Come look at this dudes medical bills and laugh

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,971
Reputation
4,416
Daps
89,062
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
Saying "Force is always wrong" is an incredibly naive and simplistic view on morality...pretty befitting of Libertarians.

Maybe if we lived in some sort of utopia that'd be true, but in the real world it's often necessary to force people to do things, either for their own good or for the greater good. In fact that's the point of having a government. The idea that no amount of "force" is ever morally permissible and that this completely trumps any other considerations about morality or justice is very, very ridiculous if you actually think about it. If you can't see this then you haven't actually thought about what your saying, but I'll give you one example of how silly this is -

Suppose a man, who has committed no violence against anyone, has a highly contagious disease. While he isn't dying, as long as he has the disease it will inevitably spread to other people and many of them will in fact die. There is medication available to cure the disease but, for whatever reason (maybe his religious beliefs?), he is unwilling to take it.

Common sense would dictate that the government (perhaps the CDC) would be justified in quarantining this guy and forcing him to take the medication anyway. But Libertarians would say that aggression/force is always wrong, no matter what the circumstance, so...I guess we just let the guy continue to infect people until the free-market somehow does something about it? After all, we wouldn't want to violate the non-aggression principle, right?
:ehh:

See how silly that is? And yes, I could come up with hundreds of other similar scenarios. Fact is, in the real world, it is sometimes necessary to force people to do things. To say otherwise is naive and utopian. Having the basis of your political philosophy be "Nobody should never, ever, never, ever, never, ever be able to make anybody do anything they don't want to do :mad:" is the epitome of a childish philosophy.
The initiation of force is always wrong.
"for their own good" :whew: Every time i see this i :ohlawd: at its brilliance.
Being free, means being free to make bad/wrong decisions... if you are going to make what you see as the right decision for them, and implement it using force you cant call them free.

as for your scenario :heh: Infecting people with a serious disease/sickness is a crime, and people are currently in jail for it. He would be arrested for infecting others(an act of aggression).

He could also be held liable for any loss he has incurred on those he infected.


You admit it is immoral to initiate force, but think it should be done...:lupe: Thus you advocate immorality in the name of the greater good.
I dont see "the greater good" as a valid moral concept. if you can save 100 by killing one innocent man, I dont think it should be done:manny:. Crazy, naive, stupid, w/e you want to call it. Its how I see it.
 

Suicide King

#OldBlack
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
4,902
Reputation
745
Daps
7,317
:stopitslime:

1- this person still had to pay $11,000

2- the high prices of these line items are set by the hospitals but with influence from insurance companies. I have already shown you proof of this. The higher the prices the more fear they put into people to buy their product. Your post is a great example of fear mongering as advertising.

The price is high because hospital charge you for the other people who did not pay.

Also, the insurance do not pay what the hospital bills you. Insurance companies uses the new math to figure out reimbursement.
 

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
24,441
Reputation
3,888
Daps
108,051
Reppin
Detroit
The initiation of force is always wrong.
"for their own good" :whew: Every time i see this i :ohlawd: at its brilliance.
Being free, means being free to make bad/wrong decisions... if you are going to make what you see as the right decision for them, and implement it using force you cant call them free.

As I said, the initiation of force is not "always wrong", it depends on the situation. I know Libertarians like to think of everything in absolutes, but in real life you have to use judgement and discretion most of the time. The NAP (non-aggression principle) Libertarians love to go on about) can very strongly interfere with the ability of people to thrive/prosper by placing unreasonable restrictions on their actions.

Imagine you and your family (including your child) were involved in a plane crash. Luckily, you all survive, but end up stranded in the desert. Unfortunately, you have little water and no food. After walking for a day, you come across a house that has enough food and water to feed you and your family for weeks, as well as a phone so you could call for help. Unfortunately, you have no money, and on the first day you make it to the house the owner refuses to let you in or give you any food. That night, he leaves the house to go on vacation and will not be back for several weeks. What would be the ethical thing to do?

Based on the NAP (ie. Libertarian morality), Libertarians would not be able to justify breaking into the house to steal food/water, as it is the owner's property and the owner hasn't committed aggression against anybody. Obviously, any sane person would probably argue that human life is far more important than considerations about "aggression" or the relatively small amount of food the man would have to spare.

My point is that sometimes other moral considerations trump "not being aggressive"...at least in mine (and most people's) opinion.


as for your scenario :heh: Infecting people with a serious disease/sickness is a crime, and people are currently in jail for it. He would be arrested for infecting others(an act of aggression).

He could also be held liable for any loss he has incurred on those he infected.

You admit it is immoral to initiate force, but think it should be done...:lupe: Thus you advocate immorality in the name of the greater good.
I dont see "the greater good" as a valid moral concept. if you can save 100 by killing one innocent man, I dont think it should be done:manny:. Crazy, naive, stupid, w/e you want to call it. Its how I see it.

Again, I don't think it's always immoral to initiate force, I think it depends on the reason. The world is ambiguous. :manny:

And let's not even get into how vague the terms "force" and "aggression" are based on what you typed above, anyway. If I go to work sick and inadvertently infect someone with the flu, is that "aggression"? Is it "force"?

Sometimes it seems like Libertarians define "force" as anything they disapprove of.
 
Last edited:

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,971
Reputation
4,416
Daps
89,062
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
As I said, the initiation of force is not "always wrong", it depends on the situation. I know Libertarians like to think of everything in absolutes, but in real life you have to use judgement and discretion most of the time. The NAP (non-aggression principle libertarians love to go on about) can very strongly interfere with the ability of people to thrive/prosper by placing unreasonable restrictions on their actions.

Imagine you and your family (including your child) were involved in a plane crash. Luckily, you all survive, but end up stranded in the desert. Unfortunately, you have little water and no food. After walking for a day, you come across a house that has enough food and water to feed you and your family for weeks, as well as a phone so you could call for help. Unfortunately, you have no money, and on the first day you make it to the house the owner refuses to let you in or give you any food. That night, he leaves the house to go on vacation and will not be back for several weeks. What would be the ethical thing to do?

Based on the NAP (ie. Libertarian morality), Libertarians would not be able to justify breaking into the house to steal food/water, as it is the owner's property and the owner hasn't committed aggression against anybody. Obviously, any sane person would probably argue that human life is far more important than considerations about "aggression" or the relatively small amount of food the man would have to spare.

My point is that sometimes other moral considerations trump "not being aggressive"...at least in mine (and most people's) opinion.
An immoral act done to accomplish something moral is still an immoral act. We agree on that, and you're right there are going to be situations where you have to break it. That doesnt excuse it or make it right though. let take your scenario, of course you would do what you have to do, but that doesnt "justify" it. The same argument is made by drug dealers everyday, and they may have mouths to feed, but that doesnt make it ok.

Even with human a human life in the balance, breaking in some ones home and stealing is still an immoral act.

But lets agree to disagree on that particular point, how does that justify govt. force in any way? :what:




Again, I don't think it's always immoral to initiate force, I think it depends on the reason. The world is ambiguous. :manny:

And let's not even get into how vague the terms "force" and "aggression" are based on what you typed above, anyway. If I go to work sick and inadvertently infect someone with the flu, is that "aggression"? Is it "force"?

Sometimes it seems like Libertarians define "force" as anything they disapprove of.
Definable harm to some other than yourself, is what usually constitutes an act of aggression. Hence why libertarians are for legalizing drugs.




Morality is subjective, but not harming others(except in self defense) is a constant.
 

Propaganda

Superstar
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
5,517
Reputation
1,355
Daps
18,292
Reppin
416
:deadmanny:@americans walking away with a hospital bill after their appendix bursts.

oh canada, suckers. :heh:
 

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
24,441
Reputation
3,888
Daps
108,051
Reppin
Detroit
But lets agree to disagree on that particular point, how does that justify govt. force in any way? :what:

That type of analogy applies to lots of things that governments can/will do in various situations.

In the scenario above, would it be immoral for the government (assuming they have no food available) to force the man to share his food so that the family doesn't die? That would be "force", I'd think, since said man has not committed any aggression against anyone.

Or, for another example, let's say there's a hurricane approaching a city, but unfortunately the city doesn't have enough hurricane shelters for every one and there is not time to build another one before the hurricane touches down. There is, however, a very large one that could accommodate everyone, but it's owned by a crotchety old man who doesn't want to let anyone in. While he's an ass, he has not committed any acts of aggression towards anyone. Would it be wrong for the government to temporarily commandeer the shelter to keep people safe when the storm came though? After all, it's the man's property and he'd have to be "forced" to let people use it.

What about the case of a child who has a serious disease? Say, something where the child will die unless he/she undergoes surgery, but his/her parents will not allow the child to get surgery for whatever reason (religious beliefs, stupidity, etc.). Is is wrong for the government to step in to save the child's life?

There are tons of these situations in the real world. Very often, not committing some sort of "aggression" will lead to a worse result. And the whole purpose of ethics is to make the world a better place, so if an ethical principle is completely abstract and doesn't take consequences into account, that's a good sing it's about time to re-examine said principle or only enforce it selectively. :usure:

Definable harm to some other than yourself, is what usually constitutes an act of aggression. Hence why libertarians are for legalizing drugs.

Morality is subjective, but not harming others(except in self defense) is a constant.

Does it have to be intentional harm? If I knowingly go to work sick (because I don't want to take the time off) and infect people with the flu, is that "aggression"?
 
Last edited:

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,971
Reputation
4,416
Daps
89,062
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
That type of analogy applies to lots of things that governments can/will do in various situations.

In the scenario above, would it be immoral for the government (assuming they have no food available) to force the man to share his food so that the family doesn't die? That would be "force", I'd think, since said man has not committed any aggression against anyone.

Or, for another example, let's say there's a hurricane approaching a city, but unfortunately the city doesn't have enough hurricane shelters for every one and there is not time to build another one before the hurricane touches down. There is, however, a very large one that could accommodate everyone, but it's owned by a crotchety old man who doesn't want to let anyone in. While he's an ass, he has not committed any acts of aggression towards anyone. Would it be wrong for the government to temporarily commandeer the shelter to keep people safe when the storm came though? After all, it's the man's property and he'd have to be "forced" to let people use it.

What about the case of a child who has a serious disease? Say, something where the child will die unless he/she undergoes surgery, but his/her parents will not allow the child to get surgery for whatever reason (religious beliefs, stupidity, etc.). Is is wrong for the government to step in to save the child's life?

There are tons of these situations in the real world. Very often, not committing some sort of "aggression" will lead to a worse result. And the whole purpose of ethics is to make the world a better place, so if an ethical principle is completely abstract and doesn't take consequences into account, then it's about time to re-examine said principle. :usure:
yes it would still be wrong. Doing an immoral act for a good cause does not make the immoral act moral... Would you want to govt. to kill the man with the food to feed the hungry man? If not why?
Likely you are attempting to gauge morality in degrees. Stealing the food is only kind of immoral, but killing him would be wholly immoral. Either way both actions are wrong, and should be avoided IMHO.

In the real world, charity will care for those sick children. After all the majority of Americans do think its a cause worth donating too.

This idea that govt. is the only way to accomplish helping people is insane... and say a lot about how liberals view people, despite their rhetoric.






Does it have to be intentional harm? If I knowingly go to work sick (because I don't want to take the time off) and infect people with the flu, is that "aggression"?
No intent is not a requirement for harm. If you accidentally kill some one you are still liable in the court of law. The NaP isn't really that different from our system now, except there must be a victim and difinable harm.
 

PartyHeart

All Star
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,627
Reputation
515
Daps
6,042
Reppin
NULL
The most expensive line item is the one they don't even give you a choice of declining :what:

I can't.
 

Jesus

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
16,966
Reputation
-2,112
Daps
24,269
Reppin
NZ
fukking scumbag should be lined up and shot in the head....greedy b*stards.:wow:
 

Wild self

The Black Man will prosper!
Bushed
Supporter
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
82,479
Reputation
11,996
Daps
223,633
Liberal nonsense.

Doctors have bills too.
Healthcare is a privilege not a right.
We have to fix the system but single payer and Obamacare have to be off the table.

You should tell that to the doctors around Europe and other first world countries that message :lolbron:
 

Wild self

The Black Man will prosper!
Bushed
Supporter
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
82,479
Reputation
11,996
Daps
223,633
none of their healthcare is touching the one in the USA.

Most world leaders come to the USA for medical treatment....ask yourself why.

LOL even they say that the American Healthcare is corrupt and they shyt on their citizens.
 
Top