You are ignoring the fact that your argument against tax-supported health care works the same against tax-supported police or armed forces. Saying that "police is important" does not help you evade this problem, since it is a question of personal priorities, which can vary. Let`s say that you found police to be unimportant; can you decide not to pay for it ? Or is the state going to "steal your money" no matter what ?
Did you miss the whole thing about "voluntary taxation"?
Your right to health care is also equal to mine should we both live in a country with tax-funded health care.
Again, the fact that you consider police work important has no implication on the question of whether taxing to provide public service is theft or not. For instance:
"Taking my property (by force) to fund your protection means my rights are not protected."
is an equivalent statement. If you abandon the position that taxation is theft, you can argue for the merits of police funding in lieu of health funding, for instance. If, however, you consider taxation theft, it is as much theft when the "stolen" money goes to the police as to when it goes to health care, or anything else, for that matter.
No, apparently your right to health care is more important than my right to my property and labor.
And you still missed the concept of "voluntary taxation."
To explore why what your suggesting is nonsense, let us create a fictional state, the state exists only to ensure the rule of law, and provide national defence. It does this via a standing army and a police force. The state is built upon the principle that ‘No man is entitled to the profit of another man’s labour’.
The country is faced with the question of how to pay the standing army and the police.
It cannot not pay them because, to do so violated to principle.
It cannot charge tax, because if you take the money of someone who wishes not to pay, then taking their labor, without their permission. The only way to ensure they pay is to do violence to them.You can’t take the donation, because the rule of law must apply to all equally. So those who do not pay into fund, are because of the nature of the rule of law, entitled to the protection of the law and the labour of the police. They also benefit incidentally from the army, without contributing.
Yes, the country can charge a voluntary tax, in the form of a consumption tax that makes paying the tax completely voluntary. You don't like the police, don't consume the taxed items.
Now why couldn't someone, of their own free will, give money to the government? There is no violation of the "No one is entitled to the profit of another's labor." You labored, you voluntarily chose to give money to the government. Maybe you'll get a police station named after you.
You said you had a mental block when it came to the reasons why people don't accept the glorious nationalized health care that has treated so many people so well (you remember, all those links I gave before?). You never actually took on the responsibility of disproving any of them, simply hand-waving away the questions they raised. That was a (many, actually) practical reason why I don't want nationalized health care.
Then I proceeded to explain the concept that no one has the inheirent right to the labor (or the product of that labor) of another, and that to assume otherwise meant that you accepted that some degree of enslavement of your fellow man is okay. You replied with "Well, that's the cost of living in society." It's not, and a voluntary tax proves that case.
Others have explained the Constitutional questions that exist with our Federal government instituting a nationalized health plan. There has been some discussion about the way the bill is being debated in our Congress (enacting a law without actually voting on it is bad, whether you lean to the left, right, or libertarian - authoritarian leaning people actually prefer enacting laws that way as that whole 'will of the people' thing keeps getting in the way).
A wide variety of people have given their reasons. Repeated ad nauseum. None of the arguments made are particularly difficult to comprehend.
Now, it seems that you do in fact believe that individuals exist to serve Society, much like worker ants serve the Hive. Accept the fact that others do not believe that.
Others have the right to live their lives as they wish. And yes, that means without a national health care system that denies care, prohibits care, and uses force to accomplish its goals.
Feel free to contribute the the health care charity of your choice, and allow me to do the same.
I'm curious, specifically directed at those who seem to subscribe to the "only military, police, roads and postal office"-expenditures, what is the position on other government mandated rules or laws not specifically enumerated in the constitution?
There are literally hundreds of laws and regulations not mentioned in the constitution, which your tax-payer dollars still go to to uphold, monitor and run. Would all of these be better left to the free market place?
A couple of examples could be clean water, e.g. the levels of allowable toxins in the water etc.
How about toxic waste and its disposal?
Should the pharmaceutical firms be free to create whatever drugs they want and then it's just up to the consumers to sue them if they suffer any ill-effects (actually, it's difficult to sue if there aren't any laws or regulations concerning these things)?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm curious, specifically directed at those who seem to subscribe to the "only military, police, roads and postal office"-expenditures, what is the position on other government mandated rules or laws not specifically enumerated in the constitution?
There are literally hundreds of laws and regulations not mentioned in the constitution, which your tax-payer dollars still go to to uphold, monitor and run. Would all of these be better left to the free market place?
A couple of examples could be clean water, e.g. the levels of allowable toxins in the water etc.
How about toxic waste and its disposal?
Should the pharmaceutical firms be free to create whatever drugs they want and then it's just up to the consumers to sue them if they suffer any ill-effects (actually, it's difficult to sue if there aren't any laws or regulations concerning these things)?
In Matt's ideal world, those fall to the states. Where it becomes a Federal case (heh) would be if states were shipping products across state lines. Section 8 would cover To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; so regulating Ohio corn shipped to Michigan might be a place where the Federal Government gets involved. Shipping it from Cincinnati to Cleveland shouldn't be.
For example.
Now for those who argue the government should be able to regulate health care. What shouldn't they be able to regulate and why?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I'm curious, specifically directed at those who seem to subscribe to the "only military, police, roads and postal office"-expenditures, what is the position on other government mandated rules or laws not specifically enumerated in the constitution?
There are literally hundreds of laws and regulations not mentioned in the constitution, which your tax-payer dollars still go to to uphold, monitor and run. Would all of these be better left to the free market place?
A couple of examples could be clean water, e.g. the levels of allowable toxins in the water etc.
How about toxic waste and its disposal?
Should the pharmaceutical firms be free to create whatever drugs they want and then it's just up to the consumers to sue them if they suffer any ill-effects (actually, it's difficult to sue if there aren't any laws or regulations concerning these things)?
A lot of ground is covered by the Federal government's Constitutionally-enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce: agriculture, drug, energy, and communication regulation regimes, for instance, as well as the Interstate Highway system. The 10th Amendment is SUPPOSED to limit the Federal government's powers to those specifically enumerated. FDR basically ignored the 10th Amendment in order to enact Federal programs to pull the country out of the Depression. That huge Federal power grab was the precedent needed for programs like Social Security (for which the Federal government does NOT have an enumerated mandate, nor, IMO, does it prima facie fall under the rubric of interstate commerce).
However, the 10th Amendment does guarantee the states the right to enact such programs. That's why public schools are run at the state level, not the Federal level (counties are administrative districts of a state, and municipalities have their charter from the state). Part of the argument against a Federal health care system is that the Federal government simply does not have the Constitutional authority to enact it, even if that government has transcended and continues to transcend its own authority with other similar programs.
As to the various arguments about the legitimacy of taxation, if you don't like the uses to which your elected government puts your tax money, you have 2 options: emigrate or vote. If you don't vote, do not ever complain about your government because you have abdicated your opportunity to affect it. If you voted and your candidate didn't win, you can either choose to live with the outcome until next election, or emigrate. Democracy's all about choices.
The flip side of that is that having the majority vote does not give elected officials a license for tyranny of any kind they like. That's precisely why the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution: to prevent the tyranny of the majority from trampling the rights of the minority. Doesn't matter if you control the White House and both houses of Congress, the Constitution prevents you from doing certain things.
Yes, the country can charge a voluntary tax, in the form of a consumption tax that makes paying the tax completely voluntary. You don't like the police, don't consume the taxed items.To explore why what your suggesting is nonsense, let us create a fictional state, the state exists only to ensure the rule of law, and provide national defence. It does this via a standing army and a police force. The state is built upon the principle that ‘No man is entitled to the profit of another man’s labour’.
The country is faced with the question of how to pay the standing army and the police.
It cannot not pay them because, to do so violated to principle.
It cannot charge tax, because if you take the money of someone who wishes not to pay, then taking their labor, without their permission. The only way to ensure they pay is to do violence to them.You can’t take the donation, because the rule of law must apply to all equally. So those who do not pay into fund, are because of the nature of the rule of law, entitled to the protection of the law and the labour of the police. They also benefit incidentally from the army, without contributing.
No, the country cannot do that. Because those who do not purchase, remain entitled to the protection of the rule of law, they are entitled to the labour of the policemen.
Now why couldn't someone, of their own free will, give money to the government? There is no violation of the "No one is entitled to the profit of another's labor." You labored, you voluntarily chose to give money to the government. Maybe you'll get a police station named after you.
I think i'll save my money mate. You go ahead and pay, for it, i'm entitled to its protection, you cheese eaters and charitable types can pay for the police, i'll just laugh an keep my money for myself. If you right wing types arn't willing to take responciblity for the police, why should i, and if you do, well more power to you, i'll concentrate on building my own wealth to help my children.
You said you had a mental block when it came to the reasons why people don't accept the glorious nationalized health care that has treated so many people so well (you remember, all those links I gave before?).
You remember when i pointed out that most of them came from a biased source? Do you remember when various people here provides numerous primary sources that demonstrate a more cost efficient system, longer life expectancy, lower rates of obessity, better rankings in provision? Would you like more, or is your cozy attitude of 'reality conflicts with my ideology, there for reality must be wrong' doing well for you.
You never actually took on the responsibility of disproving any of them, simply hand-waving away the questions they raised. That was a (many, actually) practical reason why I don't want nationalized health care.
The NHS has problems, but it does not have 45,000/year dieing from lack of insurance, unlike USA(A National Study of Chronic Disease Prevalence and Access to Care in Uninsured U.S. Adults,
Andrew P. Wilper, MD, MPH; Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH; Karen E. Lasser, MD, MPH; Danny McCormick, MD, MPH; David H. Bor, MD; and David U. Himmelstein, MD, 2008), 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 in the united kingdom where based on medical debts [Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study; The American Journal of Medicine, Volume 122, Issue 8, Pages 741-746 D. Himmelstein, D. Thorne, E. Warren, S. Woolhandler] and so on. Equally, we don't have insurance companiesrefusing to pay 700+ claims with a single doctor, and so on.
Then I proceeded to explain the concept that no one has the inheirent right to the labor (or the product of that labor) of another, and that to assume otherwise meant that you accepted that some degree of enslavement of your fellow man is okay. You replied with "Well, that's the cost of living in society." It's not, and a voluntary tax proves that case.
Straw man, i argued that a professional police force bound by the rule of law, and the principle that 'no one has the inheirent right to the labor (or the product of that labor) of another', because every one must benifit equally from the rule of law, and they are entitled to do so.
I also argued that you choose to pay taxes by living in a society that charges them, which is different to "Well, that's the cost of living in society." You can live in a different society, or forge your own, but if you choose to live in a society, accept its benifits, but not abide its rules, then your breaking the rules of that society.
Now, it seems that you do in fact believe that individuals exist to serve Society, much like worker ants serve the Hive. Accept the fact that others do not believe that.
Ah, ants. They really are wonderful creatures actually, but no, i have no belief that humans exist to serve society. But i don't think there is anything inherantly wrong with choosing to live in a society,and contribute to its upkeep in return for its benifits, especially when it means that you get cheap, world class healthcare.
Logical, coherent well thought out argument
Sorry Zomb but you are not going to win this one. Doug has his own reality. Thankfully his is a minority view or the world would cease to function.
Some people place greater emphasis on the individual over the group. Rather than the individual and the group being equally as important.
No, the country cannot do that. Because those who do not purchase, remain entitled to the protection of the rule of law, they are entitled to the labour of the policemen.
