Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

PUBLIC HEALTH

Rate this topic


buiq

Recommended Posts

So, must I subscribe to her entire principles to be an Objectivists? What if I disagree with her, let say abortion- would I still be an Objectivist? Like those believe in the Bible, they cannot selectively believe only portions of the Bible but must believe in all of its content? Is that how it work?
Buiq--I think you need to consider the difference between principles and implementation. If you were an objectivist, you would be required to constantly look at Rand's ideas about specific subjects and question whether her opinions on those particular actions or subjects follow logically from her basic principles of metaphysics and epistemology. O'ists disagree on plenty of issues of implementation. That's why boards like this exist--they are conducive to the kind of discussion that examines how we should implement principles. If I post something here and something is logically wrong with what I say, I hope and expect that someone will shoot me down so that I become aware of any contradictions (flaws) in my logic. Then I can check my premises and see where I've gone awry. People make mistakes--making mistakes doesn't mean you're out of the objectivist "club". Choosing to knowingly live with a contradiction is a big problem, though--that is directly against o'ist principles.

So how do you think this can be done on the voluntary basis and be practical about it. Rand herself did not offer a solution to this but defer the practicality of voluntary taxation to another field, law.

Well, let's go back to the idea of immunization. I'd be glad to donate my time and/or money to a voluntary, private organization that immunized those who could not afford it if the situation endangered my life. I'd be glad to pay for the immunization of someone who was of value to me if their life was in danger from not being immunized against something. If a private company that produced immunizations was to set up a program that used part of the cost of my immunization to subsidize the immunizations of those who couldn't afford it, I'd respect their right to run their company as they see fit and I could choose to patronize them or not. These are three separate methods of practical implementation for you.

As to your comment about deferring volutary taxation to law, I can only guess to what you are referring. To the notion of funding the military, police, and courts? That issue involves first acknowleding that those are the only function of government--something which you haven't done yet, so I'm not sure that you're ready for this discussion. But her idea on that involves voluntary clauses in business contracts that provide a voluntary basis for individuals to support the necessary work of the government. They work like insurance for people who want legal protection for contracts.

That concept isn't deferring the idea of taxation--I'd say rather, it isn't taxation. It's a voluntary part of a business contract by which men of self-interest can choose to support the necessary functions of government.

BTW, the framer of the Constitution explicitly authorized the federal government to promote and provide for the general welfare (in the Preamble and Article I, Section 8) and to regulate commerce. <snip> Rand praised the founding father of the US and the constitution of the US. Did she forget this portion of the constitution which you object?
Rand praised the founding fathers as those who set up a country based on reason and rejecting the sacrifice of one man to another. In some respects, however, the language of the Constitution leaves too much open to intepretation of politicians and people who would set up programs for government services that should not be offered. That's how we got to this point today where we have income taxes and healthcare that is constantly becoming more socialized. You're setting up what's almost a package deal here by saying that because politicians have implemented the Constitution badly, that objectivists must dislike the founding fathers. That's not true--it doesn't logically follow.

I still think most of your difficulty in understanding these issues has to do with confusion on implementation of principles and that you have not accepted that you shouldn't live with a contradiction.

I have never or have any intention to RAPE, MURDER, ENSLAVE, or STEAL from anyone.

But if you advocate taxation, you are operating under the intent to do such things. You're definitely advocating theft, and by confiscating that personal property you seek to enslave men. When you take away the products of their livelihood, that's wrapped up in murder. (And I sure feel like I have to bend over every time I get a paycheck and see what the government's taken out of it :o )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"It is common a interest of individuals. Now, I have stated YOU have object public health programs on the basis that it uses tax money. I have accepted your position. My only question is how would the voluntary tax system be carried out? You have not answer this question."

There would be NO system of "voluntary taxes" to create and administer ANY form of "public health" system. The govt does not properly have the authority to immunize individuals. It does not properly have the authority to clothe individuals. It does not properly have the authority to house individuals. It does not properly have the authority to do anything but to protect the rights of individuals from violations against other individuals.

However ALL of this is IRRELEVANT.

IF, as you CLAIM, you ACTUALLY believe you do not have the right to steal from someone in order to protect your life -

IF, as you CLAIM, you ACTUALLY believe you do not have the right to rape someone in order to protect your life -

IF, as you CLAIM, you ACTUALLY believe you do not have the right to enslave someone in order to protect your life -

IF, as you CLAIM, you ACTUALLY believe you do not have the right to murder someone in order to protect your life -

then HOW one could achieve the end you seek voluntarily DOES NOT MATTER.

Even if you determined it was IMPOSSIBLE to achieve the end you seek voluntarily, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Why?

Because EVEN IF you could protect your life ONLY by stealing, you would NOT steal. The end would not justify the means.

Because EVEN IF you could protect your life ONLY by raping, you would NOT rape. The end would not justify the means.

Because EVEN IF you could protect your life ONLY by enslaving, you would NOT enslave. The end would not justify the means.

Because EVEN IF you could protect your life ONLY by murdering, you would NOT murder. The end would not justify the means.

The ONLY reason it would 'matter' whether or not you could achieve an end by voluntary means is IF you believed your inability to achieve your ends VOLUNTARILY therefore JUSTIFIED acheiving your ends by stealing, rape, enslavement or murder. In other words, the ONLY reason it would 'matter' is if you believed those means COULD BE JUSTIFIED by the end you cannot achieve by other means.

THAT is the ENDS JUSTIFYING THE MEANS.

You insist over and over again that you reject that position. Yet (as has been pointed out to you SO MANY TIMES that one MUST question your intellectual HONESTY to keep making the assertion) that is EXACTLY your position:

" So, to PROTECT my life I support Public Health and concede that, IDEALLY, it should be done on a voluntary basis. But, we are not living in an ideal world."

Translation:

"Ideally, the ends don't justify the means, but we are not living in an ideal world."

And of course you conveniently left off the logical CONCLUSION of this idea, because it would have given your position away EXPLICITLY:

"Ideally, the ends don't justify the means, but we are not living in an ideal world. So, no matter how much I might "desire" otherwise, the ends can indeed justify the means."

What this means is:

In an 'ideal world, you would not steal to protect your life, but since this is supposedly NOT an 'ideal' world (ie the principle does not reference this world and thus cannot be applied in this world), you INDEED may have to STEAL in order to protect your life.

In an 'ideal world, you would not rape to protect your life, but since this is supposedly NOT an 'ideal' world, you INDEED may have to RAPE in order to protect your life.

In an 'ideal world, you would not enslave to protect your life, but since this is supposedly NOT an 'ideal' world, you INDEED may have to ENSLAVE in order to protect your life.

In an 'ideal world, you would not murder to protect your life, but since this is supposedly NOT an 'ideal' world, you INDEED may have to MURDER in order to protect your life.

Put simply:

In an 'ideal' world, ends would not justify means, but since this is supposedly NOT an 'ideal' world, ends CAN justify the means.

CLEARLY this is NOT a rejection of the principle. CLEARLY you EMBRACE the principle that the ENDS JUSTIFY MEANS.

Though MORE than enough EVIDENCE (above and in prior posts) has been provided to PROVE this fact, one simply need read further down your post to see it once again:

"My life is valuable to me and is not subjective. This is a reality for all human... We all value our lives. This is definitely an absolute for it is real."

This blatantly CONTRADICTS your VERY FIRST SENTENCE IN YOUR POST:

"My asnwer is NO for all of the above."

With this sentence, you were proclaiming:

"NO, I do NOT think it is valuable to preserve my life - if I have to steal from other people."

"NO, I do NOT think it is valuable to preserve my life - if I have to rape other people."

"NO, I do NOT think it is valuable to preserve my life - if I have to enslave other people."

"NO, I do NOT think it is valuable to preserve my life - if I have to murder other people."

So FIRST you say your life is NOT valuable - IF it comes at the cost of violating other lives. NEXT you say your life IS valuable - PERIOD - ie no matter what - regardless the cost.

Simply MORE evidence of your BLATANT contradictions. And just another of the reasons I now SERIOUSLY question your intellectual honesty, since this EXACT SAME CONTRADICTION has been pointed out to you over the course of MORE THAN FIFTY POSTS, yet you keep repeating it as if no one has identified it AS a contradiction - and/or - that you dont CARE it is a contradiction.

