Re: charity at the point of a gun (Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect

[Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>]

Anonymous writes:
> 
> Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > What is annoying is "charity" (social security) at the point of a gun.
> > Our "conscience" is being decided by government which is acting as a
> > broker for those lobby for their "need" and for your assets to be
> > stolen and redistributed to them.
> > 
> > What people aren't willing to pay for shouldn't happen.  Period.  If
> > that means people starve well those complaining loudest had better
> > dig deeper into their pockets.
> 
> Imagine one of your kids had an accident and needed more expensive care
> than you can pay for. Would you accept government "charity"?

This is why I buy insurance.  But let's go with your example: 
imagine that I didn't buy insurance (because I didn't want to or
couldn't `afford' it or whatever), would I then be entitled to go
around the neighborhood (gun in hand) and demand `charity' from all
my neighbors?

What if my house burns down? Again, can I demand `charity' at gunpoint
from my neighbors?

What if another motorist hits my parked car and totals it? Can I
demand that my neighbors help me buy a new car?

What if a $5 million (or use $5 billion if you prefer) operation would
save my 88 year-old mother from the cancer that is killing her? Who
can I find to pay for that?

What if my self-esteem suffers because of frown lines in my forehead?
Can I demand `charity' to pay for the plastic surgery?

The question isn't and shouldn't be about whether you would `accept' 
charity (after all desperate people will do lots of things they might
not ordinarily do or even believe in), but whether your fellow citizens
ought to be REQUIRED to fund the `charity' you would like to receive.