you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

It seems to make much more sense to me from an intuitive standpoint that the sick must pay for their own healthcare.

That is a corporatist answer if I've ever read one.

Does your intuition also encourage you to rob from the poor, and give to the rich?

[–]worm 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I see nothing whatsoever that's corporatist (whatever you think that means) about my question at all. Is it not natural that the user should pay for whatever he uses? To me, it seems self-evidently unjust to force an unaffiliated third party to pay for the user's use of any product, though I cannot explain why it should seem unjust. This stems from a fundamental intuition about right and wrong, a moral compass if you will, and has nothing whatsoever to do with corporatism as far as I can see. If you see a connection between morality and corporations, then I'd appreciate it if you'd point it out.

As to whether I support robbing from the poor to give to the rich - it depends on your definition of robbing, poor, and rich.

If you would argue that an employer inherently robs from his employees by taking the fruits of their labour, and you want to stop all employment - then yeah, I'd definitely stand in your way and "rob from the poor and give to the rich". Sorry, but I'd rather not have the entire job economy collapse around me.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the corporatist encore.

[–]IdleHands 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

By default I'll side with the other guy, he has arguments that support his viewpoint while you have nothing.