• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

haymarket said:
I agree with you and disagree with you. Yes, Paul felt he could not answer the question because the libertarian answer is indeed politically correct. But as a politician, he knew that if he dared to answer it honestly as he believes, the price to pay would be very high. That tells me that Paul knows that his philosophy is not accepted by the vast majority of people and much of it is actually repugnant to most Americans. If he is the principled libertarian poster boy that his worshippers paint him out to be, he should have stepped up to the plate and given an honest answer. But Ron Paul - like almost all politicians - embraces compromise as is evident by him turning his back on the Libertarian Party and running as a Republican for the convenience of winning elective office.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you, Paul is just another politician. "The Libertarian" is just his schtick. He's so close to the presidency he can taste it, and like all good politicians he is walking back his extreme ideals to appeal to the middle. Libertarians are so far from the middle, though, that you can walk them back all day and still not be anywhere close to the middle.

Libertarian presidential politics is a joke. Libertarianism is incompatible with the political mainstream. The real work of libertarian politics is done in philosophy departments. On rare occasions a grassroots movement will get a local government spot, and that's a pretty big coup. But in order for a libertarian to break into the mainstream, they have to completely sell out their principles, and become a "fusionist-libertarian." AKA, not a libertarian at all, but a Repblican who likes to call himself a libertarian.
 
Guy Incognito said:
They're supposed to do that before they go into a coma.

An adult must confront the unpleasant possibility that they will be rendered incapacitated, and it is each adult's moral responsibility make arrangements for such an eventuality. If they make no arrangements, that's their failure, and their neighbors should not be coerced into providing for those who fail to be responsible.
Click to expand...
Just wondering ... which side of the "let her die" debate were you on as Terri Schiavo lied in a persistent vegetative state?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Just wondering ... which side of the "let her die" debate were you on as Terri Schiavo lied in a persistent vegetative state?
Click to expand...

The "let her legally authorized representative decide" side. I am a firm believer in the right to die, that's a pretty standard (if politically incorrect) libertarian belief.
 
Guy Incognito said:
d their neighbors should not be coerced into providing for those who fail to be responsible.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like **** 'em watch 'em die to me. Maybe our disagreement is not one of fundamental principle, however. Would you agree, even if his neighbors shouldn't be coerced into providing for them, they do in fact have a moral responsibility to do so of their own volition?
 
nijato said:
Sounds a lot like **** 'em watch 'em die to me. Maybe our disagreement is not one of fundamental principle, however. Would you agree, even if his neighbors shouldn't be coerced into providing for them, they do in fact have a moral responsibility to do so of their own volition?
Click to expand...

They have a moral responsibility to help, sure, but that is between them and God. They should have a legal right to not help if they choose.
 
Guy Incognito said:
The "let her legally authorized representative decide" side. I am a firm believer in the right to die, that's a pretty standard (if politically incorrect) libertarian belief.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're being consistant, but that is a bit vague of an answer since who had that legal authority was at the root of the debate. So you sided with her husband, Michael Schiavo, who wanted to let her die?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Sounds like you're being consistant, but that is a bit vague of an answer since who had that legal authority was at the root of the debate. So you sided with her husband, Michael Schiavo, who wanted to let her die?
Click to expand...

There is no dispute that the husband is the legal representative. I think the whole thing is really nobody else's business.

Anyway you're right, it is consistent. If you think Terry Schiavo's husband should be allowed to choose, because he is her proxy by way of her own earlier decision, then the same applies to the uninsured man. His own earlier decision not to take responsible steps to protect himself has consequences, just like Terry Schiavo's decisions did. It's all about personal responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
... plenty of people are "allowed to die" by the government all the time. Socialized healthcare is no panacea, pun intended. There will always be people that the system allows to die, the real question is do we want a system of coercion or a system of freedom?
Click to expand...

