From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:53:27 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skorpio.usask.ca

In article <C0CB0D.8CI@SSD.intel.com>, pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
|> In article <lewchuk.725831738@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
|> >pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
|> >>member of society.  This is simply not true.  There are millions of
|> >>people who couldn't care less whether I live or die.  It would be an
|> >
|> >I belive much of this is "I am not responsible for people I am
|> >ignorant of".
|> 
|> No.  It should be read:  I alone am responsible for myself, and am
|> responsible for no one else.

Do you know the extents of the object you call "myself"? It is possible
that everything in the universe interact and cause their present behavior.

Let's say that there are "other people".

|> >But do you actually know that you wouldn't mind seeing them die?  If they
|> >were being accosted with force, would you step in and defend them?  It is
|> >not required that you care specifically for these people for you to care that
|> >everyone has the right to be helped if "in need".
|> 
|> Under many circumstances, I would not want to see even a total
|> stranger die or be hurt if I could help it.  Under many circumstances
|> I would spend time and energy and money, and even risk my life to help
|> a total stranger.  However, I believe it is reprehensible for others
|> to choose for me the circumstances, the manner, and the extent to
|> which I should help other people.

It would be even more reprehensible if no one tried to make any decisions
for you. You couldn't even begin to make all the decisions yourself. You
would become a mental basket case in dire need. Of course you cannot
accept everyone's decision; you do have responsibilities.
 
|> >A person who does not care for anyone but himself is a very poor individual,
|> >no matter his financial status.  

I don't think this is true because I don't think any logical connection
exists between caring and niceness.

|> >He doesn't belong in society because he
|> >doesn't contribute anything towards society, and is extremely motivated to
|> >increase his share of wealth at the expense of others -- including fraudulent
|> >and illegal activities since he does not take the rights of others into
|> >account.  In short, the social benefit from this person is likely very little.

I suppose that if a person cares only for him/herself, that person can claim
to own the universe. Then there is no question about shares of wealth.

|> Not true.  Objectivism recognizes that we are all human beings with
|> rights, and that we can achieve our goals and dreams easily and
|> morally by respecting the rights of others and their responsibility
|> for themselves.

Please tell me how to achieve my dreams easily.

-- 

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca

What rolls down stairs alone or in pairs            This has been brought to 
Rolls over your neighbor's dog?                     you by the numbers 4
What's great for a snack and fits on your back?     and 9 and the letter P.
It's Log, Log, Log!  -- "The Log Song", from            -- Big Bird
                         Ren & Stimpy

Math is tough!       -- Barbie
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism