Paradise Lost **potential mini spoiler if you intend to read Atlas Shrugged**

[Old Greg]

I don't follow. Health care is now provided free from coercion - why do (presumably you mean significantly greater in number) patients necessarily start dying?

What if it is not provided? Maybe people will be less charitable than you expect. It doesn't invalidate the philosophy, does it? Because there is no right to even life-saving healthcare, such as renal dialysis.

[Old Greg]

I think we've been through this before, but it is provable.
Read her work to see for yourself.

Why don't you just post the proof?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Because there is no right to even life-saving healthcare.

That's right. You can't have contradicting rights as contradictions do not exist.

What if it is not provided? Maybe people will be less charitable than you expect.

Then people might die. So what? Are you telling me that the NHS is good and proper because everyone apart from nutters like me wants it, yet somehow if it was voluntary those same people would suddenly stop thinking it's good and proper?

Like I already said - contradictions don't exist, and asking someone to resolve a contradiction is an invalid question.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Why don't you just post the proof?

To what end?

[Old Greg]

To what end?

To prove your position.

[pjclarke]

Given that she created an entire philosophy centred around the observation of objective reality, there is little room in her mind for compromise on matters of morality or truth - which I agree with.

She invented science too? Gosh. Apparently she was not all that convinced by the objective reality of epidemiology and statistics, otherwise she might have quit the tobacco before it made her ill. Yet faced with lung cancer, as a result of her life long disbelief that smoking caused cancer what did Rand do? Face it as an Objectivist should and rely on steely eyed rugged individualism? By living by her own mantra that only the fittest survive and that all state welfare is wrong, merely allowing the undeserving weak to live? Well no, when the reality of illness and old age began to bite she turned to the Government for help. Apparently such Government programmes are inherently evil...until you need them.

Now, you think you have explained this apparent compromise. I must have missed it.

the fairly basic idea that individuals only get to be successful by depending on others is, once again, absent.
You managed to determine that by reading a few lines from an 1100 page book?

Yes, I managed to establish the absence of an idea in something I read. It's a knack I have.

I can't possibly know what you mean because the question makes no sense

How tiresome. Do I really have to reword

'I was musing on whether this made all theists and communists, and by extension, their work products, EVIL?' as

' I was musing on whether this made all theists and communists EVIL, and by extension, their work products promoters of that evil',

before you can comprehend and answer? You must be a whizz in the back room of the pub ....

[Old Greg]

That's right. You can't have contradicting rights as contradictions do not exist.



Then people might die. So what? Are you telling me that the NHS is good and proper because everyone apart from nutters like me wants it, yet somehow if it was voluntary those same people would suddenly stop thinking it's good and proper?

Like I already said - contradictions don't exist, and asking someone to resolve a contradiction is an invalid question.

People may decide not to fund voluntarily, particularly those who can most afford high quality self - funded care.

[pjclarke]

Like I already said - contradictions don't exist

Ah, I thought this thread reminded me of something ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFK...yer_detailpage

[SpontaneousOrder]

She invented science too? Gosh. Apparently she was not all that convinced by the objective reality of epidemiology and statistics, otherwise she might have quit the tobacco before it made her ill. Yet faced with lung cancer, as a result of her life long disbelief that smoking caused cancer what did Rand do? Face it as an Objectivist should and rely on steely eyed rugged individualism? By living by her own mantra that only the fittest survive and that all state welfare is wrong, merely allowing the undeserving weak to live? Well no, when the reality of illness and old age began to bite she turned to the Government for help. Apparently such Government programmes are inherently evil...until you need them.

Are you brain-damaged? One more time - from the Objectivist news letter in 1966:

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

Ok? So she didn't do anything other than what she preached as being proper.

Here's a different example:

A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Yes, I managed to establish the absence of an idea in something I partially read, and without context. It's a knack I have.

FTFY.

and by extension, their work products promoters of that evil',

Well surely that would depend on whether their 'work products' were designed to encourage evil traits in those that are influenced by them.
Do you ever wonder if literature produced by homosexuals must necessarily encourage other people to become homosexual? Or whether literature produced by vegetarians must necessarily promote vegetarianism?
it must be very confusing in your world.

[SpontaneousOrder]

To prove your position.

To what end?