When the Constitution was ratified in this country, there was a specific provision for "no direct taxes." That means no income tax. Tariffs and consumption taxes are voluntary taxes, since if you don't consume the taxed items, you don't pay the tax.
Does that mean someone could potentially benefit from a society of laws without contributing to its maintenance? Yes.
Again, I'll state the obvious: Your "perfect society" is predicated upon the use of force. Today that means that others are forced to pay for your health care. Why not force others to pay for your legal bills? Or your food? Food is far more important than health care to continued survival. Perhaps we should just force people to pay for our gaming supplies while we're at it. In the end, that's no different than forcing someone to pay for your health care. Both are products that require someone else's labor.
You will notice in the article you linked that the doctor was still providing the services; no one forced him to treat anyone. The insurance company said "We won't reimburse you if you provide the service at your site - send them to this other perfectly capable location." And if you pay the doctor, the doctor will provide the service. There was no force involved. And everyone still got their treatment. Yes, they have to pay for it. Crazy thought, I know.
And no one dies from "lack of health insurance." "Lack of insurance" can't beat you over your head and take your wallet. "Lack of insurance" doesn't give you cancer.
Sorry Zomb but you are not going to win this one. Doug has his own reality. Thankfully his is a minority view or the world would cease to function.
Yeah, those minority views are such a pain. "Making people realize their faults" should just be banned outright. Perhaps you can pass a law and use government force to make people believe it?
You know, things like the inheirent superiority of a certain race, spontaneous generation, and the sun revolving around the earth were majority views, too, and they were proven wrong.
And I still won't force you to pay for my health care.
I have some quibbles with a few things here...
Your insight about society being based on force is true but specious; of course our society is based on a government with a near-monopoly on the use of force.
OK...
All civil society is based on the idea that the government is allowed to use its monopoly of force on citizens to force them to do things for the greater benefit of all,
Maybe, but I will address this when combined to the qualifier below...
...and the check on this is the fact that citizens can control the course of the government.
I believe that is an incorrect statement.
The majority of citizens choosing the course of the government in order to benefit the "greater good" of society is NOT a check on the majority of citizens overrunning the rights of individuals.
Individual rights have tremendous importance and are often characterized by the old adage "Your right to put your fist where you want stops where Johnny's nose begins." So, citizens (as a group) controlling the government is not a check upon citizens (again, as a group) using the government to take things from individuals.
That is the tyranny of the majority.
The limitation to this tyranny (here, in the U.S.) is the constitution of the United States.
The U.S. is a constitutional republic. Which to quote a founding father,John Adams, in his Thoughts on Government essay it was stated that "There is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.'"
Law in this case is the constitution which protects the rights of individuals from being overrun by the majority. There are limits to what the majority can do to individuals in society.
If you can't pay your legal bills, you get government-appointed representation, right now, today, paid for with taxes.
But, this is a case of if you can't pay your legal bills when the state itself brings a case against you then the state itself must pay for your defense.
It is the state paying for what it is doing because of the directed power of the majority to overwhelm the individual. That is not synonymous with receiving aid for healthcare or simply receiving a handout from the government. In fact, it is a limitation on the majority putting its fist in your face.
If you can't afford food, there are both government-sponsored food kitchens and income for the jobless poor, right now, today, paid for with taxes
The existence of such programs is not proof that it is not an inappropriate use, based upon the rights of an individual, of such money. The programs exist because there is enough support to override any opposition.
Most people are generally okay with these two, with quite a few feeling that they don't go far enough in preventing misery.
Moot point.
Most being OK with and some people wishing something would go farther is far closer to the definition of tyranny by the majority than it is a justification.
Your argument seems to be that government health insurance is bad because it's similar to two things we already have the government doing, right now, today.
With the case regarding legal expenses it is not similar at all. With the case regarding food stamps, community kitchens, and such it being part of the current government does not mean that it does not apply. In fact, many in a different thread, argued against such things. Further, an argument that something would be a tyranny of the majority is not countered by pointing out an existing program (that meets the same criteria) and saying that it exists.
It doesn't seem to be much of an argument.
I think it appropriate to return this comment for review and possible application to the post this one was in response to.
:)
Edit Note: The above is logic driven rather than support for any particular agenda or other
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
All civil society is based on the idea that the government is allowed to use its monopoly of force on citizens to force them to do things for the greater benefit of all, and the check on this is the fact that citizens can control the course of the government. Congratulations, you've passed high school sociology.
Um, do you really beleive this? If the government is the 'monopoly of force' how can the citizens control the course of the government?
You remember when i pointed out that most of them came from a biased source?
Just to nit-pick for a moment. You claimed that one source was "most" of the sources provided. If I am remembering right, that source made up 11 out of 41 articles. This is roughly 27% of the articles provided. Now maybe "most" means something different in the queen's english then over here on this side of the pond, but over here in our primative land "most" in typical language means "more than 50%" (while statistically it often means "at least 95%"). So unless it means something different over there, your comment is misplaced.
Continue on with your regularly scheduled politics. :D
If you can't pay your legal bills, you get government-appointed representation, right now, today, paid for with taxes.
Just to clarify, this is only true when acting as a defendent in a criminal case. In civil cases, the government does not provide legal services, though one might be able to find private individuals or organizations that would be willing provide their services for free (or a cut in the winnings).
Split quotes like this are Really Annoying. Don't do that.
Just open two tabs and use copy paste. It works well and keeps the thoughts together...
Man, are we back in high-school sociology class again?
Continued use of insulting comments does not add to the discussion.
Individual liberties are protected by the force of the democratically-controlled state because citizens direct the state to protect those individual liberties.
You overlook an important point.
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.
Despite being democratically elected, the few in the form of elected officials directing the military can do what it chooses if it ignores the constitution as well as the citizenry. Majority support is not required to control power. Support of the citizens is not required to control power. Not having that support may shorten the length of rule but does not prevent it. History has proven this time and again.
