You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Visions of a Voluntary World (A primer on Voluntaryist/anarchist thought).
I don't agree with you.
If the disease is too rare and difficult to treat the incentive won't be big enough for all the research or development. Of course some companies will try to find a product to sell, but only to make money not to heal. Why should they be interested in finding the cure when it won't pay off?
That's why we have this big market with supplements. Easy to produce and no real need to back up your claim. People in need might be desperate enough to buy it because there isn't an alternative.
You don't have to agree, but the science of economics and the study of history is on my side.
You honestly think that governments try to find cures because they care about people? Is that why so many are currently without adequate healthcare, even in socialized states?
I will wait to see the substantiations of your claims.
Either way, though, the indisputable fact remains that you are arguing for slavery, essentially, in saying some people must be forced to pay for the care of others, or else.
Your also not answering my questions.
And I never said that the government, whoever this is, is interesting in curing the people. But the free market neither
In most of Europe s welfare states there is adequate welfare for almost everybody. Of course it's not perfect and by no means free
However is it slavery when you get the same service back if you need it?
Is it morally legitimate for me to come to our home and demand you pay for my child’s healthcare with a gun to your head?
Is it morally legitimate if myself and five others do this? What about ten? One hundred?
No, it is always immoral.
No it won't, but that is not the case if we are talking about health insurance
As long as you don't think I should pay for things I do not want to, then we have no real disagreement. ;)
Taxation and mandated health insurance payments (under threat of violence/punishment/force) are immoral. If you don't think force or the threat thereof should be used against individuals that don't pay, then we have no disagreement.
Immorality is hard to determine.
it might be immoral to force you to pay into a mandatory health insurance.
However, if the free market can't provide the necessaries for everybody is this morally? Survival of the fittest?
So, do you support force and/or the threat of force being used against me to get me to pay for state-sanctioned healthcare?
There are some moral gray areas. Stealing and robbery is not one of them. It is wrong for me to come to your house with a gun to demand you pay for something. The end.
didn't I say it might be immoral?
and nowhere I said somebody should force you to pay anything by gun point, so I don't want anybody to come to your house either.
However, as I stated at the beginning I was wondering what will be the fairest way for everybody to get the needed necessaries.
I think we should talk about this (and happier things) over a drink, easier to do it when I see you
If you or the people/professionals you know would not help those in their community in need then I truly feel sorry for you. The individuals and professionals I know, doctors and scientists included, would, and want to.
All the same, as I said, stealing is always wrong. Ends do not justify immoral means.
I do have some great helpful people around me and I'm glad you too!
But as I was wondering at the beginning, if there are enough of us. Of course I hope so, but sometimes I do have my doubts.
And to sum it up, voluntary agreement is always best, no matter what!
Have a good night!
And as far as not answering you, I am the only one so far who has provided any data or hard numbers.
Democide: 262 million dead in about 100 years. And we are worried about what will happen if this murdering, brutal entity doesn't have a monopoly on healthcare!?!?!
Also, I provided numbers from Somalia.
So far, you have only made claims.
I worrying about other things more than that too