--

(BTW - just because the contitution claims the authority to initiate force, does not mean it is right to do so. It also authorized prohibition. It was not right to do so.

Simply because some men have written it is ok to violate other men to achieve an end does not make that a valid principle. Making that case is simply the logical error "Appeal to Authority". "They say it is ok, so it must be true." Oh - and I guess you have not read as much rand as you should, because while she has praised the Founding Fathers, she has EXPLICITLY stated that they made philosophic errors when forging the constitution. Among them, the takings clause, interstate commerce clause, AND the general welfare clause. Get your facts straight before making such a specious claim, especially in the flippant manner you employed.

--

Also, concerning hostility, it is CONTEXTUAL (a concept you CONTINUALLY ignore). AR was extremely 'hostile' to those who rejected reason, who embraced subjectivism, collectivism, and altruism, and to those who practiced it in the form of communism, naziism, etc. Hostility can be the proper MORAL response. It is a matter of WHO it is aimed at and WHY. Trying to smear me by implying my frustration with your apparent denseness (which, more and more, appears to be intellectual dishonesty) is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

--

" Rand herself did not offer a solution to this but defer the practicality of voluntary taxation to another field, law."

This is a lie. AR DID offer a couple different means of voluntary financing for a govt, but defered more solutions to the philosophy of law (just as she has provided countless principles of ethics, politics, and economics, but deferred the writing of an actual constitution or specific laws to the philosophy of law). As has been stated, however, NO example need be provided IF you reject the principle of theft and slavery to finance a govt. No constitution need be provided, and no voluntary system of govt financy need be specified.

It is ONLY if you do NOT reject the principle of the ends justifying the means that such examples are 'required' to prevent you from going ahead and violating others to achieve your ends.

--

"So, must I subscribe to her entire principles to be an Objectivists?"

This has been answered elsewhere. Please do not pollute a thread with mutliple, completely separate ideas. Find the prior threads which dealt with the topic or create a new topic.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RadCap:

First of all, let it be clear on one thing. I have no intention to smear you. I suppose my attempt to be light hearted failed. So, if you perceived that I smeared you, I will say it here that I did not mean to do so.

In an 'ideal world, you would not steal to protect your life, but since this is supposedly NOT an 'ideal' world (ie the principle does not reference this world and thus cannot be applied in this world), you INDEED may have to STEAL in order to protect your life.
I have conceded that public health should be financed on a volunteer basis as others have suggested. Never said that ideally I would behave one way and when the situation not ideal I would behave differently. My question was only to ask for a solution since we do not live in an ideal situation, especially the taxation system. I did not make any other impication with that question.

BTW - just because the contitution claims the authority to initiate force, does not mean it is right to do so. It also authorized prohibition. It was not right to do so.

I agree.

Making that case is simply the logical error "Appeal to Authority". "They say it is ok, so it must be true." Oh - and I guess you have not read as much rand as you should, because while she has praised the Founding Fathers, she has EXPLICITLY stated that they made philosophic errors when forging the constitution. Among them, the takings clause, interstate commerce clause, AND the general welfare clause. Get your facts straight before making such a specious claim, especially in the flippant manner you employed.
Yes, you are correct regarding "Appeal to Authority". That is an error in my on my part: Just because some one say so, does not mean it is so. I should be more careful the next time. And, just because Rand was hostile to others as you have cited, it does not mean you should per your "Appeal to Authority" reasoning.

It is true that I have yet read ALL Rand's work. However, you are incorrect by assuming that I have quoted her "flippantly" or dismissively.

Rand herself did not offer a solution to this but defer the practicality of voluntary taxation to another field, law

I have stated the above and you regard it as a lie.

This is a direct quote from Rand.

"The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing-how to determine the best means of applying it in practice-is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicible. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today-since the principle will be practicanble only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions"

Rand did state that the principle of voluntary government financing is complex and did defer it to the field of law. I did not make this up nor have I been dishonest.

