Do you think healthcare is a right?

Post Reply New Topic

People who commit crimes are criminals. If they can survive without taking anything from anyone else by force, let them. If they can't, what I said before applies.



It's your responsibility to defend your life and property. Succeed at it and you're doing all you need to do against "criminality". Fail and the one who defeated you will gladly take over that responsibility. Natural selection.



Self-defense is not vigilantism.



Every life, like everything else in the world, is worth to each person exactly as much or as little as they decide to value it. Noöne has any business telling anyone else how much anything should be worth to them. Trying to do so will only breed discontent and rebellion.

Are you even trying to make any sense, or just randomly attacking me with what you think will hurt me most or make me look the worst, for having the temerity to reason my disagreement with your earlier points?

The fact of the matter is that society is allowing me to benefit scot-free. I'm one of the moochers, and I haven't exactly tried to keep it a secret. In fact, I don't think I'd survive if true justice were served. But this doesn't make the current situation any less unjust. What is right isn't defined by what is good for me personally, or for anyone else in particular.

So I'm not complaining for having to pay taxes, since I'm a net taker. On the other hand, net contributors are paying more than their fair share for society's infrastructure, so they're the last ones who should be told to go live in the woods. They're being robbed and morally have every right to defend themselves and stop feeding their enemy, which they're already doing, albeit slowly.



If you'd followed my posts with the same zeal you seem to show when it comes to bringing up my "dirty laundry", you'd know I'm far from "perfectly content" to be obese. You might also know I've made sure the bulk of my fat intake is of healthiest varieties, and last time I was checked, I had below-average cholesterol levels, so I'm unlikely to develop the typical health problems associated with obesity.



And that's what your post boils down to: an ad-hominem to draw attention away from the simple fact that robbery is robbery no matter what form it takes or who benefits from it. I can be the most despicable hypocrite in history and still this fact won't stop being true just because I'm the one invoking it.

Everything you said goes against the basic principles of not only western civilization, but of what's decent and human.
Those in need are not stealing anything, even if taxation was theft. They are not in charge of taxation, or the gathering of said taxes.
Only violence and death will be the result if people are told to solve crimes against them, as many people would use that as a pretext to kill anyone else for the most trivial reasons. That's why we have laws and law enforcement professionals to handle crimes. And yes, the alternative is vigilantism.
To say that human life - or worse, certain human lives - are of less or no worth is indefensible. Western society is based entirely on the worth of the individual. As social creatures that we humans are, it's in our very genetic makeup to cooperate and care for one another. The social ideology of "let the weak die" that you're advocating violates the basics of human nature, and would ultimately lead to our demise as a species.
To apply Darwin's natural selection and survival of the fittest has no validity when used to defend the entirely discredited pseudo political ideology of social Darwinism.
I presume you fished this all out of Ayn Rand and her modern day acolytes. Well, all that is nothing but crap based on a very superficial, barely understood reading of Nietzsche. I have to assume that like the rest of us here on WP, you hardly fit the image of the Randian superman.
As for your fear of those with money rebelling in defense of their own stinginess, I'll leave you with this warning: those without are more likely to violently rise up, as the alternative is the loss of their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

Don't want to pay taxes? Go live in the woods and eat bugs. It really is that simple. If you, or anyone else, don't want to contribute to society's infrastructure, you have no right to benefit from it.

It's hardly "robbery" to pay for what you use. There's no such thing as a "right" to be comfortable.



Sorry, but there's no such thing as "benign obesity." Just because you don't have any problems now doesn't mean you won't in the future. Not to mention, merely by being the size you are, you're putting an extra strain on any emergency services that should be called in to help you.



Having to pay for what you use is not "robbery." Choosing not to forsake comfort is not "robbery." Choosing to remain in a country whose taxes system you disagree with is not "robbery."

If you actually believed anything you said, you'd either go live in the woods, where you wouldn't have to "robbed" by taxes, or you'd move to a country with a piss-poor infrastructure where you could live your "survival of the fittest" dream. Otherwise, you're just trolling and expelling hot air.

Most people who want to impose "survival of the fittest" on human society have no idea what "survival of the fittest" actually means in the biological sense.

Even wolves take care of the weak and sick members of their pack.

This is very well said. The ideas you give are among the reasons that I'm Pro-life. The largely global inhumane treatment of the most helpless among us potentially leading to our demise as a species is also a reason that our current culture is considered by many to be a "culture of death".

Last edited by Magna on 25 Jul 2018, 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@spiderpig

are you for anarchy? but how would society hold together? isn't a cohesive society necessary for those people who are allegedly being "robbed" prosper and produce their surplus? it is a social contract.

if people don't have any counterpart on it, why are them going to follow rules that don't benefit them? why are them going to respect private property? are we going to a force vs force thing? how can people really prosper on it?

Anyone is potentially one injury away from not being at the top of the stack, and if anything tribalism can occasionally have some good uses - ie. a previous 'alpha' not getting health care because they've grown old, thus no longer alpha, and the and the adult children protest 'not my family!'. If we were all perfectly dutiful social darwinists and those who either weren't at the top of the stack or fell off the top all said in unison 'I'm not at the top - I don't deserve help' that would be one thing, however strange, but there's no such one-dimensional integrity and similarly it's rather clear that really bad things happen to people as no punishment or earned prize for stupidity and treating people badly who've simply had bad luck sets our 'what goes around comes around' radars off even if we're bad at admitting it.

There seem to be plenty of perfectly self-centered reasons for most people not to go that way on top of how much bad influence chance already has on us and our thinking/behavior getting amplified.

Most certainly true. Archaic prehistoric humans like Neanderthals also cared for their sick, injured, and aged.

Thank you for your kind words. In my heart, I'm pro-life. That said, I find myself contemptuous of much of the pro-life movement, as they had long ago sold their souls to the political right, thus endorsing clearly UnChristian beliefs, such as cutting the social safety net for poor mothers and their children, fighting to end medical coverage for the needy, and supporting business in cutting wages and benefits for workers.

@ Kraichgauer & XFilesGeek – Okay, so there's no reasoning with either of you, because you can't be bothered to address my points and just repeat yours, implying your subjectivity is objectivity; in other words, an argument from your own authority, laced with a growing amount of condescension and gratuitous, irrelevant assumptions about me or the origin of the ideas I'm defending. I guess I should've expected it at this point. I'll just comment on this:

Even humans naturally discard babies they don't expect to grow into healthy adults able to pull their weight. Being all touchy-feely about it is a luxury you can't afford in a primitive society. There's also bullying to remind us of the uglier parts of human nature. Trying to repress them from above won't make them go away; it'll only make people hate you, and they'll act accordingly.

I think it'd be the right thing.



Irrelevant.



If they think they need it, they'll take care to keep it. No need to force them. And if they don't think they need it, forcing them to keep it against their will is wrong.



A contract you're born into without your consent is no contract.



What rules exactly? Remember there's no government to impose them.



Yes. It's your responsibility to defend your life and property. Did you manage to overpower someone, killing them and stealing their property? Excellent—you've proven fitter than them. Now it's your responsibility to defend your new acquisitions so you won't suffer the same fate as the loser.



By being tough and not afraid to prove it.

That's precisely why it takes courage to be alpha. Doesn't this make it all the more respectable and admirable?



Nobody forces you to be a "perfectly dutiful social darwinist". On the contrary, without government, you have liberty. Everyone is free to choose their survival strategy—the best one will win in the end. So no, it's not "I'm not at the top—I don't deserve help"; it's "I shouldn't be forced to help anybody, and nobody should be forced to help me". Big difference.

Primitive societies do in fact care for their babies, as was demonstrated by the Roman historian, Tacitus, in his book, The Germania. He describes how the savage ancient Germans did not "expose" their children, as the Romans did. So no, it isn't just a luxury to keep children alive, as early Germanic society was poor in material wealth, and constantly threatened with famine and devoid of said modern luxuries.

I understand what is your logic, but don't you think that we have this format of society now because people already come to sense that is better to pay tax instead of live in this state of anarchy? and at the end of the day, people can too fraud the state and don't pay their taxes, if they are "strong enough" to go for it. if people don't want to pay tax, they can organize themselves and battle against the state, if they can't win to secure they money, it's not their right to keep it.

That only supports my point. No state, no corruption.