PDA

View Full Version : Health Care: Medical care - not a right. Police/fire/military - right? Why?




kusok
12-14-2011, 12:17 AM
Question:

Ron Paul says one doesn't have the RIGHT to someone else's services (when talking about medical care)
I totally agree with him, he makes way too much sense.

But how to answer a question about police, fire departments, and military? If a person doesn't have the right to someone else's services, we don't have rights to those things either then?

I wonder about Ron Paul's position on this.

appreciate all thoughts,

Kluge
12-14-2011, 12:43 AM
Bump. I can't come up with an answer for Paul. I can't see the logic, outside of wanting to strictly enforce the Constitution for better or worse, in saying it's okay for preventative military might, but not preventative medical care - not that I'm saying gov't healthcare is necessarily beneficial. Though... if gov't medical coverage causes a great increase to the cost of medicine, wouldn't gov't military coverage cause a great increase to the cost of defense?

How much less would Blackwater charge if the USG didn't force everyone to be "protected" and pay the contractors with tax money? Enough for states and local governments to take control of the situation?

kusok
12-14-2011, 01:27 AM
Bump. I can't come up with an answer for Paul. I can't see the logic, outside of wanting to strictly enforce the Constitution for better or worse, in saying it's okay for preventative military might, but not preventative medical care - not that I'm saying gov't healthcare is necessarily beneficial. Though... if gov't medical coverage causes a great increase to the cost of medicine, wouldn't gov't military coverage cause a great increase to the cost of defense?

How much less would Blackwater charge if the USG didn't force everyone to be "protected" and pay the contractors with tax money? Enough for states and local governments to take control of the situation?



Been looking into it now, can't find Ron Paul's direct quotes, but I think i'm getting his overall gist. someone correct me if I'm wrong:


There are towns with no fire department coverage and no police, so that is not a right! Military is volunteer also, 75% of fire departments are volunteers. I never thought of that until now... (feel stupid a little bit)

bolil
12-14-2011, 02:16 AM
Okay, we would not be entitled to their services if we did not, via taxes, pay them. Medical care wouldn't need to be a "right" if the free market could, as it would, determine its subjective value of medical treatment. Which, if determined by a free market, would be more that affordable to anyone. I have, as some might say, world famous doctors in my family. They would rather treat for less than treat for nothing.

Petar
12-14-2011, 03:04 AM
Police, aka "law enforcement", are intrinsically tied to the law of the land, aka "the government".

Same goes for the military, when you consider that government exists as a national jurisdiction, with a necessary foreign policy.

So in order to have a civilization with common laws, then these are the things that need to be operated in a collective manner.

I'm sorry if that disturbs anyone's anarchist wet-dreams, but that is how civilization works.

Kluge
12-14-2011, 03:11 AM
Okay, we would not be entitled to their services if we did not, via taxes, pay them. Medical care wouldn't need to be a "right" if the free market could, as it would, determine its subjective value of medical treatment. Which, if determined by a free market, would be more that affordable to anyone. I have, as some might say, world famous doctors in my family. They would rather treat for less than treat for nothing.
So we have a right to pay taxes and fund a military, but we don't have a right to pay taxes and fund Medicare/Medicaid, because since medical treatment has subjective value and defense does not, the free market is only able to efficiently handle the product of medical care.

@Kusok - there are quite a few FDs which require service fees - and joining the military may be voluntary, but funding them isn't.

Keith and stuff
12-14-2011, 03:12 AM
You have the right to life, liberty and property. Check the Bill of Rights for more information. Since there are places in the US without police/fire/military and so on, you clearly don't have a right to those.

Diurdi
12-14-2011, 03:18 AM
Question:

Ron Paul says one doesn't have the RIGHT to someone else's services (when talking about medical care)
I totally agree with him, he makes way too much sense.

But how to answer a question about police, fire departments, and military? If a person doesn't have the right to someone else's services, we don't have rights to those things either then?

I wonder about Ron Paul's position on this.

appreciate all thoughts,

The constitution. Police is intrinsically a part of the rule of law. The military and defence of the US is also mentioned in the constitution.

Fire Departments however are no more a right than medicalcare. That's why firefighting is often a very local effort.

Revolution9
12-14-2011, 06:56 AM
Police are glorified and sanctified security guards. The Sheriff and Marshall and their Deputies are Constitutional law enforcement. Police end up in most cases being flaw reinforcement.

Rev9

Elwar
12-14-2011, 07:15 AM
See: private fire companies

they do exist and do well

Elwar
12-14-2011, 07:17 AM
The mere existence of a country requires a military or some sort of defense. Whether a citizen militia or an organized military.

