2 edits
Originally posted by royalchickenTie him to a rock and pitch him in the ocean. If he floats, it was due to his smoking and he has to pay his own bills. If he sinks, it was the people's fault he got cancer, and thus the people can bear the burden of paying for the rock and the rope.
Is there a way to establish whether a smoker with lung cancer fell victim to lung cancer due to smoking (for which medical bills he should pay) or from other causes (for which he should be insured)?
4 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis, and not the heart-explosion Russian roulette I'm witnessing, must be why I cringe when I see an extremely fat person light up a fag 😛.
Tie him to a rock and pitch him in the ocean. If he floats, it was due to his smoking and he has to pay his own bills. If he sinks, it was the people's fault he got cancer, and thus the people can bear the burden of paying for the rock and the rope.
More seriosuly, should fat people be insurable against heart disease?
Should ex-bulimics be insurable against PVS-inducing heart attacks? Do they need to be, with God on their side?
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIf you were hiking in the woods and you came across someone lying on the ground apparently having a heart attack would you: A) Assist them in whatever way you could; or B) Step over them and leave them to die because they accepted the risk that they might have a heart attack and die while they were walking in the woods?
But we should.
Originally posted by no1marauder(A), unless they told me that they were entitled to my help, in which case (B'😉, defined as (B) amended to include a raising of the middle finger.
If you were hiking in the woods and you came across someone lying on the ground apparently having a heart attack would you: A) Assist them in whatever way you could; or B) Step over them and leave them to die because they accepted the risk that they might have a heart attack and die while they were walking in the woods?
As far as I know, all human economic relations are ultimately based on coercive power. Employers and producers of goods could not engage in marketplace activity (in a meaningful way) without the State enforcing contractual obligations. To argue that intervention in economic relations between the parties is always wrong is absurd given that the entire system is based on coercive principles. Rand was a dumbass for asserting differently.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHow exactly is someone dying from lung cancer "immune from the consequences of their own decisions"? It's a bitch living in a society composed of social animals with a sense of empathy sometimes.
How can it be correct to grant people immunity from the consequences of their own decisions AND impose the burden of those consequences upon others who gained no benefit from those decisions?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe state doesn't, in general, grant immunity from consequences. Rather, the citizens of the state decide what is of value; what ought to be subsidized and supported, and we make policy decisions on that basis. The policy decisions we make can be correct if they are the ones that we would consent to were we rational, free from bias, and situated equally for purposes of negotiation.
How can it be correct to grant people immunity from the consequences of their own decisions AND impose the burden of those consequences upon others who gained no benefit from those decisions?
5 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI completely agree with all of that, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about rights. Rights aren't things that arise out of majority votes.
The state doesn't, in general, grant immunity from consequences. Rather, the citizens of the state decide what is of value; what ought to be subsidized and supported, and we make policy decisions on that basis. The policy decisions we make can be correct if they are the ones that we would consent to were we rational, free from bias, and situated equally for purposes of negotiation.
A smoker doesn't have the right to have his bills paid for. This has no connection to the fact that as a matter of legislation, people can voluntarily vote to pay for (or not pay for) his bills. I'm not asserting that the people would be acting incorrectly to vote in either manner. I'm asserting that it's wrong to claim that the smoker has the right in question.