4 ms·

You are saying a lot for just being very anti social, anti human etc. No a public health system is not totaliarism. A gov has the responsibility to take care o

You are saying a lot for just being very anti social, anti human etc. No a public health system is not totaliarism. A gov has the responsibility to take care of all people. This also means that the individual might need to play a game they don't always like. That's how a good stable society works. And just because you are (I guess) in the position to pay for medical, your neighbor might not. What society would that be that you buy the kids vaccines for yours and your neighbor kids die? And frankly just because you made it so long on this planet is not just your archiement. It's the school system which exists because of everyone before you, the health system, the road and everything which allowed you to actually drive to your work, etc etc etc. You are also alive due to vaccines, due to regulations which forces parents to do health checkups, etc. The only reason you can use the internet is a stable functioning society. This independent dream of yours is arrogant and ignorant.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>gov has the responsibility to take care of all people. This is where the fundamental disagreement lies. Many people including myself do not agree with this statement and view that statement itself as totalitarian It IS NOT the government role to take care of me. I do NOT need or want the government to provide that service In a free society the government is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; Anything beyond that "night watchmen" framework and you go beyond free society into authoritarian and totalitarian governance
- Demotio 4y ago
  It's not about you. It's about the society. And I'm fine if people don't like this but I already said what this is: antisocial.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Absolutely not, infact believing government == social would be itself antisocial There is nothing social about government, government is force, government is coercion You can not claim to replace personal responsibility, community, family, etc with a system of governance that by its very nature achieves is objective exclusively by the threat of violence on a population as being the more "social" way to have a society Social societies are bound by a sense of community and voluntary action, not by government mandates and regulations enforced by police and regulators. Government is Anti-Social.
    - Demotio 4y ago
      We all wouldn't be were we are without a stable social structure. The structure is necessary to find the right people who are then able to change the world. You know the poor kid who got fed and support from school etc despite it's upbringing which then studies and finds a cancer treatment. But hey who cares right? I mean look at everything you actually own in your flat or house: non of it comes from your family and you clearly find it totally fine that other people are working for you and you probably despite that they also want to have a good live because this is also social and happens through gov and not through the free market. Gov is the opposition to pure capitalism and gov is us the people.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        >>without a stable social structure. And you believe that is Government? and not just any government a draconian top down government that function as a substituted for parents from cradle to grave sapping all free will and freedom from citizens? >>You know the poor kid who got fed and support from school etc despite it's upbringing which then studies and finds a cancer treatment. that is a good fairy tale... where is the reality >>actually own in your flat European... Now I am getting a clearer picture with your relationship with government, you place government over the people. Where by I place people over the government. I see government as a necessary evil and not something that should be admired History has more examples of my worldview being closer to reality then your utopia view of government being a net good >>non of it comes from your family and you Some of it does, I come from a line of tradesman that do actually build things, including homes. I also work in manufacturing sector that actually does build things.. physical things... That said, it does not really matter, these things exist due to VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE due to markets not because of coordination of government. "None of the thousands of persons involved in producing the pencil performed his task because he wanted a pencil. Some among them never saw a pencil and would not know what it is for. Each saw his work as a way to get the goods and services he wanted—goods and services we produced in order to get the pencil we wanted. Every time we go to the store and buy a pencil, we are exchanging a little bit of our services for the infinitesimal amount of services that each of the thousands contributed toward producing the pencil. It is even more astounding that the pencil was ever produced. No one sitting in a central office gave orders to these thousands of people. No military police enforced the orders that were not given. These people live in many lands, speak different languages, practice different religions, may even hate one another— yet none of these differences prevented them from cooperating to produce a pencil. How did it happen? Adam Smith gave us the answer two hundred years ago." -- [1] Afterword of I, Pencil [1] https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/ https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/
fidgewidge 4y ago
Risk sharing is best done through insurance. The government has no need to be involved in healthcare, beyond subsidizing premiums to some extent for those who are too poor to pay the full cost. There is nothing more anti-social or anti-human than public health. Look at what they did to us. They stopped people visiting their dying parents in hospitals in a failed attempt to stop the spread of an airborne virus. They told people not to get close to each other, they shut down as much of the economy as they could. They forced us all behind screens, to rely for everything on enormous tech firms that automate every interaction. Absolutely every single action they took was calculated to maximally destroy the humanity of society because they believed, wrongly, that each naturally human act they destroyed was increasing transmission by some trivial percent. And then when Sweden ended up with some of the best results in Europe they ignored it and pretended it didn't exist. "The only reason you can use the internet is a stable functioning society." The internet was created by the least totalitarian society on Earth due to fear of attack by the USSR, a maximally totalitarian society that never developed an equivalent to TCP/IP, never even successfully developed a software industry. And today one of the countries that restricts the internet the most, is the country that was welding people into their apartments long after the rest of the world got over COVID and moved on. We can use the internet today because luckily, some people recognized the dangers of totalitarian collectivism and resisted it. Now we must do the same for public health, otherwise next time it's gonna be us behind the welded doors.
- Jcowell 4y ago
  > Risk sharing is best done through insurance. The government has no need to be involved in healthcare, beyond subsidizing premiums to some extent for those who are too poor to pay the full cost. I disagree on the basis that insurance skew to not having to pay as much as possible. This conflicts with healthcare because if Insurance companies are able to determine that you are high risk for something, they would either outright deny you coverage or give you a price that outright means denial anyway. The only entity capable of stopping this is one with the monopoly of power, I.e The Government.

phpisthebest 4y ago

>gov has the responsibility to take care of all people. This is where the fundamental disagreement lies. Many people including myself do not agree with this statement and view that statement itself as totalitarian It IS NOT the government role to take care of me. I do NOT need or want the government to provide that service In a free society the government is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; Anything beyond that "night watchmen" framework and you go beyond free society into authoritarian and totalitarian governance

Demotio 4y ago
It's not about you. It's about the society. And I'm fine if people don't like this but I already said what this is: antisocial.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Absolutely not, infact believing government == social would be itself antisocial There is nothing social about government, government is force, government is coercion You can not claim to replace personal responsibility, community, family, etc with a system of governance that by its very nature achieves is objective exclusively by the threat of violence on a population as being the more "social" way to have a society Social societies are bound by a sense of community and voluntary action, not by government mandates and regulations enforced by police and regulators. Government is Anti-Social.
  - Demotio 4y ago
    We all wouldn't be were we are without a stable social structure. The structure is necessary to find the right people who are then able to change the world. You know the poor kid who got fed and support from school etc despite it's upbringing which then studies and finds a cancer treatment. But hey who cares right? I mean look at everything you actually own in your flat or house: non of it comes from your family and you clearly find it totally fine that other people are working for you and you probably despite that they also want to have a good live because this is also social and happens through gov and not through the free market. Gov is the opposition to pure capitalism and gov is us the people.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >>without a stable social structure. And you believe that is Government? and not just any government a draconian top down government that function as a substituted for parents from cradle to grave sapping all free will and freedom from citizens? >>You know the poor kid who got fed and support from school etc despite it's upbringing which then studies and finds a cancer treatment. that is a good fairy tale... where is the reality >>actually own in your flat European... Now I am getting a clearer picture with your relationship with government, you place government over the people. Where by I place people over the government. I see government as a necessary evil and not something that should be admired History has more examples of my worldview being closer to reality then your utopia view of government being a net good >>non of it comes from your family and you Some of it does, I come from a line of tradesman that do actually build things, including homes. I also work in manufacturing sector that actually does build things.. physical things... That said, it does not really matter, these things exist due to VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE due to markets not because of coordination of government. "None of the thousands of persons involved in producing the pencil performed his task because he wanted a pencil. Some among them never saw a pencil and would not know what it is for. Each saw his work as a way to get the goods and services he wanted—goods and services we produced in order to get the pencil we wanted. Every time we go to the store and buy a pencil, we are exchanging a little bit of our services for the infinitesimal amount of services that each of the thousands contributed toward producing the pencil. It is even more astounding that the pencil was ever produced. No one sitting in a central office gave orders to these thousands of people. No military police enforced the orders that were not given. These people live in many lands, speak different languages, practice different religions, may even hate one another— yet none of these differences prevented them from cooperating to produce a pencil. How did it happen? Adam Smith gave us the answer two hundred years ago." -- [1] Afterword of I, Pencil [1] https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/ https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/

fidgewidge 4y ago

Risk sharing is best done through insurance. The government has no need to be involved in healthcare, beyond subsidizing premiums to some extent for those who are too poor to pay the full cost. There is nothing more anti-social or anti-human than public health. Look at what they did to us. They stopped people visiting their dying parents in hospitals in a failed attempt to stop the spread of an airborne virus. They told people not to get close to each other, they shut down as much of the economy as they could. They forced us all behind screens, to rely for everything on enormous tech firms that automate every interaction. Absolutely every single action they took was calculated to maximally destroy the humanity of society because they believed, wrongly, that each naturally human act they destroyed was increasing transmission by some trivial percent. And then when Sweden ended up with some of the best results in Europe they ignored it and pretended it didn't exist. "The only reason you can use the internet is a stable functioning society." The internet was created by the least totalitarian society on Earth due to fear of attack by the USSR, a maximally totalitarian society that never developed an equivalent to TCP/IP, never even successfully developed a software industry. And today one of the countries that restricts the internet the most, is the country that was welding people into their apartments long after the rest of the world got over COVID and moved on. We can use the internet today because luckily, some people recognized the dangers of totalitarian collectivism and resisted it. Now we must do the same for public health, otherwise next time it's gonna be us behind the welded doors.

Jcowell 4y ago
> Risk sharing is best done through insurance. The government has no need to be involved in healthcare, beyond subsidizing premiums to some extent for those who are too poor to pay the full cost. I disagree on the basis that insurance skew to not having to pay as much as possible. This conflicts with healthcare because if Insurance companies are able to determine that you are high risk for something, they would either outright deny you coverage or give you a price that outright means denial anyway. The only entity capable of stopping this is one with the monopoly of power, I.e The Government.