You are correct - health care is rationed, and will always be. The real question is about whether it should be rationed by the ability to pay. Being as left-libertarian as I am means that I don't always trust a "free" market to perfectly deliver the morally correct outcome - and we do have a responsibility as human beings to do the right things. I'm not at ALL a religious man, but to leave it all in the hands of the free market sounds too much like Pilate washing his hands of a matter of life and death. If we abdicate responsibility for morality, we have still made a moral choice.

What is the best way to ration care? I could imagine up different systems... but every one would have detractors and those that saw it as unfair. There is no single "correct" answer here, and all anyone can do is "muddle through" with their humanity intact.
 
Guy Incognito said:
They have a moral responsibility to help, sure, but that is between them and God. They should have a legal right to not help if they choose.
Click to expand...

Why does God have to have anything to do with it? Morality exists independent from theology. If it is between them and their fellow humans... then the choice is still the same.
 
nijato said:
Why does God have to have anything to do with it? Morality exists independent from theology. If it is between them and their fellow humans... then the choice is still the same.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't see how morality can exist independent of theology. That just sounds like a baseless assertion to me. But look, it's not so much that morality his between man and God, it could be between man and the Tao, or man and the Grand Architect (I think that's what the masons call Him, right?), or it could be between man and "The Force" for all I care. The point is that government shouldn't be involved in enforcing morality. It's immoral to drink and gamble, but I don't want the government interfering with anybody's right to do those things either.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Honestly, I don't see how morality can exist independent of theology....
Click to expand...

I believe in leading a moral life, because society cannot function well without a common and agreed upon sense of morality. And I would not want someone doing bad things to me, so I don't do bad things to others.

And I do not believe in your God.
 
nijato said:
You are correct - health care is rationed, and will always be. The real question is about whether it should be rationed by the ability to pay. Being as left-libertarian as I am means that I don't always trust a "free" market to perfectly deliver the morally correct outcome - and we do have a responsibility as human beings to do the right things. I'm not at ALL a religious man, but to leave it all in the hands of the free market sounds too much like Pilate washing his hands of a matter of life and death. If we abdicate responsibility for morality, we have still made a moral choice.

What is the best way to ration care? I could imagine up different systems... but every one would have detractors and those that saw it as unfair. There is no single "correct" answer here, and all anyone can do is "muddle through" with their humanity intact.
Click to expand...

I like your reasonable attitude, although I am always perplexed by left-libertarians. I am also wary of the "freedom to starve" thing, which is why I support some minimal government-enforced safety net. I am not an anarcho-capitalist, I am a minarchist libertarian. But the key word there is minimal.

Healthcare isn't a right. It's a fact of scarcity that it will always be rationed, as you say. But if we treat healthcare as a right, then it's a slippery slope. Does that right extend to elective treatments? It just doesn't make sense. The only sensible thing for a leftist to do is divvy up healthcare equally for all, which diminishes the quality of healthcare for the top while raising it for the bottom. Sounds reasonable, but it's impossible to achieve without coercion.

I don't think healthcare should, morally, be determined by ability to pay. But society has outvoted me. And unless I'm willing to coerce society into following my moral prejudices (which I am not), then I have no alternative but the accept the free market.

If a fellow doesn't have insurance, he is at the mercy of fate and can only hope for the charity of others. That's his decision. He must accept the consequences of it. The upshot is, he's free.
 
Thunder said:
I believe in leading a moral life, because society cannot function well without a common and agreed upon sense of morality. And I would not want someone doing bad things to me, so I don't do bad things to others.

And I do not believe in your God.
Click to expand...

You don't need to believe in mine or anybody else's God to have morals. But those morals (notwithstanding whether they are theologically derived or merely asserted) are simply subjective prejudices, not anything to justify government infringement on human right to freedom of action.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You don't need to believe in mine or anybody else's God to have morals. But those morals (notwithstanding whether they are theologically derived or merely asserted) are simply subjective prejudices, not anything to justify government infringement on human right to freedom of action.
Click to expand...

morals derived from a book or no more legitimate than morals derived from societal consensus.
 
RStringfield said:
What is your excuse for the left using this same hierarchy?