The Constitution expressly authorizes a national defense.

fisharmor
12-14-2011, 07:56 AM
Uh....


Police, aka "law enforcement", are intrinsically tied to the law of the land, aka "the government".
Except in historical cases where this was not the case. Which is everywhere in the entire world prior to 1800. It took decades for the idea of a constabulary to catch hold in this country because it was initially met with the extreme skepticism it deserved and has been duly vindicated.
Your absolutes aren't absolutes by any stretch of the word. This is the way logical arguments work: if you say "this is what it is and it's all that it is", all I need to do is offer one example that disproves you, and I don't end up being wrong. Where shall I start? Here's a recent piece.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/11/support-your-local-police-state.html


So in order to have a civilization with common laws, then these are the things that need to be operated in a collective manner.

I'm sorry if that disturbs anyone's anarchist wet-dreams, but that is how civilization works.

Again, I only need to offer one historical example where this is not the case. If you want to call a civilization that lasted at least 1000 years and withstood multiple invasions and had to endure 40% of the population (four-zero) being systematically murdered before it finally gave up a "wet dream", fine - but you gotta realize that you're not making a lot of converts that way.
I actually LIKE it when you guys stoop to name-calling. Come on - the internet has been around and in common use for 15 years, you gotta know how this works by now. The side that has facts and backing and history on its side wins. The name-callers lose ground.
Keep it coming.


The constitution. Police is intrinsically a part of the rule of law.
See above. They are not. They are the opposite of rule of law.


The military and defence of the US is also mentioned in the constitution.
The military is mentioned with a 2-year lifespan, and the intent was clearly that armies would lose funding after that time and be disbanded.
The constitution specifically grants congress the power to call forth the militia to repel invasions and suppress insurrections.
The role of the military is offensive. There is a reason it was called the "Department of War" up until WWII - and there's a reason it was changed to "Department of Defense" after that. They had a much healthier understanding of what it was they were doing prior to WWII.

Regarding the OT: No, you don't have a right to anyone else's labor. Period.
You have three choices: pay someone for their labor, rely on their goodwill for their labor, or put a gun to his head and tell him that if he doesn't labor for you you're going to blend the contents of his skull.
There really isn't any other way to put this accurately. Use all the euphamisms you want. That's what it boils down to: do this, or you're dead.

Even a cursory examination shows that this arrangement doesn't work really well when the person you're trying to force to do something is part of the enforcement caste. This is why there are repeated court rulings that cops have no particular duty to do anything for anyone. "Force me? Fuck you, I have the guns."
This is why firemen get to watch houses burn down. "Force me? Fuck you, I'm really good friends with those guys with the guns."
This is why placing medical providers in the same category - people who are good friends with the guys with the guns - has no possibility of achieving anything other than failure.

jkm1864
12-18-2011, 04:28 AM
The only thing the government should provide is something the individual can't provide for themselves such as roads, military, post office, & such. The last time I checked the individual could buy health insurance and healthcare.

Kluge
12-18-2011, 04:41 AM
The only thing the government should provide is something the individual can't provide for themselves such as roads, military, post office, & such. The last time I checked the individual could buy health insurance and healthcare.
That's totally subjective. If *COST* is what prevents people from hiring (or being their own) private defense, using or building private roads, or hiring a private delivery service, then healthcare could absolutely be in the same category of not being able to be bought by the individual. The last time I checked, hiring FedEx to deliver a package cost a lot less than even the most basic catastrophic health insurance.

SkarnkaiLW
12-18-2011, 05:05 AM
For the OP, in Lockean/Natural Rights theory, from what I understand, none of the above are rights. The only 'rights' are negative liberties. The right to life, liberty and property are merely restrictions on negative behaviors (Murder, Slavery, and Theft). To protect these rights governments are created, and the rights precede government, which was created to protect them in the first place. Thus, the people in a given society give up certain freedoms (to murder, pillage, rape, etc) to benefit from the division of labor and the mutual protection afforded by a gov't in theory.

All of the things your describe are services, many of which did not originate in Gov't (esp at the Federal level), but were incorporated so as the heighten the importance of the State vs the private sector.

KurtBoyer25L
12-18-2011, 05:10 AM
You have the right to life, liberty and property. Check the Bill of Rights for more information. Since there are places in the US without police/fire/military and so on, you clearly don't have a right to those.

