Re: Health insurance

Just Cocky wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:01:28 -0500, "tonyp" <tonyp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Just Cocky" <just@xxxxxxxxx> wrote


Michael Scheltgen<mjs818@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Taxes are marginally higher but out of pocket expenses are a lot lower.
All the evidence suggests that national health insurance would
be good for business and the population at large.


Even if you are right, it would still be immoral. Morality trumps
utility.



One seldom encounters an absolutely, positively, totally wrong statement on
usenet.  So, the above is a rare and precious find.

Hey, ***:  it's marginal utility, not marginal morality, that economics
deals with.  You want to run society on "morality"?  Fine -- as long as it's
MY morality.  What?  You think YOUR morality has higher utility?  I get it
:-)



I don't want to run society. I also don't want anybody else to run
society. What I want is for each individual to "run" him/herself,
while respecting other individual's equal right. Society will then
emerge as a bottom-up phenomenon, not as a result of authoritarian
rule.


Yes, but outside of Icelandic tribes ( which weren't as individualistic as we might think ), how is this possible?

Bottom-up phenomena which involve human behavior is messy.
Rule by mob is generally Bad.

Tony's exactly right - politics is ugly because
we all *do* have our own version of what is right, and
it's a difficult thing to balance out a good
solution.

If you think your ethic is better than mine, then you have to explain
why you think that a group of individuals should have the right to
enslave others.


While it is fun to pretend that taxation is slavery,
fact is, it ain't.

--
Les Cargill
.