[ExI] Yet another health care debate.

[Lee Corbin]

Samantha writes

> On Sep 23, 2008, at 8:06 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
>> At 07:55 PM 9/23/2008 -0700, Fred Moulton wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 18:31 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>> > I'll even claim that in a nation of millions, (does the reader
>>> > really know how big that is?), it is probably optimal for the
>>> > greatest good and maximal progress that a very few people
>>> > starve to death each winter through having alienated absolutely
>>> > everyone who would help them, and a few people freeze to death
>>> > every winter (because we don't have universal 1984 type
>>> > surveillance, and so none of their neighbors even knows,
>>> > assuming they'd help some real nuisance guy or gal).
>>>
>>> What you just wrote is disgusting.
>>
>> I rather thought that's what BillK and I were saying, Fred--that the  
>> opinion is disgusting yet one can find it enunciated by some  
>> libertarians, even here. ("Even" here? You know, I've rarely seen it  
>> spelled out so brutally anywhere else.)
> 
> It was neither disgusting nor what "some libertarians" think.  It was  
> merely nothing that a dynamic imperfect system has optimal points  
> within the limits of its capabilities that still allow significant  
> misfortune to some number of people within the system.  It is a truism.

Samantha, I'm afraid it's hopeless. It's a classic case of 
symbols over substance. No matter *how* much had I
emphasized "millions", it could have been trigintillions for
all the difference it would have made, nor no matter how
*few* I emphasized ("very few" obviously didn't cut it), the
outcome would have been the same. "Revulsion", "disgust", and
all the primal emotions at odds with cognitive processing rule.

I hoped for better.

I wonder if most folks here would excoriate traffic
engineers, who do assign a dollar cost to human lives.
They really do; this barrier here will cost X dollars, but
only Y lives will be saved, so no dice. I understand 
that to the state of California, a human life in these
terms used to be around 30K, but I don't know what
it is today. But whatever it is, I'm sure it's secret.

The reality doesn't matter to them---almost all that matters
are intentions. You can feel very good about yourself,
I suppose, if you endorsed the measures that promised
(however unrealistically) to save all people everywhere,
or which quadrupled the tax rate to save a single life
somewhere, or who promised that no expense
will be spared to save a human life.

In other worlds, were people more rational, or were I just talking
to a few here that come to mind, I would even be embarrassed
to have begun like this

>>> > I'll even claim that in a nation of millions, (does the reader
>>> > really know how big that is?), it is probably optimal for the
>>> > greatest good and maximal progress that a very few people
>>> > starve to death each winter through having alienated absolutely
>>> > everyone who would help them, 

"Even"? "Probably"? "a very few" instead of "some"?

Indeed how old-fashioned the words "freedom" and "liberty"
appear when compared to "provide", "care", and "support".
Instead of "give me liberty or give me death", people today
would add "but first and foremost, take care of me mommy".

Lee