My personal notes: My summary, in short, any such social program can be run by charity and voluntary participation. The best programs I have found are run this way, by voluntary funding and participation.
Mandating through govt requires free choice and informed consent of the members of the public affected, especially those expected to pay for such programs, much more so if REQUIRED by law. As with charities, donors have a choice; or the founders running a program build its operations and procedures by consent of supporters. I find it inherently against human nature to abuse govt to REQUIRE taxpayers to fund a system that regulates their own choices without giving direct and free input in the programs, thus imposing "taxation without representation" where any such program involving spiritual and charitable choices invokes Religious Freedom.
=================================================================
Is There a Right to Health Care Ayn Rand Objectivism and Individualism The Atlas Society
Quote from article cited from David Kelley:
================================
". . .In short, the plan will require a massive exercise of coercion against individuals, far beyond anything we have seen so far. Which brings me back to the fundamental issue.
Moral Foundations
In all the ways I have described, any attempt to implement a "right" to health care necessarily sacrifices our genuine rights of liberty. We have to choose between liberty rights and welfare rights. They are logically incompatible. It is because I believe in the rights of liberty that I say there is no such thing as a right to health care. So I want to end by explaining why I think the rights of liberty are paramount, and by trying to anticipate some of the questions and objections you may have.
We have to choose between liberty rights and welfare rights.
The rights of liberty are paramount because individuals are ends in themselves. We are not instruments of society, or possessions of society. And if we are ends in ourselves, we have the right to be ends for ourselves: to hold our own lives and happiness as our highest values, not to be sacrificed for anything else."
==============
Again, my personal notes are that just because people are for free choice and liberty
does NOT mean we are AGAINST charitable medical help accessible to all.
It means we do NOT support the idea of abusing govt and force of law to coerce people through govt, limit our choices and ability to develop our own programs, and abuse TAX penalties to punish citizens and charities and schools that seek freedom to provide health care in other ways.
Being prochoice does NOT equate to pushing abortion and denying life, just because people don't want govt restricting and penalizing free choice. We can still use free choice to prevent abortion and to support life WITHOUT the govt FORCING it by law by regulating choices.
Being proliberty does NOT mean denying health care and services to others, just because people don't want govt regulating, mandating or penalizing free choice by depriving liberties. We can still use free choice to build and provide better systems of health care WITHOUT federal govt FORCING it by tax mandates that require people to buy insurance as the only exempted choice. That choice does not cover all health care needs, so why are other options penalized?
Mandating through govt requires free choice and informed consent of the members of the public affected, especially those expected to pay for such programs, much more so if REQUIRED by law. As with charities, donors have a choice; or the founders running a program build its operations and procedures by consent of supporters. I find it inherently against human nature to abuse govt to REQUIRE taxpayers to fund a system that regulates their own choices without giving direct and free input in the programs, thus imposing "taxation without representation" where any such program involving spiritual and charitable choices invokes Religious Freedom.
=================================================================
Is There a Right to Health Care Ayn Rand Objectivism and Individualism The Atlas Society
Quote from article cited from David Kelley:
================================
". . .In short, the plan will require a massive exercise of coercion against individuals, far beyond anything we have seen so far. Which brings me back to the fundamental issue.
Moral Foundations
In all the ways I have described, any attempt to implement a "right" to health care necessarily sacrifices our genuine rights of liberty. We have to choose between liberty rights and welfare rights. They are logically incompatible. It is because I believe in the rights of liberty that I say there is no such thing as a right to health care. So I want to end by explaining why I think the rights of liberty are paramount, and by trying to anticipate some of the questions and objections you may have.
We have to choose between liberty rights and welfare rights.
The rights of liberty are paramount because individuals are ends in themselves. We are not instruments of society, or possessions of society. And if we are ends in ourselves, we have the right to be ends for ourselves: to hold our own lives and happiness as our highest values, not to be sacrificed for anything else."
==============
Again, my personal notes are that just because people are for free choice and liberty
does NOT mean we are AGAINST charitable medical help accessible to all.
It means we do NOT support the idea of abusing govt and force of law to coerce people through govt, limit our choices and ability to develop our own programs, and abuse TAX penalties to punish citizens and charities and schools that seek freedom to provide health care in other ways.
Being prochoice does NOT equate to pushing abortion and denying life, just because people don't want govt restricting and penalizing free choice. We can still use free choice to prevent abortion and to support life WITHOUT the govt FORCING it by law by regulating choices.
Being proliberty does NOT mean denying health care and services to others, just because people don't want govt regulating, mandating or penalizing free choice by depriving liberties. We can still use free choice to build and provide better systems of health care WITHOUT federal govt FORCING it by tax mandates that require people to buy insurance as the only exempted choice. That choice does not cover all health care needs, so why are other options penalized?
Last edited: