Socialized healthcare debate (Split from Canadian Care)

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 08:40pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:You really are a horrid little fuck arent you Ebenezer?

Nope, I just do not support force. This topic just focuses on one aspect of force. I personally do not mind helping others and would voluntarilly pay into something like the Canadian healthcare system. But I do not presume to force others to pay into it for my sake.

You're little objectivist bullshit is against any form of altruism, its a morally bankrupt, much as you are proving to be in this.

No, it's against force. Objectivism does not speak against, and actually supports voluntary help. You're so quick to go from my support of noninitiation of force to claiming that I support not helping anyone at all and leaving them to die. Hasty generalization, my friend.

Do the people working for McD's deserve to die in old age?

.. Who DOESN'T die when they're old?

Do people who loose thier jobs deserve to starve to death?

What if they have children to support?
Do the poor deserve to die of cancer more than the rich?[/quote]

Deserve implies they've done something, but no, they don't 'deserve' it at all. But they do not 'deserve' anything else either, especially not if it means forcing others to sacrifice of themselves.

Basically your moral system is fuck everybody, so long as I'm okay.

No, that is Nietzschean philosophy and morals. Objectivist morality simply says that force is wrong.

Well fuck you, may you starve to death in the gutter one day in your ideal world, you're on par with the eugenics nazi bastards, you just take a different tac, rather than "initating force" (because no Randite would ever do that ), just have a society where the "worthless" simply expire thanks to the way the system works....

Ah you. Making hasty generalizations and twisting my words. I never said people shouldn't help other people, or that the unfortunate should be left to die, merely that it is not right to use force to help others.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2003-12-30 08:45pm

Deserve implies they've done something, but no, they don't 'deserve' it at all. But they do not 'deserve' anything else either, especially not if it means forcing others to sacrifice of themselves.

You're saying they don't deserve free health care if they can't pay for it themselves? Little thing called United Nations Charter of Human Rights disagrees with you there.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-12-30 08:51pm

Bullshit, you are a horrid little disciple of Ayn Rand, from AynRand.com I can quote the following little line.

"Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism"

Tell me again that your objectivist no initating force bullshit doesnt reject altruism.

If you honestly believe the shit you are spouting you are as morally bankrupt as anyone espousing eugenics. Those who do not reach the middle class deserve to starve to death or die of cancer? Have you forgotten the people on minimum wage or do they not count because they are worthless?

Health care run as a business has the same goal as any business, to make a profit, this is the very reason why privatisation is a really fucking stupid idea when applied to areas where saftey are more important than profit. Such as say, air traffic control, maintanance of the power grid (there isnt a fucking profit to be made in redundancy) and health care.

Frankly this shit makes me sick.

Based on someones economic success they either live or starve....and if they dont make enough excess then they starve to death, or freeze to death or die of illness because people dont have a right to take what's "yours".

Your sickening little piece of filth excuse for a philosiphy places property rights higher than human life, and that, to anyone with morals is a totally unacceptable way of doing things.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-12-30 08:52pm

Basically your moral system is fuck everybody, so long as I'm okay.

No, that is Nietzschean philosophy and morals. Objectivist morality simply says that force is wrong.

Which is actually another little bullshit lie, objectivism just says "initaiting" force is wrong, however using "retaliatory" force is fine. Which is basically just all sorts of shitty clothes on "Fuck you so long as I'm ok".

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 08:52pm

The Aliens wrote:You're saying they don't deserve free health care if they can't pay for it themselves? Little thing called United Nations Charter of Human Rights disagrees with you there.

Bahahaha, like that document has any value in determining reality. Yes, the UN Charter of Human Rights is the ultimate deciding factor of what rights people have, I forgot. Forget facts and reality, the UN knows best!

While I agree with the majority of the rights guaranteed in it (mostly dealing with ellaborations on inherent rights), I do not agree with your assertion that it is the source and determiner of our rights.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-12-30 08:54pm

kojikun wrote:
The Aliens wrote:You're saying they don't deserve free health care if they can't pay for it themselves? Little thing called United Nations Charter of Human Rights disagrees with you there.
Bahahaha, like that document has any value in determining reality. Yes, the UN Charter of Human Rights is the ultimate deciding factor of what rights people have, I forgot. Forget facts and reality, the UN knows best!

While I agree with the majority of the rights guaranteed in it (mostly dealing with ellaborations on inherent rights), I do not agree with your assertion that it is the source and determiner of our rights.

