A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser on caring for others:
==============
Why not? Why should their health problems cause a financial burden for
me? Why should I have to pay for heart surgery for people who eat
McDonalds till they weigh 450 pounds and clog up their arteries with
plaque? Isn't that THEIR problem? Shouldn't THEY be responsible for
their own health, and for paying for fixing what's wrong with them?
What justifies imposing that financial burden on other people?
===============

Hmmm.... where to begin? Let's start by throwing out the term socialism
and using community instead.

Let's not. Let's call socialism exactly what it is.

I think caring for your neighbors is a
part of what it means to be a member of a community.

I agree. The difference is that I believe that it's up to YOU whether you
choose to do so out of altruism, guilt or whatever emotion you choose. What
I don't agree with is the idea that unwilling partners can be required to
"care for" their neighbors by having the government forcibly take money from
them to give to someone who is most likely not a neighbor at all, but is
more likely to be some alcoholic with a damaged liver who got that way not
because he was concerned about the "community" but because he was interested
in going to hell in his own way while expecting other people to pay for it.


My elderly neighbor occasionally needs a ride to the hospital. I offer
to drive her. I don't ask her whether she might not have avoided her
maladies if she'd taken better care of her health in earlier years! I
just drive her. Another elderly neighbor has difficulty getting her
trash can to the street on collection day. My kids or I take on this
task. This is what it means to be a member of a community.

Good for you. That's very charitable and altruistic of you. Nothing whatever
wrong with your doing so. You are free to spend as much of your time and
money as you wish doing so. You are even free to get together with
like-minded neighbors and pool money through some organization to hire
people do do it.

What's wrong, however, is to use the Mace of State to force someone who
doesn't freely choose to participate in that altruism, to pay for what you
think "community" ought to be.

Universal medical insurance is also about community. It's about giving
a damn about your fellow human.

No, it's about coercive force, sometimes at the point of a gun.

Down here in the USA, we have a little right we call the right to "freedom
of association." Under that right, we have the right to freely gather
together with whomever we please, whenever we please, in a peaceable manner.
Inherent in that right is the equally protected right of *dis*association.
Just as we are free to associate with others, we are free NOT to associate
with them, and that includes the right to NOT be required to subsidize or
support their particular lifestyle.

For example, I have no interest in paying for the medical expenses of those
who contract AIDS as a result of engaging in unprotected sex. I should not
be forced to do so by the government, whether directly or through socialized
medicine. They did the deed, they get to suffer the consequences. That may
result in unfortunate circumstances for them, but I didn't do the deed, so
why should I be made financially liable for their bad behavior?

Spit out the bile, Scott.

Altruism coming from the barrel of the taxman's gun is not altruism, it's
slavery and oppression.

I'll be altruistic and charitable to those whom *I* deem worthy of my
charity and altruism, not who some government flack thinks is worthy, thank
you very much.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser