RE: Stuck at the Hospital: Recap of the Larken Rose/Chase Rachels "Public Property" Debate (nobody really "wins" when self-ownership is off the table)
The argument that a publicly owned hospital is collectively "owned" by the group of people in the area is shaky at best. How on earth do you determine who has a share. and how much?
Does the family who live off-grid and do not pay taxes have a share? Do they have more of a share than a family who lives on welfare (effectively paying negative taxes). What about the billionaire factory owner who employs 10,000 people - what if he is the only significant employer in town? Certainly the billionaire is responsible for most of the cost of the hospital, so he should be able to choose who uses it, right? What about the factory worker, does he have less than the factory owner, and more than the off-grid family? Now where does the immigrant fit in? If he pays zero taxes, and also receives no public money - he should have the same share as the off-grid family, but more than the welfare family right?
Now what if the billionaire builds her own private hospital and offers free hospital services to all her factory workers and their families? Can she, and all the factory workers ask to be taxed less? (As they no longer have any use for a public hospital?)
A publicly owned hospital is a wealth redistribution machine, and by definition only exists through the initiation of violence (forcing people to fund it). The argument should not be who gets to use it, but should be about how to transfer ownership to the private sector.
This was my question for him as well. Somewhere in the course of the debate he expressed that anyone with a legitimate claim of victimhood at the hands of the state is owed restitution in the form of access to "public" infrastructure. If that's case, there are people that have never stepped foot in the US who's claim would grant them more shares than the billionaire has.
"My family was collateral damage in a drone strike, I have a legitimate claim to victimhood at the hands of the state."
If you take a portion of my paycheck without consent, and use it to build tomahawk missiles, and then put those missiles on a drone, and then send that drone to another part of the world, and start blowing things up with no regard for innocents who may be in the area, I certainly have no responsibility to those innocents, do I?
I am also the victim of the state in this scenario, so taking more money from my paycheck in order to pay restitution to this family only furthers the violence. If anyone, the only person who should be liable is the person who fired the missile.
I was talking about Chase's comments during the debate, I just used your example to extrapolate on that. I do agree with the sentiment of your comment but it doesn't really respond to his claim that the closest approximation of justice (in a circumstance where the state is not divvying up it's assets) is use of public infrastructure by those with a legitimate claim of victimhood.
Sure it does. By giving away the services of the hospital, you are taking even more away from the taxpayers who are having to continuously fund it...
You have a hospital that is giving away services? Do you live in the US?
(The question posed was suppose to be for Chase, but continuing on as if you were him)
The question was about use of the infrastructure, not necessarily using it for "free."
Assuming they are paying for everything themselves, is it immoral for them to occupy the hospital, and thus potentially deprive someone else of a room? What about if there is space available?
Exactly.
Yes. Extremely well said. Thank you.
Thank you for the thought provoking post in the first place.. I do enjoy that there are so many anarchists in the crypto community..
Well said. check below to see what I said. I would appreciate your thoughtful criticism.