Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 02:49:05 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Do I deserve to die and do I deserve healthcare?  (Read 3617 times)
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 12, 2011, 04:43:35 AM
 #41

Are you advocating a night-watchmen state or true private armies.  Most modern Libertarian philosophers don't advocate true private armies.  It may be bit of a Rorschach or free association thing but you say private armies and I think protection racket.

Funny, that's exactly what I think of when I hear "government".

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480906145
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480906145

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480906145
Reply with quote  #2

1480906145
Report to moderator
1480906145
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480906145

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480906145
Reply with quote  #2

1480906145
Report to moderator
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 12, 2011, 04:58:02 AM
 #42

Is the outcome of these two scenarios any different?

I grow weary of arguing against consequentialism.

A guy dying of a terminal disease is allowed to die vs. me shooting him in the head. Is the outcome of these two scenarios any different? Wait, before you answer, let's just stipulate that the outcomes are identical. Do you really think that they are therefore morally equivalent? I don't. I think murder is still wrong, even if he was going to die anyways and the outcome is the same.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 12, 2011, 05:00:09 AM
 #43

Are you advocating a night-watchmen state or true private armies.  Most modern Libertarian philosophers don't advocate true private armies.  It may be bit of a Rorschach or free association thing but you say private armies and I think protection racket.

Funny, that's exactly what I think of when I hear "government".

So you are an Anarchist and/or anti-statist?

I started a thread entitled 'How to run an Anarchy'. What do you think? Wink

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 12, 2011, 05:20:11 AM
 #44

I would argue consequentialist reasoning Is a perfectly valid factor when debating the role of large armed groups such as armies.  In this situation I don't see how anyone could say there is a universal maxim. Or in other words how can the use of private armies lead to justice that reliably track the truth despite varying relevant conditions. In a purely private army system what happens to disadvantaged independents?

I don't understand what you're saying.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 12, 2011, 05:25:20 AM
 #45

I would argue consequentialist reasoning Is a perfectly valid factor when debating the role of large armed groups such as armies.  In this situation I don't see how anyone could say there is a universal maxim. Or in other words how can the use of private armies lead to justice that reliably track the truth despite varying relevant conditions. In a purely private army system what happens to disadvantaged independents?

I don't understand what you're saying.

and there in lies the problem

Spare me the snide remarks. Just clarify your statements because it sounds like special pleading.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 12, 2011, 05:40:28 AM
 #46

I would argue consequentialist reasoning Is a perfectly valid factor when debating the role of large armed groups such as armies.  In this situation I don't see how anyone could say there is a universal maxim. Or in other words how can the use of private armies lead to justice that reliably track the truth despite varying relevant conditions. In a purely private army system what happens to disadvantaged independents?

I don't understand what you're saying.

and there in lies the problem

Spare me the snide remarks. Just clarify your statements because it sounds like special pleading.

to me, it sounds like hiding ignorance of the subject matter with big words. Either that, or he's one of those wordy stoners, and is actually trying to get a point across. Let me see if I can translate:

Paring out the bullshit, it basically boils down to 'What about the poor?'

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 12, 2011, 06:21:37 AM
 #47

Paring out the bullshit, it basically boils down to 'What about the poor?'

So ones wealth does not change the weight of ones responsibilities?

Ever hear the Latin phrase, 'Non Sequitur'? It means, 'It does not follow'. Your question has no bearing to my translation of your previous question.

But I hear what you're saying. No, being rich does not inherently make one responsible for the poor. Remember, unless you stole it, Every dollar you have when you're rich is a dollar someone gave you in exchange for a service. You've already helped people, and been paid for it. (Charity's still a good thing, I just don't like giving at gunpoint.)

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 12, 2011, 06:30:16 AM
 #48


But I hear what you're saying. No, being rich does not inherently make one responsible for the poor. Remember, unless you stole it, Every dollar you have when you're rich is a dollar someone gave you in exchange for a service. You've already helped people, and been paid for it. (Charity's still a good thing, I just don't like giving at gunpoint.)

What about genetic wealth?

Honestly, did you just get your Silk Road order?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
July 12, 2011, 07:04:14 AM
 #49

Life isn't fair.  Nature does not bestow upon us equal and fair characteristics, physical or mental.  Some people are born smarter, stronger, better-looking and with larger dicks than others.  Humanity will never achieve social equality, it is a chasing after the wind.  The best we can do is to minimize coercion in society and teach each other to respect and help each other (the true concept of community), but not to force individuals to help others. 
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84



View Profile
July 12, 2011, 07:08:24 AM
 #50

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

Original Position
First published Tue Feb 27, 1996; substantive revision Sat Dec 20, 2008

The original position is a central feature of John Rawls's social contract account of justice, “justice as fairness,” set forth in A Theory of Justice (TJ). It is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. In taking up this point of view, we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice. The main distinguishing feature of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances. They do know of certain fundamental interests they all have, plus general facts about psychology, economics, biology, and other social and natural sciences. The parties in the original position are presented with a list of the main conceptions of justice drawn from the tradition of social and political philosophy, and are assigned the task of choosing from among these alternatives the conception of justice that best advances their interests in establishing conditions that enable them to effectively pursue their final ends and fundamental interests. Rawls contends that the most rational choice for the parties in the original position are the two principles of justice. The first principle guarantees the equal basic rights and liberties needed to secure the fundamental interests of free and equal citizens and to pursue a wide range of conceptions of the good. The second principle provides fair equality of educational and employment opportunities enabling all to fairly compete for powers and prerogatives of office; and it secures for all a guaranteed minimum of the all-purpose means (including income and wealth) that individuals need to pursue their interests and to maintain their self-respect as free and equal persons.


