It is, and they are. You may end up living on the street if you don't work, but the choice is 100% yours.
> what if the fire department decides not to help you? Do they have a right not to work?
The fire department entered into a contract with their coverage area, bought and paid for in advance by the people they are covering.
> If the only X specialist surgeon available in the world decides to not treat you? And by this I mean, they're willing to treat other people, just not you. What then?
This frequently happens, especially with surgeons.
Your questions indicate to me you have not sincerely considered GP's argument. Your _choosing_ to work is very different from my (or the government) _forcing_ you to work.
"Be homeless or work" is not a choice. Just like "Give me the money or I'll shoot you" is not a choice.
> The fire department entered into a contract with their coverage area, bought and paid for in advance by the people they are covering.
Just like the surgeons, at the hospital. Now you're finally understanding it.
> This frequently happens, especially with surgeons.
Wow, really? I've never heard of it happening. At least, not within the civilized countries in the EU (As opposed to uncivilized America).
Give me healthcare or I will imprison you is your actual proposition, once you shed the intermediary steps.
Freedom is freedom from men, not from nature. We all decay and are victims of our biology, as well as our desires. You are as subject to dying from starvation as of dying from lack of healthcare service if people denied you access to it. The question is not if you have a right to demand those goods, but why the people that are willing to serve you health care for cheap cant get to you.
Uh, no? Private healthcare still exists in the UK, alongside the public healthcare industry. People have a choice of which to go into. You seem to have a complete misunderstanding of how this system works...
Also are you comparing being homeless (and risking death from disease, and the winter months in the process) to the simple inconvenience of taxes? I'm sorry, I cannot discuss any longer with someone who is willing to consider things so loosely and callously.
Okay. United Kingdom has 34.4% of tax to GDP ratio. That means that out of 5 working days, almost 2 days are given to the state. I would not consider working 2 days a week for the government a "simple inconvenience".
Why is this "right not to work" not enforced across the board? People should be able to just slack off whenever, right?
As far as I can recall, capitalists view people striking as a bad thing, and they invoke private millitaries and various laws to force people to stop striking and work.
So regardless of that, this is a silly idea, what if the fire department decides not to help you? Do they have a right not to work? What about politicians? What would happen if every single politician decided to exercise this right at once?
What about in hospitals? If the only X specialist surgeon available in the world decides to not treat you? And by this I mean, they're willing to treat other people, just not you. What then?
The world that you would like to exist, is, quite frankly, insane. What sane person would decide to let other people die, just because they do not feel like working
> This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful?
Do you think making the working class bankrupt is helping the economy? The very working class that you expect to buy commodities, the working class that, without disposable income to waste on commodities, our economy would crash.