5 ms·

Are you trolling? Don't you understand that this goes both ways? By accepting this, you are forcing me against my will to be limited by what you personally cons

Are you trolling? Don't you understand that this goes both ways? By accepting this, you are forcing me against my will to be limited by what you personally consider to be an acceptable standard of care. Again, your request is hypocritical and carries no merit.

Consultant32452 9y ago
No, I'm not trolling. Your freedom ends where mine begins. If you want to turn your healthcare choices over to a third party then I have no intention of stopping you. What you're calling your "choice" is to enslave me against my will, to steal the fruits of my labor for your personal benefit. All I'm asking of you is that you don't enslave me. You are still free to participate in collective bargaining, turning over your healthcare choices to a third party, etc. You don't need me to do those things.
- neverender 9y ago
  This is what libertarians actually believe, folks.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    As opposed to authoritarians who want to force me to ask the likes of Donald Trump for permission to get the kind of healthcare I want. I'll take the libertarian solution any day, thanks.
    - m1n1 8y ago
      Do libertarians think it's wrong for the federal government to require hospitals provide emergency care regardless of the patient's ability to pay? Surgeons are forced to operate, which violates their personal freedom? Edit: https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/libertarians_health_insurance https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/l...
      - Consultant32452 8y ago
        I think this sentence is the key to the lack of understanding. >The problem is, it leads directly to the conclusion that "if you don't have any money, you shouldn't be entitled to any medicine." You are not entitled to anything from anyone even if you do have money. I'm curious if you've been following the popular show, The Handmaid's Tale. If you haven't, it's a show in which the human race is facing potential extinction because women are becoming infertile. To solve this problem they essentially enslave and repeatedly rape fertile women in the hopes of increasing the population. Now obviously this is an exaggerated scenario, but by what moral principal would you suggest that it's wrong to to enslave and rape women to save the human race? And why would you not apply that same moral principal to a surgeon and an individual patient? Does the moral principal no longer apply simply because the scale is different? What level of coercion are you willing to apply to the surgeon? If he won't help a bankrupt person will you remove his license and create an additional bankrupt person? That doesn't seem to be beneficial to society at all. The moral thing, of course, is for the surgeon to spend some portion of his time aiding those who cannot help themselves. And the moral thing, of course, is for all of us to help those who cannot help themselves by either providing our own time/labor or perhaps funding the surgeon so he can perform more "free" surgeries. Some people will certainly choose not to aid others, but that doesn't justify forcing them against their will.
        m1n1 8y ago
        The surgeon chose to become a surgeon. Are there places where enough people make the moral choice to support as high a standard of living as Norway? Edit: I mean, it seems you're saying that there are enough good humans to support a nice enough society that we should all have that much free will. But is that what we find in real life?
        Consultant32452 8y ago
        I want to be free to choose what I personally define as a high standard of living for myself, as long as I don't harm anyone else. More importantly, I want to be free from being coerced into living what you personally consider a high standard of living. >I mean, it seems you're saying that there are enough good humans to support a nice enough society that we should all have that much free will. But is that what we find in real life? I would rather live in a world where I'm literally the only human on the planet willing to help his fellow man than one in which I'm subjected to someone else's personal ideal of how I should live my life. But I'm far more optimistic than that. It's entirely probable that some people will slip through the proverbial cracks, as they do in all systems, but I don't support attempting to right one moral wrong by committing another.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

Consultant32452 9y ago

No, I'm not trolling. Your freedom ends where mine begins. If you want to turn your healthcare choices over to a third party then I have no intention of stopping you. What you're calling your "choice" is to enslave me against my will, to steal the fruits of my labor for your personal benefit. All I'm asking of you is that you don't enslave me. You are still free to participate in collective bargaining, turning over your healthcare choices to a third party, etc. You don't need me to do those things.

neverender 9y ago
This is what libertarians actually believe, folks.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  As opposed to authoritarians who want to force me to ask the likes of Donald Trump for permission to get the kind of healthcare I want. I'll take the libertarian solution any day, thanks.
  - m1n1 8y ago
    Do libertarians think it's wrong for the federal government to require hospitals provide emergency care regardless of the patient's ability to pay? Surgeons are forced to operate, which violates their personal freedom? Edit: https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/libertarians_health_insurance https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/l...
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      I think this sentence is the key to the lack of understanding. >The problem is, it leads directly to the conclusion that "if you don't have any money, you shouldn't be entitled to any medicine." You are not entitled to anything from anyone even if you do have money. I'm curious if you've been following the popular show, The Handmaid's Tale. If you haven't, it's a show in which the human race is facing potential extinction because women are becoming infertile. To solve this problem they essentially enslave and repeatedly rape fertile women in the hopes of increasing the population. Now obviously this is an exaggerated scenario, but by what moral principal would you suggest that it's wrong to to enslave and rape women to save the human race? And why would you not apply that same moral principal to a surgeon and an individual patient? Does the moral principal no longer apply simply because the scale is different? What level of coercion are you willing to apply to the surgeon? If he won't help a bankrupt person will you remove his license and create an additional bankrupt person? That doesn't seem to be beneficial to society at all. The moral thing, of course, is for the surgeon to spend some portion of his time aiding those who cannot help themselves. And the moral thing, of course, is for all of us to help those who cannot help themselves by either providing our own time/labor or perhaps funding the surgeon so he can perform more "free" surgeries. Some people will certainly choose not to aid others, but that doesn't justify forcing them against their will.
      - m1n1 8y ago
        The surgeon chose to become a surgeon. Are there places where enough people make the moral choice to support as high a standard of living as Norway? Edit: I mean, it seems you're saying that there are enough good humans to support a nice enough society that we should all have that much free will. But is that what we find in real life?
        Consultant32452 8y ago
        I want to be free to choose what I personally define as a high standard of living for myself, as long as I don't harm anyone else. More importantly, I want to be free from being coerced into living what you personally consider a high standard of living. >I mean, it seems you're saying that there are enough good humans to support a nice enough society that we should all have that much free will. But is that what we find in real life? I would rather live in a world where I'm literally the only human on the planet willing to help his fellow man than one in which I'm subjected to someone else's personal ideal of how I should live my life. But I'm far more optimistic than that. It's entirely probable that some people will slip through the proverbial cracks, as they do in all systems, but I don't support attempting to right one moral wrong by committing another.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]