Health Care: Right, Privilege or Responsibility

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The government doesn't really do things that are "just" a lot of the time ironically.

 

[The Ozzman]

<3 Cythraul

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So then the idea is that because the poor have never at any point consented to their lot in life, and because they've never done anything deserving of said lot, it is therefore unjust to perpetuate a system which keeps them in this position. Presumably, if they had agreed to their lot in life, then perpetuating this system would not be unjust. Well then, according to that reasoning I can just as well support my and Dakryn's position. Suppose my wealth is regularly redistributed to help the poor. Now presumably I did nothing to deserve having my money taken away from me against my consent (not on any sane interpretation of desert, that is), assuming of course that my wealth was not acquired illegitimately. But add to this the further condition that I do not consent to these transfers of wealth. Then to perpetuate such an arrangement would presumably be unjust!

I'll get to your response to my previous post a little later.

The problem is that not all wealth, even if acquired "legitimately" (which I assume you mean in compliance with the laws that apply to the person making the money) is deserved. Wealth which is acquired due to exclusive opportunity rather than merit is not deserved. I believe that an individual has no right to keep money which they earned due to an unfair advantage over others (and I have yet to see a convincing argument from either you or Dakryn to the contrary).

Of course, it is also important to most people to have hope that they can rise above socioeconomic mediocrity if they are exceptionally talented. This is the motivation that drives capitalism, and perhaps the same that drives most of the achievements of brilliant scientists, engineers and businessmen as well.

The problem with pure capitalism, though, is that it leads to people controlling money they don't deserve. You need to have some measure of capitalism to give people hope of achievement, but you also need to have some measure of communism to protect people from the inevitable injustices of pure capitalism. This is why a balance between the two philosophies is important. Both are dangerous to society on their own.

 

[skeptik]

I feel as though if I really cared enough I could probably justify welfare programs based solely on legitimate justifications, but personally, I don't give a fuck about people with money and their bitching about injustices and 'omg redistribution of wealth' and (lol) 'legalized theft'. I don't give a flying fuck, and I don't care about your alleged rights to not contribute to welfare and I'm glad that the government doesn't fucking care and takes your money anyway because it's more important that people need help get help than those who don't need it.

 

[Death Aflame]

Is the current system flawed and in need of a fix? Sure. But since when did Bureaucratic interference and oversight ever make any situation anything but worse in the long run?

Look at Europe, or even Canada. I would take Canada's system way before I would take the one offered in the states.

Some sort of public healthcare system is required in the developed world IMO (even if it is a mix of private and public).

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It's no use dude. The fact that every other developed nation in the world has a working universal health care system means nothing to him. It just corroborates his evidenceless superstition that governments are only using universal health care to "control the world".

 

[Death Aflame]

It's no use dude. The fact that every other developed nation in the world has a working universal health care system means nothing to him. It just corroborates his evidenceless superstition that governments are only using universal health care to "control the world".

As if the private insurers in the US aren't already doing this (in a round about way)?

Listen, it is pretty obvious that both complete government control/oppression or corporate tyranny is undesirable in modern democracies. Though if I lived in the US I wouldn't worry about the former so much as the later.

 

[Cythraul]

You seem to assume that the state has a perfect duty not to take the property of its citizens without their consent.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. If I have a right to not have my property taken without my consent, then everybody else has a duty to act in accordance with that right.

Surely nobody questions that this is acceptable in the case of national defense. I don't think you can define what the state's perfect duty is so conveniently. I would think that considerations of overall utility would necessarily fit within that duty somewhere.

I have no problem with an institution such as national defense in so far as it does nothing more than to prevent the encroachment upon my rights from other entities (see coons, dune). If you're using this example to try to get me to answer the question of whether it is ever justified to take somebody's property without their consent in the affirmative, still I feel compelled to give the answer 'No'.

Regarding your last point, considerations of utility never play into notions of rights or the corresponding duties to respect those rights, at least as far as I can tell. Rights are by their very nature trump cards; they are non-negotiable. That would be why acting in accordance with a right even if it doesn't maximize utility is justified (and indeed mandatory)

Ignoring the point about the state's perfect duty for a moment, of which I need a better explanation from you, let me address the issue of comparative utility.

A perfect duty is a duty such that a violation of it is unjust, and hence the performance of it is mandatory. An imperfect duty is one such that its violation is not unjust. Admittedly it's kind of a weird distinction. You might ask the question "Then why even refer to imperfect duties as duties at all?"

I'm not exactly sure what the definition of "utility" is, so you may have to help me with that. I assume it to mean something which is in the best interest of someone - and, by extension, that overall utility is that which is in the best interest of everyone combined.

Something like that. The way you applied the notion in your previous response to me is such that to maximize utility is to maximize quality of life.

If that's the case, maximising overall utility must necessarily involve a balance between reducing harm and protecting freedom. I say "balance" because these two aims often conflict with each other (i.e. giving people the freedom to own guns, even though they result in more overall harm to society).

No disagreement here.

Given that, comparing the overall utility of two different possible social policies naturally involves some degree of ambiguity and arbitrariness, so it's difficult if not impossible to evaluate all possible social policies this way; but there are certain ones, such as the issues of public education and health care, where the comparative utility is quite easy to determine.

Your first point is a rather astute observation. Let me point out though that I don't believe that utility considerations justify actions. That's precisely, I think, why we disagree about what would constitute just practice on the part of the state. Perhaps there is a more subtle difference between us, but I think our opposing views about what justifies actions almost wholly captures the difference.

 

[Cythraul]

The problem is that not all wealth, even if acquired "legitimately" (which I assume you mean in compliance with the laws that apply to the person making the money) is deserved. Wealth which is acquired due to exclusive opportunity rather than merit is not deserved. I believe that an individual has no right to keep money which they earned due to an unfair advantage over others (and I have yet to see a convincing argument from either you or Dakryn to the contrary).

There are two ways in which I can come to acquire something undeservedly. I can acquire something undeservedly by stealing it from somebody else (or by some other illegitimate means). Clearly, that's an injustice, and an injustice is something which requires rectification, and so forcing me to rectify the situation is mandatory. I can also acquire something undeservedly in the sense that perhaps somebody gave it to me for arbitrary reasons. In that sense I acquire something undeservedly because I did nothing to merit its acquisition. This latter case involves no illegitimate transfer of the good in question, and so how can we maintain that such a transfer was unjust? Perhaps you and I are going to start going in circles on this point.

Of course, it is also important to most people to have hope that they can rise above socioeconomic mediocrity if they are exceptionally talented. This is the motivation that drives capitalism, and perhaps the same that drives most of the achievements of brilliant scientists, engineers and businessmen as well.

The problem with pure capitalism, though, is that it leads to people controlling money they don't deserve. You need to have some measure of capitalism to give people hope of achievement, but you also need to have some measure of communism to protect people from the inevitable injustices of pure capitalism. This is why a balance between the two philosophies is important. Both are dangerous to society on their own.

Communism, eh? That's a dirty word in my lexicon.

You know, all I can say about these points is that perhaps I don't share your instinct for benevolence. Maybe that makes me a callous asshole, but it's certainly no objection to my view.

 

[Cythraul]

<3 Cythraul

UM libertarians ftw! We should form an alliance, you and I (you are a libertarian, right???)

 

[AchrisK]

Isn't that roughly fiscally conservative, but socially liberal?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. If I have a right to not have my property taken without my consent, then everybody else has a duty to act in accordance with that right.

It appears I could challenge your viewpoint either on the assumption that the duty of government is defined as the protection of rights, or on the assumption that security of property is a right. I'm going to try the latter for now.

I find your assumption about a right to property highly questionable, because it seems fundamentally different from what we typically take to be basic rights. (I will assume for now that life, freedom, and safety from harm are all basic rights.) Protection of the rights to life, freedom, and safety do not necessitate a reduction in utility - if we all just leave each other alone, society as a whole is none the worse for it. This is not the case for protection of individual property, which can have a catastrophic cost in overall utility if treated as a right. Because of this, assuming a right to protection of property is not at all in the spirit of the traditional rights to life, freedom, and safety, and therefore it is not valid as a right.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'll wait until you've addressed my above post before I take on the topic of how wealth is acquired. The question of property right seems to be pivotal to this whole debate.

Let me add, though, that I don't think you can divorce the concept of utility so easily from that of rights. The only reason we have rights is to advance utility in the world, and to suggest that utility is not an important concern in these matters is basically like saying that it doesn't matter how godawful and miserable our world is, so long as we're protecting these rights. Rights and utility have a vital connection to each other.

 

[Cythraul]

I feel as though if I really cared enough I could probably justify welfare programs based solely on legitimate justifications, but personally, I don't give a fuck about people with money and their bitching about injustices and 'omg redistribution of wealth' and (lol) 'legalized theft'. I don't give a flying fuck, and I don't care about your alleged rights to not contribute to welfare and I'm glad that the government doesn't fucking care and takes your money anyway because it's more important that people need help get help than those who don't need it.

When in doubt resort to table pounding, vitriol, and dogma. Honestly, go fuck yourself.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Pwned

 

[Cythraul]

Protection of the rights to life, freedom, and safety do not necessitate a reduction in utility - if we all just leave each other alone, society as a whole is none the worse for it.

I feel compelled to say "bullshit". One can certainly imagine a myriad of cases in which the protection of the above rights would lead to a reduction in overall utility. In fact, that is precisely a corollary to one of the main objections to utilitarianism, i.e. that maximization of utility would in certain cases require the violation of rights.

This is not the case for protection of individual property, which can have a catastrophic cost in overall utility if treated as a right.

And why, exactly, is it the case that this couldn't be true for any other rights?

Because of this, assuming a right to protection of property is not at all in the spirit of the traditional rights to life, freedom, and safety, and therefore it is not valid as a right.

Well, I'm inclined to think that the other rights you mentioned don't escape the problem you pose for the right to property. So if it's a problem for the right to property, then it's a problem for all the other ones. If that's the case, then bye bye rights.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Alright, I'll get back to you on that tomorrow. I gotta get some sleep.

 

[Cythraul]

The only reason we have rights is to advance utility in the world

That might be somebody's reason, and perhaps your reason, for accepting certain basic rights, but why should that be what validates them? It might be the case that I think it will rain tomorrow because my ouija board told me it would, but that certainly ain't a justification.

and to suggest that utility is not an important concern in these matters is basically like saying that it doesn't matter how godawful and miserable our world is, so long as we're protecting these rights. Rights and utility have a vital connection to each other.

I don't see how that demonstrates some vital connection. It just shows that sometimes observance of rights conflicts with utility.

 

[Cythraul]

Alright, I'll get back to you on that tomorrow. I gotta get some sleep.

sleep tight don't let the bed bugs bite.

 

[skeptik]

When in doubt resort to table pounding, vitriol, and dogma. Honestly, go fuck yourself.

You're a fucking retard if you thought that I was actually attempting to create an argument out of that. Are you drunk right now and are too stupid to realize that I was making a simple ideological statement, and not an argument? Or did you assume that I intended to use that in place of an argument? You should know me better than that by now you Mexicunt.