CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?

petro petro at bounty.org
Mon Oct 23 23:34:27 PDT 2000


>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:59:51PM -0700, petro wrote:
>>
>>  >>  That's true, but it is irrelevant.  As long as insurance companies
>>  >>  and hospitals are privately owned, putting a requirement like this
>>  >>  one on them constitutes theft of their resources.  If you want to
>>  >>  have them engaging in charity, set up a charity and solicit money
>>  >>  instead.  ie, you can ask but you don't have permission to steal.
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  >I think the government has a right to do whatever it needs to do 
>>to maintain
>>
>>  	You don't think very well then.
>>
>
>Perhaps.
>
>>  >the health and well-being of its population.  That is the purpose of
>>  >the government.
>>
>>  	Not in the United States of America it isn't.
>>
>>
>
>Then what is the purpose of our government?

	www.constitution.org may help you.

>>  >That is one way of defining freedom.  I view freedom as the right of
>>  >people to live happy, productive lives.  A discriminatory policy such
>>  >as this one would infringe on that freedom.
>>  	You have been completely brainwashed.
>>  	You have a no idea what a "right" is.
>OK, then, what is a "right"?

	A thing which no one else has entitlement or authority to take away.

	What you confuse is that just having a *right* to something 
doesn't put the onus of responsibility on anyone (or society) to 
provide it.

	For instance, you *do* have a right to housing, but there is 
neither a responsibility on government/society to provide it for you, 
nor a responsibility on them to make sure you keep it once you have 
it. They are just not allowed to prevent you from acquiring it 
without violating the property rights of others.

	You have the right to happiness, but I don't have to make you 
happy. I am also not obligated modify my behavior to keep you happy, 
absent an obligation not to initiate force against you.

	In your little fantasy world a right is an entitlement.

	It ain't so.

>>  >>  I also persist in believing that, as a philosophical point, nobody
>>  >>  who is *compelled* to do something can be considered a good person
>>  >>  for doing it.  I also feel that history has shown us that those who
>>  >>  receive charity compelled from others have never appreciated the
>>  >>  work and sacrifice that it represents.  Compelled charity is
>>  >>  morally and emotionally meaningless.
>>  >
>>  >Fine, so the insurance companies won't be considered "good."  Who
>>  >cares?  The point is, people who need medical care would be getting it.
>>
>>  	The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my
>>  productive labor to support someone else.
>>
>>  	This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this,
>>  as I have a right to be happy.
>
>Not if it hurts someone else.  Serial killers often get off on killing
>people.  However, this hurts others, so it is outweighed.

	There is a distinct difference between the initiation of 
force and withholding aid.
-- 
A quote from Petro's Archives:
**********************************************
"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech."
--Dr. Kathleen Dixon,
Director of Women s Studies,
Bowling Green State University





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list