- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
So many who argue about personal responsibility proceed to ignore responsibility to each other. We all should be held accountable for our willful mistakes, but that includes the willful choice not to act, and accountability does not necessarily equate to punishment. We would not need a government to protect us if we would stop trying to prey on each other.
So magical non-insurance options will appear?
Right up until they go to the emergency or operating room, can't pay for their treatment, and someone else has to foot the bill. Being responsible for your decisions is great - as long as you and you alone are responsible for the consequences. That simply isn't what happens in reality.
Jesus ****ing christ, you're trolling now I swear to god. I've told you 15 times I don't want the government in this. However, also like I've explained 15 god damn times, you're already paying for other people's poor health decisions in your insurance premiums.Nobody said that. Things go better when you discuss what people say, not what they do not say.
Free Market = more options.
I'd think a 'Libertarian' would understand that.
Sorting out what is healthy and unhealthy is a lot more complicated than you imagine. We all make hundreds of decisions a day based on our health, and there isn't anybody standing behind us to evaluate us. Over 50% of our population is morbidly obese, and yes, you're paying for all of them in your premium.Actually, I wasn't referring to insurance at all. Everyone ought to have it and if they do something stupid that requires medical attention, then yes, everyone who bought into the insurance already knows what they were buying into and it's funded by the group. The stupider people probably weigh heavier on the group, but they ought to be charged more for having bad habits in the first place.
It's not complicated at all. If you caused your own problem, you pay for the solution or you drop dead. Your fault, your problem. It cleans out the gene pool.
This is what I tried to explain to our little kitty cat friend. He thinks there's some kind of magic scanner that can tell "Oh, you ate too many doritos and smoked too many cigarettes, so we're cutting off your insurance."Which sounds nice in principle but in the emergency room it's hard as hell to determine just what is the cause of a particular emergency or ailment when the surgeon is trying his damnedest just to save a life. How do we make a distinction between people who end up on the operating table because they made stupid decisions and people who end up there because they simply got the short end of the stick?
The proper role of government is such:
- Maintain a justice system to prevent/seek retribution for coercion/violence between citizens
- Organize national defense
- Maintain the few programs that would be near impossible in the free market, IE: public roads, radio spectrum division, etc.
The government has no role in legislating non-violent morality, or telling people what they should or shouldn't consume. It's our lives, our bodies, our decisions.
I can agree, but both systems should be opt-out. If you want to take those tax dollars and get private health care or private education, you should be able to do that. In Germany, for instance, if you don't want to be in the public health care system, you can opt-out and go private. This falls in with number #3 on my list. If the local private education or health services are inadequate, there should always be a government option.I agree with most of your positions except I would add two more responsibilites (which is why I am libertarian-LEFT).
Public Education grades 1 -12
Public Health
I think government should be responsible for maintaining a basic level of education because I believe only an educated population has the capacity to remain truly informed before making decisions. Otherwise, education level would be based on individual wealth; leading to dominance, repression, and rebellion (as shown by past history).
I support government health care because the State should be responsible for maintaining a baseline of health to prevent plagues etc., and provide medical protection since most citizens simply cannot afford (personal insurance coverage) it on their own. I strongly support a system similar to Canada or the UK. Doctors benefit well under such systems, pharmaceutical companies still make reasonable profits, and only insurance companies lose out.
I can agree, but both systems should be opt-out. If you want to take those tax dollars and get private health care or private education, you should be able to do that. In Germany, for instance, if you don't want to be in the public health care system, you can opt-out and go private. This falls in with number #3 on my list. If the local private education or health services are inadequate, there should always be a government option.
I don't know why we don't do that. It's a win for both sides, everybody gets what they want. I think the problem comes from the people that believe the only way such a program could work is by use of force and coercion.
That's reasonable, except I would require annual proof (in the education area) that you are actually providing your children with an equivalent level of education. Perhaps annual state run testing, along with receipts for private school or documents showing work done while home-schooled. Failure to provide satisfactory equivalence would negate your opt-out option and require re-entry into the State system.
This is cryptic and kind of reveals your discomfort with personal responsibility, presumably because your political philosophy is so strongly welfare-oriented that you cannot stomach people having to take responsibility (even painfully) for their own maladaptive choices. Why else would you be trying to broadbrush people "who argue about personal responsibility?"
