They may indeed be stupid, but I don’t strictly disagree with them. I think any intelligent person would want to contribute to such a system. But ideally shouldn’t be forced.
Forcing these people is part of the reason we can’t have nice things. They should be free to struggle and suffer to their hearts desire. Largely cut off and excluded from society according to their wishes. That will be the only way we will ever get such a system. And the only way they will learn the value of it.
It’s going to and to some extent already is starting in places like California. Towns and States should work to take care of their own. As well as like minded neighbors. Those places will continue to grow and flourish. And places that don’t, will suffer, wither, and die. And that’s okay. We shouldn’t be subsidizing bad behavior through force. They need consequences to their behavior.
They should be free to struggle and suffer to their hearts desire
This is actually how libertarians think as far as I can tell. Naive and short sighted.
Are those that didn’t opt in to any kind of healthcare or social security just going to “struggle and suffer” in silence? Or are they going to beg, steal and otherwise subject others to the consequences of their poor decisions?
Having the state make those decisions is a bit shit but it’s still less shit than letting the sort of people who vote for tax cuts for billionaires to decide for everyone else.
Libertarians and anarchists. Yes. Left or right they’re both generally going to agree with that. But don’t sleep on the language surrounding it.
Those on the right believe people should be forced to suffer, to subsidize the privilege of the wealthy. Where those on the left value consent and respect an individual’s choice not to be a party to a system even if it’s to their detriment. Though we would let them change their minds and consent in a heart beat. Since it would still benefit society.
Voluntarily contributing funds or time to such services should be viewed and treated as community service. And those that would refuse despite capability, not part of the community.
I consider myself way on the left and respect to the individual’s choice is still a conservative view for me. It puts the choice of the individual above that of the society we live in. An example: I had to take my grandfather’s driver’s license away at 93. It’s terrible for me. Terrible choice, huge burden on me and my loved ones but overall 100% the right choice for society.
Yes, but you wouldn’t consider yourself libertarian or anarchist.
If a society can’t value an individuals choice. Then why should anyone value societies choice? It’s an education issue. If a society can’t trust the decisions of those inside it. It’s because society already failed.
Taking away your grandfather’s drivers license isn’t analogous to forcing things on society at large. We took away my father’s as well. He’s still technically legal to drive. But he’s not safe and insurance crazy expensive. But not everyone his age is in that same boat. Ultimately we should have less people driving anyway.
No one said anything about society not valuing an individual’s choice at all. If the individual’s choice factors in the impact on society it should be valued more.
I understand where you’re coming from, wanting them to struggle and suffer under the system they want. The problem is, I’ve never met a poor libertarian so they wouldn’t be the ones hurt by such a system. They are almost always born into (at least modest) wealth or privilege or if they have benefited from help from others or govt incentives/programs, want to pull the ladder up behind them to reduce the cost on them regardless of the impact on the rest of society.
I couldn’t support a system that punishes them because that’s pretty crappy but also, that same system would punish many others too.
That’s because most of the ones you’ve met are big L Libertarian. Not actually libertarian, but capitalist cosplaying as libertarian.
You can’t have flat, granular, answerable government. Without business being similarly structured. Otherwise the business became the oppressive government.
I think any intelligent person would want to contribute to such a system. But ideally shouldn’t be forced.
I think it’s a matter of education, not (just) intelligence: If you understand how insurance and social security and all that work (and you trust the ones administering the funds do so fairly and faithfully), then you’ll probably be willing to pay for peace of mind. Intelligent people can still make mistakes or underestimate risk, so I wouldn’t trust them to arrive at that conclusion on their own, but they’ll probably understand the reasoning more easily than others. Conversely, I think less intelligent people can understand it as well, though they may require a different or more personal approach for explanation.
They should be free to struggle and suffer to their hearts desire
That doesn’t really make sense if they live in the same communities. If there’s universal healthcare but it’s opt-in, there will be people who opt out. Those same people will catch viruses and other diseases, not be able to go to the doctor, then show up on the same subways and airplanes as the people who take care of themselves. This means the uninsured become disease vectors.
That’s why you as a society isolate and exclude them. Peer pressure is a powerful thing. More powerful in a general sense than the law often times.
Not gonna vaccinate your child? Then they are going to be put in special classes with other unvaccinated. They’ll love that. Going to a restaurant, vaccinated or unvaccinated seating? Oh, what, you don’t want to sit out on the patio in the snow? Then just show us proof of vaccination. Subway? Back to the unvaccinated car. Etc. At the doctors office? Oh yes, the unvaccinated waiting room is outside. They’ll learn.
“Universal healthcare? I don’t wanna be forced to have healthcare or pay for someone else’s healthcare.”
Real argument I had with a moron.
They may indeed be stupid, but I don’t strictly disagree with them. I think any intelligent person would want to contribute to such a system. But ideally shouldn’t be forced.
Forcing these people is part of the reason we can’t have nice things. They should be free to struggle and suffer to their hearts desire. Largely cut off and excluded from society according to their wishes. That will be the only way we will ever get such a system. And the only way they will learn the value of it.
It’s going to and to some extent already is starting in places like California. Towns and States should work to take care of their own. As well as like minded neighbors. Those places will continue to grow and flourish. And places that don’t, will suffer, wither, and die. And that’s okay. We shouldn’t be subsidizing bad behavior through force. They need consequences to their behavior.
This is actually how libertarians think as far as I can tell. Naive and short sighted.
Are those that didn’t opt in to any kind of healthcare or social security just going to “struggle and suffer” in silence? Or are they going to beg, steal and otherwise subject others to the consequences of their poor decisions?
Having the state make those decisions is a bit shit but it’s still less shit than letting the sort of people who vote for tax cuts for billionaires to decide for everyone else.
Libertarians and anarchists. Yes. Left or right they’re both generally going to agree with that. But don’t sleep on the language surrounding it.
Those on the right believe people should be forced to suffer, to subsidize the privilege of the wealthy. Where those on the left value consent and respect an individual’s choice not to be a party to a system even if it’s to their detriment. Though we would let them change their minds and consent in a heart beat. Since it would still benefit society.
Voluntarily contributing funds or time to such services should be viewed and treated as community service. And those that would refuse despite capability, not part of the community.
I consider myself way on the left and respect to the individual’s choice is still a conservative view for me. It puts the choice of the individual above that of the society we live in. An example: I had to take my grandfather’s driver’s license away at 93. It’s terrible for me. Terrible choice, huge burden on me and my loved ones but overall 100% the right choice for society.
Yes, but you wouldn’t consider yourself libertarian or anarchist.
If a society can’t value an individuals choice. Then why should anyone value societies choice? It’s an education issue. If a society can’t trust the decisions of those inside it. It’s because society already failed.
Taking away your grandfather’s drivers license isn’t analogous to forcing things on society at large. We took away my father’s as well. He’s still technically legal to drive. But he’s not safe and insurance crazy expensive. But not everyone his age is in that same boat. Ultimately we should have less people driving anyway.
No one said anything about society not valuing an individual’s choice at all. If the individual’s choice factors in the impact on society it should be valued more.
I understand where you’re coming from, wanting them to struggle and suffer under the system they want. The problem is, I’ve never met a poor libertarian so they wouldn’t be the ones hurt by such a system. They are almost always born into (at least modest) wealth or privilege or if they have benefited from help from others or govt incentives/programs, want to pull the ladder up behind them to reduce the cost on them regardless of the impact on the rest of society.
I couldn’t support a system that punishes them because that’s pretty crappy but also, that same system would punish many others too.
That’s because most of the ones you’ve met are big L Libertarian. Not actually libertarian, but capitalist cosplaying as libertarian.
You can’t have flat, granular, answerable government. Without business being similarly structured. Otherwise the business became the oppressive government.
I think it’s a matter of education, not (just) intelligence: If you understand how insurance and social security and all that work (and you trust the ones administering the funds do so fairly and faithfully), then you’ll probably be willing to pay for peace of mind. Intelligent people can still make mistakes or underestimate risk, so I wouldn’t trust them to arrive at that conclusion on their own, but they’ll probably understand the reasoning more easily than others. Conversely, I think less intelligent people can understand it as well, though they may require a different or more personal approach for explanation.
Absolutely. Education is a better term I agree.
That doesn’t really make sense if they live in the same communities. If there’s universal healthcare but it’s opt-in, there will be people who opt out. Those same people will catch viruses and other diseases, not be able to go to the doctor, then show up on the same subways and airplanes as the people who take care of themselves. This means the uninsured become disease vectors.
That’s why you as a society isolate and exclude them. Peer pressure is a powerful thing. More powerful in a general sense than the law often times.
Not gonna vaccinate your child? Then they are going to be put in special classes with other unvaccinated. They’ll love that. Going to a restaurant, vaccinated or unvaccinated seating? Oh, what, you don’t want to sit out on the patio in the snow? Then just show us proof of vaccination. Subway? Back to the unvaccinated car. Etc. At the doctors office? Oh yes, the unvaccinated waiting room is outside. They’ll learn.
In the same school? That’s not going to achieve much.
Will that work as well as a “smoking section” and a “non-smoking section” in a restaurant? We tried that, it didn’t work.