There is majority support for protecting minorities because everyone understands that they're going to be in the minority a certain amount of the time.
Making the persuasive argument that everyone will be in the minority at some time or another is not the same as everyone wishing to protect the rights of minorities because they understand they will be a minority at one time or another.
One does not imply the other.
Can we just accept Rousseau as a given and move from there?
I'm just arguing against logical inconsistencies here...
DW was making the argument that government-controlled healthcare was logically inconsistent with the current status quo, implying that the government doesn't already provide legal defense or food. But it totally does; in fact, one of the things he claimed the government didn't do is guaranteed by the sixth amendment. His position isn't logically consistent.
First, I take "legal bills" to refer to costs from civil court and litigation. You interpret it in a broad form to mean paying for counsel in the case of criminal court. Perhaps instead of telling him how wrong he is in that regard, it would be best to specifically see to what he was referring to when he stated "legal bills".
I cede my misstatement regarding food.
Um, do you really beleive this? If the government is the 'monopoly of force' how can the citizens control the course of the government?Because the government lets them, and the government is composed of citizens who realize that it's in their personal benefit to allow citizens to control the government because they themselves are citizens. If the government stops letting them, the monopoly on force is revoked, second amendment, revolution, etc.
Just because it has not happened here does not mean that it will not or could not. History says otherwise. Sure, you can point to time and again where EVENTUALLY a government ruled by force was overthrown but many have retained power for a considerable length of time.
Saddam Hussein was a Sunni who ruled Iraq. Shiite were the majority. But, they could not revoke the monopoly of force held by the Sunni. What makes you think that the U.S. could revoke a control by its own military?
Still, arguing that eventually such a government will be overthrown is not an argument that such things will not or cannot occur. Further, it is not an argument that oppression of minorities will not occur. Again, that is adherence to the constitution rather than the belief that doing what is in the interest of society at large is paramount.
Once the defining argument is the interest of the "greater good" over the constitution, steps are being made to the tyranny of the majority.
Again, Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, etc.
Again, moot point.
Note: spelling and a couple of wording edits...
I always luv figures being bandied about that aren't adjusted for different systems, ie. 45k 'dying' per year compared to another country's much smaller population and geographical boundaries. Drama.
I don't mean to belittle the point, any person truly dying from lack of access is sad, but using numbers without proper scaling is a misrepresentation. Those types of misrepresentations are the true block to understanding.
I'm giving up on this discussion. It's prefectly clear that there is no genuine effort to understand a different POV, it was just a bait attempt. Thought is was, and sadly not surprised to find it true.
Cheers.
45k 'dying' per year compared to another country's much smaller population and geographical boundaries. Drama.
ghost post
All civil society is based on the idea that the government is allowed to use its monopoly of force on citizens to force them to do things for the greater benefit of all, and the check on this is the fact that citizens can control the course of the government.
Um, no. Civil society is based on the idea that governments are instituted to secure those Natural Rights. Governments use force when individuals within society reject others Natural Rights. Or, as the Declaration of Independence puts it: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ."
"For the greater benefit of all . . . ." Interesting concept. That means that government can take your property should more people benefit from your property than you, and can do it without compensation if the government so chooses. Or, that government can take a person's life should others need, say, a kidney transplant, a heart transplant, and a liver transplant. In your argument, this is okay, since three people would benefit, while only one person is eliminated. That provides "for the greater benefit of all."
What provides the greatest benefit to all? That would be individuals, working together or independently, to fulfill the needs of society. Thomas Edison's inventions benefited mankind greatly, but he created those things to make a profit for himself. Doctors benefit society, but they practice medicine for their own monetary benefit, in addition to whatever moral satisfaction they receive for practicing medicine. A pharmaceutical company, many individuals working together, provides life-saving medicine so that the company, and the individuals employed by that company, can prosper.
Individuals are what cause society to move forward. Governments exist so that one individual can't beat someone over the head and take his stuff. The minute society determines what individuals must do "for the greater benefit of all" is the time slavery is deemed an acceptable practice.
DW was making the argument that government-controlled healthcare was logically inconsistent with the current status quo, implying that the government doesn't already provide legal defense or food. But it totally does; in fact, one of the things he claimed the government didn't do is guaranteed by the sixth amendment.
The sixth amendment provides for a limit on the power of the federal government. You know, as a check against crazy presidents determining that people should be put in jail for opposing socialized health care. The government will only pay for someone's legal defense when the State says "you've done something wrong and we're gonna punish you." In a private-party situation (say, a contract dispute), no government-sponsored counsel is provided. See, the people who wrote the Constitution knew that those in power might try to take advantage of their monopoly on the use of force, and so inserted these nice little protections into that document.
Here's the text:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
It seems that you may need to go retake your high-school civics class again. Not sociology, though. That's the study of human social activity. Not quite the same thing.
Just to clarify, this is only true when acting as a defendent in a criminal case. In civil cases, the government does not provide legal services, though one might be able to find private individuals or organizations that would be willing provide their services for free (or a cut in the winnings).
Oooo, I've been ninja'd! Quite a unique experience, I must say. Much better than being pirated.
Yeah, Doug: You lost that whole police thing. You can't say taxation for a police force is just, but taxation for health care is "stealing." It just isn't consistent.
And your voluntary taxation (consumption tax) may well be a good idea, but it's a separate issue. Right now, today, you have no choice but to pay for the police.
Yeah, Doug: You lost that whole police thing. You can't say taxation for a police force is just, but taxation for health care is "stealing." It just isn't consistent.
And your voluntary taxation (consumption tax) may well be a good idea, but it's a separate issue. Right now, today, you have no choice but to pay for the police.