I am astonished at the degree people demand the government control people to the finest detail. Of course, that also means demanding the government control you - ie protect you from yourself.
Way back at the start of this country, a French philosopher named Torqueville toured the USA marveling at this new concept of uneducated people running their own government. While he saw this new concept of almost unrestricted personal freedom as amazing, he predicted it would not last. In his opinion that due to human nature, people would vote to outlaw anything a person does not like or do. Since there is almost nothing everyone agrees on, then ultimately almost everything would be regulated, outlaws or restricted. In short, he predicted Americans would become the most regulated, watched and constrained people with endless new laws and regulations.
What is your opinion of the proper role of government?
Jesus ****ing christ, you're trolling now I swear to god. I've told you 15 times I don't want the government in this. However, also like I've explained 15 god damn times, you're already paying for other people's poor health decisions in your insurance premiums.
So you advocate for the "no-insurance" solution? Otherwise you will be paying for other people's ****ty decisions. Why should people pay for 300 lb fatties and not pot smokers? Nobody is forcing you to have insurance. Why don't you grow a pair and cancel your health insurance. You talk like you want everyone to pay for themselves, but will you actually do it?
Having insurance is part of being responsible IMO. If you choose not to have insurance then you'd better be prepared to pay for it out of your own pocket because society doesn't owe either the 300lb fatties or the pot smokers one red cent.
You do not read what is written, which is clearly obvious. Yes, we pay for it now, but in a free market options will arise where it is far less likely you are paying for other peoples bad decisions. PERIOD. Why you can't not grasp the future is a mystery, but clearly you do not get or understand the idea of a free market which brings to questions your chosen lean.
Hrm... so the guy who agreed with you 15 times that the government shouldn't be in health care is somehow betraying his libertarian lean?
You do know that insurance agencies are generally non-governmental right? That's why I said "If you have health insurance, you're already paying for other's mistakes."
So by all means, keep calling me a bad libertarian because I don't want the government in health care.
You are not connecting the dots. You are, like many on the left, stuck on one point and seem to not be able to move past that point of discussion.
It's almost like you have remembered the 'party' lines, but are unable to move on from that in to what difference would occur if those goals were reached.
This is all I've said over and over again.
We have moved so far from personal responsibility it is a damn shame. Government has overextended itself into all sorts of areas it has no business.
The proper role of government is such:
- Maintain a justice system to prevent/seek retribution for coercion/violence between citizens
- Organize national defense
- Maintain the few programs that would be near impossible in the free market, IE: public roads, radio spectrum division, etc.
The government has no role in legislating non-violent morality, or telling people what they should or shouldn't consume. It's our lives, our bodies, our decisions.
Look around - are we doing a good job handling our own lives ?
sloth
obesity
health issues
illiteracy
crime
self hatred
...................................
The thing is - how can government best solve these problems..
education ?
or twenty million warning lables...?
For 50 years I did not take good care of my teeth...I went years without visiting a dentist....
No, the piper must be paid.
Yes, I agree with the responsibility premise, but many of us are not that responsible
And , I question the statement " .......government has no business..."
But these are all government issues..Look around - are we doing a good job handling our own lives ?
sloth
obesity
health issues
illiteracy
crime
self hatred
...................................
The thing is - how can government best solve these problems..
education ?
or twenty million warning lables...?
Because the philosophy that informs this discussion is one essentially built on selfishness, and that's disgusting.
The gist of a "personal responsibility" argument is always about blaming people for having bad luck.
It's not really about people who have made bad choices.
It's about claiming that bad choices brought about unfortunate people's bad luck. That's an illusory way of making yourself and your own selfishness feel better, to pretend that you deserve the good things you have and that others who don't have those things deserve not to.
My philosophy is only "welfare-oriented" if community and teamwork are dirty words, which they are in a fundamentally selfish philosophy. The idea that we sink or swim together, by working together, and sharing in the rewards and sacrifices of that work, doesn't allow one person to rise up by abusing others.
And instead of looking down on people who have it worse than we do, we have a responsibility to them to help them up, just as they would have to us were our roles reversed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?