"You've got two, he's got none, give him one!" - Redistribution of Health

[Babylon]

I'm a left winger who is opposed to government, so I don't know who would be redistributing these kidneys.

I do know that allowing someone to die when you have the ability to save his life is morally wrong, but much easier when that person is far away and not visible to you.  Sleeping rough is not as bad as dying of kidney failure (well,  I don't know for sure, I've slept rough before but never died of kidney failure, but I assume it is worse) so the moral imperative to donate a kidney is actually stronger.  If my daughter were dying of kidney failure and you were a match and refused to give her a kidney I would forcibly take it from you, to protect my daughter's life and I feel I would be morally right to do so.  (assuming I had a doctor willing to do the operation under those circumstances of course)  If you did the same to me I think you would be justified in doing so.

[1713543824]

1713543824

[1713543824]

1713543824

[1713543824]

1713543824

[jgraham]

I'm a left winger who is opposed to government, so I don't know who would be redistributing these kidneys.

I do know that allowing someone to die when you have the ability to save his life is morally wrong, but much easier when that person is far away and not visible to you.  Sleeping rough is not as bad as dying of kidney failure (well,  I don't know for sure, I've slept rough before but never died of kidney failure, but I assume it is worse) so the moral imperative to donate a kidney is actually stronger.  If my daughter were dying of kidney failure and you were a match and refused to give her a kidney I would forcibly take it from you, to protect my daughter's life and I feel I would be morally right to do so.  (assuming I had a doctor willing to do the operation under those circumstances of course)  If you did the same to me I think you would be justified in doing so.

Absolutely.

Incidentally I'll be dropping by sometime today to reduce your quality of life for a potential and temporary enhancement of my own.  It involves rapid and repeated strikes of my foot into your groin.  As you lie fetal you can console yourself with the fact that not only was this amusing for me but also morally defensible.

Nephrectomies are not without risk and are also not necessarily a cure.

[Reikoku]

If my daughter were dying of kidney failure and you were a match and refused to give her a kidney I would forcibly take it from you, to protect my daughter's life and I feel I would be morally right to do so.  (assuming I had a doctor willing to do the operation under those circumstances of course)  If you did the same to me I think you would be justified in doing so.

This is a terrible way of thinking. There is little difference between this and the logic which says that I can shoot you if you witnessed my friend committing a crime in order to protect him. It's an egoist position (see Max Stirner) and ultimately boils down to 'Whatever one has the might to do, one has the right to do'.

[JA37]

It isn't. It is morally neutral. It would be a good deed to put up the person in your 14th bedroom but you don't personally have a moral obligation to do so. You are not actively making someone sleep rough - you are simply allowing them to do so.

This is my position, but many lefties don't agree with it. They would argue that because that 14th room of my mansion is not in use, that I have no legitimate claim over it.

If it's not in use then I can homestead it according to AnCap law? Some new curtains, a bed and whammo that room is mine. Right?

[Mittlyle]

1. You accept a right to private property.
2. You accept a right to healthcare.

Assuming that I'm correct so far, let's look at what happens when Person A is sick and can't afford healthcare. If you accept that Person B has to provide for Person A via welfare, then you add a third rule:

3. A person with a deficit's rights can overrule the rights of a person with surplus.

If you accept this so far, then it's up to you to explain a rights-based argument why it is right to make this overrule apply to property rights, but not to the right to health.

Health and wealth are very different assets. If we could pump abstract thing called 'health' from people and lump it back to sickly then we seriously would need to consider the ethics of forced redistribution of health (I'm not behind it though as we would be fixing bad luck and peoples own choices). As completely theoretical construct I would not touch on that. In practice (kidney transfer for example) egalitarianism is not met in compromising someones health for 'utilitarian good'. Thus we don't need to consider overriding someones health if we believe in right to equal and just treatment. Wealth can be redistributed equally among each income-class so it can be done 'equally'.

As to completely different question than the original post, I'll sketch few reasons why I think transfer of wealth for health-care is okay:

• If transfer of wealth is acceptable in first place (as I believe it is as there are structural unfairness that need to be fixed), then it is reasonable to direct part of it to health-care as that is expense for people same way as everything else. This is my main reason
• Health is capital. The whole economy functions better when people are healthy. In long run this will benefit also those paying the bill. Only way to do this rational 'investment' is by forcing the collective behind it as all will want to reap the benefits but nobody foot the bill. Individualism is bad excuse for not doing reasonable things.
• I think we are both individuals and part of the community (or larger entities, in the end whole biosphere). Entities we live in are the precondition for our well-being so we are morally indebted to keep them well-being too. Some people just seem oblivious to this.
• If we consider that people have equal right to lead good life regardless of their socio-economic status, then not being able to afford health-care is in effect contradicting this.
• (We are not touching your tangible property. Only your bank account. There is subtle but significant difference when considering property rights.)

You could sum up my stance as that in essence we are not overriding your property rights but more like charging a moral debt. That is, in effect your property rights were not violated.

[Anonymous]

Moral debt cannot be objectively measured.

[myrkul]

It isn't. It is morally neutral. It would be a good deed to put up the person in your 14th bedroom but you don't personally have a moral obligation to do so. You are not actively making someone sleep rough - you are simply allowing them to do so.

This is my position, but many lefties don't agree with it. They would argue that because that 14th room of my mansion is not in use, that I have no legitimate claim over it.

If it's not in use then I can homestead it according to AnCap law? Some new curtains, a bed and whammo that room is mine. Right?

No, since it's within the already homesteaded mansion. Nice try, though.

[Mittlyle]

Moral debt cannot be objectively measured.

If we agree there is one, I think it isn't that precise that do we hit the right spot as long as we have the right direction. Politics is for getting to a result in such ambiguous matters.

[JA37]

No, since it's within the already homesteaded mansion. Nice try, though.

Right, so I can homestead a large swath of land and I don't have to use it, it's still mine? Like homesteading a large forest. Natural borders exists where the treeline ends. Should suffice, right?

[myrkul]

No, since it's within the already homesteaded mansion. Nice try, though.

Right, so I can homestead a large swath of land and I don't have to use it, it's still mine? Like homesteading a large forest. Natural borders exists where the treeline ends. Should suffice, right?

Yeah, so long as that is made clear. Signs on most of the border trees should suffice.

[Anonymous]

Moral debt cannot be objectively measured.

If we agree there is one, I think it isn't that precise that do we hit the right spot as long as we have the right direction. Politics is for getting to a result in such ambiguous matters.

No, free trade is for getting to a result in such matters.

[JA37]

No, since it's within the already homesteaded mansion. Nice try, though.

Right, so I can homestead a large swath of land and I don't have to use it, it's still mine? Like homesteading a large forest. Natural borders exists where the treeline ends. Should suffice, right?

Yeah, so long as that is made clear. Signs on most of the border trees should suffice.

Not too long ago in another thread about a similar subject a field of crops was considered a natural border. Proof enough that the land was taken, yet now I have to put signs up around my forest? There doesn't seem to be any consistency to your rules regarding homesteading. Seems like I just have to have a large enough protection agency that can help me defend my property. 

[myrkul]

No, since it's within the already homesteaded mansion. Nice try, though.

Right, so I can homestead a large swath of land and I don't have to use it, it's still mine? Like homesteading a large forest. Natural borders exists where the treeline ends. Should suffice, right?

Yeah, so long as that is made clear. Signs on most of the border trees should suffice.

Not too long ago in another thread about a similar subject a field of crops was considered a natural border. Proof enough that the land was taken, yet now I have to put signs up around my forest? There doesn't seem to be any consistency to your rules regarding homesteading. Seems like I just have to have a large enough protection agency that can help me defend my property. 

A field of crops is obvious human use. A treeline develops naturally. Seriously. try harder.

[JA37]

A field of crops is obvious human use. A treeline develops naturally. Seriously. try harder.

I'm growing grass for my cows. Now can you tell if you can homestead my field or not? Is it your will to see the border that decides if you can take my property or not?

[myrkul]

A field of crops is obvious human use. A treeline develops naturally. Seriously. try harder.

I'm growing grass for my cows. Now can you tell if you can homestead my field or not? Is it your will to see the border that decides if you can take my property or not?

If you're growing grass for your cows, I'll assume you have a fence to keep the cows from wandering off.

And No, it is not my will to see the border, but your ability to make it visible.

[JA37]

If you're growing grass for your cows, I'll assume you have a fence to keep the cows from wandering off.

And No, it is not my will to see the border, but your ability to make it visible.

It's for winter feed. I don't need to fence in the grass. It won't leave.

You don't think a treeline is visible? And if you don't see that I use the grass you're welcome to take my land?

[myrkul]

If you're growing grass for your cows, I'll assume you have a fence to keep the cows from wandering off.

And No, it is not my will to see the border, but your ability to make it visible.

It's for winter feed. I don't need to fence in the grass. It won't leave.

You don't think a treeline is visible? And if you don't see that I use the grass you're welcome to take my land?

A treeline is visible, but occurs in NATURE. Homesteading is the act of making the border clear. If you do not do that, you have not claimed the land. Since a treeline occurs in nature, while a plowed field does not, you would need to apply effort to the treeline to make the border clear. ie: put some damn signs up. And if you use the grass, it behooves you to homestead the land, yes?

[JA37]

A treeline is visible, but occurs in NATURE. Homesteading is the act of making the border clear. If you do not do that, you have not claimed the land. Since a treeline occurs in nature, while a plowed field does not, you would need to apply effort to the treeline to make the border clear. ie: put some damn signs up. And if you use the grass, it behooves you to homestead the land, yes?

I'm using it, but that's not enough for you is it? It has to be obvious to you that I'm using it, and if you don't consider it obvious you can take my land. Since you know nothing about keeping cows you don't see my grass field as used and take it. Then our private armies have to clash to decide who's right.
I'm cutting down trees in my forest, but not all the trees all the time. How is that not using it? But you still think you can take my land because I'm currently working in a different part of the forest, and you know nothing about foresting.

[myrkul]

A treeline is visible, but occurs in NATURE. Homesteading is the act of making the border clear. If you do not do that, you have not claimed the land. Since a treeline occurs in nature, while a plowed field does not, you would need to apply effort to the treeline to make the border clear. ie: put some damn signs up. And if you use the grass, it behooves you to homestead the land, yes?

I'm using it, but that's not enough for you is it? It has to be obvious to you that I'm using it, and if you don't consider it obvious you can take my land. Since you know nothing about keeping cows you don't see my grass field as used and take it. Then our private armies have to clash to decide who's right.
I'm cutting down trees in my forest, but not all the trees all the time. How is that not using it? But you still think you can take my land because I'm currently working in a different part of the forest, and you know nothing about foresting.

Why do you statists always go straight for the gun? You do realize that there are other methods of dispute resolution right? Click the link in my sig for a quick crash course.

[JA37]

Why do you statists always go straight for the gun? You do realize that there are other methods of dispute resolution right? Click the link in my sig for a quick crash course.

I'm not the one arguing for more guns remember. The private armies deal is your ideal solution to problems. I'm quite fine as it is thankyouverymuch.
Now address the real points instead.