Didn't say forced takings for a police force is just while forced takings for health care is wrong. Said forced takings are wrong, period. Ergo, I maintain consistence. I did say I like the police, which isn't the same thing as saying "it's okay to forcibly take money from me to pay for the police."
Right now, today, the police are paid, in part, through a sales tax. That would be a consumption tax. I'm sure some property tax money goes to the police, which is a forced tax. And the state income tax also hits, which is a forced tax. That forced takings exist doesn't make them morally right.
Yeah, Doug: You lost that whole police thing. You can't say taxation for a police force is just, but taxation for health care is "stealing." It just isn't consistent.
And your voluntary taxation (consumption tax) may well be a good idea, but it's a separate issue. Right now, today, you have no choice but to pay for the police.
Yes, it is consistent.
Without an armed force, a state will not continue to exist.
So, an armed force is a necessity for the existence of a state.
Without a police force, no one's rights will be upheld because others will just run roughshod over them. The state will exist in name only.
So, a police force is a necessity for the existence of a state in more than name only.
Many states have existed for long periods of time without nationally run healthcare. The US being a prime example.
Both are necessities for the existence of a state that must be supported. Healthcare is not. That is the difference. The INCONSISTENCY is in the similarities of the roles of the military and police on one hand and their difference from healthcare on the other.
Yeah, Doug: You lost that whole police thing. You can't say taxation for a police force is just, but taxation for health care is "stealing." It just isn't consistent.
And your voluntary taxation (consumption tax) may well be a good idea, but it's a separate issue. Right now, today, you have no choice but to pay for the police.
Didn't say forced takings for a police force is just while forced takings for health care is wrong. Said forced takings are wrong, period. Ergo, I maintain consistence. I did say I like the police, which isn't the same thing as saying "it's okay to forcibly take money from me to pay for the police."
Right now, today, the police are paid, in part, through a sales tax. That would be a consumption tax. I'm sure some property tax money goes to the police, which is a forced tax. And the state income tax also hits, which is a forced tax. That forced takings exist doesn't make them morally right.
Just curious here, Doug.
Is the FBI a police force and how are they paid?
Just curious here, Doug.
Is the FBI a police force and how are they paid?
Yes and no. They are Federal, but they are primarily investigative only. They wouldn't arrest someone for speeding, for example. An arrest would be made by local police. Their areas of expertise are Federal crimes, like counterterrorism and counterintelligence (sometimes extending beyond our borders), civil rights, and financial crime (because our Security and Exchange Commission is a Federal office). In addition, they can receive a special charter to investigate specific crimes, like organized crime; they are also used by local police to help with violent crimes (because of their additional training in psychology and behavioral analysis).
Once the arrest is made by local police, a federal grand jury actually brings the charges. This is a jury of citizens who hear the evidence and makes a judgement that "yes, this case should be brought to trial" or "no crime was committed."
They are one of about 30 different Federal "police forces" within the United States, and are funded via the Federal budget.
The Food and Drug Administration enforces laws surrounding cosmetics, food, and drugs (although the Department of Agriculture has something too, also associated with food).
The Secret Service, in addition to acting as bodyguards for the President and visiting dignitaries, investigates counterfeit money crimes.
The National Park Service has police that enforce laws and otherwise act as local police, but only on Federal lands, like our national parks and national monuments.
The US Capitol Police are the police force for Washington DC, since that city doesn't technically belong to any state.
The Post Office has an inspector service that I've had the unfortunate pleasure of interacting with when our mail was stolen.
Note that I am not a law enforcement professional, and some of the information may be less correct than I would like. I personally hope to never have to learn the details of the FBI, much as many hope to never learn the details of a root canal.
Just curious here, Doug.
Is the FBI a police force and how are they paid?
Yes and no. They are Federal, but they are primarily investigative only. They wouldn't arrest someone for speeding, for example. An arrest would be made by local police. Their areas of expertise are Federal crimes, like counterterrorism and counterintelligence (sometimes extending beyond our borders), civil rights, and financial crime (because our Security and Exchange Commission is a Federal office). In addition, they can receive a special charter to investigate specific crimes, like organized crime; they are also used by local police to help with violent crimes (because of their additional training in psychology and behavioral analysis).
Once the arrest is made by local police, a federal grand jury actually brings the charges. This is a jury of citizens who hear the evidence and makes a judgement that "yes, this case should be brought to trial" or "no crime was committed."
They are one of about 30 different Federal "police forces" within the United States, and are funded via the Federal budget.
Note that I am not a law enforcement professional, and some of the information may be less correct than I would like. I personally hope to never have to learn the details of the FBI, much as many hope to never learn the details of a root canal.
Root canals suck.
Sorry Zomb but you are not going to win this one. Doug has his own reality. Thankfully his is a minority view or the world would cease to function.
Yeah, those minority views are such a pain. "Making people realize their faults" should just be banned outright. Perhaps you can pass a law and use government force to make people believe it?
You know, things like the inheirent superiority of a certain race, spontaneous generation, and the sun revolving around the earth were majority views, too, and they were proven wrong.
And I still won't force you to pay for my health care.
Yes and you are saying you are superior to everybody else - and as far as I can see you are no more superior or important than anybody else. Yet you maintain that you are. Your freedom takes precedence to everybody else's freedom. That makes you the anti democratic tyrant.
I am saying no individuals freedom is more important than another's and in a Democracy there is an agreed social contract to act with in the laws of the representatives of majority.
I disagree with a lot of things my government does. I act within my social contract, I protest and I vote against it. When it is law and law is the social contract, I remain within the social contract and work to change it.
Sorry Zomb but you are not going to win this one. Doug has his own reality. Thankfully his is a minority view or the world would cease to function.
Yeah, those minority views are such a pain. "Making people realize their faults" should just be banned outright. Perhaps you can pass a law and use government force to make people believe it?