The hypocrisy is yours. The individual either takes care of his responsibility to cover his risk or he takes responsibility for convincing someone else to help. Your solution is just to try to force him into "responsible" behavior and failing that, force others to help. In your scheme there is no personal responsibility, charity or freedom. It is all just force. It does not work, never has and never will.
Click to expand...

The right is so deluded they think convincing someone else to give them charity is a form of "personal responsibility"


:cuckoo:

RStringfield said:
That's the issue. Force versus freedom. Are you at all familiar with libertarian thought? If not then why bother pretending that you have the capacity to discuss it? Force leads to an increase, not a decrease, in irresponsible behavior.
Click to expand...

"Libertarian thought" is an oxymoron
 
nota bene said:
Nice diversionary try. Won't work.

How about sticking to my point? Thread's subject line says that a tea party crowd shouted "Let him die!" How many is a crowd to you?
Click to expand...

When the ones shouting "Let him die" aren't drowned out by the boos for what they said

It's not the first time teabaggers cheered on death

Tea Party Patriots Attack Family Who Lost Daughter And Grandchild (VIDEO)

Commentary: Tea Party member mocks Ebert's cancer following the recent Cinco de Mayo controversy - National Comedy | Examiner.com

 
Guy Incognito said:
Paul couldn't answer that question because the libertarian answer is politically incorrect in our society. Even in a Republican audience most people are too mushy-headed an emotional to contemplate a system that allows for death. Nevermind the cognitive dissonance with regard to the death penalty on the right, or abortion on the left. Also, nevermind that plenty of people are "allowed to die" by the government all the time. Socialized healthcare is no panacea, pun intended. There will always be people that the system allows to die, the real question is do we want a system of coercion or a system of freedom?

People who feel instead of think will never understand libertarianism.
Click to expand...

People with no feelings make the perfect libertarians
 
Guy Incognito said:
The point is that government shouldn't be involved in enforcing morality.
Click to expand...

Except when it's the non-aggression principle. Then you're all for using force to enforce your morality

Libertarianism is nothing more that "Your force is wrong. My force is right"

Thunder said:
sounds like you are saying that if you have any sympathy, empathy, or love for mankind....Libertarianism ain't for you.
Click to expand...

Libertarians have strong feelings for their non-aggression principle

Libertarianism is nothing more than "Your feelings are wrong. My feelings are right"
 
Last edited:
The people in the Ohio Parkinsons video were disgusting especially the buttwipe who tossed some dollars at the man. I would be careful so as to not tar everyone there by the stupid and insensitive actions of a few people. One disturbing thing about the tea party is that they seem to take in such people and give them aid and comfort and at least a tacit support. That is sad.
 
haymarket said:
The people in the Ohio Parkinsons video were disgusting especially the buttwipe who tossed some dollars at the man. I would be careful so as to not tar everyone there by the stupid and insensitive actions of a few people. One disturbing thing about the tea party is that they seem to take in such people and give them aid and comfort and at least a tacit support. That is sad.
Click to expand...

no, its dangerous, as these people have become a significant political force in the USA.

I fear for this nation.
 
haymarket said:
The people in the Ohio Parkinsons video were disgusting especially the buttwipe who tossed some dollars at the man. I would be careful so as to not tar everyone there by the stupid and insensitive actions of a few people. One disturbing thing about the tea party is that they seem to take in such people and give them aid and comfort and at least a tacit support. That is sad.
Click to expand...

They all choose to associate with those few. Nothing stopped anyone of those teabaggers from walking away in disgust. How many actually did walk away?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Honestly, I don't see how morality can exist independent of theology.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen here. On second thought, I retract. Clearly you admit you don't see how. Which of course means you can't get past your religious indoctrination. You're clearly brainwashed.

Plenty of people are moral and atheist at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
You don't need to believe in mine or anybody else's God to have morals. .
Click to expand...

This is true. So leave it at that.

But those morals (notwithstanding whether they are theologically derived or merely asserted) are simply subjective prejudices, not anything to justify government infringement on human right to freedom of action.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom