• Free health care
    449 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36398803]In a genuine free market with no large coercive bodies, unfortunately, if nobody is willing to voluntarily fund their healthcare, we cannot legitimately make them. So I guess 'yes' is the answer you're after. However we're a long way off the genuine free market, and there's too much irrationality in the negotiations people make in society right now, so as a result money isn't good enough a reflection of a human being's value and hence carries no weight in the discussion. I am talking about a very particular kind of money which isn't even comparable to the sort of exchanges that are made today.[/QUOTE] "In a genuine free market with no large coercive bodies, unfortunately, if nobody is willing to voluntarily fund their healthcare, we cannot legitimately make them. So I guess 'yes' is the answer you're after." Ok, this is all I wanted to know. You value involuntary taxation worse than people dying from a lack of health care. This is all I wanted to know. Thanks.
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;36396350']Never heard of social contract? You live in a society regulated in every possible way by the government, which is also made by people like you, that are also ELECTED by you and CHOSEN by you. What you actually do is making a contract with a "contract" with your government: "I pay taxes, I get services I wouldn't be able to get on my own". So, you can build streets on your own? I guess you can regulate imports and exports, enforce laws, learn to read and write, produce the energy to power your house and the servers which enables you to connect to the Internet on your own too. You can also protect everyone all by yourself without an army or espionage. And you can also advance the quality of life through state-funded research by yourself. You know, go in the woods and live off nature, and no one will charge you a dollar. Get into a civilized society though: to use his services (healthcare, education, power in your house, the fact that every single thing on the shelf of a grocery store might not kill you because there are not government-imposed standars) you have to pay. edit: And really, are you really saying being born in a civilized society is the same as kidnapping? You probably wouldn't even be here without the comforts that a developed country can offer. Go to a place where government is not present, like subsaharian Africa, then come back to your comfy chair, your computer, your console and your clean, drinkable water, provided by the government. Or they are actually shoving water down your throat against your will?[/QUOTE] i dont remember signing up for any social contract, especially since mine was signed the minute i was born. also jesus christ i love how all statists keep shoving all these "WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT YOU WONT GET ANY STREETS, NO HEALTHCARE, EVERYBODY WILL DIE." you cant predict the future and you cant use subsaharan countries as examples of how a libertarian society would look like. thats like me saying everybody who wants universal heatlhcare should go live in soviet russia. i dont know how things in a free society would work, and it doesnt even matter. the current system is immoral and im not here to plan a centralized society for everyone thats what i am against. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397416]Well then go move to Somalia if you don't like paying taxes. We vote in the governments, if we didn't want to be taxed we'd vote in a government that didn't tax us. Also governments inflate the money because if they don't we would go into economic collapse [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Yeah because it's a terrible idea, which Britain realised during the Gladstone era.[/QUOTE] are you implying somalia was better during its dictatorship quality of life in somalia actually increased since the dictatorship collapsed
[QUOTE=GenPol;36399280]"In a genuine free market with no large coercive bodies, unfortunately, if nobody is willing to voluntarily fund their healthcare, we cannot legitimately make them. So I guess 'yes' is the answer you're after." Ok, this is all I wanted to know. You value involuntary taxation worse than people dying from a lack of health care. This is all I wanted to know. Thanks. Now I know what I would do with libertarians, laissez-faire supporters and market anarchists if I ever got any position of power.[/QUOTE] Autonomy is a constituent of being a virtuous, good person, and the state restricts autonomy. Being a good, virtuous person is the only thing we should really give a damn about. You can't compromise the virtuosity of a whole society of people just because some bad things can happen as a result (I don't think they'd happen often, anyway).
[QUOTE=GenPol;36399280]"In a genuine free market with no large coercive bodies, unfortunately, if nobody is willing to voluntarily fund their healthcare, we cannot legitimately make them. So I guess 'yes' is the answer you're after." Ok, this is all I wanted to know. You value involuntary taxation worse than people dying from a lack of health care. This is all I wanted to know. Thanks. Now I know what I would do with libertarians, laissez-faire supporters and market anarchists if I ever got any position of power. I've realized that 'some' people represent a grave threat to the society.[/QUOTE] no hes trying to say that forcing people is immoral and you are not entitled to anybody's wealth or property what is your last sentence even implying? that you want to eradicate us from your society? lol so much for democracy apparently the civilized discussion is over as this brilliant genius just basically wants me either dead, deported or put in jail.
What exactly would you do to libertarians, laissez-faire supporters and market anarchists? Can you elaborate on that?
[QUOTE=Kentz;36399411]no hes trying to say that forcing people is immoral and you are not entitled to anybody's wealth or property what is your last sentence even implying? that you want to eradicate us from your society? lol so much for democracy[/QUOTE] Anyone who would believe that letting a person die due to a lack of health care funding is better than legally-enforced taxation would be restricted from the freedom of assembly. They would still be able to express themselves in special argument-providing boots, but not be allowed to assemble for protests, manifestations, or any kind of political goals. Their arguments would then pass a population-elected expert representative parliament.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36399508]Anyone who would believe that letting a person die due to a lack of health care funding is better than legally-enforced taxation would be restricted from the freedom of assembly. They would still be able to express themselves in special argument-providing boots, but not be allowed to assemble for protests, manifestations, or any kind of political goals. Their arguments would then pass a population-elected expert representative parliament.[/QUOTE] So you're discriminating and restricted people on their beliefs? Who are you? Hitler?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36399508]Anyone who would believe that letting a person die due to a lack of health care funding is better than legally-enforced taxation would be restricted from the freedom of assembly. They would still be able to express themselves in special argument-providing boots, but not be allowed to assemble for protests, manifestations, or any kind of political goals. Their arguments would then pass a population-elected expert representative parliament.[/QUOTE] if you show no respect for my rights to keep my property i will not show you any respect in that manner either.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36399555]So you're discriminating and restricted people on their beliefs? Who are you? Hitler?[/QUOTE] Oh, that Ad-Hitlerum logical fallacy again. And yes, the same way terrorists would be on a terrorist watchlist, laissez-faire supporters would be on an anti-social watchlist. The reason why is because both can potentially cause a great harm to the society.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36399508]Anyone who would believe that letting a person die due to a lack of health care funding is better than legally-enforced taxation would be restricted from the freedom of assembly. They would still be able to express themselves in special argument-providing boots, but not be allowed to assemble for protests, manifestations, or any kind of political goals. Their arguments would then pass a population-elected expert representative parliament.[/QUOTE] [I]I[/I] wouldn't let them. I'm a very charitable, compassionate person. I give a great deal away. I just wouldn't ever [I]violently coerce[/I] someone to be charitable.
[QUOTE=Kentz;36399579]if you show no respect for my rights to keep my property i will not show you any respect in that manner either.[/QUOTE] It's not "your" property, because the market distribution priorities are irrational and inefficient. There's a thing called market failure and externalities. These things have to be fixed, and require funding to do so. If something has been assigned by the market, it doesn't mean that it's "your". An voluntary exchange system produces huge externalities, which leads to various inefficiencies and drawbacks.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36399619] And yes, the same way terrorists would be on a terrorist watchlist, laissez-faire supporters would be on an anti-social watchlist.[/QUOTE] Oh my god
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36399655][I]I[/I] wouldn't let them. I'm a very charitable, compassionate person. I give a great deal away. I just wouldn't ever [I]violently coerce[/I] someone to be charitable.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you wouldn't let all those lacking health care funding for critical diseases die. Because your funding is obviously far more than what the state could ever collect.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36399619]Oh, that Ad-Hitlerum logical fallacy again. And yes, the same way terrorists would be on a terrorist watchlist, laissez-faire supporters would be on an anti-social watchlist. The reason why is because both can potentially cause a great harm to the society.[/QUOTE] It's not meant to be a logical argument, it was meant to be a joke. What you are proposing is ridiculous. Laissez-faire supporters on a watchlist? Might as well put socialist's on a watchlist too! They are just as harmful.
[QUOTE=Noble;36399678]Oh my god[/QUOTE] Yep. Complete democracy often does more bad than good. There has to be a balance. Restricting civil liberties can be beneficial in some cases. One of the examples is the South Korean rule of Park Chang-Hee, who restricted some liberties in order to stabilize the country and institute 5-year industrial plans, which transformed South Korea from a dirt poor country to one of the most advanced world economies, and a major exporter of a wide range of commodities. His rule was characterized by one of the most known economic miracles to man. While the freedom of expression should be allowed, the freedom of association often shouldn't be. The reason why is because of the fact that it can get violent and harm the society, and overthrow the government despite the majority not supporting the coup. I'm about 80% democrat, and 20% not, with 100% being the average US citizen.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36399664]It's not "your" property, because the market distribution priorities are irrational and inefficient. There's a thing called market failure and externalities. These things have to be fixed, and require funding to do so. If something has been assigned by the market, it doesn't mean that it's "your". An voluntary exchange system produces huge externalities, which leads to various inefficiencies and drawbacks.[/QUOTE] hahahaha the market distribution priorities are irrational and inefficient? i hope you enjoy collectivized farming and your universal access to healthcare waiting lists. so what is my property? nothing?
[QUOTE=Kentz;36399769]hahahaha the market distribution priorities are irrational and inefficient? i hope you enjoy collectivized farming and your universal access to healthcare waiting lists. so what is my property? nothing?[/QUOTE] Exactly, oh wait, I'll be right back, I have a sniffle, time to go to the doctor with my free healthcare.
[QUOTE=Kentz;36399769]hahahaha the market distribution priorities are irrational and inefficient? i hope you enjoy collectivized farming and your universal access to healthcare waiting lists. so what is my property? nothing?[/QUOTE] "i hope you enjoy collectivized farming and your universal access to healthcare waiting lists. " What? Did I even bring up collectivized farming? Nice straw man. "so what is my property? nothing?" It would be the labor market equilibrium salary-taxes+substitutes, which would all depend on your market equilibrium salary.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36399685]Yeah, you wouldn't let all those lacking health care funding for critical diseases die. Because your funding is obviously far more than what the state could ever collect.[/QUOTE] Oh don't get me wrong; in the situation you're describing, they might die, but it wouldn't be my fault - I'd exercise my virtue of charity as much as I can. Really it wouldn't be anyone's fault, since illness isn't the willful act of a person onto another, however terrible it is. However denying a whole society their autonomy and ownership of their labour denies them their chance to teach themselves virtues (since you can't [I]force[/I] someone to possess virtue, its entirely the agent's responsibility). In some ways, you're wrong in saying 'you think theft is worse than letting someone die,' since all I'm really saying is 'theft at such an enormous scale is worse than letting someone die.' Theft itself isn't wrong, but autonomy and fulfilled human beings are the only thing worth caring about, and theft robs them of this autonomy.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36399941]Oh don't get me wrong; in the situation you're describing, they might die, but it wouldn't be my fault - I'd exercise my virtue of charity as much as I can. Really it wouldn't be anyone's fault, since illness isn't the willful act of a person onto another, however terrible it is. However denying a whole society their autonomy and ownership of their labour denies them their chance to teach themselves virtues (since you can't [I]force[/I] someone to possess virtue, its entirely the agent's responsibility). In some ways, you're wrong in saying 'you think theft is worse than letting someone die,' since all I'm really saying is 'theft at such an enormous scale is worse than letting someone die.' Theft itself isn't wrong, but autonomy and fulfilled human beings are the only thing worth caring about, and theft robs them of this autonomy.[/QUOTE] "In some ways, you're wrong in saying 'you think theft is worse than letting someone die,' since all I'm really saying is 'theft at such an enormous scale is worse than letting someone die.'" And I don't at all. I think legally enforced taxation is better than letting those who can't get charity-funded health care die. Theft on a massive scale (legally enforced taxation) is better than millions dying each year from the lack of health care funding.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36399828]"i hope you enjoy collectivized farming and your universal access to healthcare waiting lists. " What? Did I even bring up collectivized farming? Nice straw man. "so what is my property? nothing?" It would be the labor market equilibrium salary-taxes+substitutes, which would all depend on your market equilibrium salary.[/QUOTE] i assume thats what you want since you called the market priorities inefficient and irrational... but hey maybe you want ineffecient and irrational things
[QUOTE=Kentz;36400065]i assume thats what you want since you called the market priorities inefficient and irrational... but hey maybe you want ineffecient and irrational things[/QUOTE] I won't even reply to you. I will just let you think on what you've just said. Here's a tip: Government-ran collectivized economy and free market aren't the only economic models out there. That's like me coming up to someone and offering them a Vanilla ice cream, and then when they say that they don't like Vanilla ice cream, saying "So you like shit flavored ice cream then? But hey, some people enjoy eating other people's feces."