You know, things like the inheirent superiority of a certain race, spontaneous generation, and the sun revolving around the earth were majority views, too, and they were proven wrong.
And I still won't force you to pay for my health care.
Yes and you are saying you are superior to everybody else - and as far as I can see you are no more superior or important than anybody else. Yet you maintain that you are. Your freedom takes precedence to everybody else's freedom. That makes you the anti democratic tyrant.
I am saying no individuals freedom is more important than another's and in a Democracy there is an agreed social contract to act with in the laws of the representatives of majority.
I disagree with a lot of things my government does. I act within my social contract, I protest and I vote against it. When it is law and law is the social contract, I remain within the social contract and work to change it.
But, the US is more than just a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. An important purpose of the constitution is the protection of the rights of individuals. Calling it an agreed contract to act within the laws of the majority is incorrect because the constitution limits what the majority can do. There is no all encompassing contract to abide by the laws of the majority because the majority is limited in what it can do to individuals.
Yes and you are saying you are superior to everybody else - and as far as I can see you are no more superior or important than anybody else. Yet you maintain that you are. Your freedom takes precedence to everybody else's freedom. That makes you the anti democratic tyrant.I am saying no individuals freedom is more important than another's and in a Democracy there is an agreed social contract to act with in the laws of the representatives of majority.
You'll have to point out where I said I'm superior to everybody else. As to whether I'm more important or not . . . I'm pretty sure I'm more important than everyone else to my wife. I'm probably more important to my employer than you; maybe not. I know I'm more important to my parents than anyone on this board.
But that holds true for all of us, doesn't it? I certainly hope you are more important to your spouse than I am.
My right to liberty is equal to everyone else's right to liberty. That doesn't make me a tyrant. In fact, since I respect your liberty so much, that really makes me an anti-tyrant, doesn't it?
As for Democracy . . . you've just hit why the Constitution has provisions that limit the power of the majority and of the State. See, when two foxes and a chicken vote on what to have for dinner, that's Democracy in action. Pretty much sucks for the chicken.
If the majority says "Let's enslave everyone who is under 5 feet tall" that is a big problem. Perhaps if the majority said "We will ban role-playing games!" you'd have a different opinion? But, since the majority made the decision, you think it's right? I'm very confused. Perhaps you should take a break and do some serious thinking about what you meant to say, versus what you actually typed.
Edit: Dang, ninja'd again.
Sorry if I ended up bothering anyone here. I think I am calling it quits on this one.
Carry on.
The representatives of the people can propose amendments to the constitution, therefore the constitution is not static and is still controlled by the majority. Your rights as an individual can be amended away should the majority chose to do so (A highly improbable scenario but stranger things have happened).
The constitution gives power to the elected representatives to make laws for the people. The constitution is the frame work of the social contract that dictates the way your democracy works.
I am arguing that when the rights of one individual are given precedence over the rights of other individuals then that is tyranny.
You are are arguing that you should be excluded from health care because it impinges on your rights. Your rights take precedence over those that have voted in the representatives, that is the tyranny.
You have constructed more straw men than a Kansas scarecrow convention. Implying my views can lead to racism, and flat earther mentality, is not persuading me at all.
Doug and The Thing I will agree to disagree with you. If you are ever in Sydney I will buy you a beer and we can talk about other stuff.
EDIT:
I am not bothered, I enjoy robust discussion on political philosophy.
The representatives of the people can propose amendments to the constitution, therefore the constitution is not static and is still controlled by the majority. Your rights as an individual can be amended away should the majority chose to do so (A highly improbable scenario but stranger things have happened).
The constitution gives power to the elected representatives to make laws for the people. The constitution is the frame work of the social contract that dictates the way your democracy works.
I am arguing that when the rights of one individual are given precedence over the rights of other individuals then that is tyranny.
You are are arguing that you should be excluded from health care because it impinges on your rights. Your rights take precedence over those that have voted in the representatives, that is the tyranny.
Actually, I think he is saying his rights are being impinged upon for people claiming something is a right that is not. So a privilege is taking precedence over a right. That I think is the central issue. Now you may not agree that he has a right to his wealth or you may not agree that having health care is a privilege. But I think that is where the fundamental disconnect is occuring.
I wonder how many people arguing that it is ok to change the laws to create new "rights" such as health care feel about those same means being used to limit others "rights" such as the state constitutional ammendments that have been passed limiting marriage to one man and one woman. It is the same means, does that make it "just"?
I've noticed a curious lack of people with terminal illnesses or grievous injuries complaining about their "freedom" not to buy health insurance being "impinged upon."
Never mind; I'm sure they're lots of them out there. Really.
Actually, I think he is saying his rights are being impinged upon for people claiming something is a right that is not. So a privilege is taking precedence over a right. That I think is the central issue. Now you may not agree that he has a right to his wealth or you may not agree that having health care is a privilege. But I think that is where the fundamental disconnect is occuring.I wonder how many people arguing that it is ok to change the laws to create new "rights" such as health care feel about those same means being used to limit others "rights" such as the state constitutional ammendments that have been passed limiting marriage to one man and one woman. It is the same means, does that make it "just"?
I don't see how "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness*" doesn't include some kind of healthcare. I would think dying of AIDs or cancer might put a dent the pursuit of happiness, let alone the "life" part. Given that, I think a fellow citizen's right not to die in agony trumps your right to a own a new 52" 1080p LCD TV. Yes, even though you worked for it. Taxes aren't robbery; get over it already.
Between the uninsured guy dying of cancer, and you paying higher taxes, are you really unable to figure out that YOU AREN'T THE VICTIM? WTF is the matter with people?
I don't see how "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness*" doesn't include some kind of healthcare. I would think dying of AIDs or cancer might put a dent the pursuit of happiness, let alone the "life" part.
Actually, I think he is saying his rights are being impinged upon for people claiming something is a right that is not. So a privilege is taking precedence over a right. That I think is the central issue. Now you may not agree that he has a right to his wealth or you may not agree that having health care is a privilege. But I think that is where the fundamental disconnect is occuring.I wonder how many people arguing that it is ok to change the laws to create new "rights" such as health care feel about those same means being used to limit others "rights" such as the state constitutional ammendments that have been passed limiting marriage to one man and one woman. It is the same means, does that make it "just"?
So what magic spell do you have that cures those things 100% of the time?
Also, it is interesting that some of the other countries with single payer systems actually do worse when dealing cancer than the pathetic US system.
Given that, I think a fellow citizen's right not to die in agony trumps your right to a own a new 52" 1080p LCD TV. Yes, even though you worked for it. Taxes aren't robbery; get over it already.
So following that logic, since there is always the need for even more money, even single payer systems have to put limits on what is spent on treatment, why not take all disposable income from every person and only leave them enough to live on. Heck, have the government provide living quarters, clothing, and food, that way no money is wasted by anyone. What makes you think your right to a PF products takes precedence on keeping someone's grandma alive for another week, even it costs the government $10,000,000 to do it.
Between the uninsured guy dying of cancer, and you paying higher taxes, are you really unable to figure out that YOU AREN'T THE VICTIM? WTF is the matter with people?
You are right, every single person is selfish that doesn't have every single cent of disposable income going to helping those in need. I will admit it first, I am selfish. Now are you ready to admit yourself?
I can't understand why some Americans think that a system like what we have in the UK is bad.
My aunty at the moment is waiting to die.
She has a brain tumor and riddled with cancer.
She is 62.
Three times a day someone comes around to check on her. She has a "magic button" which she can press and someone will arrive within half an hour maximum 24 hours a day everyday. She has had months of anticancer treatment. All her meds, food, heating everything is being paid for by the government. Special furniture, medical equipment, alterations so she can bathe....
All this for a little bit of taxation. For that she has got peace of mind, has been made comfortable and hasn't got to worry about her care. She can die peacefully at home surrounded by loved ones.
At the same time there is a Turk illeagal having a gender reassignment op, costing the tax payer £60K, for free. Whilst this makes me angry I still wouldn't change what we have.
I don't see how "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness*" doesn't include some kind of healthcare.
You have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and to use those to pursue happiness in whichever way you deem fit. However, infringing on others inalienable rights means you don't have the right to take another's life, liberty, and property.
So, yes, you have the right to use your property to purchase whatever health care you wish. However, you don't have the right to take my property to pay for your health care. You don't have the right to infringe on another's liberty to provide that coverage (like, say, forcing a doctor to perform surgery).
Similarly, you do not have the right to infringe on someone else's property/liberty/life to provide you insurance against catastrophic health care costs.
Um, no. Civil society is based on the idea that governments are instituted to secure those Natural Rights.Same thing stated in different orders. Chief among the things the government uses its monopoly of force to enforce is protecting the rights of the citizens.
Um, no, your original wording was incorrect. Government does not provide rights. Government can't. Rights are given simply by virtue of being born. Priveledges are granted by the government, such as the priveledge to drive a car, or the priveledge of receiving unemployment benefits.
As for the sixth amendment, it protects the rights of individuals against the tyranny of government. In times of tyranny, the government would simply provide show trials and summarily execute those who it wishes. Evidence of this is provided in the recent histories of China, Russia, North Korea, and Cambodia, to name a few.
I'll give you an example. Everyone needs a will. You're gonna die, you need a document describing who gets your stuff. The government does not, and should not, confiscate wealth from someone to pay for the lawyer fees of another.
Another example: A dispute over a contract between an actor and her manager. Neither side gets a lawyer paid for by the taxpayers. The state has no interest in the case, except to provide a framework to ensure both individuals are bound by the same law.
Similarly, in a criminal case, the defendant will not have a high-priced celebrity attorney provided. The defendant has the right to have his rights defended, but does not have the right to use confiscated wealth to hire whomever he wishes. You're not gonna get Alan Dershowitz to represent you at your trial.
Incidentally, as trial lawyers predominantly donate money to the Democrat party, you will never see a "socialized law care" bill presented. Why? Because those lawyers know that such a bill will infringe upon their rights of liberty and property, and will stop donating money to those people who wish to infringe upon those rights.
Another example: A dispute over a contract between an actor and her manager. Neither side gets a lawyer paid for by the taxpayers. The state has no interest in the case, except to provide a framework to ensure both individuals are bound by the same law.
It should additionally be noted that the parties must often pay court costs in order to utilize the provide framework. In other words, the courts aren't free.
You are right, every single person is selfish that doesn't have every single cent of disposable income going to helping those in need. I will admit it first, I am selfish. Now are you ready to admit yourself?
I'm going to ignore the bit about whether our treatment is 100% effective, because that's irrelevant. Also, as to whether we're better at treating insured people; we may well be. But that's that at issue; I can can assure you that we're not better at treating the uninsured people!
Now to the part of your post that's relevant: Yes, of course I'm selfish. Everyone is to an extent. But, like most things, there is a middle ground. Any position can be made to look ridiculous by taking the most extreme case (every cent to pay for medical care). No one is advocating that.
The representatives of the people can propose amendments to the constitution, therefore the constitution is not static and is still controlled by the majority.
Correct on not being static. I have never said otherwise. Incorrect on being controlled by the majority.
Your rights as an individual can be amended away should the majority chose to do so (A highly improbable scenario but stranger things have happened).
But, I'm afraid that the "majority" cannot do so.
General link regarding how To Amend the US Constitution.
Note: For something so brief as the "process" and "steps", I believe about dot com is sufficient for this...