Of course, you have the right to starve to death or die of cancer if you dont have enough money...but hey, while you're starving its not like anyones forcing you to die.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2003-12-30 08:57pm

kojikun wrote:
Bahahaha, like that document has any value in determining reality. Yes, the UN Charter of Human Rights is the ultimate deciding factor of what rights people have, I forgot. Forget facts and reality, the UN knows best!

Perhaps then, you could quote for us an example of a right the United Nations grants that is immoral. If you don't think the United Nations knows best, who do you think will set out a better set of guidelines?

While I agree with the majority of the rights guaranteed in it (mostly dealing with ellaborations on inherent rights), I do not agree with your assertion that it is the source and determiner of our rights.

Just because certain countries decide to wipe their asses with it to use children for cheap labour, (HINT: That's why they're called 'Human Rights offenders'!), doesn't mean they're not valid. You'd have a job getting international support for a law in a First-World country that lets the sick working-class die of the 'flu.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 09:17pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:"Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism"

That is quite true, Objectivism does not support giving of oneself with no regard to oneself and ones volition. When an Objectivist speaks of Altruism, they speak of placing others above ones self, and doing soley for others at the cost of oneself.

Let's quote Miss Rand instead of bullshitting:

ARI Q&A wrote:What was Ayn Rand's view on charity?

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." [From "Playboy's 1964 interview with Ayn Rand"]

Emphasis mine. If you deam people worthy of help, then helping them is ok, but if, like those in the thread on giving money to the poor, you think the person is not worthy of it, then you are not morally obligated to help them.

Tell me again that your objectivist no initating force bullshit doesnt reject altruism.

It rejects altruism, it does not reject voluntary charity.

If you honestly believe the shit you are spouting you are as morally bankrupt as anyone espousing eugenics. Those who do not reach the middle class deserve to starve to death or die of cancer? Have you forgotten the people on minimum wage or do they not count because they are worthless?

I already said no, they don't deserve to die, so you have no argument.

Health care run as a business has the same goal as any business, to make a profit, this is the very reason why privatisation is a really fucking stupid idea when applied to areas where saftey are more important than profit. Such as say, air traffic control, maintanance of the power grid (there isnt a fucking profit to be made in redundancy) and health care.

I do not advocate running it as a business, I advocate it being voluntary.

Frankly this shit makes me sick.

Can't blame you, you're making alot of false assumptions.

Based on someones economic success they either live or starve....and if they dont make enough excess then they starve to death, or freeze to death or die of illness because people dont have a right to take what's "yours".

No, they don't starve to death or any such. They just cannot take what I have earned without my consent. You act as tho earning something makes it "not mine". Why put quotes around "yours", is my money not mine if I work for it?

Your sickening little piece of filth excuse for a philosiphy places property rights higher than human life, and that, to anyone with morals is a totally unacceptable way of doing things.

I place my right to choose my own actions above your nonexistant right to choose my actions.

Which is actually another little bullshit lie, objectivism just says "initaiting" force is wrong, however using "retaliatory" force is fine.

Sorry, I meant initiating force, but generally when people speak of force, they mean the initial force, not actions done in retliation (which they don't consider force).

Which is basically just all sorts of shitty clothes on "Fuck you so long as I'm ok".

You keep saying that.

Perhaps then, you could quote for us an example of a right the United Nations grants that is immoral. If you don't think the United Nations knows best, who do you think will set out a better set of guidelines?

I would have to go through and look. Few of the "rights" are immoral, if any. The ultimate decider of rights, however, is reality itself.

Just because certain countries decide to wipe their asses with it to use children for cheap labour, (HINT: That's why they're called 'Human Rights offenders'!), doesn't mean they're not valid. You'd have a job getting international support for a law in a First-World country that lets the sick working-class die of the 'flu.

And I would not try to, as I do not want to let people die from the flu.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2003-12-30 09:22pm

I would have to go through and look. Few of the "rights" are immoral, if any. The ultimate decider of rights, however, is reality itself.

What are you, insane? If the ultimate decider of rights is reality, then what's the United Nations, a storybook? It is reality, and if you think that because certain countries don't grant those rights then that's just fine becuase its 'reality', then lets just hope you never decide to run for public office.

And I would not try to, as I do not want to let people die from the flu.

Clearly, however, you don't mind that much, otherwise you wouldn't mind paying a few dollars in taxes to save them. You don't wnat them to die per se, but if they can't afford health care, then sucks to be them. That's the most morally bankrupt thing I've ever heard.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-12-30 09:23pm

Koji's system might, and I emphasize the word "might" work in an ideal world where insurance companies don't care about profits and they don't refuse you coverage. Furthermore they would scale their costs to your income in such a way that everyone covered by the insurance company has enough coverage to deal with any emergency. And lastly they won't cut off your coverage or raise your insurance costs after you rack up higher than expected hospital bills. Now tell me, how the fuck are you going to make that work in the real world?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 09:24pm

aerius wrote:Koji's system might, and I emphasize the word "might" work in an ideal world where insurance companies don't care about profits and they don't refuse you coverage. Furthermore they would scale their costs to your income in such a way that everyone covered by the insurance company has enough coverage to deal with any emergency. And lastly they won't cut off your coverage or raise your insurance costs after you rack up higher than expected hospital bills. Now tell me, how the fuck are you going to make that work in the real world?

I don't trust companies to run insurance. All I advocate is that government let people choose whether they want it's help or not. That is THE ONLY thing I advocate: Choice.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-12-30 09:27pm

kojikun wrote:
aerius wrote:Koji's system might, and I emphasize the word "might" work in an ideal world where insurance companies don't care about profits and they don't refuse you coverage. Furthermore they would scale their costs to your income in such a way that everyone covered by the insurance company has enough coverage to deal with any emergency. And lastly they won't cut off your coverage or raise your insurance costs after you rack up higher than expected hospital bills. Now tell me, how the fuck are you going to make that work in the real world?
I don't trust companies to run insurance. All I advocate is that government let people choose whether they want it's help or not. That is THE ONLY thing I advocate: Choice.

So why aren't you advocating choice for people to give taxes if they support the military. I'm sure there are peace activists that would LOVE to not pay taxes for our military. Or is that the exception to your rule?

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2003-12-30 09:32pm

You don't seem to be a big fan of letting people vote Socialist, either, judging from the massive amounts of bashing you've done against making people pay taxes for frivolous things like health care. Should people only pay for education of they have kids in school? It's a matter of the common good, the more people in a soceity that are sick and dying, the faster disease spreads, and the less people are able to work and generate money for their own or their childrens' treatment. Vicious cycle, one that government funded care prevents by giving everyone equal access.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-12-30 09:34pm

Stravo wrote: So why aren't you advocating choice for people to give taxes if they support the military. I'm sure there are peace activists that would LOVE to not pay taxes for our military. Or is that the exception to your rule?

Ah, but you see, those taxes protect property rights, which are all important under objectivism, the philosiphy of semantic bullshit.

Lets recap it so far :-

Force is wrong, unless you can come up with a reason why you're only doing it in "retaliation".

It reject altruism yet embraces charity, which is a FORM of altruism...

It does not support letting the poor dies of starvation, but also does not support providing any mechanism in society to ensure they dont...

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2003-12-30 09:51pm

Stravo wrote:
kojikun wrote:
aerius wrote:Koji's system might, and I emphasize the word "might" work in an ideal world where insurance companies don't care about profits and they don't refuse you coverage. Furthermore they would scale their costs to your income in such a way that everyone covered by the insurance company has enough coverage to deal with any emergency. And lastly they won't cut off your coverage or raise your insurance costs after you rack up higher than expected hospital bills. Now tell me, how the fuck are you going to make that work in the real world?
I don't trust companies to run insurance. All I advocate is that government let people choose whether they want it's help or not. That is THE ONLY thing I advocate: Choice.
So why aren't you advocating choice for people to give taxes if they support the military. I'm sure there are peace activists that would LOVE to not pay taxes for our military. Or is that the exception to your rule?

Sure, as soon as you find me a private corperation that can provide defense for the US.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-30 09:56pm

Objectivism is simply the complete refusal to accept any form of responsibility. Rights without responsibilities; it is a child's view of ethics, where the only thing that matters is my rights. Mine, mine, mine, mine, what matters to me is my rights, my things, my money, my property, mine, mine, mine, mine ...

That's all objectivism is, folks. Under objectivism, you have no moral responsibility to help those in need, and there should be no Good Samaritan laws, because they have no "claim" on what is mine, mine, mine, mine ...

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-12-30 10:04pm

kojikun wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:"Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism"
That is quite true, Objectivism does not support giving of oneself with no regard to oneself and ones volition. When an Objectivist speaks of Altruism, they speak of placing others above ones self, and doing soley for others at the cost of oneself.

Let's quote Miss Rand instead of bullshitting:

ARI Q&A wrote:What was Ayn Rand's view on charity?

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." [From "Playboy's 1964 interview with Ayn Rand"]
Emphasis mine. If you deam people worthy of help, then helping them is ok, but if, like those in the thread on giving money to the poor, you think the person is not worthy of it, then you are not morally obligated to help them.

So, altruism is okay...sorry to break it to you, but charity is a FORM of altruism...so long as it include a value judgement on whether the person is deserving of help.
Only the worthy deserve help, even if it's a matter of life or death....seems rather like the eugenics by nature way you seem to want to go....
What about those born disabled, they cant contribute to society, are they "worthy" of help?

Tell me again that your objectivist no initating force bullshit doesnt reject altruism.
It rejects altruism, it does not reject voluntary charity.

Sorry, we already covered this, CHARITY IS A FORM OF ALTRUISM.

If you honestly believe the shit you are spouting you are as morally bankrupt as anyone espousing eugenics. Those who do not reach the middle class deserve to starve to death or die of cancer? Have you forgotten the people on minimum wage or do they not count because they are worthless?
I already said no, they don't deserve to die, so you have no argument.

Perhaps deserve isnt the right term there then. Do you give a flying fuck if all the poor starve to death?
No, deserve in there for you to use as an out clause.
Do you give a flying fuck if a child dies of hunger because a parent has lost thier job or died in an accident?
Or perhaps, a young child with lukemia, will they just be left do die?
So far all objectivism has had to offer is the Ebenezer Scrooge line of "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

Health care run as a business has the same goal as any business, to make a profit, this is the very reason why privatisation is a really fucking stupid idea when applied to areas where saftey are more important than profit. Such as say, air traffic control, maintanance of the power grid (there isnt a fucking profit to be made in redundancy) and health care.
I do not advocate running it as a business, I advocate it being voluntary.

Ah of course...what about those too young to earn any money?
Children for example?
No pay, no play?
This is what you are proposing.
Everyone carries a card that says whether you've paid so they know whether to let you bleed to death on the floor or not....yay....

Frankly this shit makes me sick.
Can't blame you, you're making alot of false assumptions.

Nope, I'm introducing the unfortunate element of "life" into your assanine philosiphy.

Based on someones economic success they either live or starve....and if they dont make enough excess then they starve to death, or freeze to death or die of illness because people dont have a right to take what's "yours".
No, they don't starve to death or any such. They just cannot take what I have earned without my consent. You act as tho earning something makes it "not mine". Why put quotes around "yours", is my money not mine if I work for it?

So, your moral system is just to let the poor starve to death, or die of the flu or suffer any number of horrible fates....charming.

Your sickening little piece of filth excuse for a philosiphy places property rights higher than human life, and that, to anyone with morals is a totally unacceptable way of doing things.
I place my right to choose my own actions above your nonexistant right to choose my actions.

And what of the right to life?

Which is actually another little bullshit lie, objectivism just says "initaiting" force is wrong, however using "retaliatory" force is fine.
Sorry, I meant initiating force, but generally when people speak of force, they mean the initial force, not actions done in retliation (which they don't consider force).

i.e.
Force is fine as long as its on my terms.

Which is basically just all sorts of shitty clothes on "Fuck you so long as I'm ok".
You keep saying that.

Well show me how it differs from that, it espouses "what's yours is yours and you owe nothing to anyone, fuck them, you've got yours."
Is that better?

Perhaps then, you could quote for us an example of a right the United Nations grants that is immoral. If you don't think the United Nations knows best, who do you think will set out a better set of guidelines?
I would have to go through and look. Few of the "rights" are immoral, if any. The ultimate decider of rights, however, is reality itself.

Your bullshit if it got anywhere close to reality would be the most horrific tradgedy since the holocaust. You would have a world of Ebenezer Scrooges and hope everything turned out nicely....

Just because certain countries decide to wipe their asses with it to use children for cheap labour, (HINT: That's why they're called 'Human Rights offenders'!), doesn't mean they're not valid. You'd have a job getting international support for a law in a First-World country that lets the sick working-class die of the 'flu.
And I would not try to, as I do not want to let people die from the flu.

Ah, but you are under no obligation to help them, you do not believe society should have a mechanism to help them or protect them....so basically you do, just saying it outright infringes on your right not to sound like an amoral heartless little fuck.....charming.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 10:06pm

Stravo wrote:So why aren't you advocating choice for people to give taxes if they support the military. I'm sure there are peace activists that would LOVE to not pay taxes for our military. Or is that the exception to your rule?

I do advocate that, but the problem is that they receive the benefits regardless of whether they pay them or not. And people would also say "well, just because I don't pay for the military or police doesn't mean that it'll vanish". Thing is, if you want government to protect you, you must pay for it.

It reject altruism yet embraces charity, which is a FORM of altruism...

In the context of this discussion, if we consider voluntary charity to be altruism, then no, objectivism does not reject altruism. But in the context of Objectivist texts, altruism is meant to be the belief that the self is less important than others. Ayn Rand specifically defined it as such in her writings and used the word only in that way.

