View Single Post
  #5   Report Post  
Wolfgang
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Wolfgang wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
...It's coercive socialism, no matter how you look at it. Coercive
socialism is
evil. Profoundly, ineluctably evil in its every manifestation, no matter
how
glossily covered, prettily dressed up or facilely excused. It always and
inevitably ends in oppression, tyranny and terror.


As good an argument for refusing the services of firefighters as one
could
ever hope to encounter.


Well, not quite. Firefighting falls under the general heading of services
made necessary by the concept of "exported harm."

Because there is always a danger that a fire on one person's property can
(and often does) spread to other property, and because no individual
property owner is adequately prepared to deal with a fire once it's out of
control, it is reasonable for government to provide skilled and equipped
resources at public expense to prevent exported harm, and it's also
reasonable for government to spread the costs of such specialized training
and equipment over all of those who contribute to the risks involved. This
is the same rational for taxes for military spending.

The link between the harm of uncontrolled fire and the extraction of money
from the public is quite direct, and the risks are shared by all persons
in
the community equally because everyone is placed at risk by an
uncontrolled
fire.

On the other hand, the link between one's private health care issues and
some sort of overall public harm is extremely tenuous at best, and doesn't
justify the forcible extraction of money from everyone in order to provide
health care for some. The risks are not equal.


Cholera is private? Diphtheria? Malaria? Dysentery? Influenza? Typhus?
Typhoid? HIV? Syphilis?

How much risk does a burning farmhouse in the middle of a section of wheat
or corn represent to the body politic? Is this not a private home care
issue?

How about municipal water treatment? Where is the "exported harm" in
allowing anyone who wants it to drink polluted water?

Stupid as you are, you've missed the one bit of equity hidden in all your
twaddle. The rest of the world cares every bit as much about your wellbeing
as you do about theirs.

Wolfgang
who, deriving a great deal of satisfaction from annoying one nitwit at a
time, cannot understand why anyone would go to all the trouble inherent in
wholesale.