|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14149706 - 03/19/11 05:52 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Freedom said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
Freedom said: If you look at what I'm doing here I am not trying to make any argument at all, I'm trying to tease out philosophical differences between public funding of law enforcement and public funding of health care.
and then marginalizing anyone that discusses that philosophical difference if not outright dismissing it as someone being argumentative
If your comments in this thread are not argumentative purely for the sake of argument, then at the least they are superfluous. Whether you cured yourself of pneumonia has hardly anything to do with the efficacy of antibiotics and my point of medicine preventing death in some cases, using that as an analogy to understand why some people support public law enforcement but not public health care.
Please back up your premise that "medicine preventing death in some cases" is relevant to the health care debate in the US or that debate and the question of state police protection.
You seem to make the implicit argument that police save lives and that medicine does as well, and that unless implemented, the US healthcare system will let people die due to not having medicine: a consequence alleged to be due to the lack of implementing public health care reform proposals.
This seems like a straw man argument to me, as I don't recall anyone arguing to let people die, and you've so far not established this to be the conequence of not implementing the healthcare proposals. Untill you establish this connection, your argument seems entirely rested on suppositions.
My main point is not to make an argument, its to compare and contrast publicly funded law enforcement with publicly funded health care.
Generalizing, I think it is fair to say that those on the right support publicly funded law enforcement but not publicly funded health care. I think it is an interesting comparison since both have similar goals that can be generalized to protecting our well being.
I am not attempting to imply that publicly funded health care or law enforcement is good or bad. I'm asking those who favor one but not the other to explain the difference. I ask this in good faith, believing that there are some interesting and thought provoking reasons.
ChuangTzu's reply was interesting and thought provoking. He brought up the thought that health issues are often preventable by the individual, so there is an element of individual responsibility while crime is usually not preventable by the individual, or at least to a much lesser degree. I suppose that's where Pris' take on it would be, where the individual should be responsible for his/her own safety and carry a weapon.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14150387 - 03/19/11 08:00 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Your purpose has nothing to do with the validity of the comparison you've made, which I challenge. You've not defended the comparision yet have not withdrawn it- instead discussing side issues.
Why?
Whether you have an argument or not that you intend to address, or whatever purpose you may have, the fact that the comparisons you've drawn must be probative to be of any import, is plain.
Now either back up the premises underlying your comparison that I've challenged or withdraw it. Asides exploring your motivation are irrelevant.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14150524 - 03/19/11 08:30 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Ok back up, what is your beef with comparing publicly funded law enforcement to publicly funded health care?
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14152138 - 03/20/11 02:37 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
My beef is with your argument, which for the third time I will now ask you to defend and substantiate or withdraw. You raised the issue of people dieing due to a lack of medication in the context of your discussion of the merits of reforming US healthcare policy to provide for the public payment of healthcare. I challenge this premise, which you liken to death from criminal elements that are arguably stopped by the police. Basically, I doubt people are dieing due to acute lack of treatment, drugs, being available to them, as you suggest- likening it to the person confronted by an assailant who is rescued by the police and saved. Whatever my particular problem with the analogy or argument as a whole is not particularly relevant- at least you've not shown it to be so.
As for the defects in your comparison generaly: I'd say the fact that the police enforce laws as directed by the state and for the state's benefit makes the charitable nature of their work somewhat suspect. You offer their function as a service to the people, but as Prisoner rightly states: you have no right to police protection even where they operate in the US. Further, the police work at the pleasure of the state and for duties the state assigns rather than for the people. If the interests of the state and the people coincide in a particular case that does not detract from this point (in my experience, the public's interest is almost always contrary to the police, as most people I know have not benefited from police intervention to their knowledge but have been harmed by such- myself included. That my interests weren't served and neither were the interests of the community in their fulfillment of their harmful duties was of no concern to them as this is not the master they serve). The police are, plainly, in existance to carry out executive orders. This is not a humanitarian or publically helpful function, necessarily. They are, rather, the state's apparatus for executing control. This is not similar to the function a doctor serves in serving the patient's health.
The analogy more fitting to the police officer would be one of the public health official who orders patients arrested and quarantined that have communicable illness or conditions of public health cocnern. That these arrests are often contrary to the interest of the individual who is ill is revealing of the flaw in your comparison.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14152634 - 03/20/11 07:38 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- This space for rent
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14153132 - 03/20/11 10:52 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: ChuangTzu's reply was interesting and thought provoking. He brought up the thought that health issues are often preventable by the individual, so there is an element of individual responsibility while crime is usually not preventable by the individual, or at least to a much lesser degree. I suppose that's where Pris' take on it would be, where the individual should be responsible for his/her own safety and carry a weapon.
even without carrying a weapon much of the crime against persons can be prevented just as property crimes can be, the CIA and NSA dont run easily accessed systems that allow people to just go through files, they put security measures in place to prevent intrusions just as the individual needs to be aware of their surroundings and the people coming into it, to prevent crimes against your person you certainly wouldnt go strolling through low income areas wearing more gold than Mr.T and it's advisable to move away from a perceived threat into a more public area thus reducing the chances of you being victimized by criminals
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14153261 - 03/20/11 11:18 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I never claimed that people were dieing due to lack of treatment. The cause is the virus or bacteria etc. The analogy is something like: police are to criminals as doctors are to bacteria.
You think anarchy would not create a more dangerous world? The traditional purpose of the police, as I understand it, is like you said for control. But I think the basic premise is that without this control you would have anarchy, there would be more thugs and thus we would all face greater danger.
i.e. ""People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: Freedom]
#14155103 - 03/20/11 05:54 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
How is there a relevant difference? Whether the cause is bacterial or viral agents has nothing to do with whether people are succumbing to lethal effects that would not have been realized but for the claimed lack of healthcare facilities. Your distinction seems to have some major problems in light of this fact.
You said: Quote:
the efficacy of antibiotics and my point of medicine preventing death in some cases, using that as an analogy to understand why some people support public law enforcement but not public health care.
Now you say you were not claiming people were dieing without treatment despite you clearly saying death results without medicine in some cases and that this is analogous to the function of the police
I've asked you three times, and now a fourth, to defend your argument which I quoted. You've equivocated each time, however; never addressing the issue: simply effecting blanket denials a'la your latest post, without addressing the argument.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 1 month, 21 days
|
Re: Why should the government protect us from armies and criminals but not bacteria and viruses? [Re: johnm214]
#14155826 - 03/20/11 08:08 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I am not equivocating. I have been unable to understand what your beef is.
I don't think your argument is complicated, so you should be able to state it in a sentence or two, not paragraphs. This is why I keep restating my original premise, to make it clear and concise in the hope that you can state your beef clearly and concisely.
I am willing to agree that adequate care is available now, although this is debatable. What is it about this adequate care that causes you to dislike the analogy? If we currently had public healthcare but private security, would you be claiming my analogy doesn't work because we already had adequate security?
|
|