It does not support letting the poor dies of starvation, but also does not support providing any mechanism in society to ensure they dont...

It supports providing the mechanism if and only if it is voluntary.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-30 10:09pm

kojikun wrote:It supports providing the mechanism if and only if it is voluntary.

Why? Your ethical justification is to simply state axioms like this without justifying them. The outcome of your system of totally eliminating social programs is going to cause a lot of suffering, so what is your justification to claim that the system itself is a valid form of ethics?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-12-30 10:10pm

kojikun wrote:
Stravo wrote:So why aren't you advocating choice for people to give taxes if they support the military. I'm sure there are peace activists that would LOVE to not pay taxes for our military. Or is that the exception to your rule?
I do advocate that, but the problem is that they receive the benefits regardless of whether they pay them or not. And people would also say "well, just because I don't pay for the military or police doesn't mean that it'll vanish". Thing is, if you want government to protect you, you must pay for it.

It reject altruism yet embraces charity, which is a FORM of altruism...
In the context of this discussion, if we consider voluntary charity to be altruism, then no, objectivism does not reject altruism. But in the context of Objectivist texts, altruism is meant to be the belief that the self is less important than others. Ayn Rand specifically defined it as such in her writings and used the word only in that way.

It does not support letting the poor dies of starvation, but also does not support providing any mechanism in society to ensure they dont...
It supports providing the mechanism if and only if it is voluntary.

Ah, so the poor should be supported only by the altruistic, while, also saying, people shouldnt be altruistic.....have you ever considered medication for this shit?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 10:10pm

Darth Wong wrote:Objectivism is simply the complete refusal to accept any form of responsibility. Rights without responsibilities; it is a child's view of ethics, where the only thing that matters is my rights. Mine, mine, mine, mine, what matters to me is my rights, my things, my money, my property, mine, mine, mine, mine ...

That's all objectivism is, folks. Under objectivism, you have no moral responsibility to help those in need, and there should be no Good Samaritan laws, because they have no "claim" on what is mine, mine, mine, mine ...

Objectivism is more than just the part of ethics that you mention. Primarilly, Objectivism is the scientists view of reality and knowledge.

And Mike, you act as though you don't want to help people in need but do so anyway. Is this so? Because if you want to help them, then there is no conflict with Objectivism..

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2003-12-30 10:11pm

People should be altruistic, but shouldn't be forced to against their will.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2003-12-30 10:12pm

kojikun wrote: I do advocate that, but the problem is that they receive the benefits regardless of whether they pay them or not. And people would also say "well, just because I don't pay for the military or police doesn't mean that it'll vanish". Thing is, if you want government to protect you, you must pay for it.

And why is that? We pay through taxes, and the poor pay less than the rich through the magic of tax brackets. You pay what you can for the greater good. This so that someone that has a minimum wage job and potentially a family to support will get the same health care as a wealthy old man of no 'use' to society.

In the context of this discussion, if we consider voluntary charity to be altruism, then no, objectivism does not reject altruism. But in the context of Objectivist texts, altruism is meant to be the belief that the self is less important than others. Ayn Rand specifically defined it as such in her writings and used the word only in that way.

So you're saying that voluntary charity is somehow not putting the greater good ahead of yourself in some cases? Charity is altruism.

It supports providing the mechanism if and only if it is voluntary.

Voluntary charity is still altrustic, and therefore not objectivist. Either you're wrong about being an objectivist, or that's the sound of wheels spinning backwards to avoid being called a heartless monster.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 10:12pm

Darth Wong wrote:Why? Your ethical justification is to simply state axioms like this without justifying them. The outcome of your system of totally eliminating social programs is going to cause a lot of suffering, so what is your justification to claim that the system itself is a valid form of ethics?

Because it is immoral to force someone to do something. And I do NOT ADVOCATE ELIMINTATING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. What don't you people get about that? Fucking hell.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-30 10:14pm

kojikun wrote:Objectivism is more than just the part of ethics that you mention. Primarilly, Objectivism is the scientists view of reality and knowledge.

No, the scientific method existed before objectivism did. The fact that it tries to co-opt the credibility of the scientific method does not lend any weight to its stuffy proclamations of ethical "principles" that are proven by simply being held to be self-evident.

And Mike, you act as though you don't want to help people in need but do so anyway. Is this so? Because if you want to help them, then there is no conflict with Objectivism..

It doesn't matter whether I want to help people in need, dumb-ass. What matters is whether enough people in society would do so, and we know from observation that they won't. For someone who claims to uphold the scientific method, your parroting of a philosopher's theory over observation is rather contemptible.