• Free health care
    449 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36388817]I've said it before and I'll say it again: What's wrong with voluntary taxation? You pay the tax, you get healthcare should you need it. Why should you be entitled to something if you're not willing to invest in it? It boggles my mind that someone can feel so entitled. Why should someone spend their life training to be a doctor, thousands of hours training and educating themselves, hours and hours preparing/conducting surgery, if they're not being compensated? Likewise, why should somebody be forced to pay a doctor through those thousands of years of labour? I really don't think the world would be "better" if such entitlements are given by default. Voluntary taxation would spread the cost of healthcare, etc, out among everyone consenting to it in exactly the same way national theft does, and it wouldn't have to do it with physical violence.[/QUOTE] More funds for beneficial social programs (ex: reducing the cost of health care, education, investing in science, etc) can be collected from involuntary taxation. And the best way to do so is to tax in a progressive manner. Tax the rich a lot, and tax the middle and bottom very little if at all.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36388776]"I just think it's irrational to think the theft of your labour can be legitimate." This means that you place an infinitely negative value on theft during your [b]moral analysis[/b]. My value of theft would be a negative but finite value. I would say it would be OK to steal $1000 from a rich person, buy food supplies with it, and then give it to a starving person. Theft can be fully justified. And if you don't believe it can be, that's OK. One can't argue over highly subjective values too much.[/QUOTE] It's not a moral analysis. If anything my views on anarchism are intimately tied to a rejection of morality altogether. My view stems from my beliefs about the subjective value of mutual gain in cooperation, and a rejection that any moral theory justifies physical coercion. In a sense, I don't mean to even be saying physical coercion is itself bad. Rather, I'm saying you're irrational to think someone could ever be justified in physically coercing you. I believe I need three things to prove statism is unjustified: rational agency and game theory's findings about cooperation and mutual gain being true. No mention of moral goods, since the moment you appeal to a moral theory is the moment 90% of your audience denies you your argument. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;36388858]But the doctors are compensated with their rather hefty wages which they still have under a universal healthcare system, it's just not extortionate like when you leave it to the free market.[/QUOTE] You keep making these claims about inequalities in the free market and you seem to be ignoring everything I say denying this claim. It wouldn't bother me so much if you at least denied me one of my premises with an argument rather than ignoring it and restating it in another post. They wouldn't have extortionate wages, as every trained doctor has self-interested reason to price competitively. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GenPol;36388909]More funds for beneficial social programs (ex: reducing the cost of health care, education, investing in science, etc) can be collected from involuntary taxation. And the best way to do so is to tax in a progressive manner. Tax the rich a lot, and tax the middle and bottom very little if at all.[/QUOTE] So? that doesn't mean it makes life any more fulfilling for people overall. autonomy is one of the most fulfilling things someone can have in their life: the more you coerce someone, the less autonomy they are have.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36388817]I've said it before and I'll say it again: What's wrong with voluntary taxation? You pay the tax, you get healthcare should you need it. Why should you be entitled to something if you're not willing to invest in it? It boggles my mind that someone can feel so entitled. Why should someone spend their life training to be a doctor, thousands of hours training and educating themselves, hours and hours preparing/conducting surgery, if they're not being compensated? Likewise, why should somebody be forced to pay a doctor through those thousands of years of labour? I really don't think the world would be "better" if such entitlements are given by default. Voluntary taxation would spread the cost of healthcare, etc, out among everyone consenting to it in exactly the same way national theft does, and it wouldn't have to do it with physical violence.[/QUOTE] Voluntary taxation could work, and I would be in favour for it if humans weren't such greedy bastards. The system would be much more favourable for lower income families who can't afford private healthcare, but would it be sustainable off of their incomes alone? Probably not. And the higher earners would opt-out in most circumstances for private care I expect, meaning the best chance of getting money into the system is gone. you would obviously have the odd philanthropist such as Bill Gates who would stay on the voluntary tax, even if he never used the service. But I still couldn't see it sustaining. I still don't get why you are so dead set on taxation being theft. Taxation provides us with services we need, law, fire, regulatory, and in some places medical. Just because you aren't actively using these services doesn't mean you aren't receiving them. As a hypothetical, lets say a fire breaks out, and your house happens to be involved, you aren't there so you can't call a fire service, someone else calls them instead. If there is no state service, are they inclined to fix it? If they fix it you are required to pay. But you never requested they stop the fire. So would you pay? I mean, sure, they saved as much of your shit as possible, but you never asked for it.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36388973]It's not a moral analysis. If anything my views on anarchism are intimately tied to a rejection of morality altogether. My view stems from my beliefs about the subjective value of mutual gain in cooperation, and a rejection that any moral theory justifies physical coercion. In a sense, I don't mean to even be saying physical coercion is itself bad. Rather, I'm saying you're irrational to think someone could ever be justified in physically coercing you. I believe I need three things to prove statism is unjustified: rational agency and game theory's findings about cooperation and mutual gain being true. No mention of moral goods, since the moment you appeal to a moral theory is the moment 90% of your audience denies you your argument.[/QUOTE] "Rather, I'm saying you're irrational to think someone could ever be justified in physically coercing you" Ok. So should murderers never be physically coerced to be, uhh.., stopped? "rational agency and game theory's findings about cooperation and mutual gain being true" A great deal of rational decision makers would establish a state. That would be their dominant strategy, even if the Nash equilibrium isn't completely composed of the "Establish a state" decision because of some people (ex: you).
id say there are far more important stuff than healthcare, like food. do you think food should also be supplied by the government for "free"? you know, because it went so well in soviet russia & china...
[QUOTE=GenPol;36389113]"Rather, I'm saying you're irrational to think someone could ever be justified in physically coercing you" Ok. So should murderers never be physically coerced to be, uhh.., stopped? "rational agency and game theory's findings about cooperation and mutual gain being true" A great deal of rational decision makers would establish a state. That would be their dominant strategy, even if the Nash equilibrium isn't completely composed of the "Establish a state" decision because of some people (ex: you).[/QUOTE] Normally when I talk about physical coercion I just mean the initiation of it; self-defence is perfectly rational and legitimate. I'm sure a lot of them would, but I'd hope the majority would neglect to do this, since cooperative/nice/retaliatory players very effectively resist even large groups of incooperative/nasty players.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;36389108]Voluntary taxation could work, and I would be in favour for it if humans weren't such greedy bastards. The system would be much more favourable for lower income families who can't afford private healthcare, but would it be sustainable off of their incomes alone? Probably not. And the higher earners would opt-out in most circumstances for private care I expect, meaning the best chance of getting money into the system is gone. you would obviously have the odd philanthropist such as Bill Gates who would stay on the voluntary tax, even if he never used the service. But I still couldn't see it sustaining. I still don't get why you are so dead set on taxation being theft. Taxation provides us with services we need, law, fire, regulatory, and in some places medical. Just because you aren't actively using these services doesn't mean you aren't receiving them. As a hypothetical, lets say a fire breaks out, and your house happens to be involved, you aren't there so you can't call a fire service, someone else calls them instead. If there is no state service, are they inclined to fix it? If they fix it you are required to pay. But you never requested they stop the fire. So would you pay? I mean, sure, they saved as much of your shit as possible, but you never asked for it.[/QUOTE] doesnt matter where the taxes goes, forcing people to pay taxes is theft, and theft is morally wrong. doesnt matter if you steal my money and then buy me a nice car with it, its still wrong.
[QUOTE=Kentz;36389332]doesnt matter where the taxes goes, forcing people to pay taxes is theft, and theft is morally wrong. doesnt matter if you steal my money and then buy me a nice car with it, its still wrong.[/QUOTE] If you keep calling it theft of course it's going to be wrong. Having a negative view of taxes makes arguing with you really hard as you will keep falling back to the "it's theft" argument. Nothing I can do or argue will be able to say "no they aren't taking your money". But what I can say is it is perfectly justified. You are living on that governments land, you are to abide by their laws and rules. If they need to tax you for something, you pay that tax. If you don't like the tax, you take measures to get it removed (if your government isn't fucked this will work anyway). But a government needs money to operate, how do the earn money when they are (in your ideals anyway) not allowed to interfere with businesses, and not allowed to tax their citizens? If you say "donations" I will give up even thinking of debating with you because donations will cause lobbying, the same thing fucking the US up right now. Any money put into the government through taxes comes back to you, whether that be through public services, a military to defend you from invasion, or simply paying the people who keep your country running. The money is not just taken and wasted (well, it is on the US defence budget most certainly, the spending is obscene). If you dislike taxation so much, I think it might be a good idea to move somewhere with no taxes, where the government is probably in quite a sorry state and the population lacking certain vital services.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36389249]Normally when I talk about physical coercion I just mean the initiation of it; self-defence is perfectly rational and legitimate. I'm sure a lot of them would, but I'd hope the majority would neglect to do this, since cooperative/nice/retaliatory players very effectively resist even large groups of incooperative/nasty players.[/QUOTE] The initiation of legal sanctions as a response to tax evasion is perfectly legitimate as well, due to the fact that not initiating it would reduce the amount of money allocated to various public goods (such as health care, education, etc) in a dramatic manner. I believe that it's full justified to use legal sanctions, or coercion, to get people to pay their taxes. Especially the rich ones. Also, what if some person uses credit card fraud to defraud billions of dollars? Should this person not be legally sanctioned to make him stop? Or is it not allowed to stop him defrauding billions of dollars of other people's money [b]for his personal use[/b]?
"You are living on the governments land" no no no and no. Property ownership is this: one agent's claim right, [I]everyone else's[/I] duty right. There can't be such a thing as property unless all other agents in the system consent, since they're required to respect the agent's claim right. You can only legitimately claim right over something if you can convince someone to carry the duty to uphold your claim, which can only be done legitimately if there is consent. Land isn't owned, it's just possessed and used. You shouldn't have to relocate just because you don't want to be coerced. The very fact you have to relocate means you're still being coerced. I have no respect for people who think taxation is right just because of silly reasons like that. Someone like GenPol who's belief in the justification of taxation I have a lot more respect for, since its at least grounded in something I can see rationally carrying some weight in the issue. But claiming right over an [I]island[/I] and using that as a justification for theft is just plain silly. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GenPol;36389538]The initiation of legal sanctions as a response to tax evasion is perfectly legitimate as well, due to the fact that not initiating it would reduce the amount of money allocated to various public goods (such as health care, education, etc) in a dramatic manner. I believe that it's full justified to use legal sanctions, or coercion, to get people to pay their taxes. Especially the rich ones. Also, what if some person uses credit card fraud to defraud billions of dollars? Should this person not be legally sanctioned to make him stop? Or is it not allowed to stop him defrauding billions of dollars of other people's money [B]for his personal use[/B]?[/QUOTE] If he's known to commit fraud, and there's a record of transactions for everyone to access, nobody would trade with the fraudster, since he's not producing any valuable commodities/services. Your incentive to produce goods that everyone wants is the ability to trade your goods for theirs. Money itself isn't valuable unless it represents labour, so if the fraudster is known, his money is useless. Of course, this sort of digital account of all transactions is something that would have to be financed, and I think such a system, if handled well, would be absolutely required for the safe establishment of mutually beneficial cooperation on the scale I'm talking about. But it's a service in itself, so you just buy into it. You use your own record as a platform for proving that you're both a producer of valuable goods and trustworthy, so anyone who hasn't voluntarily opted into the system (or any competing system) would be inherently untrustworthy. Basically ebay, but on a much bigger scale.
The problem with Libertarianism is that it seems nice on paper and all, but doesn't work in reality, especially when some form of a government collecting some form of taxation is almost always inevitable in almost every human society that is past the hunter gatherer stage.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36389652]"You are living on the governments land" no no no and no. Property ownership is this: one agent's claim right, [I]everyone else's[/I] duty right. There can't be such a thing as property unless all other agents in the system consent, since they're required to respect the agent's claim right. You can only legitimately claim right over something if you can convince someone to carry the duty to uphold your claim, which can only be done legitimately if there is consent. Land isn't owned, it's just possessed and used. You shouldn't have to relocate just because you don't want to be coerced. The very fact you have to relocate means you're still being coerced. I have no respect for people who think taxation is right just because of silly reasons like that. Someone like GenPol who's belief in the justification of taxation I have a lot more respect for, since its at least grounded in something I can see rationally carrying some weight in the issue. But claiming right over an [I]island[/I] and using that as a justification for theft is just plain silly.[/QUOTE] Maybe "their land" was just awful wording on my part. But either way, you are living under that government, you abide by their laws and rules unless you see something wrong, then you try and change it. If you don't see anything wrong with the way your government is taxing you, that's cool, we can keep our taxes. But if you do, why aren't you trying to get it changed? As the rest of my post (which you so gracefully ignored it seems) mentioned, if your government is total shit, you can get things changed. Convince others that something needs fixing. Just bitching about taxing and calling it "theft" constantly isn't doing that. Nice to see you don't respect people with different points of view too, you're going to go far in this world.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36389790]The problem with Libertarianism is that it seems nice on paper and all, but doesn't work in reality, especially when some form of a government collecting some form of taxation is almost always inevitable in almost every human society that is past the hunter gatherer stage.[/QUOTE] No, it doesn't seem nice on paper. It seems utter shit on paper. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbobin;36389652]"You are living on the governments land" no no no and no. Property ownership is this: one agent's claim right, [I]everyone else's[/I] duty right. There can't be such a thing as property unless all other agents in the system consent, since they're required to respect the agent's claim right. You can only legitimately claim right over something if you can convince someone to carry the duty to uphold your claim, which can only be done legitimately if there is consent. Land isn't owned, it's just possessed and used. You shouldn't have to relocate just because you don't want to be coerced. The very fact you have to relocate means you're still being coerced. I have no respect for people who think taxation is right just because of silly reasons like that. Someone like GenPol who's belief in the justification of taxation I have a lot more respect for, since its at least grounded in something I can see rationally carrying some weight in the issue. But claiming right over an [I]island[/I] and using that as a justification for theft is just plain silly. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] If he's known to commit fraud, and there's a record of transactions for everyone to access, nobody would trade with the fraudster, since he's not producing any valuable commodities/services. Your incentive to produce goods that everyone wants is the ability to trade your goods for theirs. Money itself isn't valuable unless it represents labour, so if the fraudster is known, his money is useless. Of course, this sort of digital account of all transactions is something that would have to be financed, and I think such a system, if handled well, would be absolutely required for the safe establishment of mutually beneficial cooperation on the scale I'm talking about. But it's a service in itself, so you just buy into it. You use your own record as a platform for proving that you're both a producer of valuable goods and trustworthy, so anyone who hasn't voluntarily opted into the system (or any competing system) would be inherently untrustworthy. Basically ebay, but on a much bigger scale.[/QUOTE] "If he's known to commit fraud, and there's a record of transactions for everyone to access, nobody would trade with the fraudster, since he's not producing any valuable commodities/services." Why? It would benefit the seller largely, as it would make their profits grow. Only about 1/8 wouldn't trade with him.