Tear apart the Original Position Now.

I see a lot of meaningless collectivist buzzwords that don't require any tearing apart.

Beyond that, the idea of a "social contract" is a cheap justification for statist coercion. A contract that I have never seen nor agreed to and is only considered to be justified because it can be enforced is not a legitimate contract. Try harder.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
whenhowwho
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 96



View Profile
July 12, 2011, 08:12:55 AM
 #51

No a person does not deserve to die but death is not a bad thing. A person should never be entitled to healthcare either. I also have this thing in my head that people live too long and have too many children. I have seen the worlds population double in my lifetime so far. I suspect it will probably double again before i die.

Back to why nationalized healthcare and the continued sense of entitlement is a bad idea. What is the point of living past the time where you can actually enjoy life? Some people and I stress the word some are able to do things and continue to rock on well into their 80's and even 90's in some cases but most cannot. So to exist past usefulness and enjoyment is completely pointless and without merit. Who determines this point ? Each individual.

Entitlement is perhaps the most dangerous idea. Why does everyone suddenly seem to feel entitled to healthcare and why should it be provided by some government entity? Most people go to the doctor for every little thing and waste huge amounts of money simply because it costs them little. Those that do not have health insurance do not go to the doctor for every little perceived problem. The argument of entitlement is just another example of people living outside of their means. IF you happen to have a major health problem that is fixable then you can pay for it over time. If you happen to have a terminal illness then you are probably going to die. Even after spending large amounts of money for "treatment" you are probably still going to die. The only difference is someone was able to extract more value from you before you check out. Is this always true? No, but it is mostly true.

1HUy7T9SyNLTJCVX3p8KzftApYdWgcsRqD
BenRayfield
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 262



View Profile WWW
July 12, 2011, 08:41:07 AM
 #52

You can save Human lives for around $1000 each, as researched by GiveWell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Givewell therefore I see no reason why anyone should fund health insurance for those who can't afford it since that far exceeds the cost of saving a life, unless such person helps the world more than most others do in which case they would be more valuable.

All my writing, here or anywhere else, permission granted to copy.
supersonic3974
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
July 12, 2011, 04:57:47 PM
 #53

I'm glad I'm not participating in this thread Smiley  ...awww snap
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 12, 2011, 05:00:06 PM
 #54

Actually the average resuscitation from non traumatic ventricular tachycardia can be be achieved in under $1000 dollars.  Its always more expensive with the 1000% supply markup though.  We medical types get away with insain markups and ridiculous inefficiency.   Our hospital only got computerized medical records a couple of years ago.  They all run windows XP and are constantly getting infected with viruses.  God Bless America.

I'm curious, when you say 'we medical types', are you referring to your fellow candy-stripers? Because I'm pretty sure a doctor, nurse, or even medical record clerk knows how to spell 'insane'.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 12, 2011, 05:35:40 PM
 #55

Sorry corrected. Of coarse I must be a candy-striper, you got me.

"of course"
whenhowwho
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 96



View Profile
July 12, 2011, 06:44:46 PM
 #56

I often find it hilarious that people spend more time correcting spelling and grammatical errors than focusing on the topic at hand.

I think the markups are quite a bit higher than 1000% . Pharmaceuticals are upwards of 30000% in some cases.




zomgherecomethegrammarpolicequickcorrectmebecauseitisuberimportantandwhatnotple asedonotfocusonthetopicasspellingandgrammararewaymoreimportant!!!!!

1HUy7T9SyNLTJCVX3p8KzftApYdWgcsRqD
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 12, 2011, 09:37:00 PM
 #57

I often find it hilarious that people spend more time correcting spelling and grammatical errors than focusing on the topic at hand.

More time? I've spent hours and hours arguing about these topics and twice in on these forums have I ever corrected someone's spelling or grammar. I think you're being a little bit hysterical.
whenhowwho
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 96



View Profile
July 12, 2011, 10:15:50 PM
 #58

sorry if i offended your gentle sensibilities I was just making a general statement regarding general forum posting among many different forums I have seen over the years. I meant no disrespect again my apologies

1HUy7T9SyNLTJCVX3p8KzftApYdWgcsRqD
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 12, 2011, 10:25:04 PM
 #59

sorry if i offended your gentle sensibilities I was just making a general statement regarding general forum posting among many different forums I have seen over the years. I meant no disrespect again my apologies

All generalizations are false. Including this one.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Sovereign
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80



View Profile
July 13, 2011, 12:20:47 AM
 #60

Imagine I have a fatal, but treatable, illness. The treatment costs more than I could personally afford. Due to my financial situation I can't afford any health insurance.

In which, if any, of the following cases do I deserve to die:

  • 1) I was a hard working citizen but due to no fault of my own I lost my job and am currently looking for work but unable to find any.
  • 2) I am a child born into a poor family.
  • 3) I have never worked due to laziness.
  • 4) I did have a job but got fired for a valid reason. Due to my employment history, I am unable to find another job.
  • 5) I committed a criminal offence and was sent to prison. I am now out of prison and can't find work due to my criminal record.

Deserve to die? None.

I think you mean, which of the above justifies coercing others to help you and again the answer is "none".

This thread started as an appeal to emotion. Then the premise was entirely destroyed by this reply.

12uB1LSPrAqeEefLJTDfd6rKsu3KjiFBpa
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!