So, remember a few years ago when that dude decided not to pay his fire department fee in an area where they'd voted "if you don't pay, we don't put out your fire"? He, of course, had a fire (his second!), and they didn't put it out (as they did the first)? So of course he took it to the news and played the victim and the entire nation was like "you firefighters are horrible people, how dare you not risk your lives to save the possessions of the guy who just assumed you'd do it anyway!"
This is why Libertarianism is not going to work. Because there will always be people who don't want to pay in, but will expect the benefits anyway. And people, having at least some vague notion of empathy left, will demand that help is provided. And here, we're just talking about possessions. (Yes, I know there were pets claimed to have died, but neighbors claimed there weren't, and they had well over an hour before the flames made it to the main house from the shed where the fire started, ie... plenty of time to have saved pets. So I think the pets thing was bullshit, frankly.)
That's why Libertarianism won't work. Here's why Libertarianism is scary: during the GOP debate, the moderator asks Ron Paul (paraphrasing) "should a man who chose not to buy healthcare be allowed to die if he has an accident and needs medical care?" And the Tea Party-filled audience screams yes and cheers.
If that's not scary enough... what the fuck about the millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance? Should they just die too? Because up until two years ago, that would have meant me.
Yeah. Tea Party? You guys are soooooo pro-life. And honest to god, even though I know one Libertarian I actually like, I'm starting to read "Libertarian" as "denies privilege exists, and is devoid of empathy." There's a reason why most of the Libertarians I've encountered are well-off white men, I'm just sayin'. While life has perhaps dealt them some raw hands, they've never had to deal with the effects of institutionalized oppression. What is life or death for some is only abstract for them. Some of them would GLADLY pay if a friend needed the money for healthcare (because, of course, that friend has been judged worthy by their standards), but to support healthcare for all is just a step too far, apparently. I dunno, it just scares the shit out of me that people actually think this way.
ETA: And it's not like this was a hypothetical question for Ron Paul. In 2008, his campaign manager, who had no health insurance, died of pneumonia. But no, guys, it's totally okay to let people die from totally treatable illnesses and injuries, right?
This is why Libertarianism is not going to work. Because there will always be people who don't want to pay in, but will expect the benefits anyway. And people, having at least some vague notion of empathy left, will demand that help is provided. And here, we're just talking about possessions. (Yes, I know there were pets claimed to have died, but neighbors claimed there weren't, and they had well over an hour before the flames made it to the main house from the shed where the fire started, ie... plenty of time to have saved pets. So I think the pets thing was bullshit, frankly.)
That's why Libertarianism won't work. Here's why Libertarianism is scary: during the GOP debate, the moderator asks Ron Paul (paraphrasing) "should a man who chose not to buy healthcare be allowed to die if he has an accident and needs medical care?" And the Tea Party-filled audience screams yes and cheers.
If that's not scary enough... what the fuck about the millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance? Should they just die too? Because up until two years ago, that would have meant me.
Yeah. Tea Party? You guys are soooooo pro-life. And honest to god, even though I know one Libertarian I actually like, I'm starting to read "Libertarian" as "denies privilege exists, and is devoid of empathy." There's a reason why most of the Libertarians I've encountered are well-off white men, I'm just sayin'. While life has perhaps dealt them some raw hands, they've never had to deal with the effects of institutionalized oppression. What is life or death for some is only abstract for them. Some of them would GLADLY pay if a friend needed the money for healthcare (because, of course, that friend has been judged worthy by their standards), but to support healthcare for all is just a step too far, apparently. I dunno, it just scares the shit out of me that people actually think this way.
ETA: And it's not like this was a hypothetical question for Ron Paul. In 2008, his campaign manager, who had no health insurance, died of pneumonia. But no, guys, it's totally okay to let people die from totally treatable illnesses and injuries, right?
44 comments | Leave a comment