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;36389930]Maybe "their land" was just awful wording on my part. But either way, you are living under that government, you abide by their laws and rules unless you see something wrong, then you try and change it. If you don't see anything wrong with the way your government is taxing you, that's cool, we can keep our taxes. But if you do, why aren't you trying to get it changed? As the rest of my post (which you so gracefully ignored it seems) mentioned, if your government is total shit, you can get things changed. Convince others that something needs fixing. Just bitching about taxing and calling it "theft" constantly isn't doing that. Nice to see you don't respect people with different points of view too, you're going to go far in this world.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm sorry I sometimes go way too far with my turn of phrase, please don't take it personally I'm often just a bit of a douche :v: Actually I plan on doing as much as I can to change the state of affairs. I want to lecture in philosophy, quite possibly in political philosophy, and write papers arguing just that. Since I believe its intellectual revolution that will change things for the better, I can't think of anything more valuable I can be doing in that regard. We don't mean to merely "bitch about taxing", what we aim to do is show that based on certain imperatives most of us believe in, we ought to be weary of an entity if it represents the failure to follow these imperatives. On a personal level, we all agree theft is a repugnant thing to do. We're merely asking the question of how it comes to be a different story in cases of national theft (who [I]cares[/I] what it's called? it's the forceful reallocation of resources which we agree is wrong in at least most cases on a personal level), and argue that it [I]isn't[/I] a different story. It's not simply saying "GOD I HATE PAYING TAXES, MAN!" But yeah I do respect your view I'm just a bit of a douchebag when I get down to it, sometimes. And on that note it's bed time.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36390087]Yeah I'm sorry I sometimes go way too far with my turn of phrase, please don't take it personally I'm often just a bit of a douche :v: Actually I plan on doing as much as I can to change the state of affairs. I want to lecture in philosophy, quite possibly in political philosophy, and write papers arguing just that. Since I believe its intellectual revolution that will change things for the better, I can't think of anything more valuable I can be doing in that regard. We don't mean to merely "bitch about taxing", what we aim to do is show that based on certain imperatives most of us believe in, we ought to be weary of an entity if it represents the failure to follow these imperatives. On a personal level, we all agree theft is a repugnant thing to do. We're merely asking the question of how it comes to be a different story in cases of national theft (who [I]cares[/I] what it's called? it's the forceful reallocation of resources which we agree is wrong in at least most cases on a personal level), and argue that it [I]isn't[/I] a different story. It's not simply saying "GOD I HATE PAYING TAXES, MAN!" But yeah I do respect your view I'm just a bit of a douchebag when I get down to it, sometimes. And on that note it's bed time.[/QUOTE] It's cool :v: I was wondering what kind of response I would get to that last sentence. I do see why you would want taxes removed, I personally don't quite agree with it as I am used to some form of taxes existing and providing me with nationalised services, which has increased my quality of life to some extent. And it's quite hard to experience or understand the other side when it isn't how I am currently living so it's not a reasonable thing in my eyes as losing these services automatically provided to me would be alien (plus I really don't trust corporations being in total control of certain things at all).
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36390087]Yeah I'm sorry I sometimes go way too far with my turn of phrase, please don't take it personally I'm often just a bit of a douche :v: Actually I plan on doing as much as I can to change the state of affairs. I want to lecture in philosophy, quite possibly in political philosophy, and write papers arguing just that. Since I believe its intellectual revolution that will change things for the better, I can't think of anything more valuable I can be doing in that regard. We don't mean to merely "bitch about taxing", what we aim to do is show that based on certain imperatives most of us believe in, we ought to be weary of an entity if it represents the failure to follow these imperatives. On a personal level, we all agree theft is a repugnant thing to do. We're merely asking the question of how it comes to be a different story in cases of national theft (who [I]cares[/I] what it's called? it's the forceful reallocation of resources which we agree is wrong in at least most cases on a personal level), and argue that it [I]isn't[/I] a different story. It's not simply saying "GOD I HATE PAYING TAXES, MAN!" But yeah I do respect your view I'm just a bit of a douchebag when I get down to it, sometimes. And on that note it's bed time.[/QUOTE] "it's the forceful reallocation of resources which we agree is wrong in at least most cases on a personal level), and argue that it isn't a different story." Except it is. It's where the resources are realcoated that matters. That's what justifies some forms of theft, an doesn't justify other forms. Some forceful reallocations are justified, some not. For example, a forceful relocation to health care is justified. A forceful relocation to accumulate one's fortune despite having huge amounts of money isn't. "I want to lecture in philosophy, quite possibly in political philosophy, and write papers arguing just that. Since I believe its intellectual revolution that will change things for the better, I can't think of anything more valuable I can be doing in that regard." Lol, good luck with that. Intellectual anarchistic revolution is a huge oxymoron.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36390303]Lol, good luck with that. Intellectual anarchistic revolution is a huge oxymoron.[/QUOTE] I don't really see how. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Also you misinterpreted the example: the reallocation of [I]organs[/I] to 5 other agents. I was wondering what response you'd have to that scenario. Would you concede that it's justified to kill and harvest organs in a case like that? Or try to explain how that scenario differs from the reallocation of labour.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36381002]How do you know he doesn't work hard? Have you ran a business? You begging the question of this debate by pointing out bullshit with no facts. People are stuck in this myth that wealthy people didn't work hard and it was all given to them. I know people who have started with nothing and make well into the six figures. And no, there is nothing wrong to giving back to society, but being forced to through taxes isn't the right way in my opinion.[/QUOTE] How do you know poor people don't work hard either? If they put in the same amount of work then why is one a millionaire, and the other is cleaning toilets at McDonalds? And as I said, the rich wouldn't have gotten rich if there weren't construction workers building buildings or paving roads. Transporting your goods is kind of difficult without people to build the transportation infrastructure. Why do those people not deserve a little dignity from those who have made billions off their work?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36390801]I don't really see how. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Also you misinterpreted the example: the reallocation of [I]organs[/I] to 5 other agents. I was wondering what response you'd have to that scenario. Would you concede that it's justified to kill and harvest organs in a case like that? Or try to explain how that scenario differs from the reallocation of labour.[/QUOTE] I'm OK with executing 5 murderers who still murdered after rehabilitation attempts, and then relocating their organs. Although, simply enslaving them and making them work for the community is more beneficial. This way, the profits off their work could be relocated to health care to save lives, and also to science and education.
can everyone stop treating rights as tangible things? (pretend they don't exist if you think they do) it would make this discussion less complicated. rights don't actually exist, it's just a word that's thrown around a LOT like it means something
[QUOTE=Noble;36386402]Sure, I just believe private companies could fill all of those needs, and do it more efficiently under free market conditions.[/QUOTE] Really? You want to privatise police?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;36389498]If you keep calling it theft of course it's going to be wrong. Having a negative view of taxes makes arguing with you really hard as you will keep falling back to the "it's theft" argument. Nothing I can do or argue will be able to say "no they aren't taking your money". But what I can say is it is perfectly justified. You are living on that governments land, you are to abide by their laws and rules. If they need to tax you for something, you pay that tax. If you don't like the tax, you take measures to get it removed (if your government isn't fucked this will work anyway). But a government needs money to operate, how do the earn money when they are (in your ideals anyway) not allowed to interfere with businesses, and not allowed to tax their citizens? If you say "donations" I will give up even thinking of debating with you because donations will cause lobbying, the same thing fucking the US up right now. Any money put into the government through taxes comes back to you, whether that be through public services, a military to defend you from invasion, or simply paying the people who keep your country running. The money is not just taken and wasted (well, it is on the US defence budget most certainly, the spending is obscene). If you dislike taxation so much, I think it might be a good idea to move somewhere with no taxes, where the government is probably in quite a sorry state and the population lacking certain vital services.[/QUOTE] what do you define as theft? because whatever you say about taxes, it is theft. you take money by force, if you disobey you are put in jail. it is not perfectly justified, they are taking almost 50% of our income (depending where you live, of course). abiding laws is not necessary a good thing... just because i live in a specific geographic area doesnt mean i should be forced to obey immoral laws. how they earn money? i dont know. it doesnt even matter if i dont know. all i know is that the current system is shite and anyone supporting it is basically saying that they are okay with shoving my ass into jail because i want to follow my councious (not paying income tax, et cetera....) i support your right to do whatever you want to do with your pay check, send it to the government if you will. I demand the same respect from you. or are you willing to put me in jail for disagreeing? [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;36389790]The problem with Libertarianism is that it seems nice on paper and all, but doesn't work in reality, especially when some form of a government collecting some form of taxation is almost always inevitable in almost every human society that is past the hunter gatherer stage.[/QUOTE] inevitable doesnt mean its moral or good. by the way you cant predict the future, you have no idea how societies in the future will work, just like feudalism wouldnt have worked two thousand years ago. everybody who supports some kind of statism (forced taxation et cetera) needs to look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves; am i willing to force my neighbor/Friends with force to give them their money to me? or are you just willing to send the maffia at me?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36390934]I'm OK with executing 5 murderers who still murdered after rehabilitation attempts, and then relocating their organs. Although, simply enslaving them and making them work for the community is more beneficial. This way, the profits off their work could be relocated to health care to save lives, and also to science and education.[/QUOTE] That's not the scenario I outlined whatsoever, though. A doctor has the ability to kill an innocent man and reallocate his organs into 5 of his other patients. Is he justified in doing so, yes or no? [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=KaIibos;36390936]can everyone stop treating rights as tangible things? (pretend they don't exist if you think they do) it would make this discussion less complicated. rights don't actually exist, it's just a word that's thrown around a LOT like it means something[/QUOTE] I think rights talk can be tolerable, as long as you appreciate that by default, everyone has the unlimited right to do anything they want. Rights talk is useful as a means of describing trades, for example we can trade our liberty rights to designated pieces of land with one another, effectively saying "I'll make it my duty not to go on this piece of land if you make it yours to not go on this one." you have to be careful as fuck with rights talk, but I think it can be a useful way of describing certain things. Trying to solve moral disputes with rights talk is just silly, I agree. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36390962]Really? You want to privatise police?[/QUOTE] I think this sounds a lot scarier than it is. Having a monopoly of legitimate coercion is a lot more terrifying, imo, though.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36391138]That's not the scenario I outlined whatsoever, though. A doctor has the ability to kill an innocent man and reallocate his organs into 5 of his other patients. Is he justified in doing so, yes or no? [/QUOTE] Due to the fact that I, like most of the humans, have emotional bias, I put the killing of innocent people as something which has to meet a very big value to be justified. In the organ example, I wouldn't say that it's justified to kill an innocent person due to the opportunity cost. It's less costly in terms of moral benefit to kill a murder who still murdered after many rehabilitation attempts, therefore I would chose this action. You don't seem to understand how the cost-benefit analysis works, because that's what I'm using. Some values can range from infinitely big to infinitely small. You seem to argue in a circular manner. The same shit is brought over, and over, and over again? "Why is legally-enforced taxation evil and should never be practiced?" -> "Because it uses coercion." -> "But isn't coercion sometimes justified?" -> "Only in self-defense against physical coercion" -> "But why not to allow coercion for cases where it benefits the society greatly, such as the enforcement of a wide range of laws, as well as tax payments?" -> "Because it uses coercion." We arrive at the "Because it uses coercion" every time. The reason why is because coercion has an infinitely negative moral value for you. We simply have different values, and moral values are very static. I don't see any point in arguing. Just to mention, in your anarchic society - the one in which using physical coercion is only allowed in self-defense against physical coercion, I could easily do the following: 1. Go the the Internet (that's implying that there would still be Internet in an anarchy over the long run). 2. Google for a credit card info seller, and buy credit card info from him. 4. Defraud hundreds of thousands of credit cards, and accumulate billions of dollars. And the shop keepers would want to sell to me, because it would benefit them. It's the people whose credit card info has been scanned and put on the Internet who will loose. And this is just one of the examples of why anarchy is fucking retarded.
