全 198 件のコメント

[–]qp0nnaturalist 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because saying "Healthcare should be a government privilege" isn't as catchy.

[–]shahkabra 160 ポイント161 ポイント  (89子コメント)

That's a slightly obtuse way of thinking about it. I don't agree with universal healthcare, however it's by no means comparable to slavery.

[–]Continuity_organizer 83 ポイント84 ポイント  (50子コメント)

Right, it's a lot more comparable to the right to an attorney to defend you in court, which the Founders enshrined into the Constitution.

[–]TheJucheisLoose 88 ポイント89 ポイント  (29子コメント)

It's a little different, in my opinion. The government guaranteeing you the right to a competent defense from the government, is simply a restriction on the government's ability to railroad citizens. Like many things in the Constitution, the right to an attorney is a restriction on government power -- it's simply framed differently. Healthcare issues are neither caused by the government, nor are they anywhere near as rare as being haled into court.

[–]TITANUPMAN 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (24子コメント)

This is the answer. Lawyers are to guarantee a chance of freedom due to false government imprisonment. Healthcare has 0 to do with government.

[–]TMac1128 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (8子コメント)

But the public defenders are still slaves

[–]TheJucheisLoose 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There's a reason public defenders are considerably less good than private defense attorneys. Same would apply to public doctors.

[–]zdk 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Physicians in residency are largely subsidized by Medicare (which all practicing & board certified doctors had to go through). While this hasn't hampered the skill level of physicians it has created shortages, no surprise.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/how-medicare-subsidizes-doctor-training

[–]Gotovoat5342 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No they are not. If no one wants to be a public defender, they can quite. If the government can't find you a defender, they can't prosecute you. It's their problem. It's a requirement for prosecution.

Healthcare is different. You can't default to"if no doctor wants to work then we'll stop having sick people".

[–]ElPeneMasExtranoactual libertarian -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

If public defenders are slaves then anyone working for an employer is

[–]cp5184 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's rand paul's argument.

[–]ElPeneMasExtranoactual libertarian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I didn't know rand was an anticapitalist

[–]DogfaceDinofriedmanite -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's an ill-informed claim. Instead of making that claim, it might have been more prudent to ask him why he was saying they were "slaves". There are many differences between the choices available to someone who is a public defender and "anyone working for an employer".

[–]ElPeneMasExtranoactual libertarian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Public defenders are employed just like anyone else is, so if it applies to them it applies to everyone.

[–]Captain-Douche-Canoe -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (14子コメント)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life*, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

*As long as you can afford healthcare.

[–]Captain_Chromo 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (4子コメント)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness*."

*As long as you can afford it.

I want a fighter jet to fly around to make me truly happy, under the free healthcare logic I should get a free jet to fly around in.

[–]cp5184 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You have the right to pursue flying a fighter jet. You have the right to life.

See the difference?

[–]nosoupforyou 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The right to life != the right to be given free care. It just means no one can take away your life. You can still lose it on your own. No one said "We have the right to life, health, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

[–]NYC_Globetrotter 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's why it's the PURSUIT of happiness.

[–]Captain-Douche-Canoe -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The pursuit of happiness is a nebulous concept whose merits can be debated.

I intended to focus upon the "life" concept. That everyone, no matter what age, sex, race, or wealth, has the right to life. If you think that exists because of EMTALA, than we're not on the same page.

[–]TITANUPMAN 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (4子コメント)

You have the right to pursue happiness. You are created with the same rights under the constitution as me.

[–]swinny89Anarcho-Transhumanist 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I always hated the pursuit of happiness thing. It literally means nothing. Think of a guy who is in chains, and says he is being denied his right to pursue happiness. Well, he isn't. He can pursue from the comfort of his chains all day long. Happiness isn't guaranteed. It's like the founding father's were reading John Locke, but decided they didn't want people to have property rights.

[–]bijan4187 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The socialist will say you cannot be truly free if you are not economically free. Is it freedom to be stuck at a job you hate because it provides the healthcare benefits you need?

The libertarian will say that economic freedom is the right of the vendor to sell his services at whatever the free market rate is. To the libertarian, all regulation is interference with that free market thus less freedom.

[–]TITANUPMAN 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The socialist forcefully takes voluntarily earned income away. Thus he is wrong.

[–]bijan4187 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its not so simple. Im subscribed to a bunch of the paul subreddits and sanders subreddits, so please just know that before we write each other off as "one of those damn (insert political belief structure here)".

Most people would want to live in a society that had some form of government. To have any government requires some form of taxation. If there is going to be taxation, most people would like that taxation to go to benefiting the people of that society and making the quality of life in that society better.

If you want to get rid of governments all together, sure, i see your point. But what replaces them? Government by and for the corporation? Isnt that the definition of fascism per mussolini? You would get little fiefdoms of company towns with their feudal lords being management while the workers would be serfs. You would buy all services from the company store (at monopoly prices). What rights would you have in this society? If the corporate government is only accountable to the market, how are rights of the individual guaranteed?

I mean, i agree that government sucks, but if its a necessary evil, what should it do? Protect the rights of the individual at the expense of general society or benefit society at the cost of the individual? Its a worthwhile conversation to have.

I think you can agree that rand is unfortunately being hyperbolic here, and his argument in the video of this exchange gets laughed at by all in the room at the end of it.

[–]Trumpetfan 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The pursuit of happiness bunk was added later.

It was "life, liberty, and property". If you want to be happy, that's on you to figure out.

[–]user_1729 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is from the declaration of independence, it is not a document of law.

[–]I_Fuck_Milk 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You still have the right to life regardless of whether you can afford healthcare. It isn't other people's jobs to maintain that life, it's yours.

[–]jaasxRearden Medal 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually the constitution only guarantees us a fair trial. For much of US history there was no right to a lawyer. With trials the way they are today it can only be fair with a lawyer. If some new system came along the right to a lawyer could again disappear.

[–]nosoupforyou 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't know if it actually happens, but TV has shown me that lawyers can be conscripted to provide a defense.

[–]wsdmskr -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why do we have the second ammendment? To protect ourselves from death (according to recent interpretation at least). Why would the the right to healthcare be different?

[–]long_black_road 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because the second amendment says you have the right to protect yourself from the government. The "right to healthcare" argument says you have the right to receive healthcare (provided by someone else) regardless of your ability to pay for it.

[–]EugeneHarlot 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You certainly had no right to legal counsel provided by the State at the time of the Framers. The right to have an attorney appointed to assist with your defense, at public expense, did not exist prior to Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963. Prior to that, the 6th Amendment was understood to mean that the State couldn't prohibit your attorney from participating in the proceedings when you retained one. The whole system of public defenders is rather recent.

[–]bannanaflame 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right to an attorney is horribly misinterpreted. It's there so courts can't prohibit attorneys from defending someone. It was never intended to guarantee everyone would have a lawyer. It's absurd on it's face but they snuck it through so they didn't have to keep hearing appeals about people not being able to effectively defend themselves. If everyone gets a lawyer they can keep on railroading folks and shut down the appeals a lot quicker.

[–]TheMarketLiberal93 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah this is definitely and over dramatization. I still respect the hell out of Rand Paul, but I think this metaphor was bad. Your point is pretty spot on. If we were to add healthcare as a right, it would be very similar to attorneys. People would pay for their own healthcare, and if they couldn't afford it, it would be provided. No need to drag a family practice physician out to treat someone, as there would be physician jobs similar to that of public defense attorneys. Plus, for emergencies, doctors are on call, and they agreed to that in their contract. They won't be punished legally for not going down to help, but they could be fired. No real force here, all personal decisions you can make legally.

Now, I'm vehemently against government run universal healthcare. I believe in the free market whole heartedly. I have no objections to helping the poor though. We do it already. We won't turn someone down in a hospital because they can't afford it, and currently the government fronts most of that bill. They will still have to, but more market oriented healthcare will lessen this cost.

[–]AdventureArtist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We won't turn someone down in a hospital because they can't afford it

All the time. All. The. Time. Most people don't die of a gunshot wound which a hospital will take until stable, they die of cancer, and heart disease, and untreated high blood pressure.

[–]pornographicCDsfriedmanite 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (13子コメント)

I can't believe this retarded equivalency is being used here.

There's a difference between negative rights and fancy made up positive rights.

Negative rights, like the right to be free from search and seizure, and be free from prosecution without legal representations, are things that cannot be taken from you. They don't have to be given to you.

Positive rights like healthcare are given to you at the expense of other people, and if they are called rights in the traditional sense, even though they don't employ slavery in practice, they imply a right to enslave those who must give you the right.

[–]RumbleThePup 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (12子コメント)

How is it slavery if they still receive adequate compensation and are allowed to quit anytime they want? A doctor will still be paid handsomely and can quit the job at any point.

[–]Alabastercrab 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

How would you exercise your right to healthcare if nobody chose to provide it?

[–]RumbleThePup 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That doesn't answer my question at all.

[–]TCV2 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yes it does. So let's say everyone has the right to healthcare (which is absolute bullshit, but we'll just ignore that for this example), and they are allowed to quit any time they want. What happens if every healthcare provider quits? What happens if every single one quits? According to you, you still have the right to healthcare, and those doctors are violating your rights. Therefore, in order to give you your rights, those healthcare providers must be forced to give you healthcare.

That is why saying healthcare is a right is equivalent to advocating for slavery.

[–]RumbleThePup 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A second question does not answer the first question. According to me, it isn't the doctors transgressing me. The state would be compelled, not the doctors. Pay would raise until sufficient coverage was reached.

[–]Chicken_beard 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

How many "rights" are not predicated on someone, somewhere, providing a service in that sense? Your right to protection under the law is only as good as there are people willing to serve as police and judges to enforce the laws.
Your right to representation in Congress is only possible if there are people willing to BE representative (and hold elections, etc.)

[–]Miggaletoe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yea that argument is pretty ridiculous. Every right can be thrown out the window if we take into the account everyone just quits and nobody is willing to do anything...

[–]pornographicCDsfriedmanite 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I said it doesn't employ slavery in practice, but saying that a service is a right implies that slavery could have to be used to fulfill that right, or it's not actually a right.

[–]RumbleThePup -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I understood your statement. I was not asking anything about the "rightness" of healthcare, only the forced conscription, implied or otherwise. That doesn't answer my question.

[–]pornographicCDsfriedmanite 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

"How is it slavery if the slaves recieved sustenance and housing."

Forced labor is slavery no matter what compensation

[–]RumbleThePup -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's not slavery if the "slave" can leave at anytime for more gainful opportunity.

[–]pornographicCDsfriedmanite 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're not understanding the argument.

If healthcare was actually a right, a labor shortage, or people quitting, would not be allowed

[–]RumbleThePup 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well that would be unconstitutional, so...

Also, downvote is for spam, not disagreement, whoever is insta-downvoting me.

[–]vkob 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's comments like this that show that this sub isn't jut an echo chamber...

I have faith that the Internet will allow constuctive libertarian ideas to become mainstream. They kind of technically are mainstream already but not in practice.

[–]sketchy_at_best 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would argue that since the government is prosecuting criminal cases, then it makes sense that the government would pay for the legal apparatus involved. There could otherwise be a lot of opportunity for abuse, especially against the poor. It's certainly not as comparable to a natural right, more like an entitlement (one with which few would quibble).

[–]MetaCanuck 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (21子コメント)

It's an over-dramatization for sure. I'm in Canada and the physicians here seem as free as any other person. Nobody is going to force you to be a doctor.

Government-run health insurance and slavery are two very, very different things.

[–]JackBond1234 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They seem free, because they still get paid because the burden of slavery is distributed among all the citizens.

[–]Pistonpython 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I think the idea is that when/if medical staff refuses to work for whatever reason, what recourse does the government have to provide the right of healthcare that they promised to the citizens?

[–]Phreakhead 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Then the government will increase the salary of the doctors until someone is willing to do it, same as any other government service job. It's called supply and demand and it still holds.

[–]jaasxRearden Medal 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

But all other 'rights' are essentially free and don't cost someone else anything. Speech, religion, press etc don't require the government to provide anything. The government provides coinage but I have no right to it; it's just a job they perform. A right to healthcare is definitely a horse of a different color.

[–]Conal-H 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

which is a perfectly valid point, especially in the proposed system that this healthcare monstrosity would be taking place.

[–]blewpah 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok, in the case where public defenders go on strike and there's no one to provide legal counsel, what does the government do then?

[–]TheJucheisLoose 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Yes, but to have a "right" to something means that you expect to be able to exercise that right at any time, at your discretion. If that something involves other people's skills, labor, and time, then how can it not imply the ability to conscript those people at a moment's notice, whenever you wish to exercise your right?

[–]DelightfulDonald 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

We have limits on rights. Your right to freedom of speech is limited. Your right to own a gun has limits. A right to healthcare wouldn't mean that you can kick a doctor's door in and demand care at 3 AM and pretending that it would is just being intentionally obtuse.

[–]TheJucheisLoose 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ah, so just make sure you're not dying at 3 AM. Makes perfect sense.

[–]Miggaletoe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hospitals are open at 3 AM. All healthcare workers have the right to not take jobs that would require them to work at 3 AM.

[–]Captain-Douche-Canoe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

So someone's skills, labor, and time are more important than someone else's life?

[–]Taylor1391 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The question is actually: is freedom from forced labor more important than life. And the answer to that is absolutely yes.

[–]Captain-Douche-Canoe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is a very valid point and I totally agree with you. My problem with this concept applied to the topic of healthcare is that the public healthcare system seems to work in other countries such as Australia, France, Canada, Sweden, Germany, etc.

[–]ElvisIsReal 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Quite obviously. You're not saving some starving child in Ethiopia right now.

[–]Alabastercrab 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yes! That persons skills labor and time IS their life! Is one persons life more important than another's?!

[–]Captain-Douche-Canoe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

While I see your point. Only one's life is truly over.

[–]Alabastercrab 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

And what about the next dying person and the next guy and the next guy and the next guy and the next guy and the next guy. When does the guy with the skills get to live his life for himself? When does his life belong to him? Why does a dying person have more rights than the living?

[–]Captain-Douche-Canoe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But you're still placing one person's life over another's. All men are created equal. Why can't there be a better balance between the two?

[–]Alabastercrab 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Check your premise. You're completely backwards

[–]TheDeuceBaba 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not more important, equally important.

[–]leocusmus 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What happens if people refuse to practice medicine and there's a shortage of doctors and nurses?

[–]agustinona 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's not as far off target as it seems, though. If you have a right to something that isn't naturally free or already yours, it means that to enforce your right you will have to either force someone to provide it for you against his will, or someone else to pay for it, also against his will. Whether you want to call that slavery or not is your call, but don't tell me it's not at least pretty close to it.

[–]murox -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's unfortunate the subscribers of a libertarian subreddit don't understand that point. If you have a right to something that isn't free (like liberty), then someone else has an obligation to provide that "right" for you, taking away his freedom.

[–]ugotpauld 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Universal health care means doctors who want to work at the universal hospitals get to.

Doctors are still allowed to be private.

This screen cap is just embarrassing

[–]Phreakhead 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The same way all those road workers and firefighters are slaves...

Edit: to the downvoters: I invite you to try to respond with an intellectual argument, if you can. This sub should embrace intellectual discussion because it's the only way we'll be able to convince other people to adopt libertarian policies. Downvoting things you don't agree with or don't understand gets us no where.

[–]Captain-Douche-Canoe 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Literally any public "servant." Policemen, judges, politicians. TIL the US government is the largest slave owner in the world.

[–]TheDeuceBaba 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The US government has conscripted millions of people for military service, so yes you are correct.

[–]chillingniples 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are stretching the definition of the word slavery that is for sure..

[–]TheDeuceBaba 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The discussion is over whether health care is a natural right. That is not the same as debating whether the government should provide it as a service.

[–]Okichah 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Understand the context. What constitutes a "Right"?

Well, in respect to the American constitution it is something that can be ensured by the state by force. People like to think they have a "right" to stuff they "want", but thats a perversion of what a human right is and should be.

Rights preserve freedom, not survival or comfort.

[–]stmfreakSovereign Individual 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is entirely comparable to slavery, for some.

When you take a thing that is currently paid for and consumes 20% of our GDP and decide to provide it for free to all, you are conscripting labor from some large set of people to pay for it.

Rand's argument doesn't make sense because of course we are going to pay the doctors to continue working, duh. And we ignore him and move on.

But where does the money to pay the doctors come from? People who pay taxes are going to see a substantial tax hike to cover those costs. People who do not pay taxes are going to feel the bite of inflation from all the deficit spending universal healthcare will require.

The costs of free healthcare for all will be borne by others, through their labors, without compensation. That is the slavery we got conscripted into with the income tax and it expands every time some politician convinces people their Negative Rights are actually Positive Rights.

We currently have a Negative Right to healthcare. Just as we have a Negative Right to speech, weapons, assembly, religion, moving about, etc. Bernie conveniently ignores this because he isn't talking about making healthcare a right, he is talking about forcing others to provide it for all comers.

This conversion of Negative Rights into Positive Rights plays well with the huddled masses who vote for free stuff and expands political power and budgets to infinity.

[–]TotesMessenger 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]BastiatFanancap 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's a slightly obtuse way of thinking about it.

Rand isn't a good communicator. At all.

I think I agree with the point he is making, however. If I have a right to healthcare and find myself on a desert island with a physician, then I have the right to extract healthcare from them. If they wish to fish, but I wish them to massage my sore joints, then I am justified in threatening to beat them with a club if they refuse to administer the massage.

[–]jpastore 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Trying to survive working for the benefit of others ahead of yourself sounds like slavery to me. It just doesn't have the imagery of cotton picking and racism driven home in schools. What % of someone's do you need to take for them to be considered slaves?

[–]RussianHacker_4chan -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It is if you agree that taxation is theft

[–]chillingniples 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not sure if that's so. I was going to comment saying that phrase is inflammatory as well, & it is. but its far less inflammatory than saying universal healthcare would create slavery. What would be happening in the latter scenario resembles slavery far less than taxation resembles theft. in my opinion at least.

[–]JackBond1234 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Technically, Sanders said you have a right to the best healthcare that can be provided. If the doctors quit, people would just have a right to uncle bob's healthcare and bait shop.

[–]mightycud 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Classic straw man argument.
I'm surprised it's coming from Rand.

[–]Okichah 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's not arguing against Universal healthcare. He is making a philosophical description of what constitutes a "basic human right".

This picture is doctored to remove context and push an agenda.

[–]Adrewmc 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well let's start with a doctor. In order to become a doctor you must go to school pass an exam and then at your choice make an oath.

This path says to do no harm, it is clear that inaction can do harm when you are a doctor. So your inaction breaks your own oath regardless of it being legally binding or not.

But, let's not forget that many other country has single payer healthcare where their citizen have a right to access healthcare. That the part he misses access healthcare.

No is saying doctor won't get paid for their work. This isn't slavery stop trying to pretend it's anything like it.

Now, Mr. Libertarian. You do realize that as a doctor you have a government granted monopoly. Yes that's right only doctors can perform certain types of services by law. Are there good reasons for this? Well not if you ask a libertarian a bad doctor ought to be found out by the market and loss their job, while a good doctor should be rewarded with out licensing and government interference. I don't see your moral compass talking about this.

Here is the thing this is a massive problem that balloons the cost of healthcare outright. And these procedures have not been updated in a long time even with massive improvement in healthcare generally. There are many many thing that nurses and pharmacists and various other medical professional are not only capable of doing them selves many times more capable than a doctor at that particular task, but in the end you must pay a doctor to do it or pay them to authorize the others to do it under their guidance.

So we can say outright that being a doctor and being in medicine at that level is not in anyway resembling a free market already.

Now we can go further and say that patients are outright at a knowledge disadvantage of their own body and medical needs. In fact that part of what you pay for is that knowledge. This creates an imbalance between buyer and seller that the free market can not fix, the seller will always know more and even after the seller is the only one that can allow the person the medicine they need, even if the patient is 100% exactly what is wrong and what can fix it they simply can't get it unless they pay you! Now we're is the force? Whom is forcing whom? These are actual life and death questions in medicine.

And we haven't even gotten to prescription meds problems.

So I have a question for you Doctor Ron Paul, you delivered hundreds of babies, so how much did it cost? How much did you charge? How many other professions would have trouble telling you this? (Yes I know this is Rand but Ron has said virtually the same thing before.)

So Rand tell me again how the free market which by definition can not exist inside health care because of it principal assumptions not being met (low barrier to entry, shared knowledge, etc) going to fix health care in America. Or should we just let people die? And if we should let people die I don't want to listen to you anymore, I don't want to listen about wars we are fighting, about denying climate change about abortion about anything because you lack the moral fortitude to call your self a healer of the sick, a Christian, a doctor.

[–]Vrendan 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Canadian here. No doctors here are forced to work. We actually have a major shortage of GPs in an overwhelming majority of small towns. 3/4s in my town are from South Africa.

[–]bannanaflame 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I wonder if that shortage has anything to do with doctors not being allowed to fully negotiate their terms of compensation

[–]MarzMonkey 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's definitely the American market (i.e. Higher Paid) taking Canadian educated health professionals, I'd fucking work there if I could.

[–]XpressAg09 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, given you can throw a rock in America and hit a doctor's house, I'd imagine so

[–]Vrendan 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd be reluctant to place the blame on salary negotiation alone. I believe the median income for GPs here in Alberta is around $336,000. I live in an extremely prosperous oil town and other than a handful of local oilfield company owners and large family farm operations, our doctors probably have the highest incomes.

[–]Speartron 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its the implication that doctors will be forced to work if they choose not to work for the state apparatus. A positive right inherently requires force to provide it. If all doctors decided to work in the private sector for profit, or to just opt out of the state system, conscription would be necessary and happen per the positive right.

[–]pacjaxLabore 2020 baby please 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (13子コメント)

literally all liberals in this sub now

[–]bannanaflame 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (5子コメント)

This place is fucked. But that's what we get for sticking to our principles and leaving it generally unmoderated. Lots of libertarian-curious fed up with Dems and Repubs and think libertarian is some sort of socially liberal fiscally conservative middle ground(god damned Gary Johnson). In reality libertarianism is a completely different way of thinking about government these lost souls aren't prepared to embrace.

[–]RPwhitefrost 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The (big L) Libertarians sold their soul hoping that name recognition would win them more votes in the 2016 election. And that failed miserably because Johnson and Weld are fucking morons that seem to be more socially liberal than libertarian and courted the Bernie vote. Now we have good minds, like Peterson, threatening to defect because they'd rather "kiss the ring of Trump" than bow to the "bake the cake" crowd. And, you know what, I don't blame them. They can probably accomplish more with an R next to their name.

[–]Captain-Douche-Canoe 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

If you don't mind me asking, what, in your eyes, is libertarianism?

[–]bannanaflame 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Maximize individual responsibility, minimize government. If you can imagine a way for private sector to solve a problem the government should stay out of it and let the private sector solve it. It also means accepting some problems cannot be solved and it's vital government does not try to solve them because that always makes things worse.

Philosophically it aligns a lot with anarcho capitalism but in practice there are a lot of roles for government to take lead for economy sake: roads, national defense, policing, court system, and the like. These sorts of things can be done privately but typically a lot more efficient and consistent if managed and planned centrally.

[–]Captain-Douche-Canoe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Do you think privatizing our healthcare system will solve the problems we face?

[–]bannanaflame 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If it was actually privatized and deregulated it would absolutely fix the affordability problem.

[–]FourFingeredMartianLibertarian and Authoritarian Are Mutually Exclusive 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yep, you can't even state:

 Taxation is theft.

Without getting downvoted.

[–]99919 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or, as Rand would presumably say:

 Taxation is slavery.

[–]blewpah -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's when threads hit the frontpage of /r/all. Sometimes a ton of liberals fill in, sometimes it's a bunch of Trump supporters and altrighty types.

[–]pacjaxLabore 2020 baby please 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its in every thread now. Especially when any of the pauls are mentioned

[–]Phreakhead 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Liberals can be libertarian. It's in the name! If you would stop fighting everyone who's trying to embrace libertarian ideals, maybe we'd actually get somewhere with this party.

[–]99919 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also, an aria can be libertarian. And Bert can be libertarian. So can Ian. It's in the name!

[–]TurnerJ5 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Rand Paul is as articulate as a shoe. Jesus Christ.

[–]ColonelCluster 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (4子コメント)

What would have preferred him to say?

"Socialized medicine is bad! Go back to Russia you dirty commie!"

We're not going to win minds by using shorter dumber sound bytes.

[–]CBusin 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, but supplying a short sound byte saying that physicians are going to be enslaved aren't going to win any either. Which I think is what OP was saying.

It's a valid point in shining light on the other side of the issue, just not an effective way of voicing it.

[–]Top-Cheese 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah that's not very articulate either...

[–]NedryOS 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The irony of this is that you see the two statements as equivalent.

[–]elebrinminarchist 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What, because he spoke more than 25 words?

[–]walterwhite413 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I guess he left his 'TAXATION IS THEFT' and 'END THE FED' bumper stickers at home.

Jesus Christ. We have this man in the United States Senate and y'all continue to bitch

[–]geoih 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, the truth is so embarrassing.

[–]BuffaloSoldier11 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This was originally posted on t_d, he's like Shakespeare in comparison.

[–]idonthaveacoolname13 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

pretty much, anything that costs money isn't really a right.

[–]jacklukeSomewhat Libertarian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I cannot think of a stupider way to argue this.

[–]unmotivatedbacklight 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Read this thread. You will find it.

[–]Sesek3 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Free health care doesn't force anyone to be a doctor?

[–]bannanaflame 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (16子コメント)

If the government guarantees healthcare it does require people to be doctors, that's his point. If he can't make enough money eye doctoring for it to be worth his effort he can stop. Affordable healthcare as a right means that government has to force him you and me to be doctors and clean hospitals and make medicines even if it means not paying us at all. After all, everyone has a right to these services, we can't very well deny that over something as trivial as money.

And even if they do pay it's still conscripted labor, still slavery if the terms of compensation aren't willingly agreed to. Some slaves in the US lived better than poor whites but that didn't mean they weren't every bit a slave.

[–]RumbleThePup 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

No one is forced to be a doctor or janitor. If no one wants the job (supply is low) but vacancies still need to be fill (demand is high) salaries rise until employers start getting applications.

[–]bannanaflame -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Except when healthcare access is a right and there's a shortage of supply and no money or will to increase wages that's when they conscript people.

Just like our right to security is covered through market forces and the military until we go war and they start drafting people because they have to fill the ranks.

Rand's point is not about today where the remains of a free market will keep it functional for some time. He's talking about after the system collapses as it always does when the market isn't allowed to function and the only way to get people the healthcare they're supposedly entitled to is to force people to do it for less than it's worth.

[–]blewpah 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Universal health care isn't a medical professional conscription program though. No one has ever said anything about conscription if doctors.

If his entire argument is built around some hypothetical dystopian scenario, that'd a pretty weak basis.

[–]bannanaflame -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They haven't declared healthcare a right yet. Everything starts to devolve as soon as they take that ridiculous step.

[–]mc_md -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, that is how a market works. When it is a right rather than a free exchange of goods and services, wages do not rise, and shortage is guaranteed. Price controls lower than market price always produce shortage and failure to clear the market.

[–]RumbleThePup 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why, by virtue of the gov't being required to deliver a right, would wages be forcibly stagnated?

[–]Beersyummy -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (9子コメント)

We have rights to attorneys and free education in this country as well. Have you ever heard of someone being forced against their will to be a lawyer or a teacher? I have not.

[–]bannanaflame 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We don't have a right to either of those things. We're literally forced to be educated and the attorney thing is worse than the attempts to reinterpret the 2nd amendment.

Edit: and lawyers are forced into the public defender program and teachers are coerced into bad schools with debt forgiveness schemes. Just because it's not chattel slavery it doesn't mean it's voluntary.

[–]NurseWizzle 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Right to free education? According to who?

[–]RumbleThePup 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

According to the laws requiring children school attendance in some form until age 16, usually.

[–]TheDeuceBaba 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Public education is a government service, it's not a natural right.

[–]RumbleThePup 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I suppose that makes sense.

[–]TheDeuceBaba 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread of Pauls point. He wasn't saying whether the government should provide health care. He was merely making the point that it is not a natural right.

[–]RumbleThePup 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I see that now, but boy he could've phrased that a bit better!

[–]Walican132 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

K-12 man. Not college.

[–]NurseWizzle 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Correct... How is that a right?

[–]muhliblibact 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's the problem with libertarianism. It can't be boiled down to an emotionally evocative sentence or two. It's more nuanced, and, yuh know, based in logic and sound reasoning. So it's easy to stir up liberal populism, but much harder to rile up level headed voters.

[–]tennisdrums 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But even his longer explanation is a terrible argument. We have PLENTY of rights ensured by the government that require people to be employed one way or another. We're guaranteed representation in court in the constitution, that doesn't involve dragging lawyers from their home and forcing them to work as slaves for people. We'd consider adequate protection by our military from foreign threats a right guaranteed by our government, for the time being we're not having to press people into military service. As far as I can tell, there's no developed country with guaranteed healthcare where the government is forcing doctors to practice for free against their will, so Rand's argument amounts to nothing more than a very poorly constructed Slippery Slope.

Hell even the Declaration of Independence lists "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as rights. I'm pretty sure you're directly interfering with someone's right to life if you refuse medical care because they can't afford it.

[–]tteddervoluntaryist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We're guaranteed representation in court in the constitution, that doesn't involve dragging lawyers from their home and forcing them to work as slaves for people.

Bad argument. If no one is represented by a lawyer, the government is not allowed to prosecute. The "right to a lawyer" is a restriction of the government, not a privilege for the people.

As far as I can tell, there's no developed country with guaranteed healthcare where the government is forcing doctors to practice for free against their will

No, because they're still getting paid. However, with any knowledge of basic macro-econ, you will know that these systems are unsustainable. Expect NHS to be bankrupt or face severe shortages with doctors in the next 15 years.

I'm pretty sure you're directly interfering with someone's right to life if you refuse medical care because they can't afford it.

What an obtuse argument. You're directly interfering with my right to pursue happiness if you don't give me an F-16 to fly around. The whole right to life theory is that no one can take your life from you, last I checked, a disease or injury is not a person.

[–]MuuaadDib 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This was his dimmest moment speaking IMHO, slavery really? Talk about insulting to ones intelligence to try to digest that analogy.

[–]TITANUPMAN 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only thing slavery about our medical system is the non payment law. That is literal slavery. He cannot pay you but work for free to fix him!

Government needs to abolish that clown law and get out of healthcare.

[–]The_DerpeningNobody Tread On Anybody -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Healthcare could definitely be a right regardless of income, in that no government actor should be able to force you not to get it if you want it and can afford it. But just like the right to bear arms, if you can't afford it, that's nobody's problem but your own.

[–]thebigstrongman2 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Whenever someone insists the government provides everyone with Healthcare I tell them only after they provide everyone with guns

[–]MasterTeacher88 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why should I have to pay for the healthcare of someone else?

If I get cancer I fully understand and accept that's my fucking problem, not "societies"

[–]DMooseJ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't agree with this analogy because that's not really what is meant by 'right to healthcare', what is actually meant by it is the right FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY for your healthcare. If a hospital turns you away for some reason, you can't just claim 'right to healthcare!' and force them to treat you, you'd just go to a different hospital.

[–]skatterflak 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The girls face in the back....

[–]ScottyBrown 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

We have a right to enslave robot doctors like Watson. also if a man dies choking in front of a restraunt filled with doctors can his family sue?

[–]lengthynonsense 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is the second part a serious question? No they can't sue.

[–]tteddervoluntaryist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

also if a man dies choking in front of a restraunt filled with doctors can his family sue?

No, duty to rescue laws do not require Samaritans to rescue another person.

[–]walterwhite413 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Can we really call this place r/Libertarian anymore

[–]tteddervoluntaryist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just how Republicans hated the state when Obama won and started mingling with Libertarianism, Democrats are doing to the same thing with Trump. Expect the roles to reverse with the next political party in power. These people aren't Libertarian, they just hate the other party and don't care when it's theirs.

[–]TotesMessenger -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]butchin -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's an absurd comparison. Shame.

[–]TrappedInMichigan -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And Bernie Sanders response was along the lines of how he didn't think nurses and doctors would feel like they are slaves.

[–]AmayaGin -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Something something hippocratic oath and voluntary slavery. If you've sworn the oath, you're sort of binding yourself to help others regardless of the circumstances.

I'm just a dumb college kid though, and way out of my league in discussions like these.

[–]lengthynonsense -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Rand is right and wrong.

He's right if he were taking Bernie's "free healthcare" literally but wrong in the sense that Bernie doesn't actually want free healthcare he wants socialised healthcare. But that doesn't get the kids going these days so he says free.

[–]hmblmfkrwitabgassdik -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

no rand, take your propaganda and gtfo. it means the government has the right to levy taxes, sure. and to use those taxes to hire doctors, sure. but that's it.

[–]MangalzRational Party -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I do not like that argument.

No one arguing for a right to healthcare would support forcing doctors to work if they didn't want to work.

Though they are fine forcing a doctor to perform an operation he doesn't want to, the chances of it moving past that is slim to none.

[–]staticjacket 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

To build off of Rothbard's parable about government providing shoes: just replace 'healthcare' with 'shoes' and see how absurd it sounds. "Everyone has a right to shoes."

What if the state became the arbiter of shoes and people realized that maybe we could have more variety and better shoes if some people in the market could freely produce them? People would say "you mean you don't want people to have shoes?! You want the poor to go shoeless, injuring their feet from not having shoes!?"

[–]ry_alf 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm out of the loop on why so many people on here hate Rand Paul for using a bit of hyperbole.

[–]unmotivatedbacklight 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

When everyone is guaranteed the best quality the system can offer, the best the system can offer goes way down.

[–]unmotivatedbacklight 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is Rand saying I have the right to the best quality healthcare that I can perform on myself?

[–]AwayWeGo112[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here’s the full excerpt:

"With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have to realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.

"Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services, do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? You’re basically saying you believe in slavery. You’re saying you believe in taking and extracting from another person. Our founding documents were very clear about this. You have a right to pursue happiness but there’s no guarantee of physical comfort. There’s no guarantee of concrete items. In order to give something concrete, you have to take it from someone. So there’s an implied threat of force.

"If I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care, do you have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be. If you believe in a right to health care, you’re believing in basically the use of force to conscript someone to do your bidding."

[–]ajarOfSalt 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

if a physician was a slave, they wouldn't make $200K. They would make nothing, slavery is an awful comparison.

[–]turdburglersc 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

so does rand paul consider public schooling enslavement of teachers? everyone has the right to a public education.

[–]TruthinessHurts -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What the fuck is WRONG with Republicans? The way they twist things to make themselves a victim is the most pathetic thing about them.

[–]Chromebrew -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Both of those statements are idiotic.

[–]sushiking1223Marc Feldman RIP -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not the words I would use and a little extreme, but perhaps he's onto something.