Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Essay on libertarian failure



 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic
Author Message
dwarfas



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:55 am    Post subject: Essay on libertarian failure Reply with quote

According to the law of nature you got unalienable rights that apply to health, possessions, life, and liberty.

So how can a libertarian argue against universal healthcare?

If I can't give up my right to health nor take it away from someone. Wouldn't a system that enforces that right be justified?

if you regress from the law of nature and your rights are alienable and you can trade them away. Then you give up those rights under agreed upon terms when progressive taxation is proposed.

Therefor libertarians have to back universal healthcare but you can still make arguments against progressive taxation. I believe community rights trump a right to a flat tax. It's more like a modification to agreed upon terms then it is wealth redistribution.
Back to top
Xarls



Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertarians think each person must gain its own wealth, i don't think they feel like paying taxes so other people can heal in a hospital.
Back to top
dwarfas



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How libertarians justify themselves is what I am concerned with. This has to do with John Locke, because libertarians believe in some of what he says, but then they go and reject law of nature, they reject the idea of a commune (in today's world they are called parks) being owned by everyone who mixed his labour into it and not something government can dismantle or sell unless agreed upon. There are lots of things the libertarian rejects for some reason. That's way I believe a libertarian is someone who wants to abide by laws that allow him to be opposite of virtuous rather then being neither.

Like patents on drugs that can save millions of lives. If someone figures out how you make that drugs they can produce a generic version and sell it. If medicine exists and you die if you don't get medicine and there exists a right to life then you ought to be able to get that medicine.

Libertarians give respect to the right to property but not to life and yet people are property to themselves.
Back to top
Deuce



Joined: 06 Oct 2007
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just thought human was a pack animal and caring for one another was self explanatory but I guess these so called libertarians see it other way.. I wonder whod they got these ideas from.. Friedman?
Back to top
cloysterd



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't post here anymore, but I'll make an exception:

Libertarians believe that people have the right to life, liberty, etc., and they should have the freedom to pursue those rights as they choose. The government should exist only to protect those rights from infringement by others, not to decide what the "right" distribution of health care is. If people want to help the less fortunate, they should do so through private charity and not by forcing others to pay for something they may not want to pay for.

Not saying I agree with all of it, but that's what they say.
Back to top
Kaesh



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:43 am    Post subject: Re: Essay on libertarian failure Reply with quote

dwarfas wrote:
According to the law of nature you got unalienable rights that apply to health, possessions, life, and liberty.

So how can a libertarian argue against universal healthcare?

If I can't give up my right to health nor take it away from someone. Wouldn't a system that enforces that right be justified?

if you regress from the law of nature and your rights are alienable and you can trade them away. Then you give up those rights under agreed upon terms when progressive taxation is proposed.

Where exactly have you heard about a "natural right to health"?
If anything, there can be argued a right to physical integrity which, among other things, would forbid anyone from forcing you to care for yourself.
Natural right to health makes about as much sense as natural right to richness.
Back to top
dwarfas



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kaesh, It's been awhile since I have read Locke. But health goes under the umbrella of life. You don't want to live with a broken arm when it can easily be mended and you shouldn't just like people shouldn't kill themselves.
Back to top
Hank333



Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 309
Location: San Antoni

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its not that libertarians are agianst universal health care. They just don't want government involved. Governments are inefficient and wasteful. If it were not for government interference... health care would already be much cheaper, certain government regulations prevent they sale of health insurance across state lines. This lessens competition and raises overall cost due to a lack of competition. Government creates dumb rules which also increase the cost, like if i purchase health insurance in some states, i would be required to pay for coverage that does not apply to me... like covered for vaccinations I would refuse or do not need.

With government involved, i could in vision i future where i must go to the government doctor ever 6 months, or else i face fines. When i go there i may get treatment i don't want or believe in... like forced vaccinations. I may be taxed because i smoke or skateboard or have a high risk job. This is what government does. If universal health care is enacted... then will Food be next? everyone needs food... Will government step in and provide us with our food?
Government decreases freedom... always.

Universal Health care is just a front movement from the left that will only benefit the insurance company, not the people. That is what this "Universal Health Care" Bill is... government coming down and mandating that all people purchase health insurance(like with car insurance) and fining those who don't.

I would not have the right to treat myself they way i would choose... i will be forced to take vaccines i don't want, pills which i don't need, and get check ups which i don't feel like going to. Frankly i think the Modern Doctors are not as effective for many small aliments. Yes if i break my leg... i will be glad to go to the doctor. If i have a Swollen Lyphnoid... i would not want a doctor, because there are natural ways to fix it that are more effective then the anti-biotics a modern doctor would prescribe.

i hope this makes sense.
Back to top
ChuckNorris



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hank333 wrote:
Its not that libertarians are agianst universal health care. They just don't want government involved. Governments are inefficient and wasteful. If it were not for government interference... health care would already be much cheaper, certain government regulations prevent they sale of health insurance across state lines. This lessens competition and raises overall cost due to a lack of competition. Government creates dumb rules which also increase the cost, like if i purchase health insurance in some states, i would be required to pay for coverage that does not apply to me... like covered for vaccinations I would refuse or do not need.

With government involved, i could in vision i future where i must go to the government doctor ever 6 months, or else i face fines. When i go there i may get treatment i don't want or believe in... like forced vaccinations. I may be taxed because i smoke or skateboard or have a high risk job. This is what government does. If universal health care is enacted... then will Food be next? everyone needs food... Will government step in and provide us with our food?
Government decreases freedom... always.

Universal Health care is just a front movement from the left that will only benefit the insurance company, not the people. That is what this "Universal Health Care" Bill is... government coming down and mandating that all people purchase health insurance(like with car insurance) and fining those who don't.

I would not have the right to treat myself they way i would choose... i will be forced to take vaccines i don't want, pills which i don't need, and get check ups which i don't feel like going to. Frankly i think the Modern Doctors are not as effective for many small aliments. Yes if i break my leg... i will be glad to go to the doctor. If i have a Swollen Lyphnoid... i would not want a doctor, because there are natural ways to fix it that are more effective then the anti-biotics a modern doctor would prescribe.

i hope this makes sense.


You argue that government is wasteful and inefficient as if the current market-run system isn't. What we have now is, instead of one bureaucracy running the whole system, multiple bureaucracies competing against each other running the system extremely poorly. There is little more inefficient than a system that fails to cover more than 1/3 of its prospective patients, leaving them to wallow in massive debt for the rest of their lives should they ever require medical care.

You point out that the current healthcare "reform" bill is a boon to insurance companies, not the people. In this assessment you are completely correct. The only thing that it does is guarantee more profits for an insurance industry out to plunder all of us to begin with, except this time it will fully have its hands in the public's pocket to do so. Its really a sweetheart deal.

The only true solution to the heath situation in the US is single-payer universal healthcare. Period.
Back to top
Deuce



Joined: 06 Oct 2007
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since when was health something you could buy or trade with? -_- In europe most countries have working public healthcare and I havent yet seen big flaw. Only flaw is that it doesnt get enough resources.. Those resources are used in say keeping up the useless military threat considering we are part of larger group of countries anyway so it would be political suicide to attack us.
Back to top
thomasdm



Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think the point is that they are arguing against a right to be treated or to have access to healthcare (That is what you meant, right?), but rather against the government controlling it. Just because you don't have universal healthcare doesn't mean you don't have access to healthcare.
Back to top
cloysterd



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChuckNorris wrote:

You argue that government is wasteful and inefficient as if the current market-run system isn't. What we have now is, instead of one bureaucracy running the whole system, multiple bureaucracies competing against each other running the system extremely poorly. There is little more inefficient than a system that fails to cover more than 1/3 of its prospective patients, leaving them to wallow in massive debt for the rest of their lives should they ever require medical care.


I've never heard anything near 30% as the rate of uninsured people in the US. I believe it's closer to 10%. And it's not the insurance companies' fault that people are too poor or irresponsible to buy health insurance. I'm not sure what your definitions of efficient and wasteful are, but neither of those having anything to do with the amount of uninsured. I can tell you that no private corporation can come close to matching the government in terms of wasting money because corporations can and do fire people who lose them money. Meanwhile everybody in the country knows Congress throws money around like a drunken sailor and the incumbents still hold their seats 90% of the time, to say nothing of the bureaucrats who basically hold their jobs for life with no external oversight. THAT is a wasteful organization.
Back to top
ChuckNorris



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cloysterd wrote:
ChuckNorris wrote:

You argue that government is wasteful and inefficient as if the current market-run system isn't. What we have now is, instead of one bureaucracy running the whole system, multiple bureaucracies competing against each other running the system extremely poorly. There is little more inefficient than a system that fails to cover more than 1/3 of its prospective patients, leaving them to wallow in massive debt for the rest of their lives should they ever require medical care.


I've never heard anything near 30% as the rate of uninsured people in the US. I believe it's closer to 10%. And it's not the insurance companies' fault that people are too poor or irresponsible to buy health insurance. I'm not sure what your definitions of efficient and wasteful are, but neither of those having anything to do with the amount of uninsured. I can tell you that no private corporation can come close to matching the government in terms of wasting money because corporations can and do fire people who lose them money. Meanwhile everybody in the country knows Congress throws money around like a drunken sailor and the incumbents still hold their seats 90% of the time, to say nothing of the bureaucrats who basically hold their jobs for life with no external oversight. THAT is a wasteful organization.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/04/uninsured.epidemic.obama/

"1 in 3 Americans were without health insurance at some point in 2007 and 2008."

I have no doubt that the government is inefficient and wasteful. What I'm arguing is that the current health system is more inefficient and wasteful than any government-run system could ever be, due to the fact that it features competing bureaucracies. One needs look no further than the VA system to see a microcosm of what government-sponsored healthcare could be (i.e. very good).
Back to top
Thanik



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All I know is that those of us in the rest of the world laugh at your healthcare. My gf went to stay with her family in NY for a couple weeks, got sick, went to the hospital and they were upselling healthcare Razz

"Would you like xrays with that?"

I nearly wet myself. <3 american healthcare.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy