Originally posted by: desy
You aren't allowed to 'opt out' in Canada but no matter, because we live in a 'society' the health of his fellow citizens is just as important, that they aren't carrying TB or are healthy enough to fix the roads he drives on or run the utilities that keep his home warm and lit.
And we do it for almost half the price of what the US pays.
If we paid what the avg american pays our system would be far superior actually, 4400 per person in the US compared to 2400 per person in Canada
Cost is irrelevant to my argument. Just because the US system is expensive and the Canadian relatively cheaper does not mean that those are the only 2 solutions to choose from.
If one is not allowed to voluntarily opt out, then the system fails, and is completely and utterly contrary to even the most basic ideals of liberal philosophy, and I oppose it on that basis ALONE.
Canada has essentially established an authoritarian tyranny over itself. In effect, little different than America's own War on Drugs. Moralistic persons have decided that their own moral standards and way of life are sufficiently superior than they can impose them over everyone else, and force them to pay for it, even over those who might object. That is as far from liberalism as one could possibly get.
"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
John Stuart Mill