On Feb 5, 2:58=A0pm, "steve" wrote:
> On =A05-Feb-2010, moviePig wrote:
>
>
>
> > > First, PM, you arent addressing the issue, which is the distinction
> > > between
> > > pragmatism and ideology. =A0You (and a few others, beginning with Dob=
er)
> > > seem
> > > to think there is some value in discussing the degree to which I migh=
t
> > > personally (and voluntarily) help others. =A0Before I say anything el=
se,
> > > please answer this question: Why do you think this is even relevant?
>
> > 'Relevant'? =A0I think it's the nub.
>
> > Proponents of universal health-care (I think) take its desirability as
> > axiomatic ...i.e., these truths to be self-evident. =A0As *pre*-
> > ideology, it's the unquestioned goal for pragmatism to seek. =A0(When I
> > myself share the sentiment, one quasi-justification I resort to is the
> > primate behavior I mentioned.)
>
> > Meanwhile, its opponents (e.g., you) seem in denial about (what may
> > be) that fundamental component of human nature ...instead accelerating
> > right past it toward more abstract, individualistic goals, and how to
> > engineer society to meet those.
>
> Jumpin' Jesus! =A0Leftys may feel universal health-care is an unquestiona=
ble
> goal, but that is simply because they arent open to examining the questio=
n.
(tautology alert)
> Clearly, for anyone who is not malevolent, it is desirable that mankind i=
n
> general should progress and overcome the mortal limitations that are part=
of
> our nature...cure disease, alleviate hunger and suffering, etc. =A0But th=
ere
> are competing desires, such as the desire for liberty and self actualizat=
ion
> in many forms. =A0The provision of universal health care is at odds with =
many
> of those desires. =A0To claim that the imposition of govt power is simply=
a
> pragmatic attempt to solve one without regard for the others is to ignore
> the inherent ideological choice of health care over other desires. =A0I
> believe strongly that liberty trumps all other considerations (and the
> Lockean bargain approach is an attempt to maximise liberty). =A0To reject=
that
> position is an ideological choice, just as choosing health care over othe=
rs
> is an ideologal choice. =A0Further, toume the desire that mankind in
> general "should progress and overcome mortal limitations" is universal (o=
r
> even nearly so) does not lead immediately to a "pragmatic" question of
> providing universal health care. =A0Rather it leads to the much broader a=
nd
> more basic question of how best to overcome those limitations. =A0The que=
stion
> of what other consideration are weighed against that (presumably universa=
l)
> desire, and specifically how they compare, is one of ideology.
>
> And this is not abstract. =A0The behavior of people indicates strongly th=
at
> they weigh thier own desires against the universal problems of mortal man=
.
> When people spend thier money for entertainment (for example) when they
> could use it to feed the poor, they demonstrate that the alleviation of
> suffering generally is NOT thier highest priority. =A0The most "fundament=
al
> component of human nature" appears to be self interest (broadly defined),
> and the general desire for the improvement of the human condition
> (especially beyond those in our immediate sphere of interest) may not eve=
n
> run a close second. =A0Compassionate action for strangers is a luxury tha=
t
> only those in relative comfort seem willing to entertain, which demonstra=
tes
> that compassionate action is low on the scale of desires.
>
> You, for example, could be out working for the poor, yet you're discussin=
g
> this nonsense with me. =A0You own a computer, when that money could have =
gone
> to the red cross. =A0I'll bet you own a car, a TV, DVD player, etc....get=
the
> point?
Yes, I think I can just make it out in the haze: You're saying that
only a hypocrite would toss ten bucks into the collection plate
without including his credit cards and the deed to his house ...i.e.,
that we only look out for Number 1, and to think otherwise is pure
Number 2.
Okay, forget the humanitarian angle (...which may, after all, comprise
mainly a distraction, e.g., a lightning rod for anti-"bleeding heart
liberal" vitriol). The real question is whether (all else being
equal) health care belongs with "givens" like public schooling, and
clean air and water... or whether instead it should be the province of
a free-market survival of the fastest...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
|