" It has been argued that universal health care is an offense against individual liberty. I’ve been told by readers that they’ll deal with their own health care, thank you very much, and have no interest in government interference. At root this is a libertarian argument; conservatives are more likely to oppose it on the grounds that it undermines the free enterprise system. They warn of a Nanny State.
But what, I ask libertarians, about your families? Your children? What if the day comes that you lose your job-based health insurance and can’t afford your own? What if you’re denied coverage? That’s their business, they tell me. I should butt out.
But it won’t remain their business if a family member suffers a major illness. I know from personal experience that few people have the financial resources to deal with such an illness, and I suspect no one reading this is ready to deal with two. You and I will end up paying for them, even though they were unwilling to help pay for us. "
…
" Rousseau lived at a time when the notion of the Noble Savage was also being much praised. In this view, man was born free and uncorrupted, and was good by nature until interfered with by civilization. In very broad terms, I believe libertarians defend themselves as noble savages, living unencumbered by the impositions of others. The question becomes, to what degree are we willing to trade personal liberty for the good of the general community? If I don’t want universal health care, am I fully prepared to grow sick and die as a consequence? Or will I undergo a sickbed conversion?"
What we don’t believe in in coercing everyone else into our insurance plans.
Democrats can have their silly nanny healthcare plan without the state… It just wont include people who do want it.. Maybe some libertarians will choose to join the plan maybe not. The issue is not pooling of resources vs every individual paying for their own costs. Its forcefully implementing a plan vs peacefully coming up with a solution. Derp.
You demand that I ‘sign the social contract’ at the point of a gun.
No thanks. You can keep your force. Ebert, how much of your money have you donated to health care for others? Oh, what’s that? You just want to point guns instead.
You aren’t part of the problem; you are the problem.
Ebert: I’ve donated more, I suspect, than you have.
You demand that I ‘sign the social contract’ at the point of a gun.
No thanks. You can keep your force. Ebert, how much of your money have you donated to health care for others? Oh, what’s that? You just want to point guns instead.
You aren’t part of the problem; you are the problem.
Ebert: I’ve donated more, I suspect, than you have.
When in the bloody hell did Ebert think himself knowledgeable enough to voice an opinion on political matters? This is about as mature and thought out as a high school student’s half-assed paper.
He already said no when he denied pointing a gun to anybody. I can’t believe that Ebert, as old as he is, has never heard the “taxes is theft” argument. He will never concede.
The conservatives do it to with their “republic is teh amurcan system of government” videos with their hysteria about having Fidel Castro overtake us if we have too little government.
It’s just nonsensical arrogance and moralizing. “You couldn’t have possibly thought of this very simple argument… you’re just driven by primal and delusional freeberty.”
Even within the paradigm of democracy, wherein which people supposedly believe that the majority opinion is correct… people for some reason cannot simply rely on others having their own input and the final decision being the sum of all opinions together into a intersubjective consensus. You have to have this petty moralizing about the correct way to be democratic lest the system break. That’s the problem with all people who believe in delegated democratic republican crap.
Maybe if the government wasn’t holding up cartels and monopolies in the healthcare industry then he might have a shred of a point. He also has no evidence that a socialized system will be any more effective than an actual free market system. From a moral perspecive he, like all the other statists, supports guns and violence in order to support his means. People keep telling me how the public option will be self sufficient, well then why the hell do you need the govt. to support it???
It just goes to show how oblivious people are to the elephant in the room. Namely the gun.
When I confront people on this, they usually try to change the subject. I did it recently with a friend, and ended up losing a lot of respect for him as he started to squirm and try to support his position by ignoring the challenge I made about legitimacy through violence.
There are a lot of people out there who are desensitized to reality to such an extent it makes them feel psychological discomfort when confronted with it.
It all comes down to profits. They hate them! They don’t understand them. Even the Conservatives who claim they are pro-profit think it’s a tradeoff that pays off. A tradeoff!?? Even “economists” explain them as signals worthwhile having that improve efficiency; but don’t worry, they assure us, profits tend to go away through competition. Society is doomed to fail if this is what 20 million people hear when they listen to Rush Limbaugh everyday.
I don’t know if Ebert will approve my comment, but here it is:
“Mr. Ebert, you made an appeal to emotion. Fortunately for you, Mr Ebert, us libertarians are not the state, thus, we would never coerce you to think as we do. Also, Mr. Ebert, I’m sure you have more wealth than the average person. When will you begin share your wealth with us? Take care, you wealthy mister.”
Why get guns involved?