[QUOTE=Kentz;36391017] inevitable doesnt mean its moral or good. by the way you cant predict the future, you have no idea how societies in the future will work, just like feudalism wouldnt have worked two thousand years ago. everybody who supports some kind of statism (forced taxation et cetera) needs to look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves; am i willing to force my neighbor/Friends with force to give them their money to me? or are you just willing to send the maffia at me?[/QUOTE] A state is required however at some stage or another. Even if things were completely deregulated and the government ceased to exist, then a company would end up taking its place, or some power mad despot. There is really no other way to organise billions of people on the planet without some form of governance. If you were to permanently get rid of government, you would be getting rid of the human species. Also Feudalism is a system whereby you hold land (In some way), and must give service (Usually military, labour or later financial) to your lord in return for this. It's very basic, and has been around in some form or another multiple times throughout history in multiple places. It arises as the result of certain circumstances (Like the collaspe of central authority) and even Mafia protection rackets today resemble the Feudal system.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36391138] I think this sounds a lot scarier than it is. Having a monopoly of legitimate coercion is a lot more terrifying, imo, though.[/QUOTE] No i'm pretty sure privatised police is a fucking scary thought. You literally just buy out justice. You cannot get anymore dystopian then private police. It would be a disaster.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36392740]No i'm pretty sure privatised police is a fucking scary thought. You literally just buy out justice.[/QUOTE] Are you talking about bribery? That can and does happen within the current system already. I find the idea of private police to be a much less scary thought than having all the power concentrated into the hands of the state.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36390303] Except it is. It's where the resources are realcoated that matters. That's what justifies some forms of theft, an doesn't justify other forms. Some forceful reallocations are justified, some not. For example, a forceful relocation to health care is justified. A forceful relocation to accumulate one's fortune despite having huge amounts of money isn't. Lol, good luck with that. Intellectual anarchistic revolution is a huge oxymoron.[/QUOTE] I guess it is just an argument of personal opinions. In my opinion theft is never "justified" like you are talking about. Just even reading what you say sounds spooky to me. "Forceful reallocations are justified" sounds almost Orwellian; what's justified is generally subjective in the first place so that can easily mean different things to different people. And how is what he said an oxymoron at all? [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;36391701]A state is required however at some stage or another. Even if things were completely deregulated and the government ceased to exist, then a company would end up taking its place, or some power mad despot. There is really no other way to organise billions of people on the planet without some form of governance. If you were to permanently get rid of government, you would be getting rid of the human species. Also Feudalism is a system whereby you hold land (In some way), and must give service (Usually military, labour or later financial) to your lord in return for this. It's very basic, and has been around in some form or another multiple times throughout history in multiple places. It arises as the result of certain circumstances (Like the collaspe of central authority) and even Mafia protection rackets today resemble the Feudal system.[/QUOTE] I guess it depends on what type of state you are talking about. I don't think anyone in this thread is specifically wanting zero government, just a vastly reduced one. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36392740]No i'm pretty sure privatised police is a fucking scary thought. You literally just buy out justice. You cannot get anymore dystopian then private police. It would be a disaster.[/QUOTE] Uh, I think the more dystopian one would be unstoppable state controlled police since that's often the example in various popular stories and also shadowed often in the real world
Free healthcare works well in my country and the rich get taxed more in the way that everyone gets taxed the same for each bracket of money. I forget what the actual figures are where we the tax gets raised but I will give you an example using made up values. Say someone makes 100 dollars, they will get taxed 5 percent but someone who gets 200 dollars gets taxed 5 percent on the first 100 but 10 percent on the second 100 and so on for different values. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking the rich people get taxed the highest amount for all of their income but its only for their income above a certain amount.
[QUOTE=Noble;36369630]There's no such thing as free health care, I assume you're talking about universal health care. It takes resources (labor, equipment) which have to be provided at someone's expense, so it isn't free by any means. Also I don't actually believe that an individual has a right to another person's goods and services provided at said person's own personal expense.[/QUOTE] You know what angers me, the preservation and worship of money over humanity. There is no excuse for opposition to universal healthcare beyond a sociopathic desire for ultimate isolation from any obligations to interact with other human-beings. You hold the value of one's labour over the life of another even when sharing it would bring mutual benefit. The right to life is greater than the right to being a castle. If Cuba, a communistic hole, can run a functioning and successful (especially in regards to AIDS) universal healthcare system even when under financial pressures the U.S. and other countries without UHC could do it a thousand times better. Too bad an intrinsically valueless piece of material is given higher stead than that of the health of the population, that's how some abstract notion of a flawlessly functioning society sees it right? Too bad being an asshole is enshrined in its tenets, it's not my problem? You make me sick
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.