Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

Biggles

My point has been a very simple one. In a world where billions of people live cheek-by-jowl with each other, one person's "rights" to do exactly what he chooses, is inevitably & repeatedly, going to come up against another person's "rights" to live his life the way he chooses. Your apparent refusal to object to any kind of activity your neighbour might engage in, even if it has the identifiable & foreseeable potential to kill yourself & your family, is a position that I imagine practically nobody would agree with. Yes, it would be perfectly possible for your hypothetical, bomb-building neighbour to carry out his activities with no effect on your life, up until the point he blows you to pieces - at which point your ability to intervene to protect your rights would be terminally curtailed.

Click to expand...

Ok, now I am going to get into your wording a little - because I have ignored some of the undertones to this point but I don't think it's in either of our best interest for me to continue to allow it to go unaddressed.

I do not refuse to object to any kind of activity that my neighbor might engage in if it has the identifiable potential to kill me. If my neighbor is trying intentionally to harm, scare, or put my rights in danger, then my rights have been violated and the state should take action.

If my neighbor built a bomb that was slowly ticking away ready to go off and obliterate my life an property I do not consider it necessary to wait until the bomb has gone off before action is taken. This is known as attempted murder. My neighbor cannot set a trap for me and simply wait for it to go off. Defensive action to preserve human rights is justifiable and necessary - even when rights violations are only attempted or threatened.

So I hope you will refrain from characterizing my position as one which refuses to take any action until I am dead. Far from it.

Biggles

No, I don't see anywhere where I claim I should be able to "march over to my neighbor's property with a gun". That's exactly the point: there are laws, regulations, zoning restrictions etc. that are in place that do this for you.

Click to expand...

In otherwords, you pay people to threaten to march onto your neighbor's property with a gun for you. How is this different? Don't pretend that you're doing anything else. By supporting a law that curtails your neighbors rights you personally are guilty of using force to violate his rights. The above statement indicates to me that you're less comfortable with this notion than you pretend. And it's proper that you should be uncomfortable with it. But unless you'd be willing to walk over to your neighbor's property with a shotgun and insist that he stop whatever it is that your laws insist that he stop, you should not support that law. Making it less personal does not make you any less culpable.

Biggles

They define the community's (the "collective") rights to control the rights of the individual, because of the ways in which that individual's activities could harm, or potentially harm, or impinge on the rights of others.

The real world is full of examples of big industries exercising their "rights" to conduct business in the way they see fit, at the expense of the safety, health & lives of neighbouring communities, sometimes resulting in major catastrophes like Bophal.

Click to expand...

Don't cite rights violations to justify your position that people who have not violated anyone's rights should have their rights compromised. And don't pretend that I'm claiming that people should be allowed to violate each other's rights without consequence.

Biggles

The rights of individuals & communities include the right to be protected from possible harm as well as actual harm, because once the harm becomes actual it is too late.

Click to expand...

Before possible harm becomes actual/attempted harm its too early. I gave the earlier example that my neighbor has a car, and his car could be used to kill me and my family. He could drive it into my house, run me over, or simply detonate it in his driveway catching my house on fire. There are millions of ways my neighbor could choose to put my life in jeopardy. None of them justifies the use of force on my part to prevent him from having the potential to harm me. I will always stand by his right to have a potentially deadly car in his garage, potentially deadly guns in his house, potentially deadly knives in his kitchen, and a potentially deadly propane tank in his back yard.

To pretend that it is possible to create laws that will prevent people from hurting each other is preposterous. No matter how many things you ban, my neighbor will still have the ability to kill me and my family. I rely on my government to prosecute him and imprison him if he attempts to do so, and I make minor preparations to defend myself if someone should make the attempt.

Biggles

Most people, even libertarians, would accept that there is a need to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of the community as a whole. Libertarians might come down heavily on the side of the individual, while "socialist automatons" might emphasize the welfare of the collective, but to quote Famine:

Do you believe that Libertarianism equates to no government and no rules? You'd be wrong if you do.

Click to expand...

Your quote from Famine does not support your statement. I firmly believe government is critical to prosperity. This discussion started with my statement that government's role is to protect human rights - and I stand by that position. Note the implication - that government is necessary. The notion that human rights cannot be violated by anyone does not preclude government. Let's be clear on that point - because I am no anarchist, and I've spent almost as long arguing with them as I have arguing with socialists.

My position on the subject is one of uncompromising principle - that human rights can be derived using rationality alone, and that because those rights are derived from rationality, violating them is irrational at best.

Biggles

I can only assume that you, Danoff, belong to the fanatical, take-no-prisoners, shock-troop wing of the Libertarian party. The extremists that Ron Paul will have to keep hidden from public view, as he makes his pitch to the great masses of the disaffected American middle-class.

Click to expand...

I meet and talk with other libertarians regularly. Our (my) position is essentially what this nation was founded on. The philosophy behind our current government structure and its limitations is libertarian in nature (I think the founders of the US would have liked that term). So unless you consider the US constitution a fanatical, take-no-prisoners, shocking document, I don't think that description characterizes me well.

I'd like to delve just a little further into the practicality of the whole "zoning" argument as well. The premise is that without government to restrict activities, we're all going to have nuclear power plants in the lot next to us ready to blow up or leak radiation. As a result, government must restrict our property rights so that we don't endanger others with our careless business practices.

In a libertarian world, there are a number of things that prevent this scenario.

First and Foremost
There is no way that these dangerous and dirty activities could possibly avoid violating property rights unless a huge amount of care, space, or both were devoted to keeping rights intact. And if a huge amount of care and or space were involved in keeping things clean and safe, then there is no concern.

Secondly
Contracts are an important aspect of libertarian society and can be used to prevent zoning issues such as these. Today, people regularly enter into voluntary private-contract zoning restrictions so that they can be certain that their neighbor will adhere to certain standards. Generally speaking these contracts are enforced by a home owner's association, and people not only submit to restrictions under these associations, but they pay for the privilege of having their neighbors under contract to adhere to these restrictions.

Zoning is a natural human desire and the government has not fulfilled it to our satisfaction in all cases. Where it has not, private contracts have filled the gap.

Thirdly
Individuals and businesses tend to favor self-preservation. This means that they will not be putting their neighbors at risk of the loss of life and property. That sort of thing generally costs a great deal of money and time that businesses simply cannot afford. The organization I work for harps on safety a ridiculous amount. They're terrified of a lawsuits from their employees, and so they adhere to strict safety standards even within their own property - let alone putting neighboring property at risk.


In conclusion, I am not advocating that we should all simply put up with living next to a nuclear waste dump. I'm claiming that there is no rights conflict here, and the penalty for adhering to human rights in this matter is marginal at most. I'm interested if Biggles or anyone can come up with any other grey areas where rights conflict - because so far I remain unaware of such an area.

Also, Biggles, there is no such thing as the rights of a community. A group is just an abstraction of many individuals.

I do not refuse to object to any kind of activity that my neighbor might engage in if it has the identifiable potential to kill me. If my neighbor is trying intentionally to harm, scare, or put my rights in danger, then my rights have been violated and the state should take action.

Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with intention, it has to do with potential. Yes, if I knew my neighbour was using his property to build bombs, I would use all the legal means at my disposal to stop him. I'd do the same if he violated pollution, noise, height restrictions, set-backs etc. I would expect my neighbour to do the same if I violated those restrictions.

I used to have some respect for the basic premise behind Libertarian thinking, but honestly, reading your comments makes me think you are so tied up in your own intellectual hubris that you have absolutely no handle on reality at all. You've managed to convince me that the ultimate consequence of Libertarian thinking would be a completely dysfunctional society.

I don’t think you refuted anything Danoff just said… you’re doing the equivalent of stamping your feet on the ground instead of having an actual discussion.

Biggles

It's got nothing to do with intention, it has to do with potential. Yes, if I knew my neighbour was using his property to build bombs, I would use all the legal means at my disposal to stop him. I'd do the same if he violated pollution, noise, height restrictions, set-backs etc. I would expect my neighbour to do the same if I violated those restrictions.

Click to expand...

Potential? You have the potential of killing someone every time you drive your car. Should we ban driving? Every time someone uses a gas grill or turkey frier they have the potential to cause an explosion and set my house on fire. Should we outlaw those?

Munitions can easily mean fireworks...should we outlaw those (some US states do)?

Potential cannot be the only factor, as necessary daily activities all have the potential to harm someone else when you don't do it properly. If someone were legally building munitions (licensed or packing their own bullets maybe?) and using all safety precautions you would be at no more risk than if he were cooking on a grill. And chances are, you would never know.


But the point of Danoff's that you seemed to completely miss is that he said there was room in Libertarian thought for zoning. It is perfectly legitimate for government to put toxic waste dumps, munitions factories, etc in an area away from where it creates a risk to homeowners. But you just sklipped it to point out what you find to be crazy.

I used to have some respect for the basic premise behind Libertarian thinking, but honestly, reading your comments makes me think you are so tied up in your own intellectual hubris that you have absolutely no handle on reality at all. You've managed to convince me that the ultimate consequence of Libertarian thinking would be a completely dysfunctional society.

Click to expand...

Since you said comments (plural) take all his comments as a whole and explain this statement.

My thoughts on the Libertarian party?

In short I do like some their ideas, however I don't think their ideals are very practical and would only work under very ideal conditions. These ideal conditions however don't exist and probably will never exist in America.

I have voted for Libertarian candidates in the past, most notably Bob Barr during the 2008 Presidential Election and Greg Creswell during the 2006 Michigan Governor's Election. I do not know if I will do so in the future though, I guess it will all come down to how they will handle whatever the current issue is.

I have been described as a Liberal Libertarian, which I suppose makes sense to a degree. I'm not sure if any such thing exists though, if it does I am unaware of it because I am yet to find a political party that shares the same ideas as I.

Well, I assumed there would be some common ground. I assumed that there would be some things even Danoff would find objectionable. I assumed that most Libertarians would favour some sort of reasonable restrictions on individual freedoms in the interests of community safety. I assumed there would be an understanding that "potential harm" could be anything from an acceptable risk - a car accidentally crashing into your house, to an unacceptable risk - an accidental explosion from a bomb-building facility located in your neighbour's house. But Danoff's refusal to concede even the most extreme scenario, leaves me with absolutely no common ground to start from.

Simply put, Danoff has reduced the Libertarian argument to the point where it just strikes me as patently ridiculous &, from my perspective, not worth the time spent on further discussion.

Rights associated with access to medical care are a pertinent case in point where a conflict arises. Although you cannot force a doctor to treat someone without being paid for it, or force a healthcare company to donate their products for free etc., people do have the right to access the medical care they need, and often a person's life will depend on it. As such, it's my opinion that government has a duty to ensure that this right is upheld, even if that brings about a conflict with other rights. However, in America today, millions of people are not getting this access, mainly because they can't afford it or because of the behaviour of private insurers. Some people can't afford health insurance; some can afford it but are denied it because they are already sick; others do get insurance, but later find that it is inadequate or simply useless when it comes to actually paying for the treatment they need, often treatment needed to stay alive. Therefore, from this point of view, it could easily be argued that access to medical care and/or healthcare insurance is a rights issue, and one that comes into conflict with the right of insurers to choose who gets insurance.

I agree with Joey and Biggles on one key point... the utopian vision of a libertarian society isn't going to happen any time soon, even if core libertarian ideas and values are respectable. Reform has to occur stepwise, as it is impossible to shift from the current system to an entirely libertarian one in one fell swoop. A bit like evolution, you can only work with what you've got... and if "you can't get there from here", then the next best thing is to reform gradually, in a stepwise fashion. Unfortunately, in the case of US health care reform, the system is so borked that any reform in any direction is going to be painful for someone, and perhaps the best anyone can hope for right now is that the most serious problems get dealt with first... clearly, it is the opinion of the Obama administration that the lack of any health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans is of paramount importance, since it directly impacts the ability millions of people to get the healthcare they need. But, the hardcore libertarian view - that all government healthcare aid programmes should cease and that individuals should be left to deal with a healthcare system entirely based on market economics - simply isn't going to convince people who are fearful for their incomes or who already struggle to make ends meet, nor will it convince those who are highly skeptical that the market will treat people any better given the chance. The problem is that the libertarian model is both counter-intuitive and untested (and perhaps even untestable) - that the best way to help those without is to stop giving them any help at all.

I reckon this is why Obama has so much support, both in the electorate and in government - the Obama healthcare plan aims to help those who either can't help themselves, or who are being prevented from being helped. As such, even if Obama's plan is seen by libertarians to be an abhorrent infringement of rights, not to mention an economic catastrophe waiting to happen (as if it hasn't already happened, that is), it is undoubtedly viewed by many, many others as a principled and moral stand against those who won't let the small matter of people's lives get in the way of making a buck.

Well said TM (as always) 👍.

You bring up exactly the problem I'm running into with the socialising of medicine. While I don't like the idea of my taxes going up or the idea that the government will probably botch the whole thing, I do agree that every person has a right to have health care. Letting the uninsured go without proper care is singling out and denying a group of people the right to live (in some cases) or be healthy. Without insurance most people can not afford treatments or medication. I'm not going to get into my family's medical history but without insurance we would be paying a small fortune on our drugs and we even try to get generics when available.

The government's role is to protect its citizens, right? I believe providing health care is protecting them. Sure it's not a guy with a gun that comes to steal your wallet or a foreign country coming to knock at your door with tanks, but it is providing harm to a large number of citizens.

Joey, healthcare is provided by hospitals and doctors. You don't go to city hall for surgery. Why are we talking about healthcare now in the LP thread?

Anyway, the lack of healthcare is not a harm to anyone. It's not a relief, but it's not a harm either. What is a harm is forcing the management of care through the Feds in the way they're planning.

There needs to be a distinction between managed care and health services. The problem we're having is with the availability and affordability of health services. Managed care as we know it has been contributing to that problem for the past 30 years. However, this "solution" is basically an engorgement of the kind of management of care which has thus far turned out to be an economic failure. It does absolutely nothing for or with health services.

A real solution is like something we're working on here. It has to do with working with the health service sector despite managed care administrators. But if those administrators become government bureaucrats, backed up by government thugs, it really becomes difficult to solve the problem.

Omnis

Joey, healthcare is provided by hospitals and doctors. You don't go to city hall for surgery.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm not sure I understand your point here?

Omnis

Why are we talking about healthcare now in the LP thread?

Click to expand...

Health care is part of the Libertarian platform, yes? I don't agree with the way Libertarians approach the subject.

Omnis

Anyway, the lack of healthcare is not a harm to anyone. It's not a relief, but it's not a harm either. What is a harm is forcing the management of care through the Feds in the way they're planning.

Click to expand...

Lack of health care is not a harm to anyone? So you are to tell me people who die because they can't afford a procedure or medication isn't harmful? I don't believe I understand your view here either.

I do believe in America we say people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To deny them health coverage simply because the cost is to high is to deny them life (at times) and happiness.

I'm also not convinced what the government is trying to do will fail as bad as some say. I do believe there are going to be problems and there is a possibility the government could botch it, as I've said. But I think it is too early to tell.

Joey D

Lack of health care is not a harm to anyone? So you are to tell me people who die because they can't afford a procedure or medication isn't harmful? I don't believe I understand your view here either.

Click to expand...

Clearly you don't understand the difference between letting something happen and causing something to happen, which is crucial.

If I hit you, you get hurt and I've violated your rights and should be punished and made to pay you back. If you get sick and I refuse to pay for your medical treatment, I've done no such thing and have no obligation except what I decide to do for you voluntarily.

It's funny, I spent about 2 hours reading through this thread again yesterday and I almost revived it. Some pretty prophetic stuff in here.

Duke

Clearly you don't understand the difference between letting something happen and causing something to happen, which is crucial.

If I hit you, you get hurt and I've violated your rights and should be punished and made to pay you back. If you get sick and I refuse to pay for your medical treatment, I've done no such thing and have no obligation except what I decide to do for you voluntarily.

Click to expand...

You know how many illnesses are caused through the acts of humans? Large corporations pollute, causing cancer, repository problems, heart problems, etc. Actually the US Government is the number one polluter in this country.

Taken directly from here:

The Libertarian Party

Who's the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical companies? The nuclear power plants? If you guessed "none of the above," you'd be correct. Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land.

Click to expand...

Since the US Government is the leading polluter it seems, and no doubt they have contributed a fair amount to the harm of its own citizens. No, I'm not blaming all illnesses on pollution, but I'm using it as an example as the government causing something to happen opposed to just letting it.

So yes, I fully understand the difference between letting and causing. Clearly the government is a causer in all of this and thus should do something about it.

You're assume that the government is a producer. The government only takes. If they're doing something wrong, they can only stop doing that wrong. If they try to rectify it some other way, that would involve stealing yet more resources from other productive, innocent people. They produce nothing (except for headaches) with which they can redeem a mistake or damage.

Omnis

You're assume that the government is a producer. The government only takes. If they're doing something wrong, they can only stop doing that wrong. If they try to rectify it some other way, that would involve stealing yet more resources from other productive, innocent people. They produce nothing (except for headaches) with which they can redeem a mistake or damage.

Click to expand...

I'm going by what your political party said, they claim the government is the biggest polluter and I agree. By being the biggest polluter they obviously contribute to poor health and well being among it's citizens.

I'm not seeing your point here. Nor did you address any of my questions I posed to you in my previous post.

Joey D

I'm going by what your political party said, they claim the government is the biggest polluter and I agree. By being the biggest polluter they obviously contribute to poor health and well being among it's citizens.

I'm not seeing your point here. Nor did you address any of my questions I posed to you in my previous post.

Click to expand...

I don't belong to the LP. I addressed your questions and Duke clarified my response for you.

I don't understand what you're on about with the pollution thing. Yes, everyone knows the US Gov't is the largest polluter. But it sounds like you're talking about some kind of pollution reparation, or that the government should cover damages related to health. Well, they can't. That's all I'm saying. They can only stop polluting.

Keep in mind, I'm talking about compensation as a function of government. In other words, don't expect a policy of pollution-reparations. You could probably hold the bureaucrats themselves personally responsible for damages. Then, for instance, if you have a claim, you'd sue the director of said program that harmed you, etc. Whatever.

Omnis

I don't belong to the LP.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, however you have shown yourself to have very Libertarian ideals. Am I right in saying that? If not please forgive my confusion.

Omnis

I don't understand what you're on about with the pollution thing. Yes, everyone knows the US Gov't is the largest polluter. But it sounds like you're talking about some kind of pollution reparation, or that the government should cover damages related to health. Well, they can't. That's all I'm saying. They can only stop polluting.

Keep in mind, I'm talking about compensation as a function of government. In other words, don't expect a policy of pollution-reparations. You could probably hold the bureaucrats themselves personally responsible for damages. Then, for instance, if you have a claim, you'd sue the director of said program that harmed you, etc. Whatever.

Click to expand...

Pollution, in all forms, has been shown to cause health problems. Duke was talking about the difference between "causing" and "letting", the government being the biggest polluter and contributing to the poor health of some citizens is really no different than if I walked up to you and punched you in the nose. They caused it, or at least helped cause it and thus should be held partially responsible. It's just one example of why I think the government should be involved in more things than Libertarians seems to think.

You see federal, state, and local governments have caused a lot of problems in the US, the states, and local communities. You can't just take them out of the equation. I believe it is their responsibility to fix what they have wronged. The pollution thing is just one example.

And this is where I come to why I think the Libertarian ideals are based in a fantasy world. Yes I love the idea of small government and giving me all these liberties, but I don't feel it is reasonable, especially when they have to fix so much they've wronged. To walk away would be hurting the citizens, at least in my view.

Joey D

Fair enough, however you have shown yourself to have very Libertarian ideals. Am I right in saying that? If not please forgive my confusion.