To Propose Amendments
•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
•Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
So, just getting started takes far more than a "super majority" and it has to be done is each part of the legislative branch or it has to be done (probably each with a majority) with far greater than a majority of the states. Just getting started is a very high bar.
But, for actually amending the constitution once the process has started, it is even more strenuous:
To Ratify Amendments
•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
The point is that the process is not based upon what the majority wants. It is strongly based on the notion of the individual rights of states. A majority is a far simpler objective to reach.
This does not give the majority the ability to do what it wants and choosing to abide by it is not choosing to abide by a contract that says you agree to the wishes of the majority. The numbers are deliberately skewed (by number and location) so as to prevent the majority from running rough shod over the minority.
One prime example of this is that it prevents a few heavily populated (urban) states from combing with the urban centers of the more sparsely populated (rural) states to overwhelm the rights of individuals in those states and areas. Or to be specific, it is meant to preserve the rights of individual states so as to preserve the ability for individuals to choose for themselves the circumstances in which they live. The can move from one state to another and remain within the United States.
I am arguing that when the rights of one individual are given precedence over the rights of other individuals then that is tyranny.
I am not sure where this is going...
You are are arguing that you should be excluded from health care because it impinges on your rights.
Now I see where it is going.
I have made no such argument. :)
I have argued against "logical inconsistencies". From my first post on this topic, here is an edit note I made immediately after posting the:
Edit Note: The above is logic driven rather than support for any particular agenda or other
Going back over my posts...
I argued against the idea that our society is a contract that allows the majority to make the rules. The majority is allowed to make some rules and is restricted by the constitution.
I have also argued that taxing for healthcare is not the same as the "natural" concepts of an armed force and a police force because without the former (armed force) a state will cease to exist and without the latter (police force) the existence will be in name only and the country will not function as a state. The same is not true for healthcare with the US being a prime example.
I have argued that adherence to the constituion is what protects the rights of individuals rather than the force of the majority of democratically elected representatives. I went on to counter that not only is the will of the majority not the defining factor to protect the rights of individuals but to point out that the will of the majority is not even the defining factor to protect itself from those who control power.
On the previous page I have argued that the Senate bill federal subsidies could be applied to abortion because they do an end around to the Hyde amendment restrictions but that is a separate line of argument...
In fact, rather than arguing in favor of Doug's ideals I have been merely arguing against the attacks made against those ideals and statements. Two different things. :)
[digression]
Why would I make such arguments?
The reason is that not fully agreeing with them does not mean that they don't carry weight.
To go a little further, it appears that a common factor to which many have objected (Doug and I believe Bitter Thorn) is that it is becoming commonplace to ignore the constitution on the grounds of pragmatism. The point is that things once on the extreme end of being legally/constitutionally acceptable are becoming commonplace. As they become more common it is beginning to look like things that were considered unacceptable (as opposed to being at the end of the acceptable range) are now considered OK if it is "pragmatic" to do so. Once those things become common, new things would be considered just outside or on the edge and thus subject to "pragmatism". This slide can (eventually) lead to the loss of the things many hold dear that protect their liberties. Different people wish to apply the "lock down" to stop this slide at differing points.
Most people approach these concepts with some amount of pragmatism but that amount varies from individual to individual. But, this does not dismiss the arguments of principle as not having value in my opinion.
[/digression]
Your rights take precedence over those that have voted in the representatives, that is the tyranny.
No, I am arguing that there are limitations to the powers of those voted in by the majority. Those limitations protect the rights of the minority and in many cases that of the majority also. Expecting that individuals elected into offices defined by the constitution should confine their official work to the constraints of the constitution that created their office is not tyranny.
You have constructed more straw men than a Kansas scarecrow convention. Implying my views can lead to racism, and flat earther mentality, is not persuading me at all.
Was this in reference to something that I stated (the lead to racism bit...) or directed at someone else? If applicable to me, please demonstrate where so that I can amend what I stated or rethink my position.
Doug and The Thing I will agree to disagree with you. If you are ever in Sydney I will buy you a beer and we can talk about other stuff.
That sounds like a fair deal to me.
All this for a little bit of taxation. For that she has got peace of mind, has been made comfortable and hasn't got to worry about her care.
Meanwhile, a working family can't afford to send their child to higher education because of the taxes that are imposed. They must pay the government for your mother's care before they can take care of their own needs.
Perhaps, by holding a gun to the head of that family, by threatening them with prison should they not pay, you have committed the bigger crime.
Isn't it rather greedy and selfish of you to demand that others pay for your mother's care? Why do you not step up and provide money for her care yourself? I mean, if it were my mother, I'd be working all kinds of extra jobs to make sure her care was paid for.
stuff
Well said.
You have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and to use those to pursue happiness in whichever way you deem fit. However, infringing on others inalienable rights means you don't have the right to take another's life, liberty, and property.
Pursuit of happiness != property; but that aside:
We are taxed (our inalienable right to property is violated) to pay for the military, because that is deemed to be for the greater good.
Seatbelt use is mandated (our inalienable right to liberty is violated) to *avoid* paying for unnecessary catastrophic injuries.
There are numerous precedents for weighing various competing rights, some of which you have admitted you support. You've also not articulated a difference, despite being challenged multiple times. Because there isn't one.
So, yes, you have the right to use your property to purchase whatever health care you wish. However, you don't have the right to take my property to pay for your health care. You don't have the right to infringe on another's liberty to provide that coverage (like, say, forcing a doctor to perform surgery).
Agreed; I do not have the right to coerce a doctor to perform surgery. The fact that you equate that with taxation is, frankly, frightening.
Similarly, you do not have the right to infringe on someone else's property/liberty/life to provide you insurance against catastrophic health care costs.
Strangely, I view that particular situation as someone else's right to life outweighing your property rights. Which I've explained ad nauseam. I understand your side, please stop repeating it. If you understand mine, I think we're done here.