Aren't the police and military there to protect your right to life, liberty and property? If someone (or a country) comes along and tries to take them, the police or military rightfully takes action against the instigation of violence, protecting your right to life and property w/o having the practical means to personally repel an army or a band of crooks.

crh88
12-18-2011, 05:05 PM
Aren't the police and military there to protect your right to life, liberty and property? If someone (or a country) comes along and tries to take them, the police or military rightfully takes action against the instigation of violence, protecting your right to life and property w/o having the practical means to personally repel an army or a band of crooks.

In an ideal world, yes. But in reality the police and military are being used to deprive people of life, liberty and property much more than they are protecting it. That's why elected Sheriffs are much better than police. They actually have to be accountable to the people for their actions. Police issues should be entirely local anyway. And others in this topic have made great points about what the military is suppose to be, and how it's clearly being abused.

erowe1
12-18-2011, 05:11 PM
Question:

Ron Paul says one doesn't have the RIGHT to someone else's services (when talking about medical care)
I totally agree with him, he makes way too much sense.

But how to answer a question about police, fire departments, and military? If a person doesn't have the right to someone else's services, we don't have rights to those things either then?

I wonder about Ron Paul's position on this.

appreciate all thoughts,

We don't have a right to those things either. Paying for them with taxes is just as wrong as paying for health care with taxes is. But please don't try to make Ron Paul say that's his position while he's running for president.

Liberty74
12-18-2011, 05:14 PM
People must understand that when Paul is speaking of "government," he speaks of the federal government's role. Military is a federal government's job directly explicit in the Constitution. When did police and fire departments come from the federal government? Those are state and local matters whereas the military is not. It is the job of the President to defend this country to protect your liberties.

If you want any other so called "rights" like medical, police, education, fire, etc. done at the federal level, simply change the Constitution by adding an Amendment. It doesn't get much simpler that people. If not, all other problems fall to the state and local cities to handle such issues.

heavenlyboy34
12-18-2011, 05:15 PM
Police, aka "law enforcement", are intrinsically tied to the law of the land, aka "the government".

Same goes for the military, when you consider that government exists as a national jurisdiction, with a necessary foreign policy.

So in order to have a civilization with common laws, then these are the things that need to be operated in a collective manner.

I'm sorry if that disturbs anyone's anarchist wet-dreams, but that is how civilization works.
Sorry, police are relatively new in this country. AF has posted quite a bit about this. Ask him for details.

Liberty74
12-18-2011, 05:17 PM
Aren't the police and military there to protect your right to life, liberty and property? If someone (or a country) comes along and tries to take them, the police or military rightfully takes action against the instigation of violence, protecting your right to life and property w/o having the practical means to personally repel an army or a band of crooks.

Absolutely wrong. The police are never there to "protect" you. That is a false delusion. The police are there to respond to issues after the fact. If someone breaks into your home, how is the so called police going to protect you, unless you have them as bodyguards? It's your responsibility. It becomes the government's responsibility to enforce punishment on those that break the law or in this case, your rights to private property which includes yourself.

tmg19103
12-18-2011, 05:35 PM
The army and national defense is not a "right". It is a function of government. Same as police.

The Constitution does provide for government power to be used for national defense, but it is not a "right".

As for the police, they are a plenary power of the states. Nobody has a right to the police. SCOTUS has ruled the police have no duty to protect anyone. Their job is to deter crime.

One thing you can be sure of is that if you are targeted by a criminal the police will not be there to protect you as criminals make sure they commit crimes when the police are not around.

It then becomes the job of the police to find and apprehend the criminal after you have been harmed or killed.

You have a right to your life, and the courts will punish a criminal who kills you and happens to be caught, but the police have no duty to protect you from being a victim of a crime. That certainly is not a "right".

You do, however, have a right to defend yourself with a firearm.

That's the ultimate right to life!

erowe1
12-18-2011, 08:59 PM
People must understand that when Paul is speaking of "government," he speaks of the federal government's role. Military is a federal government's job directly explicit in the Constitution. When did police and fire departments come from the federal government? Those are state and local matters whereas the military is not. It is the job of the President to defend this country to protect your liberties.

If you want any other so called "rights" like medical, police, education, fire, etc. done at the federal level, simply change the Constitution by adding an Amendment. It doesn't get much simpler that people. If not, all other problems fall to the state and local cities to handle such issues.

Right, but when he makes the claim that we don't have the right to other people's services, he isn't just talking about the federal government, he's making a universal claim that is just as true no matter what government you're talking about and no matter what service you're talking about, including things that are in the Constitution.

bolil
12-19-2011, 02:05 AM
Why does it elude most people that healthcare sans regulation will be healthcare made affordable? I pose a question... When has a monopoly been good for the consumer? Find an example and Ill smoke myself.