Rand also stated that it is premature to apply the principle of voluntary government financing and only in a truly society, meaning IDEAL. We are not living in the TRULY free society as described by her. So when I ask you and others for a solution recognizing that we are not living in an ideal world, you think that I endorse rape, murder, steal....

Through out this discussion, as I have mentioned, I conceded to yours and others' opposition to the taxation system to support public heath, my "pet project." I am perplexed to your hostility and your level of civility. You, me, and others will agree on many issues and disagree on many issues, but we should not forget to be civil in our exchange of thoughts, though may it be flawed.

I believe that we have exhausted this debate and I do thank you all, including you RadCap.

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes - we have eshausted this because you continue to deny your own position while asserting that position. The "ideal world" example was just one of the long list of assertions you make which mean one thing but you claim mean something else. Since arguments which demonstrate this are simply ignored, I will not pursue it with you any further.

I WILL correct ANOTHER of your false assertions though:

"Rand herself did not offer a solution to this but defer the practicality of voluntary taxation to another field, law

I have stated the above and you regard it as a lie.

This is a direct quote from Rand.

"The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing-how to determine the best means of applying it in practice-is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicible. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today-since the principle will be practicanble only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions"

My post ACTUALLY said:

" Rand herself did not offer a solution to this but defer the practicality of voluntary taxation to another field, law."

This is a lie. AR DID offer a couple different means of voluntary financing for a govt, but defered more solutions to the philosophy of law (just as she has provided countless principles of ethics, politics, and economics, but deferred the writing of an actual constitution or specific laws to the philosophy of law).

In other words, I pointed out your falshood that "Rand herself did NOT offer a solution". I explained she did offer a couple different means of voluntarily financing a proper govt.. I ALSO stated AFTER that she DID defer MORE solutions to the philosophy of law. And I explained the reason why, as well as why it didnt matter if she had provided NO solution

Do you acknolwedge the lie? No. Instead you lied AGAIN. You PURPOSEFULLY created a straw man in place of my assertion. You IGNORED what I said was a lie. And you tried to make it seem as if I was ACTUALLY saying your deferment reference was the lie.

To shoot down this straw man, you then provided a quote in which she explicitly made such a deferment.

To do this required you to REMOVE that quote from its original CONTEXT (gee - there is that problem with you and CONTEXT again. Must be genetic!). That quote came at the END of an essay in which AR SPECIFICALLY provides the couple solutions I mentioned. You know, the ones which reveal the lie of your claim she offered no such solutions? The one's you failed to acknowledge?

So not only did you drop conext AGAIN, you did so in order to COVER UP a lie and defame the person who REVEALED the lie.

There is a phrase for such behavior:

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

This simply proves my previous suspicions. But it also proves you must believe everyone reading your posts is such a fool they will neither remember nor scroll up to check the ACCURACY of your words.

Sorry but we do NOT tolerate such behavior here. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you hung yourself with it.

You are on warning. I will notify GC with recommendation to ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

buiq -

The only form of public health that the government has a right and duty to provide is to quarantine those with highly contagious and dangerous diseases, at least where those people do not quarantine themselves. For example, SARS cases ought to be quarantined, but common-cold cases or STD cases ought not.

The Constitution explicitly authorized the federal government to promote and provide for the general welfare.

The "general welfare" clause meant one thing over two centuries ago and either the phrase, not the clause, has since changed meaning, or the clause has been horrendously misinterpreted. Read the preamble more closely: it nowhere authorizes the government arbitrarily to promote the general welfare. Instead, the promotion of the general welfare is proclaimed as the purpose for establishing the government with specifically delimited powers, among which public health is not to be found. In essence, the framer wrote: "It is my purpose to ensure the general welfare; therefore, I will establish government to ban and prevent murder."

But, we are not living in an ideal world.

We are living in both - and neither - an ideal and an unideal world. Why? Because we are living in the world; thiings either are or are not, and judgment comes only after that. You can work out the rest of it, if that was too cryptic.

For the rest of my response to this, I will let Ayn Rand do the talking.

" 'This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice.' What is a theory? It is a set of abstract principles purporting to be either a correct description of reality or a set of guidelines for man's actions. Correspondence to reality is the standard of value by which one estimates a theory. If a theory is inapplicable to reality, by what standards can it be estimated as 'good'? If one were to accept that notion, it would mean: a. that the activity of man's mind is unrelated to reality; b. that the purpose of thinking is neither to acquire knowledge nor to guide man's actions (The purpose of that catch phrase is to invalidate man's conceptual faculty." (Ayn Rand, "Philosophical Detection", Philosophy: Who Needs It. Because I'm currently reading it.)

RadCap -

Technically, buiq did not lie a second time, in the part of his post that you cited. He repeated his previous assertion, your assertion, and one of Ayn Rand's - unrelated -, but he did not make a new assertion. He did not analyze or connect anything. But then, he started doing exactly that, wrongly, afterward.

Based on this thread, I have an idea: have discussions where an opinion is presented - the opinion could be anything but the principles of Objectivism - and everybody takes turns exploring all the ways to knock it down, purely for fun and as a way to learn how to refute. Some people could play the role of devil's advocate. As before, I will let Ayn Rand explain why.

"If you feel nothing but boredom when reading the virtually unintelligible theories of some philosophers, you have my deepest sympathy. But if you brush them aside, saying: 'Why should I study that stuff when I know it's nonsense?'--you are mistaken. It is nonsense, but you don't know it--not so long as you go on accepting all their conclusions, all the vicious catch phrases generated by those philosophers. And not so long as you are unable to refute them." (Ayn Rand, "Philosophy: Who Needs It", Philosophy: Who Needs It.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us see if we can come at this from a different angle. The way I understand your position, you are having trouble reconciling the principle of individual rights and the apparent good that you see in public health care. Since you use immunization as an example, I'll stick to that.

Immunization is an objective good for each individual who participates. It isn't necessary for everyone to be immunized for any one person to benefit; if I am immunized, I am protected. I've paid for it myself, so no one's rights have been violated. Those who provided the immunization were not forced to provide this product, but offered their solution to my need in voluntary trade. In this way, immunization is an objective good.

But, what happens to this once the transaction becomes "public"? First of all, there is no objective entity as the "public". Objectively, i.e., in reality, there are only individual human beings. This is why any valid system of government uses the individual as its standard of value. Terms such as "public" or "society" are abstractions defining groups of individuals. What happens when you make the abstract collective the standard of value over the actual individual?

We've said that immunization is an objective good, and if it is good for one individual, why isn't it good for the collective? The answer will be found as soon as such a program is implimented because what is required to impliment immunization for the individual is vastly different that that taken to impliment a program for the collective. The system that treats the individual requires no middle-men. The system that treats the collective requires government bureaucrats to oversee the immunizations, regulators and enforcers of regulations, tax money to support the ever escalating costs of the programs, official "educators", and the legal use of force to "convince" the individual to do the bidding of the over-seer, the regulator, the enforcer, etc.

We have now created a vast bureaucracy of middlemen, with no other interest in the system but their own power, to take over the thinking of every other individual in society. Of course, human beings being what they are, the program won't be confined to the single objective of immunization. If this is good, then why not broaden the program to include other goods, such as pre-natal care, or drug rehabilitation, or -- oh heck, lets just take care of all health issues.

This, more or less, has been what has happened to health care in this country -- the tortuous descent into socialized medicine, a system that gives a handful of people the power to determine the life and death of all. You are perceiving public health care as good only because you are seeing the results merely in the range-of-the-moment and without giving consideration the the full context. The long-term consequences to our health care system has been devastating and will only get worse as the costs spiral out of control to the point where no one will receive adequate care. (I am a retired nurse and I've watched as the care has fallen to a deadly dangerous level.)

What your statistics don't show is what hasn't happened. The research that hasn't been done because a government panel determined that it wasn't needed, or was prejudiced against the researcher (which happens more than you know), or was prejudiced against the treatment proposed, or the premise, or because of a lack of vision. The treatment of individual cases, replaced by "cookbook" medical procedures which uses statistics and averages to "manage" care. (I have personally encountered this problem, which has been a disaster for my health.) And so on.

