"I'd be curious to know your response to those who are concerned that the children of the rich will live while the children of the poor may die because their parents can't afford healthcare."
I feel empathy for those who suffer because they can't afford healthcare that would improve or save their lives. Indeed, I'm currently in the same boat!
But there are a lot of virtuous ways to spend money--donating to famine victims, helping battered women, fostering entrepreneurship, funding scientific research, etc.
I, for example, think anti-aging research has the best return on investment.
But suppose you think funding anti-malaria research will have the highest return.
Should I be allowed to beat you up and lock you in a cage, if you refuse to subsidize my pet cause to my satisfaction? If not, why should you be allowed to do the same to me?
If we're each allowed to support the causes we choose, to the degree to which we choose, then each cause will receive support to the extent that it has support in the population. This seems more fair and just to me than forcing everyone to subsidize the causes of those who currently hold government power.
I would also prefer to live in a world where, as much as possible, threats of violence aren't used to get people to do things. Since a threat of violence underlies all government action, the fewer decisions made via government, the better.
I feel empathy for those who suffer because they can't afford healthcare that would improve or save their lives. Indeed, I'm currently in the same boat!
But there are a lot of virtuous ways to spend money--donating to famine victims, helping battered women, fostering entrepreneurship, funding scientific research, etc.
I, for example, think anti-aging research has the best return on investment.
But suppose you think funding anti-malaria research will have the highest return.
Should I be allowed to beat you up and lock you in a cage, if you refuse to subsidize my pet cause to my satisfaction? If not, why should you be allowed to do the same to me?
If we're each allowed to support the causes we choose, to the degree to which we choose, then each cause will receive support to the extent that it has support in the population. This seems more fair and just to me than forcing everyone to subsidize the causes of those who currently hold government power.
I would also prefer to live in a world where, as much as possible, threats of violence aren't used to get people to do things. Since a threat of violence underlies all government action, the fewer decisions made via government, the better.