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397416]Well then go move to Somalia if you don't like paying taxes. We vote in the governments, if we didn't want to be taxed we'd vote in a government that didn't tax us. Also governments inflate the money because if they don't we would go into economic collapse [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Yeah because it's a terrible idea, which Britain realised during the Gladstone era.[/QUOTE] Why does everyone's anti free market argument always end up with them spouting Somalia at some point. Somalia is a fucked country torn apart by constant civil war and starvation among many other things. It isn't a 1st world free market state.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36400578]Why does everyone's anti free market argument always end up with them spouting Somalia at some point. Somalia is a fucked country torn apart by constant civil war and starvation among many other things. It isn't a 1st world free market state.[/QUOTE] Because Somalia is an example of a libertarian country at the very extreme. It's not making the point that we are Somalia if we have unregulated markets, it's just the point that some laws, taxes and public institutions are necessary for a society to work, and it's just the extent. Conservatives often talk as if everyone should look after themselves and have no rules and liberals are pointing out what that looks like in its absolute purity. Conservatives often speak as if we have a fascist/communist state, or we don't have anything.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36399508]Anyone who would believe that letting a person die due to a lack of health care funding is better than legally-enforced taxation would be restricted from the freedom of assembly. They would still be able to express themselves in special argument-providing boots, but not be allowed to assemble for protests, manifestations, or any kind of political goals. Their arguments would then pass a population-elected expert representative parliament.[/QUOTE] Longing for your old Soviet state?
[QUOTE=Kentz;36399288] are you implying somalia was better during its dictatorship quality of life in somalia actually increased since the dictatorship collapsed[/QUOTE] Yes this is exactly what I was saying, because as we all know, paying taxes equals dictatorship [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman VII;36400578]Why does everyone's anti free market argument always end up with them spouting Somalia at some point. Somalia is a fucked country torn apart by constant civil war and starvation among many other things. It isn't a 1st world free market state.[/QUOTE] My point is that you don't have to pay taxes there.
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;36400655]Because Somalia is an example of a libertarian country at the very extreme. It's not making the point that we are Somalia if we have unregulated markets, it's just the point that some laws, taxes and public institutions are necessary for a society to work, and it's just the extent. Conservatives often talk as if everyone should look after themselves and have no rules and liberals are pointing out what that looks like in its absolute purity. Conservatives often speak as if we have a fascist/communist state, or we don't have anything.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. How is Somalia a libertarian country, the people there probably don't even know what libertarianism is. It was a dictatorship that collapsed and the country has been out of control and violent since then. The Somalia argument is a stupid comparison. And I'm pretty sure most libertarians don't want absolutely zero government.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36400764]No it isn't. How is Somalia a libertarian country, the people there probably don't even know what libertarianism is. It was a dictatorship that collapsed and the country has been out of control and violent since then. The Somalia argument is a stupid comparison. And I'm pretty sure most libertarians don't want absolutely zero government.[/QUOTE] But the way that many libertarians talk, they make it appear as if there is no line between fascism and total anarchy. Somalians may not know what libertarianism is, but they do live in anarchy, which is the most extreme version of libertarian government. Libertarians always speak in terms of "I don't want to government involved with anything," when in reality, the government needs to be involved with some things to prevent people from wronging each other. I think maybe libertarians should change their tone and the way that they phrase things because they make it sound like there's only two extremes, whereas most reasonable people believe in varying middle grounds. I, for example, believe that someone shouldn't have the right to beat their children, but at the same time, I believe that once someone's an adult, what they put in their body is none of the government's business. In a way, I just want to bring back the political discourse that existed before the polarizing Rovian politics.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36400739] My point is that you don't have to pay taxes there.[/QUOTE] Because obviously that's the [I]only[/I] value anarchists have. Don't pay taxes? IT MUST BE HEAVEN FOR US! You have an incredibly unsympathetic, shallow view of anarchism.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36401068]Because obviously that's the [I]only[/I] value anarchists have. Don't pay taxes? IT MUST BE HEAVEN FOR US! You have an incredibly unsympathetic, shallow view of anarchism.[/QUOTE] You have an unsympathetic, shallow view of poor people, like most free market supporters. The free market only benefits the companies, everyone else gets buggered due to a lack fo regulation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.