During the Republican Debate, Ron Paul was asked about a hypothetical young man without insurance who gets sick. Ron Paul said you have to live by your choices.
When the moderator asked, "So we should let him die?" and then the audience started wildly cheering, "Yea, let him die!".
And how many of those people in the audience were old and fat? Well, from what they were showing, most of them. How many have Medicare and Social Security? And they were cheering, "Let him die?" because he had no insurance?
I thought it was bad enough when they cheered when Rick Santorum talked about ending "Medicare".
These people are insane. What other explanation could there be?
You know I get more than a little tired of people who seem to deliberately mis-characterize what has been said and what it really means.
Ron Paul was asked about what government should do in the event someone had refused to buy health insurance and then became ill and was asked "so we should just let him die?" He wasn't asked about people who didn't have it because they couldn't afford it -but those who could but chose not to buy it! And yes -even I agree if someone can afford to buy health insurance but chooses not to -it is their right not to buy it. But they must also live with the consequences of choosing not to buy it! I actually have NO problem with that and I'm not even a libertarian. But I know where libertarians absolutely come down on this one. Its YOUR life, YOU control it, YOU have the right of self-determination and government should NEVER have the "right" to re-make your life the way some ruling elite thinks it should be. But FREEDOM HAS RESPONSIBILITIES AND CONSEQUENCES. There is no such thing as a freedom or right that doesn't also carry responsibilities and both bad and good consequences for exercising your freedoms and rights wisely and unwisely. You either believe you are the slave of government and IT is in charge of your life. Or you believe it is YOUR life, YOU own it and YOU get to decide what it will be. Libertarianism is as far right as it gets in this country -and those who favor the nanny state and believe government (a man-made creation) owns its own creators and is their master is as far left as you get.
How else do you encourage people who can afford it to go ahead and buy it if you are among the vast majority who outright REJECTS the notion that government has the right to force everyone to buy a good or service in the private sector! If government can't force people to buy it -then what should society and government do to encourage people to buy it? You let them suffer the natural consequences so others realize they should probably make a different decision.
Those audience members who were also libertarians (and big time Paul supporters) were agreeing with the libertarian position -which is YES, if someone refused to buy health insurance in order to prevent this hypothetical scenario from occurring -then he should have to accept the natural consequences of his actions.
What is it YOU don't understand about libertarians? They aren't libertarians only when it doesn't count and the consequences aren't very serious! It is a basic philosophy about the proper role of government! And they REJECT the notion that the proper role of government is to protect people from the consequences of their own bad decisions! Because only if others see what those consequences really are will other people not also make that bad decision.
Libertarians believe in minimal government with very little power to force people to do much of anything. They do not believe government should make street drugs illegal or prostitution illegal -not because they favor actually doing these things, but just that government shouldn't have the authority to tell anyone they CAN'T do these things. Because true freedom means you make of your own life what you will -FOR BETTER OR ILL. It is that last part the left rejects. But that is a fundamental libertarian belief -it is YOUR life, make of it what you will -but true freedom means no one will save you if you make bad decisions for yourself. Because you won't stop making bad decisions when someone else is stuck with the bad consequences instead of the person who made the bad decision.
There is no way any libertarian would agree that everyone else should pay for it so the person who made the bad decision didn't have to! Why would anyone in their right mind reward bad decision-making in this way and thereby encourage MORE people to also make that same bad decision? But liberals believe government should "save" people from their own bad decisions and those who didn't make those decisions should actually pay for them instead. In their world they see this as being "kind and caring" -seriously. But in practice is inflicting something far more UNFAIR because this fundamental belief put into practice can ONLY mean making those who didn't make that bad decision pay for it instead! How is THAT more "fair" or more preferable in your phony liberal world?
You either understand what real freedom is and what it really means -or you believe normal adults still need parental replacements to take "care" of them! I'm not a libertarian -but I am far closer to being one than I am a liberal because I too believe normal adults should have the FREEDOM of self-determination. If you OPPOSE freedom, then you would support the belief that the proper role of government is to run your life for you -because you can't be trusted to do so! There is NO freedom without consequences for the decisions you make! But its MY life -not government's. I don't vote for someone to "take care" of me and promise to micromanage my life -but those who will LEAVE ME ALONE to run my OWN life!
And this is one of many problems I have with the left. The left believes government should shift the negative consequences from those who make bad decisions -to those who didn't make those decisions because they wanted to avoid those consequences in the first place! But the problem is people learn to make better decisions for themselves by learning what the consequences are for not making better decisions.
Those particular audience members weren't applauding the idea of someone actually dying like they were vultures. They were libertarians applauding their basic and fundamental principle that everyone must live with the decisions they make -for better or worse.
If someone chose not to buy health insurance in order to avoid this very scenario -then naturally libertarians are going to say he is going to have to accept the consequences of that decision! Because they reject the liberal belief that government should SAVE people from their own bad decisions -because the only way to do that is by making everyone else pay for it instead which is far more UNFAIR. They do and would naturally vigorously disagree that it somehow becomes government's job to SAVE someone from his own bad decisions. Including this one -so yes, libertarians would absolutely agree that if someone refused to buy health insurance, then that person is accepting the potential consequences for that decision and has NO right to expect others to take on the consequences instead.
What happens when people are saved from the consequences of their own bad decisions? It serves as an example to others that there are no bad consequences if THEY make bad decisions too -because government will make those who didn't make those bad decisions pay for it instead. And that is the very fundamental difference between a libertarian and a liberal. The libertarian believes those who make the decisions must live with the consequences -the other believes it is the role of government to shift those consequences away from the person who made the bad decisions and force those who didn't make it to pay for it instead.
It is a basic philosophy that you either get or you don't. You aren't helping anyone by rewarding them for making bad decisions and there is nothing "fair" about forcing people who didn't make that bad decision to pay for it instead. You either understand what REAL freedom is -or you don't! If you are FREE to run your own life -it means part of that freedom includes living with the consequences of your actions and inactions. When you save people from the negative consequences of their own bad decisions you GUARANTEE there will be MORE people making bad decisions too -increasing the level of UNFAIRNESS.
Libertarians believe in the PURE FREEDOM to own and run YOUR life -that you have the absolute RIGHT to make of your own life what you will -for better OR WORSE. Which means YOU will be the one who must deal with the consequences of what YOU decide for yourself - both good and bad. NOT ME.
This is not something new -our founders were pretty clear on this one too. "Land of the free" means something -and although liberals seem to think freedom means "being 'free' to kill your unwanted and unborn offspring" -it means no such thing. "Freedom" isn't something government GIVES you -but something you CLAIM and insist government may NOT take from you. It means YOU own your own life, YOU control it, YOU have the right of self-determination -and YOU must deal with the consequences of what you do with it. If you want to be saved from the bad consequences of your own poor decisions -you OPPOSE FREEDOM, you REJECT FREEDOM and believe government is your master and you favor the state slavery of the people. There is nothing "kind and caring" about a position that would mean people lose their freedom to government because that is a position that automatically means GOVERNMENT is the true owner of YOUR life. Not YOU. And I absolutely reject that.
