Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Socialized Medicine and the Freedom to Eat

jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 1:49:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
One of the core assumptions at the heart of any free society is that one owns their own body. My body is my property. I can do anything with my body so long as it does not harm the property of others (their body).

This can get complicated when it comes to issues like second hand smoke and pollution, but that is not the issue I am trying to get at. What I am trying to get at is public health regulations.

Regulations that ban things like soda, trans fat, etc. Let's take trans fat.

In a free society, one who eats a lot of trans fat only harms themselves. It only hurts their own health and they pay the extra health care costs themselves. Either they do or others who voluntarily give them resources do.

That all changes when health care is socialized and tax funded.

In this system, an individual who eats trans fat pays through their own health risks but the extra health costs are imposed upon all of society through force. That is, if I eat a lot of trans fat, everyone pays the bill.

That means that my decision to eat trans fat not only harms me but harms all of society. This means that the banning of trans fat all of the sudden is not just about protecting me from myself but is about a cost I impose on society.

People often deride this sort of argument as a "slippery slope" argument. But, is it wrong?

In a free society where voluntary firms and individuals pay for their own health care, one's unhealthy actions does not forcefully impose costs upon others.

It is only in a society with a socialized medical system where this happens.

The point here is that once you socialize medicine, all of the sudden the individual's health is no longer the choice of the individual. There is a real slippery slope here.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 1:53:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 1:49:08 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
One of the core assumptions at the heart of any free society is that one owns their own body. My body is my property. I can do anything with my body so long as it does not harm the property of others (their body).

This can get complicated when it comes to issues like second hand smoke and pollution, but that is not the issue I am trying to get at. What I am trying to get at is public health regulations.

Regulations that ban things like soda, trans fat, etc. Let's take trans fat.

In a free society, one who eats a lot of trans fat only harms themselves.

If you have children, your choice to eat trans fats is not only affecting you. Your eating habits become their eating habits.
yang.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:03:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 1:53:44 PM, tulle wrote:
At 7/3/2013 1:49:08 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
One of the core assumptions at the heart of any free society is that one owns their own body. My body is my property. I can do anything with my body so long as it does not harm the property of others (their body).

This can get complicated when it comes to issues like second hand smoke and pollution, but that is not the issue I am trying to get at. What I am trying to get at is public health regulations.

Regulations that ban things like soda, trans fat, etc. Let's take trans fat.

In a free society, one who eats a lot of trans fat only harms themselves.

If you have children, your choice to eat trans fats is not only affecting you. Your eating habits become their eating habits.

At the center of a free society is self ownership. My eating trans fat does not directly harm their property or body (and their body is their property).

Indirect harm does NOT justify violation of self ownership. So, yes, I have a right to eat trans fat and the fact that my children MAY pick up a habit doesnt change that.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:31:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 2:22:47 PM, benevolent wrote:
Indeed, killing our children is OK.

Not at all. That violates their rights.

Allowing them to engage in behavior that could shorten their life is NOT killing them.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:35:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 2:31:30 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 2:22:47 PM, benevolent wrote:
Indeed, killing our children is OK.

Not at all. That violates their rights.

Allowing them to engage in behavior that could shorten their life is NOT killing them.

Dress it up however you like. Children are dying where they wouldn't otherwise. It is nonsense to expect responsibility from a child and so they should be looked out for. How responsible were you as a kid? Paying taxes I guess?
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 3:03:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 2:31:30 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 2:22:47 PM, benevolent wrote:
Indeed, killing our children is OK.

Not at all. That violates their rights.

Allowing them to engage in behavior that could shorten their life is NOT killing them.

How not? Most children do not have access to food other than what their parents provide. At least for the first 5 years they rely solely on the food their parents provide. It's not "allowing them to engage in behaviour" but directly feeding them poison.
yang.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 3:13:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We have the right to be unhealthy! Damn overlords!
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 3:26:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 3:13:24 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
We have the right to be unhealthy! Damn overlords!

you're all f*cking with my head
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 3:47:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I fail to see how the principle of self-ownership is objectively true. Nor do I see why individualism is of most important value. One can take these reductioninism further. You are not an individual, but a group of cells. Cells are not individuals but composed of atoms.

Nor can one deny that humans are very social beings and our heavily influenced based on social interactions and external stimulus. Punishment and rewards is not something unique that the government does, but what nature and other humans do as well.

I'd also say the amount of "control" you have of your action is heavily overestimated and influenced via emotions and your subconscious actions. We all know of examples where people would "like" to do action "X" (example get into shape, lose weight, study) but do not due to lack of self-control
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:07:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 3:57:29 PM, benevolent wrote:
nice to see you're finding some bit of sense darkkermit :P

lol, i gave up the non-aggression principle years ago.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:32:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 2:35:41 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/3/2013 2:31:30 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 2:22:47 PM, benevolent wrote:
Indeed, killing our children is OK.

Not at all. That violates their rights.

Allowing them to engage in behavior that could shorten their life is NOT killing them.

Dress it up however you like. Children are dying where they wouldn't otherwise. It is nonsense to expect responsibility from a child and so they should be looked out for. How responsible were you as a kid? Paying taxes I guess?

Paying taxes is NOT responsible.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:35:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 3:03:21 PM, tulle wrote:
At 7/3/2013 2:31:30 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 2:22:47 PM, benevolent wrote:
Indeed, killing our children is OK.

Not at all. That violates their rights.

Allowing them to engage in behavior that could shorten their life is NOT killing them.

How not? Most children do not have access to food other than what their parents provide. At least for the first 5 years they rely solely on the food their parents provide. It's not "allowing them to engage in behaviour" but directly feeding them poison.

First off, trans fat is not poison. It's not healthy, but calling it poison is the definition of hyperbole.

Anyways. I don't see your point here. I know you hate freedom and assume that most parents are so irresponsible that they would feed poison to their children. But, do you support banning things that you think are bad for people?

Do you support the state taking away children from parents who you think are doing a bad job?
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:37:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
jimtimmy there are often cases of parents letting their children starve, etc. What do you think of those? Indirect harm? Not to punished for? The child should have went out and ate from a dumpster?

ok bro
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:43:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 3:47:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I fail to see how the principle of self-ownership is objectively true. Nor do I see why individualism is of most important value. One can take these reductioninism further. You are not an individual, but a group of cells. Cells are not individuals but composed of atoms.

Order is emergent. And, all units are, to a degree, a social construct.

Society is a social construct in some sense. Families are. Individuals are. Cells are. Etc.

However, when shaping policy, I think autonomy should be taken into account. And, it is my opinion that autonomy at the individual level is most important. That is because my sense is that the subjective unit we call an individual human being is the most significant.


Nor can one deny that humans are very social beings and our heavily influenced based on social interactions and external stimulus. Punishment and rewards is not something unique that the government does, but what nature and other humans do as well.

Agree. But, as you know, the state, by definition, does everything it does by force. I know you don't believe in the NAP, but, to me, the non voluntary nature of the state makes it undesirable.


I'd also say the amount of "control" you have of your action is heavily overestimated and influenced via emotions and your subconscious actions. We all know of examples where people would "like" to do action "X" (example get into shape, lose weight, study) but do not due to lack of self-control

Again. I agree. But, nothing here would support state bans on things people find undesirable.

You sound a lot like fringeelements here, which I think is usually a good thing. Don't forget, however, that fringe is a hardcore libertarian like myself.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:44:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 4:37:19 PM, benevolent wrote:
jimtimmy there are often cases of parents letting their children starve, etc. What do you think of those? Indirect harm? Not to punished for? The child should have went out and ate from a dumpster?

ok bro

I don't approve of it. But, I wouldn't use force to confiscate the child from the parents, so the state shouldn't do that either (with my money at least!)
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:45:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 4:35:16 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

First off, trans fat is not poison. It's not healthy, but calling it poison is the definition of hyperbole.

http://www.webmd.com...

Anyways. I don't see your point here. I know you hate freedom and assume that most parents are so irresponsible that they would feed poison to their children. But, do you support banning things that you think are bad for people?


lol I hate freedom? Tell me moar.

The point is your argument is based on the faulty premise that having a bad diet only harms yourself. I pointed out it directly harms your children.

Do you support the state taking away children from parents who you think are doing a bad job?

What does that have to do with your argument?
yang.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:47:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 4:44:23 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 4:37:19 PM, benevolent wrote:
jimtimmy there are often cases of parents letting their children starve, etc. What do you think of those? Indirect harm? Not to punished for? The child should have went out and ate from a dumpster?

ok bro


I don't approve of it. But, I wouldn't use force to confiscate the child from the parents, so the state shouldn't do that either (with my money at least!)

Ah. So you're in favor of people willingly abandon their voluntarily-taken-on obligations to the detriment of their obligees?

Because parenthood is a choice. You can abort or put up for adoption. Keeping the kid accepts responsibility for the other person's life. Abusing the kid through neglect is an abrogation of that responsibility, and as such the state SHOULD be stepping in, since the other party is not capable of taking their own action. This is basically the purpose of the state, right here.

No one owns their children. We don't get to own people any more.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:58:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 4:45:53 PM, tulle wrote:
At 7/3/2013 4:35:16 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

First off, trans fat is not poison. It's not healthy, but calling it poison is the definition of hyperbole.

http://www.webmd.com...

Anyways. I don't see your point here. I know you hate freedom and assume that most parents are so irresponsible that they would feed poison to their children. But, do you support banning things that you think are bad for people?


lol I hate freedom? Tell me moar.

If you don't want to be accused of hating freedom, don't advocate policies that rob us of our freedom.


The point is your argument is based on the faulty premise that having a bad diet only harms yourself. I pointed out it directly harms your children.

And you were wrong. It INDIRECTLY harms your children.


Do you support the state taking away children from parents who you think are doing a bad job?

