Mind-Bending Irony and Justice Incarnate

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're morally outraged that someone doesn't believe in your view of economics, yet you're happy when the man contracts cancer.... ...I think you need to take a hard look at your moral compass.

He lost any sympathy from me when he became an activist against government healthcare for ideological reasons founded on personal responsibility- yet he still expected other people to help him when he realized he was fucked.

You're right to question my morality though, I think when I wrote this post I was just kind of ignoring what was right and let my emotions run wild. No, I shouldn't be happy about his cancer. But I do think the whole situation reflects poorly on these objectivists.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The capitalistic model explicitly recognizes that money will flow where people want it to... ...All things being equal, private charity then tends to be more efficient than government service.

I don't find your view of private charities compelling. Yes, they are more efficient, but that is irrelevant. They would never have some meaningful, beneficial, systematic effect when they are solely based on the whim of individuals who open their wallets for whatever is getting all the publicity lately.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In taking government services, it is certainly commendable to abstain, but not morally obligatory. Decrying the wisdom of a policy does not preclude utilization of a policy that exists.

There has been some discussion on this. Cancer treatments are expensive and I'm not positive Rand had the money she needed. It certainly makes sense under her intellectual paradigm to spend your life saying "Fuck social security", and then proceed to draw social security and medical checks because, "self-interest blah blah". In this specific example it's murky because she paid into the system against her will. But as the leader of a movement that says "I'm sorry you got cancer. You should have done better in life and made more money. I don't owe you anything", I think it would have been more meaningful of her to be an example of her ideology. Instead she took one last steaming shit on us dull little sheep and keeled over.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is a tragedy and a terrible consequence, but the consequence is of the individual's own making. If I, for example, engaged in very poor eating habits and have a heart attack would my death be any more or less tragic than someone who got cancer? You submit that we must provide treatment for an individual who willingly chose not to plan for this event, do you equally propose that we regulate an individual's diet and other health concerns?

I have an atypical view when it comes to healthcare. It's too much to explain completely but I don't think people with self-inflicted health conditions like smokers and binge-eating fatasses should have the same coverage as somebody who takes responsibility for their health. In that situation I am all for saying, "Sorry, but this is the result of your own poor choices and you can't expect us to pay for it". In terms of lymphoma, and taking responsibility for having adequate savings, that's a different issue. Self-destructive behavior is negligent. I don't think a 20-something year old lymphoma victim not having $200,000 savings is negligent.

I believe some things simply should not function as a part of the free market, mainly systems meant for people's general welfare and safety, such as healthcare and environmental regulations/pollution. The idea of free market environmental tort law acting as pollution/toxic waste regulation, for example, would be fucking hilarious... if it weren't so terrifying that people actually believe it would work.