You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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)
Does he think governmental extortion is kept and held neatly behind national lines? He doesn't realize that violent government policies--both economic and otherwise--cross national borders and extort, violate, murder, and maim "foreigners" as well? Aren't they entitled to their fair "share"? How he misses this is beyond me.
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.