If it's good to have a military and police to protect the lives of citizens, what's wrong with a universal healthcare system? Does it not also protect citizen's right to life, liberty, and property?
Curious to see both the Libertarian and the Conservative perspectives on this.
>good to have a military
depends on how you use it, and just how big it is.
if your population is well armed and patriotic, you're probably better off without one
>police
again it depends on how it operates.
If you have a well functioning judicial system, really what's the difference between "police" hired by the state, "guards" hired by a corporation, or "militia" formed by the people, depending on the crimes they are protecting from
>universal healtcare system
ideally it would exist, and food and water would be distributed borderline freely as well. as well housing, machines, etc.
high quality and high quantity for the best possible price is the ideal of not only communism but also capitalism
sadly human civilization is probably not advanced enough to be so civilized, and such ideals would only work on a small scale.
>>74221343
A police system: you get punished for fucking up (robbing a store, attacking a person, etc.)
A healthcare system: everyone else gets punished for your fucking up (getting obese, not taking prescribed medicine, etc.)
>>74223379
That's a little simplistic don't you think? What about people born with diseases? People who just by chance get infections or are in accidents? You don't even mention those people.
but health care for everyone doesn't make a lot of money for the wealthy few.
>>74221343
>military
the military's job, first and foremost, is to protect against foreign threats which no individual could feasibly do on their own.
>police
contrary to popular belief, the job of law enforcement is not to protect people. the job of law enforcement is to enforce the the law (surprising isn't it). the police are under no obligation to come to your aid. there is numerous case law that proves this.
its is the sole duty of the individual to protect their own life, liberty, and property.
>universal healthcare
violates everyone's rights as it obligates society to pay for the needs of individuals. why should i forfeit my property so some faggot can get AIDS medication?
>>74221343
>Right to life
This is a negative right. You have a right to a life in the sense that no one has the moral authority to take your life from you. It doesn't mean that others are required to provide you with everything you need to make sure that you stay alive.
>Liberty, and property
Universal healthcare infringes on these. It certainly does not protect them.
>>74221343
One exists to ensure the protection of negative rights.
The other exists to ensure an entitlement to positive rights.
They are very different concepts.
>>74221343
>>74223873
also, your right to life is not absolute and society is in no way obligated to ensure you live.
as I said, it is the individuals job to protect their own rights.
>>74223638
Or people who through no fault of their own just get dealt a bad hand by fate.
The arguments against universal healthcare boil down to the same ones behind the "Not In My Backyard" mentality. Sure, we this project is important and will benefit millions of people. But its not good if it inconveniences me personally.
Even more problematic, having a capitalist model for health care creates fucked up economic incentives. The goal of drug makers is not to cure things, its to treat things. Curing cancer would be an economic catastrophe possibly even bigger then the housing crisis. Billions of dollars are tied up in keeping people alive and perpetually on drugs With trillions more dollars in derivitives bet on said cancer treatments always being in demand due to nature providing a never ending supply of customers through force of fate.
Nobody who buys healthcare wants to buy it. They are FORCED to buy it. Its a Captive Market.
Nobody who buys healthcare truly understands the purchase. Its an Ignorant Market.
Nobody who buys healthcare knows the actually price of what they are buying. Its a non-competitive market.
Having just ONE of those problems in an otherwise free market leads to Market Failure and inefficient outcomes. Having all Three of them is a total cluster fuck. Anyone who say's the US Healthcare System is even remotely Capitalist or Free Market is a bald faced liar.
>>74223873
>the military's job, first and foremost, is to protect against foreign threats which no individual could feasibly do on their own.
>foreign threats which no individual could feasibly do on their own.
You mean like disease?
>>74223897
Fair enough, but
>no one has the moral authority to take your life from you
A wealthy person possesses the only known cure for a fatal disease. He explicity keeps this cure under lock and key and chooses not to give it to people he doesn't like.
Now, is this situation not someone using their moral authority to take someone's life?
>>74224466
Never thought about this. As someone who supports universal healthcare I will remember this argument.
>>74224070
>the military's job, first and foremost, is to protect against foreign threats which no individual could feasibly do on their own.
>as I said, it is the individuals job to protect their own rights.
this doesn't make sense??? Can you understand the contradiction here?
>>74224668
I am a firm believer in Capitalism. But too many people ascribe powers to "The Market" that are better ascribed to a Deity then a human creation. Sometimes, Capitalism does not work. This is true in Healthcare. If the US Applied the same resources to the US Public Health Service that it does to the US Military, drug prices would be nowhere near as expensive.
But its all about priorities. Capitalism also does not work when you are dealing buying services like Law Enforcement and National Defense. Both these are a service provided, and Capitalism "Could" provide them, but your outcomes would not be as good as a fully "Socialist Market" for the production and distribution of Law Enforcement and National Defense.
>>74224466
you realize pharmaceuticals and hospitals are non-profits right?
>muh curing cancer
literally impossible. cancer is a catchall term for a great deal of genetic diseases that generally act in the same way. you can't just cure cancer because there is no one cancer. literally the best you can do with cancer is treat and hope it doesn't happen again.
furthermore, do you have any idea how many illnesses pharmaceuticals and hospitals have to research? sure we could dump everything into cancer and come up with sophisticated gene therapies that resolve cancer, but what about AIDS? what about SIDS or SARS or ebola? the medical industry can't solve everything all at once you impudent child, the best it can do try to make everything manageable and hope for breakthroughs which is exactly what its been doing.
>muh capitalism blah blah healthcare
the reason healthcare costs in the US are so high is because of government intervention and regulation. it used to be a lot cheaper when people mostly used lodge style health insurance which was basically collective health savings accounts. those were practically outlawed. now the prices are marked up so the hospitals can better negotiate with insurance companies, they are more than willing to lower the price for individual customers that aren't using insurance.
if you are paying the face value of healthcare, you are a fucking retard.
>>74224668
>You mean like disease?
diseases are not foreign threats, they are natural threats. society has zero obligation to protect you from natural threats.
also, the individual can manage most diseases by resting and eating well.
>>74225448
>If the US Applied the same resources to the US Public Health Service that it does to the US Military, drug prices would be nowhere near as expensive.
>the military buys thousand dollar hammers
>he thinks this kind of resource management would be cost effective with healthcare.
>>74225534
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CimaVax-EGF
Cuba was able to create a lung cancer vaccine, something that no other country was able to do. Cuba is also relatively impoverished compared to rest of the world. Is this not evidence that there is at least some kind of capital interest in the curing/treating of disease?
>>74225726
What about people born with brittle bone disease? People born with deformities? Without limbs?
In a libertarian society, these people would have no social mobility whatsoever unless they had an available caretaker.
>>74225816
I also stopped when I saw that.
But hey, another solution would be a nationalized insurance provided by taxes and the government. That would cost the tiniest fraction of the military budget. Sounds pretty cost-effective to me.
>>74224829
>
Also, you never answered this question.
Also, I still don't understand how you classify disease as a "natural" threat and thus we cannot protect against it.
What's the dividing line between "natural" unstoppable forces and the unstoppable forces you talk about here >>74223873
>foreign threats which no individual could feasibly do on their own.
So man-made threats then? Are humans not a natural threat?
What if the individual is about to be trampled by a stampede of niggers? The entire population of Africa chasing after you. No one, not even with a minigun in each arm, could protect against that.
>>74226113
>cuba
i seriously doubt the legitimacy of said vaccine. and even if it is effective, it only purports to target one type of lung cancer when there are a great deal of different lung cancers.
>What about people born with brittle bone disease? People born with deformities? Without limbs?
tragic, but what justifies their claims to other peoples labor and earnings? the nature of their birth is not a sufficient validation to violate the rights of others.
>>74226219
>But hey, another solution would be a nationalized insurance provided by taxes and the government.
or you could just lift the restrictions on benefit/fraternal societies and incentivize people to negotiate with their healthcare providers.
a lot of the problems with the medical industry could be resolved by cutting red tape, especially the ridiculous DSM.
>>74224829
the military protects a collective interest to not be invaded.
life, liberty, and property are individual rights, not collective rights.
there is no contradiction, just a precarious balance.
>>74221343
>the government has a need that you stay alive as long as possible regardless of your worth to society
I wonder why...?
>>74221343
When you take money away from me to pay for people who want to trash their bodies it directly reduces the options and control I have over my own future.
>>74227385
I didn't know collective interests were allowed in Libertarianism. What about individuals who wish to be invaded? Wouldn't it be unjust to take their property to pay for a military they do not want the protection of?
>>74227235
>but what justifies their claims to other peoples labor and earnings?
I would say that it's because they physically have no way to protect their own individual rights, and also they have no social mobility.
>>74223638
These people are like 1% compared to the millions of people who destroy their bodies with alcohol, smoking, obesity, etc. In the US anyhow we're wealthy enough to provide enough to make ends meet for this small group. But of course we transfer a shitload of benefits paid for with other people's money to the huge group of people trashing their bodies.
>>74227225
>Also, I still don't understand how you classify disease as a "natural" threat
because it comes out of nature with no human involvement (bio-weapons are obviously different)
>thus we cannot protect against it.
im not saying you can't protect against it, im saying no one is obligated to protect you from disease just as no one is obligated to protect you from earthquakes, volcanoes, or a bad storm. those are things out of anyone's control.
>What's the dividing line between "natural" unstoppable forces and the unstoppable forces you talk about here
i never mentioned unstoppable forces.
the dividing line between natural threats and non-natural threats, is that natural threats are things that no one can control or be held accountable for.
>Are humans not a natural threat?
no
>What if the individual is about to be trampled by a stampede of niggers? The entire population of Africa chasing after you. No one, not even with a minigun in each arm, could protect against that.
there is a difference between a right and an ability. the individual has the right to defend himself against a stampede of niggers, that doesn't hes going to be very effective at it.
>>74227913
>the dividing line between natural threats and non-natural threats, is that natural threats are things that no one can control or be held accountable for.
Fair enough, but then you say
>the individual has the right to defend himself against a stampede of niggers, that doesn't hes going to be very effective at it.
Is the same not true for the non-natural threats that you claim the military is for?
Also what qualifiies as a collective right?
>>74227779
>I didn't know collective interests were allowed in Libertarianism
im not a libertarian.
>What about individuals who wish to be invaded? Wouldn't it be unjust to take their property to pay for a military they do not want the protection of?
tough shit for them, the collective has a right maintain itself as an independent collective.
im sure you'll blab on about the collective having a right to maintain itself as a healthy collective, and to an extent you'd be right, but the collective's right is not sufficient to the point of universal healthcare for the most vulnerable.
like i said, its a precarious balance.
>would say that it's because they physically have no way to protect their own individual rights
and that does not obligate others to do it for them.
>also they have no social mobility.
a lot of people don't have social mobility, that doesn't mean we should threaten the rights of the individual to help them.
>>74228118
>Is the same not true for the non-natural threats that you claim the military is for?
if the stampede of niggers was invading, you'd have a point.
>Also what qualifiies as a collective right?
that which is necessary to ensure the collective continues to exist.
from time to time, collective interest will clash individual rights.
>>74221343
>If it's good to have a military and police to protect the lives of citizens
who says it's good? the supreme court has already ruled that it's not the polices job to protect the people. the militia is the first line of defense against foreign invasion, followed by the local police, then the sheriff, then our national guard.
as far as health care goes - why the fuck should i pay 3X as much for my insurance under obamacare to subsidize fucking welfare niggers that shit out 7 bastard kids with 5 different fathers?
>>74228433
Oh sorry, you seemed like one I guess.
>m sure you'll blab on about the collective having a right to maintain itself as a healthy collective
I was going to say exactly that
>to an extent you'd be right, but the collective's right is not sufficient to
In what way is it insufficient? I think almost everyone would dislike the idea of their lives being ruined by a disease or a freak accident.
In my opinion the problem is that people have a harder time visualizing disease than they do invasion. It triggers the fear reflex less.
>>74228687
>if the stampede of niggers was invading, you'd have a point.
well...
>>74228803
>why the fuck should i pay 3X as much for my insurance under obamacare to subsidize fucking welfare niggers that shit out 7 bastard kids with 5 different fathers?
Well, there's the argument that if they had access to birth control and comprehensive sex education, this wouldn't be an issue, but I assume that's a little too liberal for /pol/.
>>74228913
first, let me preface this with no right is absolute. thus, the collective does not have an absolute right to maintain a healthy society just as the individual does not have an absolute right to free speech.
just because a few suffer from conditions outside of their control does not justify seizing the property of the individual via taxation to alleviate their condition.
ideally, these people would be helped through charity and family while the collective only enforces its interests in a healthy society during emergencies.
