pull down to refresh
42 sats \ 7 replies \ @Scoresby OP 14 Jul \ parent \ on: When is freedom bad? AskSN
Is the freedom to starve oneself good? (I think it may be, but it's troubling)
If you want the freedom to starve yourself, others shouldn't pay for your medical care if you pass out and a hospital tries to revive you
I personally don't think we can ever have an entirely free market for health care because most people are not morally willing to let people who can't afford health care die (or even suffer, much) because they can't afford it
reply
In a completely free system based on individual sovereignty, medical and other types of care for those in need will exist, just as good deeds and donations exist today. What doesn’t work is forcing everyone to pay for other people’s treatment — that’s statism.
reply
I agree, but inevitably there will be some people who fall through the cracks, and then in a democratic society there's always going to be a political demand to "help" those people with other peoples' money.
That's why I don't believe Universal Basic Income can ever be a replacement for the welfare state. I think inevitably people will vote for the welfare state again, even if UBI is already in place.
reply
I’m actually referring to a society without any state at all, and therefore no UBI. At least within the territories of individuals who recognize each other as such. I understand it’s a desirable but rarely applied hypothesis — especially since the corporations and mafias known as states make it difficult.
reply
Letting people starve to death isn't good, but having the freedom to decide that is. Isn't that basically what we do all the time? I know people die from hunger daily, and I don't do anything about it.
reply
I was specifically thinking of someone's choice to starve (think hunger strike or anorexia), not famine or involuntary hunger.
reply
It’s a condition that can be treated, but if someone insists they don’t want treatment, they should have that freedom. I feel the same way about euthanasia.
reply