So… you seem to understand that not finishing the course of antibiotics would lead to poor public health outcomes.
So your ideology of “freedom” would trump the public’s overall health. The freedom for you to stop taking the medication whenever you feel like it would trump my right to health and life.
Same with your attitude.
It’s totally a gotcha! There are some people to whom no usable radio frequencies is desirable. Such a person would refuse to sign the social compact, and would broadcast a powerful “jamming” signal, preventing anyone else from using radio frequencies for communication.
Since he hasn’t signed the agreement binding himself to your rules, you can’t stop him without initiating force against him – and if you do that, how, then, do you differ from any other government?
Trinopus (refuses to sign the contract promising not to break wind in public…)
Not without imposing order from some sort of authority that tramples on someone’s individual liberty.
Welcome to Libertopia, where you get your news on the telegraph!
Yes, this is not in dispute and never has been.
Oh, you’re getting close!
This is the compromise that we as a society have come up with for this particular case. Neither totalitarianism, where we have “drug police” that sit in your house and force you to take your prescription each day, NOR do we have a total libertarian system, where we can take whatever we like, willy-nillly. It’s a compromise.
We like this compromise between rights for ourselves and responsibilities toward others, and there is little desire to shift to EITHER full totalitarianism (which nobody here wants) OR full libertarianism as you are espousing here.
So I guess we can add “tragedy of the commons” to the list of things you’re unaware of.
And seriously “thing will get sorted out”? That’s the best you can offer? How about a more detailed answer like “I’m throwing out a vague answer because I don’t want to admit that’s almost certainly another area in which my theoretical system will be unable to cope with reality.”
Another footnote to an “armed society.” In February, Swiss voters defeated a referendum to stockpile military firearms in armories, as opposed to keeping them in private houses. The reason was that young men were using these weapons…to kill themselves. Switzerland has a higher suicide rate than the European average, and many of these deaths might be preventable by taking guns out of homes.
Also, there isn’t that much of a threat of invasion from foreign armies. Just sayin’…
Trinopus
Of course. Because you know so many people who are willing to spend a fortune just to buy equipment that would jam a certain radio frequency.
No. Imposing order by a self-regulatory authority. Without trampling rights.
So if a person with a better transmitter doesn’t like what you’re saying they can silence your broadcast? That’s freedom?
If a cable company doesn’t want to compete with wireless internet providers they can jam the competition?
Ooo ooo what’s to stop the wired phone company from jamming mobile signals?
Also I look forward to your response to this:
Say this person’s friend should have been left to being blind for lack of money. Do it.
Why wouldn’t AT&T pay someone to jam Verizon’s wireless signal?
Just because you call it “compromise” does not change the fact that in this case, your “freedom” trumps the public health. You know the principle - “yes ma’am, you’re a whore, now we’re just haggling about the price”.
I don’t have to spell out everything. Certain things work themselves out. As I pointed out, completely unusable radio frequency spectrum is not worth anything to anyone. So those who want to use it will have to sit down and work it out. How they work it out is up to them.
Because Verizon would then jam AT&T’s wireless signal. It’s called MAD. Heard of it?
Charities. Borrowing from friends. Fund raising campaign from friends/neighbors/whoever. Bake sales. Public soliciting of funds. See if you can think of other methods.
Let me ask you a question since you keep asking me. Let’s say you know this guy who is going blind and the state would NOT pay for the procedure. Also all of the above methods did not bring in money. Are you willing to steal money to finance this guy’s procedure? Let’s stipulate that it is a “sure thing” - you won’t get caught. And let’s stipulate that you’re not stealing from a bank or a big corporation - but from some kind of fund where a bunch of normal people keep their money.
Tell me you’re willing to steal for it. Do it.
I’m the post ninja!
You didn’t answer about the cable company jamming wireless internet, and the wired phone company jamming mobile phones.
What do they have to lose?
Again, what if you’re using the signal to transmit speech someone else doesn’t like? Is it okay if they jam you?
Someone thought of UHC before I was born, and it’s both cheaper, and more effective. I endorse it.
However obviously in your ideal society it wouldn’t exist. If private charity didn’t have the funds, should he be left blind?
That reminds of a story that was read to my class in kindergarten back in 1990. The Trumpet of the Swan. I’d completely forgotten about it since then, but it was a good story, and I thank you for reminding me of it.
The question you pose is irrelevant since I feel taxes are a duty owed to society in return for it’s benefits (which include protection of rights).
As to your question. Since I don’t know much about this pool of money, or the fellow going blind it would be a personal calculation based on loyalty and morality.
For example if the pool of money was to be used for orphans, not touching it, bad karma.
If it was closer to The Kitten Beating and Eating Club general fund, probably steal it without much guilt.
Now what?
So you really, truly think that there are only 2 options here:
Totalitarian regime, where there are cameras in your house, and sensors in your medicine cabinet, where police are empowered by the state to force you to complete a course of antibiotics against your will.
Libertopia, where anyone can take any sort of antibiotics at any time for any reason, leading to an increased amount of deaths from antibiotic resistant bacteria, and ultimately to all antibiotics, antivirals, antifungicides being completely useless.
Let’s say a neighborhood association’s general fund. You know - a bunch of regular people putting their money together. Will you steal from it?
Obviously there aren’t two options. But there are two principles - one in which your freedom trumps public health and the other in which public health trumps your freedom. As Spock said: “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. Apparently you don’t agree.
You keep trying to tell me that it is absurd to feel that freedom is more precious than the “public good”. Yet you reveal that you yourself feel that it is. So in principle you agree.
Then, as in most people, it comes down to loyalty.
Do you feel a mother who steals to feed her starving kid is being immoral?