What does that have to do with your argument?

Because I oppose that. I am curious as to what you say.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 5:03:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 4:58:55 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

If you don't want to be accused of hating freedom, don't advocate policies that rob us of our freedom.

lol Americans define "freedom" in such a funny way.

And you were wrong. It INDIRECTLY harms your children.

No. If you have a bad diet then so do your children by virtue of relying on eating what you eat. They are directly eating trans fats if you are---the indirect harm of eating trans fats would be if you died as a result of a heart attack or something and left them without parents. But they are directly harmed by eating the food.

Because I oppose that. I am curious as to what you say.

Define "bad job".
yang.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 5:07:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 4:44:23 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 4:37:19 PM, benevolent wrote:
jimtimmy there are often cases of parents letting their children starve, etc. What do you think of those? Indirect harm? Not to punished for? The child should have went out and ate from a dumpster?

ok bro


I don't approve of it. But, I wouldn't use force to confiscate the child from the parents, so the state shouldn't do that either (with my money at least!)

I'm sure someone else's money can foot the bill for that. Yours can go towards agriculture or something.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 5:07:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 4:43:18 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 3:47:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I fail to see how the principle of self-ownership is objectively true. Nor do I see why individualism is of most important value. One can take these reductioninism further. You are not an individual, but a group of cells. Cells are not individuals but composed of atoms.



Order is emergent. And, all units are, to a degree, a social construct.

Society is a social construct in some sense. Families are. Individuals are. Cells are. Etc.

However, when shaping policy, I think autonomy should be taken into account. And, it is my opinion that autonomy at the individual level is most important. That is because my sense is that the subjective unit we call an individual human being is the most significant.



Nor can one deny that humans are very social beings and our heavily influenced based on social interactions and external stimulus. Punishment and rewards is not something unique that the government does, but what nature and other humans do as well.



Agree. But, as you know, the state, by definition, does everything it does by force. I know you don't believe in the NAP, but, to me, the non voluntary nature of the state makes it undesirable.




I'd also say the amount of "control" you have of your action is heavily overestimated and influenced via emotions and your subconscious actions. We all know of examples where people would "like" to do action "X" (example get into shape, lose weight, study) but do not due to lack of self-control


Again. I agree. But, nothing here would support state bans on things people find undesirable.

You sound a lot like fringeelements here, which I think is usually a good thing. Don't forget, however, that fringe is a hardcore libertarian like myself.

Yes, I watch a lot of fringeelements videos, read his book "this book will be lied about" and agree with a lot of his views, or at the very least his method of obtaining those views.

But you can agree w/ a lot with their facts but still think the facts don't lead to a certain conclusion. Just like I agree mostly w/ fringeelements view on the state, but I don't believe that leads to the conclusion of anarchy.

Fringeelements is very effy on the libertarian views. He has for example, hacked someone's account and deleted all his videos, a clear infringement on the Non-aggression principles. He also stated previously that he had no problem forcing people to move, and killing them if they refuse.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 5:18:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 1:53:44 PM, tulle wrote:
If you have children, your choice to eat trans fats is not only affecting you. Your eating habits become their eating habits.

Are you seriously going to sit and here and say with a straight face that parental choices and the affects on children are comparable to the state policies affecting the health of adults?

The state is not my parent and it will not tell me what to eat. Society is not my parent and it will not tell me what to eat. As an adult, no other adult can tell me what health decisions to make.

Children are not adults and they indeed must obey their parents.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 5:24:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 3:13:24 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
We have the right to be unhealthy! Damn overlords!

The state doesn't know how to keep us healthy. The state can't keep us healthy.

The FDA says I should eat aspartame, mercury, BPA, GMO, bromine, chlorine, MSG, and nitrates. All damaging to your health, worse than calories or fat.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 5:37:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
i can only conclude that geo actually believes people own their children... geo just shut up dude, i don't think you can actually really believe any of this, just want to be a part of this community as the retard who's constantly watching alex jones videos.... well, dude, nobody appreciates it, and just look at what you're posting... what if anyone ever actually listens to you?
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 5:39:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
i'm just not going to respond to you anymore.. seems to me it's the only thing i can do to snap you out of your retardation
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 5:41:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
actually i'm pretty sure that's all you want in your constantly posting this sh*t so bye
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 5:42:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 5:18:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 1:53:44 PM, tulle wrote:
If you have children, your choice to eat trans fats is not only affecting you. Your eating habits become their eating habits.

Are you seriously going to sit and here and say with a straight face that parental choices and the affects on children are comparable to the state policies affecting the health of adults?


When did I say that? -___-

The state is not my parent and it will not tell me what to eat. Society is not my parent and it will not tell me what to eat. As an adult, no other adult can tell me what health decisions to make.

Children are not adults and they indeed must obey their parents.

Exactly my point. It is not true that eating trans fats in a "free society" is only harmful to oneself. Please read what I'm actually saying rather than making assumptions.
yang.