Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question

[jackdaniels]

I don't think what I am advocating is possible without a lot of education. This is definitely not an overnight sort fo solution. The reason I bring it up is because it is the right thing to do and I would rather start taking baby steps in the right direction than just throw my hands up in the air and say it is impossible to do EVERYTHING right tomorrow, so we may as well continue to legislate immoral law.

I understand your fundamental problem and it is one many people have - the all or nothing issue. Lets break it down to components.

First, what are rights? Rights are moral principles defining a mans freedom of action in a social context.

1. The most fundamental right we all have is the right to life, from which all other rights stem (liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness).
2. This right is inalienable, it cannot be given to you or taken away from you (a man may take away your life but your right to it has not been alienated).
3. In order to excersize our right to life we require only one thing from our fellow man - freedom of action.

Do our actions always guarantee success? No, they don't. We will sometimes make good decisions and sometimes make bad ones - but it is our own decision to make.

Now, since we have the right to life, we have the right to defend our lives. If someone attacks us, we can strike back in self defense. Teh attacker in this instance is the one who is morally wrong, not the defender. As a society, we have extended that very right of self defense to our government. Once we give our government the authority to levy taxes and back up their "request" by the threat of the use of force, we have now become the agressor, the thief who initiates force against others - who shoudl rightly defend themselves against this attack.

So you see, from a moral perspective, we have no aothority to allow our government to levy taxes in order to build roads, create social programs, guarantee emergency care or any other thing they do. Futhermore, to think that no private entity would arise that would fill these needs, in a much better way than gov't reminds of the panic that set in when the soviet union collapsed (who will supply shoes/bread/cars etc... now that the gov't is gone???).

I watched Gangs of NY and I remember the scene you describe. I also remember that corruption was rampant during that era due to "fake" capitalism, the kind that gets produced when private companies are allowed to operate but require a license/permit/authorization from some politician. I also remember how corrrupt those politicians were. In a free society, where anyone is able to set up shop, businesses would be judged on their merits, and cosumer opinion rather than be cloaked in the authoritative green light of a beaurocrat who is often incompetent, sometimes criminal and always out of his element.

Hope this answered some of your questions. I wish I was a better writer nad could brings these important points across in an easier to read/understand way. The best thing I can suggest is that you read the FAQ/do the visual tour here: http://capitalism.org/ It is quick, to the point and very clear.