Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A society has a responsibility to protect its members against all grave threats to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes sickness, injury, and disease. Don't believe me? Think that those "rights" are only negative in the sense that they protect people against infringement from others only? That's cool... but don't get pissed if your house catches on fire and the firemen decide to make you pay the whole cost for putting the fire out.
Think about it... fire protection, healthcare... what's the difference? Both generally (with some exceptions) come about as a result of accidental, sometimes (but not generally) self-inflected occurences. Neither are generally caused by infringement from others. Almost any argument you can make against universal healthcare you can also make against universal fire service. Almost all fire stations are taxpayer-funded, even the ones that take nominal fees as a requirement for service (as do some universal healthcare systems). You can make the argument that universal fire protection is only necessary because those fires can spread throughout a large area and affect large groups of people, but what about houses out in isolated rural areas? Do you believe people who live in rural areas should have to pay the whole cost of having their fires put out, since those fires probably won't spread to other people? If, in the future, people discovered how to place barriers between houses so that a fire in one house never spreads to another, would you then support the abolition of taxpayer-funded firemen? Besides, many diseases are contagious and can spread throughout the population, so the analogy remains consistent. If you have no right to healthcare then you have no right for the firemen to come and put your fire out if one starts.
Think about it, though... nearly all the philosophical arguments you can make against universal healthcare you can also make against universal firemen:
Libertarian Argument:
"You have a right to life, but you have no right for me to PAY to preserve your life by paying for a fricken DOCTOR to save you. It's time for the country to return to the days of personal responsibilitaah."
And the consistent libertarian argument:
"You have a right to life, but you have no right for me to PAY to preserve your life by paying for a fricken FIREMAN to save you. It's time for the country to return to the days of personal responsibilitaah."
Libertarian Argument:
"Socialized medicine violates my rights by forcing me to pay to preserve your well-being by subsidizing your healthcare expenses. I have a right to SPEND MA MOONAH AS I PLLAAIZE, thank you very much."
And the consistent libertarian argument:
"Socialized firemen violate my rights by forcing me to pay to preserve your well-being by subsidizing your house fires. I have a right to SPEND MA MOONAH AS I PLLAAIZE, thank you very much."
A society has a responsibility to protect its members against all grave threats to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes sickness, injury, and disease. Don't believe me? Think that those "rights" are only negative in the sense that they protect people against infringement from others only? That's cool... but don't get pissed if your house catches on fire and the firemen decide to make you pay the whole cost for putting the fire out.
Think about it... fire protection, healthcare... what's the difference? Both generally (with some exceptions) come about as a result of accidental, sometimes (but not generally) self-inflected occurences. Neither are generally caused by infringement from others. Almost any argument you can make against universal healthcare you can also make against universal fire service. Almost all fire stations are taxpayer-funded, even the ones that take nominal fees as a requirement for service (as do some universal healthcare systems). You can make the argument that universal fire protection is only necessary because those fires can spread throughout a large area and affect large groups of people, but what about houses out in isolated rural areas? Do you believe people who live in rural areas should have to pay the whole cost of having their fires put out, since those fires probably won't spread to other people? If, in the future, people discovered how to place barriers between houses so that a fire in one house never spreads to another, would you then support the abolition of taxpayer-funded firemen? Besides, many diseases are contagious and can spread throughout the population, so the analogy remains consistent. If you have no right to healthcare then you have no right for the firemen to come and put your fire out if one starts.
Think about it, though... nearly all the philosophical arguments you can make against universal healthcare you can also make against universal firemen:
Libertarian Argument:
"You have a right to life, but you have no right for me to PAY to preserve your life by paying for a fricken DOCTOR to save you. It's time for the country to return to the days of personal responsibilitaah."
And the consistent libertarian argument:
"You have a right to life, but you have no right for me to PAY to preserve your life by paying for a fricken FIREMAN to save you. It's time for the country to return to the days of personal responsibilitaah."
Libertarian Argument:
"Socialized medicine violates my rights by forcing me to pay to preserve your well-being by subsidizing your healthcare expenses. I have a right to SPEND MA MOONAH AS I PLLAAIZE, thank you very much."
And the consistent libertarian argument:
"Socialized firemen violate my rights by forcing me to pay to preserve your well-being by subsidizing your house fires. I have a right to SPEND MA MOONAH AS I PLLAAIZE, thank you very much."
Just think about it, though...
Not much to think about there. To be a consistent libertarian, one must advocate fire protection as a user fee, similar to life, health, or auto insurance, and shouldn't be funded by taxpayer revenue. So, yes, both should be considered equal, in that respect. If you don't have insurance, you receive a bill from the fire department.
A society has a responsibility to protect its members against all grave threats to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes sickness, injury, and disease. Don't believe me? Think that those "rights" are only negative in the sense that they protect people against infringement from others only? That's cool... but don't get pissed if your house catches on fire and the firemen decide to make you pay the whole cost for putting the fire out.
Think about it... fire protection, healthcare... what's the difference? Both generally (with some exceptions) come about as a result of accidental, sometimes (but not generally) self-inflected occurences. Neither are generally caused by infringement from others. Almost any argument you can make against universal healthcare you can also make against universal fire service. Almost all fire stations are taxpayer-funded, even the ones that take nominal fees as a requirement for service (as do some universal healthcare systems). You can make the argument that universal fire protection is only necessary because those fires can spread throughout a large area and affect large groups of people, but what about houses out in isolated rural areas? Do you believe people who live in rural areas should have to pay the whole cost of having their fires put out, since those fires probably won't spread to other people? If, in the future, people discovered how to place barriers between houses so that a fire in one house never spreads to another, would you then support the abolition of taxpayer-funded firemen? Besides, many diseases are contagious and can spread throughout the population, so the analogy remains consistent. If you have no right to healthcare then you have no right for the firemen to come and put your fire out if one starts.
Think about it, though... nearly all the philosophical arguments you can make against universal healthcare you can also make against universal firemen:
Libertarian Argument:
"You have a right to life, but you have no right for me to PAY to preserve your life by paying for a fricken DOCTOR to save you. It's time for the country to return to the days of personal responsibilitaah."
And the consistent libertarian argument:
"You have a right to life, but you have no right for me to PAY to preserve your life by paying for a fricken FIREMAN to save you. It's time for the country to return to the days of personal responsibilitaah."
Libertarian Argument:
"Socialized medicine violates my rights by forcing me to pay to preserve your well-being by subsidizing your healthcare expenses. I have a right to SPEND MA MOONAH AS I PLLAAIZE, thank you very much."
And the consistent libertarian argument:
"Socialized firemen violate my rights by forcing me to pay to preserve your well-being by subsidizing your house fires. I have a right to SPEND MA MOONAH AS I PLLAAIZE, thank you very much."
Just think about it, though...
I agree fire departments should be privatized, along with librarys etc.. etc....
Not much to think about there. To be a consistent libertarian, one must advocate fire protection as a user fee, similar to life, health, or auto insurance, and shouldn't be funded by taxpayer revenue. So, yes, both should be considered equal, in that respect. If you don't have insurance, you receive a bill from the fire department.
And, if you can't afford to pay the fire department, I suppose you advocate letting their house burn down. Then since government should not help the homeless, you'll let them die. All so you don't have to have any shared responsibility.
Yep, sure, that's the ticket. And, how long do you think a society like that would survive before descending into armed violence and anarchy? Oh, right, you probably have your guns and are hoping for that day...
I agree fire departments should be privatized, along with librarys etc.. etc....
You know, Andrew Carnegie was one of the industrialists called a Robber Baron. But, even he had enough sense to know that the populace is better off if they have access to books. That's why he donated hundreds of libraries around the nation...as long as they were free for the public to use. You are just promoting a two-class citizenship. This nation did not get to be the best on Earth following such small-minded principles.
Although I do respect you guys for your ideological consistency, far more so than the "Keep your hands out of my wallet and put them in that guy's living room instead" social/fiscal conservatives.
Is there really no such thing as shared responsibility for fellow man for you guys, though? Does that have no meaning to you?
Although I do respect you guys for your ideological consistency, far more so than the "Keep your hands out of my wallet and put them in that guy's living room instead" social/fiscal conservatives.
Is there really no such thing as shared responsibility for fellow man for you guys, though? Does that have no meaning to you?
Nope. Not really. You're speaking of collectivism, highly taunted by Socialists and Communists. How about taking full responsibility for one's actions? Do you liberal-socialists not believe in such a thing?
You know, Andrew Carnegie was one of the industrialists called a Robber Baron. But, even he had enough sense to know that the populace is better off if they have access to books. That's why he donated hundreds of libraries around the nation...as long as they were free for the public to use. You are just promoting a two-class citizenship. This nation did not get to be the best on Earth following such small-minded principles.
He donated? Surely that wouldn't work. How in the world can people have access to books by other people donating them? We need the government to provide access to books.
BTW, public library books aren't free. Why do you think your taxes are so high?
I would prefer a one-class system, all achievers. Unfortunately, there are those who prefer to become non-achievers.
ha ha one class system, Not on your life and no stalin taking your money to give to someone else. we give out of charity, not the govt destroying our system
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
