome to sign in to it and pay for it.
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by frogstompThere is no definition there, and you haven't said whether you regard those things as rights. So I'll ask again:
The United Nation does
The General Assembly,
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights an ...[text shortened]... disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
What is the "Internation standard on health care"?
Do you regard the "Internation standard on health care" as a right?
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou've stated before that liberty implies or even demands anarchy. That simply isn't the case, except perhaps in the most absolute sense.
This is contradictory. The former implies anarchism, the latter implies government involvement.
Even in the most simple society, and more so as society becomes more complex, the "rights" or individuals tend to overlap, sometimes infringing on the rights of another.
For example, you may have the "right" to mow your lawn. Simple enough. But if you choose to mow your lawn at midnight, or at daybreak, you may infringe on my right to a decent night's sleep.
Government exists to guarantee each of us enjoys our rights, without denying the other theirs. In my simple example, neighborly common sense out to solve the problem, without government force. Solutions exist, including buying a quieter lawnmower, rescheduling, or wearing earplugs while sleeping.
In matters of economics, trade and employment, distribution of commodities, liberty simply means that consumers and producers agree in common on transactions and live up to their word. Government exists to limit and prevent the use of force or fraud, not to see that the deal is equitable, or that nobody profited.
Libertarian thinkers will often disagree on the exact amount of government intervention is appropriate, usually when it is their ox that is being gored. However, objectively most will agree that the desired goal is the minimum amount of force and intrusion by any government.
This is hardly the case when governments around the world spend massive amounts of the GDP, mostly in entitlement programs which take from producers by force, and dole out benefits to consumers, deserving or not.