Click to expand...

I'm a libertarian, yeah. But I'm not a Libertarian. Look up Big L, little l liberatarianism. Basically, Big L'ers are the party pushers, and little l just means you like liberty.

Joey D

(1)Pollution, in all forms, has been shown to cause health problems. (2)Duke was talking about the difference between "causing" and "letting", (3)the government being the biggest polluter and contributing to the poor health of some citizens is really no different than if I walked up to you and punched you in the nose. They caused it, or at least helped cause it and thus (4) should be held partially responsible. (5) It's just one example of why I think the government should be involved in more things than Libertarians seems to think.

(6) You see federal, state, and local governments have caused a lot of problems in the US, the states, and local communities. You can't just take them out of the equation. I believe it is their responsibility to fix what they have wronged. The pollution thing is just one example.

(7) And this is where I come to why I think the Libertarian ideals are based in a fantasy world. Yes I love the idea of small government and giving me all these liberties, but I don't feel it is reasonable, especially when they have to fix so much they've wronged. To walk away would be hurting the citizens, at least in my view.

Click to expand...

I added numbers in bold so that I could address each point one at a time.

1. Agreed.
2. Duke was referring to my addressing your concern regarding the lack of health services.
3. Correct
4. Held responsible to the effect of them ceasing to pollute, yes. Of course.
5. Here's where I think you have it twisted. If the government is the polluter, why would you want them involved in more stuff? Since the government doesn't actually produce anything and has no productivity with which to recompense damages, why would you want them involved in and doing more? The private sector is ideal for everything because you can claim damages at the expense of only that single responsible entity. When you claim damages against the government, it costs everybody even though they were not responsible, because the government doesn't produce anything with which they could pay the claim.
6. The people would have to fix things anyway, regardless of the presence of the government. It's like the mafia breaking shop windows every month so that their mafioso window contractor operation has good business. Do we keep the mafia around so that they can pay up or fix up the mess they made, or do we kick them out knowing that the money with which they'd pay us would have just been stolen from or scammed out of the next shopkeep?
7. It's not that libertarian ideals are based in fantasy. It's just that government is a scam.

Joey D

In short I do like some their ideas, however I don't think their ideals are very practical and would only work under very ideal conditions. These ideal conditions however don't exist and probably will never exist in America.

Click to expand...

For the most part I agree, but there are still a lot of "what ifs" should the Republicans continue destroying their own party, and the Democrats continuing to disenfranchise their idealistic young voters. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their platform and their ideals, but in the grand scheme of things, it would be difficult to carry the majority of the country on a single ticket (which of course leads to a discussion of how elections work in the first place).

Joey D

I have been described as a Liberal Libertarian, which I suppose makes sense to a degree. I'm not sure if any such thing exists though, if it does I am unaware of it because I am yet to find a political party that shares the same ideas as I.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of different variations of libertarianism, going from the typical conservative natured ones, to extreme leftist views. The nature of most of the old Yankee territories would tend to lead more to the Liberal/Progressive Libertarian views. Depending on where you are will depend on if the Democrats or the Republicans pick up those vibes... Which, of course, leads back into the discussion of how elections are done in the first place.

Ditch the two-party system we have, and it would seem likely that you'd be able to find the party that represents your views a little more easily.

I have a hypothetical for Joey, Biggles, TM, and everyone who thinks healthcare is a right.

You are walking down the street with a friend of yours (please picture someone you know and like). You come across a homeless man. He looks deathly ill and he tells you that he needs $100 for an operation or he'll die. You don't have $100 to give him, he needs it in the next 10 seconds, there is no one else around, and you have a gun in your hand.

Your friend has $100 in his wallet but says that he needs it to buy his wife a Christmas present and refuses to give it to the dying man.

You have two choices.
- Put the gun to your friend's head
- Respect human rights

Which do you choose?

If you choose to respect human rights, who killed the homeless man? Was it your friend who refused to pay? Was it you who refused to steal from your friend? Or was it neither of your responsibilities.

Don't take this situation lightly. This is what you are doing when you support universal socialized health care. I know you don't see a gun in your hand. I know you don't think you're putting it to someone's head, but you are. You are literally, literally threatening the lives of the people around you for the sake of someone's need. If you are unwilling to do it in person, you should be unwilling to do it behind a voting booth.

Jeez, you're doing it too, danoff? That's what you're doing when you support socialized health care. You can support universal health care by real philanthropy and respecting free markets.

edit: I see you fixed it.

Danoff

I have a hypothetical for Joey, Biggles, TM, and everyone who thinks healthcare is a right.

You are walking down the street with a friend of yours (please picture someone you know and like). You come across a homeless man. He looks deathly ill and he tells you that he needs $100 for an operation or he'll die. You don't have $100 to give him, he needs it in the next 10 seconds, there is no one else around, and you have a gun in your hand.

Your friend has $100 in his wallet but says that he needs it to buy his wife a Christmas present and refuses to give it to the dying man.

You have two choices.
- Put the gun to your friend's head
- Respect human rights

Which do you choose?

If you choose to respect human rights, who killed the homeless man? Was it your friend who refused to pay? Was it you who refused to steal from your friend? Or was it neither of your responsibilities.

Don't take this situation lightly. This is what you are doing when you support universal socialized health care. I know you don't see a gun in your hand. I know you don't think you're putting it to someone's head, but you are. You are literally, literally threatening the lives of the people around you for the sake of someone's need. If you are unwilling to do it in person, you should be unwilling to do it behind a voting booth.

Click to expand...

The two choices you highlight are an incomplete list - but I also reject the conclusions you draw from them. Faced with this hypothetical situation (as completely implausible as it is), I would call an ambulance and hope that the paramedics were able to save him. I wouldn't need to threaten anyone, and I wouldn't feel that either myself or my friend were responsible for the outcome. There seems to be a recurring theme here - the idea of forcing people at gunpoint to do anything... it is a powerful yet completely inappropriate metaphor, especially when we are discussing the morality of the provision of care for others. This idea that people are threatening the lives of others when they dare to support any form of socialised healthcare is emotive and plainly incorrect. It is not the fault of any one individual when someone who has been denied access to appropriate healthcare dies, but the result of a collective failure of the government, insurers, healthcare providers and the taxpayer to adequately provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves. It is possible to reject the notion that any individual be held responsible for the provision of healthcare to any other individual, whilst accepting the idea that individuals (and governments) in a just society share in a collective duty to protect the most vulnerable.

The way you have framed this choice, it looks like you are attempting to equate the desire to help save the life of a stranger with a desire to trample human rights. As such, I think this example serves as a perfect illustration of how a strict libertarian interpretation of human rights is inadequate to address all the issues inherent in achieving a just society. Here's a real situation. You are walking home from the sports center and you find a young girl unconscious and slumped against a wall. What do you do? Go to the cash machine, stuff £20 in her pocket and hail a cab? Or do you check that she is alive/breathing, call an ambulance and stay with her until help arrives? Or do you "respect human rights" and walk away?

Touring Mars

The two choices you highlight are an incomplete list - but I also reject the conclusions you draw from them. Faced with this hypothetical situation (as completely implausible as it is), I would call an ambulance and hope that the paramedics were able to save him.

Click to expand...

The ambulance is covered by the $100.

Socialised healthcare = Taking money from people by force (in this example, putting a gun to the head of the friend with the bucks).
Privatised healthcare = Choosing to do something yourself.

Note that "respect human rights" isn't necessarily walking away. It might be helping the person yourself, or asking your friend if he can help... As such, Danoff's list is complete - all options other than "force your friend to give him the money" are "respect human rights" (presuming you don't shoot the guy asking for $100).


Incidentally, the operation might be a breast augmentation. This is provided on the NHS...

Omnis

Here's where I think you have it twisted. If the government is the polluter, why would you want them involved in more stuff? Since the government doesn't actually produce anything and has no productivity with which to recompense damages, why would you want them involved in and doing more? The private sector is ideal for everything because you can claim damages at the expense of only that single responsible entity. When you claim damages against the government, it costs everybody even though they were not responsible, because the government doesn't produce anything with which they could pay the claim.

The people would have to fix things anyway, regardless of the presence of the government. It's like the mafia breaking shop windows every month so that their mafioso window contractor operation has good business. Do we keep the mafia around so that they can pay up or fix up the mess they made, or do we kick them out knowing that the money with which they'd pay us would have just been stolen from or scammed out of the next shopkeep?

Click to expand...

If the government made the mess they should have to fix it. And really would the private sector be any better? I have little faith that the private sector is willing to voluntarily do what is right. Sticking with the pollution example, the private sector does it's fare share of dumping toxins into the air, water and soil. The private sector does things in the interest of money, not necessary in the interest of other people. It's a flaw I see with capitalism in general and a hands off approach to government. Some times regulations need to be put into place.

Omnis

7. It's not that libertarian ideals are based in fantasy. It's just that government is a scam.

Click to expand...

I still think libertarian ideas are based in a fantasy world. I really don't think you could have a successful libertarian government because in the end human nature wouldn't allow for it, at least in my view. Like I said, I like a lot of the ideas, I just don't find them the least bit realistic.

Danoff

I have a hypothetical for Joey, Biggles, TM, and everyone who thinks healthcare is a right.

You are walking down the street with a friend of yours (please picture someone you know and like). You come across a homeless man. He looks deathly ill and he tells you that he needs $100 for an operation or he'll die. You don't have $100 to give him, he needs it in the next 10 seconds, there is no one else around, and you have a gun in your hand.

Your friend has $100 in his wallet but says that he needs it to buy his wife a Christmas present and refuses to give it to the dying man.

You have two choices.
- Put the gun to your friend's head
- Respect human rights

Which do you choose?

If you choose to respect human rights, who killed the homeless man? Was it your friend who refused to pay? Was it you who refused to steal from your friend? Or was it neither of your responsibilities.

Don't take this situation lightly. This is what you are doing when you support universal socialized health care. I know you don't see a gun in your hand. I know you don't think you're putting it to someone's head, but you are. You are literally, literally threatening the lives of the people around you for the sake of someone's need. If you are unwilling to do it in person, you should be unwilling to do it behind a voting booth.

Click to expand...

That situation is extremely unlikely. There is no way to prove the homeless person needs the operation and there is no way to be sure if I give him $100 that he will use it on the operation. Not to mention it would take me longer than 10 seconds to get my wallet out, give them man, rob my friend, or even allow the man to do anything with it. It's a flawed scenario in my view, however I would probably do the same as TM. Dial 911, report a deathly ill man, and wait for the paramedics with him. I've done what is in my power to help the man.

Let me put forth a scenario I feel is more realistic and is better suited to addressing why health care for everyone is needed.

Your wife is diagnosed with cancer, she needs chemotherapy, radiation and an operation in order to put the cancer into remission. You both work for meagre salaries but neither of you have health insurance. Without the treatments she has 6 months to live at best, with the treatments her life expectancy could easily be extended by many years. You can not afford treatments, subsequent medications, the operation, or the hospital stays without insurance. You have even contacted charitable organisations, who have said they would send you paper work and review your case, but you know that could take too long. Even if you sold all your worldly goods you still couldn't cover the cost. So what do you do?

Would you seriously want your wife to die because it infringes on "human rights"?

And once again, I will address the Deceleration of Independence here. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, these are often thought of as human rights, yes? By denying your wife health care because you can't afford a treatment in a grossly inflated system is essentially denying her life and a pursuit of happiness.

Famine

Socialised healthcare = Taking money from people by force (in this example, putting a gun to the head of the friend with the bucks).

Privatised healthcare = Choosing to do something yourself.

Click to expand...

It's still a bad and deliberately misleading example of what socialised healthcare entails. In reality, no-one would stick a gun to a friend's head in a situation like this - ever. A debate about the provision of healthcare needn't be framed with such stark and frankly ridiculous imagery.

Famine

As such, Danoff's list is complete - all options other than "force your friend to give him the money" are "respect human rights"

Click to expand...

I am merely pointing out that the emphasis that Danoff is placing on "respecting human rights" is biased. His option to "respect human rights" clearly implies doing nothing and letting the man die... but indeed, that is not the only way to "respect human rights" in this scenario. The option that I would favour - knowing that I could call an ambulance and that the guy would receive medical care regardless of his destitute state - does also "respect human rights" in my opinion, but of course this would require atleast some form of a safety-net welfare state to be in place. At the very least, I would consider it the right thing to do, whether or not the guy has a right to any help. But, it seems here that 'human rights' are being used to justify making the outrageous claim that socialised healthcare is literally threatening to murder people, when it is absolutely nothing of the sort.

Touring Mars

The two choices you highlight are an incomplete list - but I also reject the conclusions you draw from them. Faced with this hypothetical situation (as completely implausible as it is), I would call an ambulance and hope that the paramedics were able to save him.

Click to expand...

And the paramedics are paid for by... whom, exactly? NOT the person who is benefiting from their services, since he is an indigent. Therefore you have passed the bill onto society in general.

TM

I wouldn't need to threaten anyone, and I wouldn't feel that either myself or my friend were responsible for the outcome. There seems to be a recurring theme here - the idea of forcing people at gunpoint to do anything... it is a powerful yet completely inappropriate metaphor, especially when we are discussing the morality of the provision of care for others. This idea that people are threatening the lives of others when they dare to support any form of socialised healthcare is emotive and plainly incorrect.

Click to expand...

Why? YOU called the ambulance, so you forced someone to absorb the cost of that medical care, without their consent. So the cost gets paid for in everyone's taxes, which are not voluntary, and are in fact enforced by penalties including imprisonment. Imprisonment involves people with guns making other people do things. It may be six degrees from Kevin Bacon, but do not fool yourself that it is not real.

TM

It is not the fault of any one individual when someone who has been denied access to appropriate healthcare dies, but the result of a collective failure of the government, insurers, healthcare providers and the taxpayer to adequately provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves.

Click to expand...

No one has adequately proven that it is those entities' responsibility to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves, beyond saying it just is (though usually in much more long-winded terms).

TM

It is possible to reject the notion that any individual be held responsible for the provision of healthcare to any other individual, whilst accepting the idea that individuals (and governments) in a just society share in a collective duty to protect the most vulnerable.

Click to expand...

Why is that "just", other than simple arbitrary definition?

And are not societies and entities simply made up of individuals? Therefore I am individually responsible for every other person on this planet, whether I choose to be or not, if my society is "morally" required to provide care for those who need it, regardless of their ability (or desire) to provide it for themselves.

You are walking home from the sports center and you find a young girl unconscious and slumped against a wall. What do you do? Go to the cash machine, stuff £20 in her pocket and hail a cab? Or do you check that she is alive/breathing, call an ambulance and stay with her until help arrives? Or do you "respect human rights" and walk away?

Click to expand...

I voluntarily check to see if she is alive, and I call an ambulance, and if things worked the way they should, I would pay for the ambulance and expect her to pay me back. But the key word here is voluntarily. I can choose my level of commitment and involvement based on what I can afford/desire to do.

I would like to point out that even as a libertarian I support common emergency services because in those cases response time is critical and figuring out exactly who pays for what wastes time. But that is far from the idea of socialized health care - the point is to guarantee the fastest possible treatment when fast treatment is critical, NOT to provide all treatments when treatment is not affordable.

But if you go to the emergency room with a cold because you know that the hospital is required to treat you, you should be presented with a bill for the treatment plus a large surcharge for wasting the resources of a critical-care facility.

Joey D

Your wife is diagnosed with cancer, she needs chemotherapy, radiation and an operation in order to put the cancer into remission. You both work for meagre salaries but neither of you have health insurance. Without the treatments she has 6 months to live at best, with the treatments her life expectancy could easily be extended by many years. You can not afford treatments, subsequent medications, the operation, or the hospital stays without insurance. You have even contacted charitable organisations, who have said they would send you paper work and review your case, but you know that could take too long. Even if you sold all your worldly goods you still couldn't cover the cost. So what do you do?

Would you seriously want your wife to die because it infringes on "human rights"?

Click to expand...

Here's what I would do: work as hard as I possibly could to earn money to pay for the treatments, I would fill out all the charity paperwork, I would look for other charities, and I would post on craigslist, ebay, and anywhere else I could offering my indentured services to a patron who could help me pay for my wife's treatment.

Here's what I would not do: expect society to pay for it just because she got sick.

You get handed the benefit of life when you are born. It is not a gift; it is just advance payment. You get to keep it as long as you can pay for it. Simply existing in the first place does not entitle you to keep existing if you can't/won't sustain yourself. I don't expect anything different for myself.

Touring Mars

It's still a bad and deliberately misleading example of what socialised healthcare entails. In reality, no-one would stick a gun to a friend's head in a situation like this - ever. A debate about the provision of healthcare needn't be framed with such stark and frankly ridiculous imagery.

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, that's what happens. Try withholding your taxes...

Socialised healthcare is paid for by threat of incarceration.

Touring Mars

I am merely pointing out that the emphasis that Danoff is placing on "respecting human rights" is biased. His option to "respect human rights" clearly implies doing nothing and letting the man die...

Click to expand...

Not at all. The only option that includes violating human rights is taking the money by force from the friend. Every other option is available under "respect human rights".

Touring Mars

but indeed, that is not the only way to "respect human rights" in this scenario. The option that I would favour - knowing that I could call an ambulance and that the guy would receive medical care regardless of his destitute state - does also "respect human rights" in my opinion, but of course this would require atleast some form of a safety-net welfare state to be in place. At the very least, I would consider it the right thing to do, whether or not the guy has a right to any help. But, it seems here that 'human rights' are being used to justify making the outrageous claim that socialised healthcare is literally threatening to murder people, when it is absolutely nothing of the sort.

Click to expand...

One doesn't have to be murdered to have rights taken away. However, the example is an individualisation of societal groups.

The man is "the unwell".
You are "the state".
Your friend is "the taxpayer".
The gun is merely the threat of punishment for the taxpayer not giving to the unwell by force of the state.

I would also add that under the current proposed plan in the US it attempts to take some of the burden off of the taxes (because Obama promised no taxes on middle and lower classes) by adding that burden to everyone in the form of the compulsory health insurance, with a possible penalty of prison (at gunpoint).


So, not only would it point the gun at "those who can afford it anyway," but everyone.

Duke

And the paramedics are paid for by... whom, exactly? NOT the person who is benefiting from their services, since he is an indigent. Therefore you have passed the bill onto society in general.

Why? YOU called the ambulance, so you forced someone to absorb the cost of that medical care, without their consent. So the cost gets paid for in everyone's taxes, which are not voluntary, and are in fact enforced by penalties including imprisonment. Imprisonment involves people with guns making other people do things. It may be six degrees from Kevin Bacon, but do not fool yourself that it is not real.

Click to expand...

Strange, then, that here in the UK, I have never heard of a single incidence where someone was forced at gunpoint to pay National Insurance, nor have I heard of a case where someone was threatened with lethal force for not paying into a compulsory welfare scheme. What I am trying to emphasise here is that the libertarian cliché of men with guns breaking down your door is so far removed from reality that it isn't a fair scenario to consider, yet it has been trotted out time and time again in this debate already.

Duke

No one has adequately proven that it is those entities' responsibility to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves, beyond saying it just is

Click to expand...

That depends on one's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause in the US Constitution.

Famine

Socialised healthcare is paid for by threat of incarceration.

Click to expand...

..conveniently neglecting to mention that the threat of incarceration (a far cry from a threat to kill) is the extreme end of a process that in itself is incredibly unlikely, and is the extreme end of a spectrum of options, the rest of which are far less draconian - for example, a fine etc. In the UK, there is no legal provision to threaten tax evasion with the penalty of death. I'd wager that only in extreme circumstances is tax evasion or failure to make NI payments actually punished with jail, and that you'd be hard pushed to find someone who has been jailed for refusing to pay National Insurance.