GOP Tea Party Debate: Audience Cheers, Says Society Should Let Uninsured Patient Die
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/tea-party-debate-health-care_n_959354.html
A bit of a startling moment happened near the end of Monday night's CNN debate when a hypothetical question was posed to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
"What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? Are you saying society should just let him die?" Wolf Blitzer asked.
"Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out.
Divide this into two: the context of the question, which makes it clear it's one of the strong tests of a truly free society, absolutely legitimate as such, together with an answer of yes or no, likewise legitimate; and the tone of the answer provided by the audience, which was bestial. Sane, civilized, truly libertarian men and women might well have answered "Yes," as well, but it would have been clear from their tone and manner that they would regret having to do so, and would care enough about the consequences to do whatever could be done in a free society. Let's just say that some of those in the audience who cried out "Yes!" weren't particularly sane, civilized, or truly libertarian. For them this was entertainment, just as much as throwing baseballs at the clown at the carnival would be, and an excellent opportunity to exercise some pent-up road rage, just for the fun of it. Thanks, but no thanks. Libertarianism is one thing. Blood-hungry and cruel is an entirely different matter, no matter what disguise it covers itself in. I want nothing to do with taking pleasure in someone else's lethal misfortune, whether or not I agree that it should be lethal, for whatever reasons. Such murderousness has no place in true libertarianism, and stains the soul the color of midnight in outer space, and I don't want to be guilty of reveling in such . . . pleasures.
A bit of a startling moment happened near the end of Monday night's CNN debate when a hypothetical question was posed to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
"What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? Are you saying society should just let him die?" Wolf Blitzer asked.
"Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out.
Divide this into two: the context of the question, which makes it clear it's one of the strong tests of a truly free society, absolutely legitimate as such, together with an answer of yes or no, likewise legitimate; and the tone of the answer provided by the audience, which was bestial. Sane, civilized, truly libertarian men and women might well have answered "Yes," as well, but it would have been clear from their tone and manner that they would regret having to do so, and would care enough about the consequences to do whatever could be done in a free society. Let's just say that some of those in the audience who cried out "Yes!" weren't particularly sane, civilized, or truly libertarian. For them this was entertainment, just as much as throwing baseballs at the clown at the carnival would be, and an excellent opportunity to exercise some pent-up road rage, just for the fun of it. Thanks, but no thanks. Libertarianism is one thing. Blood-hungry and cruel is an entirely different matter, no matter what disguise it covers itself in. I want nothing to do with taking pleasure in someone else's lethal misfortune, whether or not I agree that it should be lethal, for whatever reasons. Such murderousness has no place in true libertarianism, and stains the soul the color of midnight in outer space, and I don't want to be guilty of reveling in such . . . pleasures.