So, what began as an objective good, has now turned into an objective evil. This happened because the concept of the collective good is invalid and, therefore, the means required to impliment anything coming out of it were evil in principle. The means required the abrogation of individual rights by replacing the individual as the standard of value by the collective. The immorality of this approach can be grasped by acknowledging that some individual still must make the decisions about what is to be done, how it is to be done, at what cost, how it is to be paid for, etc. All collectivism does is replace the judgment of each individual over his own life with that of strangers with the power to dictate their judgment over everyone else. Whatever short-term benefits may accrue are far outweighed by the long-term destruction of individual rights and everything that flows from those rights, i.e., all that which makes life possible for the individual, and worth living in the first place.

"Do not bother to examine a folly; merely ask yourself what it accomplishes." Ellsworth Toohey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buiq,

This is a warning that the evasive and deceptive behavior you have shown on this and other threads will not be tolerated on this forum, and if you persist in it, you will be banned. If you have any questions about this, please message me or RadCap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello:

I thought that I have ended the debate by conceding to the point of views of many here. However, I DID ask you for a solution which I do not see. Instead of offering one, I am being warned for being Intellectually Dishonest. I do take this seriously for it an attack on my character personally. This is the first time ever that I am being call as such. However, I also find it amusing at the same time. A friendly debate has lead to this.

Let me say it clearly and LOUDLY, I DO NOT and have not LIE or DECEIVE anyone here at all. I have quoted Rand directly. If I have misquoted her, please point it out. IF I have taken her quote out of contex, please specifically point that out. Now, I have not read all her work and referenced the ones I have read. On any particular position (especially taxation), if she had clarified herself elsewhere and I have yet read it, please provide the source so I can find it and read it. I have no problem with that at all. However, claiming that I am intellectually dishonest is being DISHONEST.

On the other hand, calling some one a liar, a rapist, a murderer, a looter.....for supporting Public Health is acceptable. That is a leap in logic yet tolerated. Attack someone on a personal level is acceptable? A friendly debate should remain a debate. Assuming and only assuming, If I had taken an opposite and unpopular position to fuel the debate and I do not tell you so, is that intellectually dishonest?

As an aside, one should be reminded that despite holding a philosophy one must see the practicality of it. You and I objected the taxation system yet we still pay for it. How many, because of one's philosophy and conviction, has risen up to defeat the taxation system? (April 15 is coming near). None I say because we are here instead of jail. (AND I agree with y_Feldblum's opinion and that of Rand's quote).

I came here to debate, have a little fun, learn....etc. Someone states that Objectivists may not have to be open minded but an active one. I agree but want to add that both may be needed. An active mind so ridgid would never learn. I hope that my mind is both active and open. For the short time being here, some you you (not all) have given me an experience similar to those when I debate with religious fundamentalists. An disagreement with the opinions of their leaders one would be labled as blasphemer and threaten to becasted out.

I have remain polite, cordial, and I say pretty pleasant despite the hostility directed to me. Anyway, I am curious do you all found me to be intellectually dishonest? I hope not.

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just read through this whole thread...indeed, you do lie buig. as for the quoting rand thing, you quoted her from an essay in the virtue of selfishness, in which she defines a system of voluntary government funding, and use to illustrate how she never definded a system of voluntary goverment funding. i suppose i could beleive you were naive enough to just flip open to a page in the book, and write down the one quote, but never read the rest of the page...but that's being a little naive myself.

i do agree w/ what everyone has said so far. you seem to have a very big problem w/ context dropping, radcap was right.

as a note to why it may seem like you're arguing w/ a bunch of religious fundamentalists. we objectivists share one thing in common w/ religious fundamentalists: we are absolutely certain that we are right. the difference, of course, is that we are right. you act as though its wrong to be sure that you're right. who was it? descarte that said he can only prove his own existence? nothing else? no certainty, a very sad outlook on life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Ayn Rand based her philosophy on "everything that moves an individual away from life is evil. Everything that moves him towards it is good". Now, if public health has succeeded in wiping out major diseases like small pox and increasing life expectancy, then it is benefit to all since no man can absolutely seclude himself from a disease. Therefore, the public health system is actually promoting everybody's life. Hence, it should be conformable to the principles of Objectivism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The eradication of certain diseases, as well as the containment of contagious diseases, is one of the few things which I would say socialized health care has in its favour. However you need to realise that (most) of us arent claiming that there are _no_ benefits that public health care could bring, simply that these benefits do not outweigh the gross violation of rights involved in implementing such a system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buig you say

I thought that I have ended the debate by conceding to the point of views of many here. However, I DID ask you for a solution which I do not see.

If you've really conceded all the main points this debate has been about then the solution to your problem should be apparent. Capitalism is the only moral way by which healthcare can be produced and traded freely, and that includes garbage collection, sewer services, immunization, etc. Public Health systems are just an inefficient albatross that the private sector is forced to pay for. Even if one accepted your claim that public health systems account for the majority of increase in life expectancy you should be infuriated because the gains under a private free efficient system would be far greater, not to mention ethical. So for all this back and forth the answer is readily apparent and obvious, as it was at the beginning, free and unfettered capitalism is the only moral way to produce and trade anything, including healthcare, and it will produce gains that make any achieved by public health systems look pathetic by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The eradication of certain diseases, as well as the containment of contagious diseases, is one of the few things which I would say socialized health care has in its favour.

As compared to what?

Are you suggesting that under capitalism diseases wouldn't be eradicated or contagious diseases contained?

It is only because of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution it spawned that eradicating disease would ever have been possible!

There is no justification for socialized health care - or socialized anything. It accomplishes absolutely nothing that capitalism doesn't make possible in the first place and which would not be possible at all if capitalism did not exist. (If there were worldwide socialism, consistently applied, the world's economies would sink into total impoverishment and there would be massive worldwide famine).

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As compared to what?

Are you suggesting that under capitalism diseases wouldn't be eradicated or contagious diseases contained?

As far as I know, eradicating a disease generally requires making sure the entire populace is vaccinated. If those living in serious poverty were unable to receive vaccinations for financial reasons, it would make it difficult to wipe out diseases in the way that small pox (for example) has been wiped out.

The same applies to contagious diseases. If a person has symptoms that could be caused by a contagious disease but cannot afford to get it checked out, they may well spread it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A brief thought experiment on public health spending:

Suppose that you are appointed health czar for the U.S. and given a billion dollars to spend on public health. You consider giving it to one of three major causes of death: heart disease, cancer, and AIDS. Ignoring the fact that money had to be stolen to come into your possession, how would you distribute it?

You could spend the majority it on the biggest killer – heart disease. But heart disease mostly affects the elderly, while cancer kills people in their prime – do you go after it? AIDS kills the fewest, but it has the most expensive treatments, and the most powerful lobbying groups. Still other lobbies argue that AIDS patients deserve the disease and should not receive any government funding. Which part of the “public health” do you fund?

Most likely, the cause with the best political connections will receive the most money. Even if you resolve to ignore the lobbyists, which competing standard would you use? No matter how noble the bureaucrat’s desire, all the socialist calculation in the world will not tell you which of the competing causes to choose.

Once you choose a disease, how would you decide which programs to sponsor? Some have radical new procedures; others have more standard methods, while others have connections with your agency. Outside of the choices of individual entrepreneurs and consumers, there is no way to know which radical treatment will succeed, and no basis to choose one cause over another. Again, the politically connected and the most standard (and least likely to lead to a radical breakthrough) avenue will get the funds, and the future Pfizer and Bayer’s will not.

The best thing you could do with that “public health” money is return it back to the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

As far as Cancer goes. The US gov't subsidizes tobacco farmers, they then spend billions on an ad campaign to tell people not to smoke, then they spend money to cure lung Cancer. If they stopped all 3 the taxpayers would save money, less tobacco would be grown, and the private sector could do research on Cancer if they wished. It is in demand so it would get done.

In a Capitalist Society everyone would be better off as a whole. Just like the average US citizen is better off than say the average Russian citizen ( a longtime communist country with no private property still ). Even though the USA is not entirely Capitalist, it is much closer than Russia and the citizens enjoy more freedom and a much higher standard of living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...