|
On February 04 2012 04:50 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 04:49 mcc wrote:On February 04 2012 04:40 Hider wrote:On February 04 2012 04:29 mcc wrote:On February 04 2012 04:12 Hider wrote:On February 04 2012 03:38 junemermaid wrote:On February 03 2012 21:09 Hider wrote:On February 03 2012 18:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 03 2012 15:33 Rabbet wrote:On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:
[quote]
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense. Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude. Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_HoodRobin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good. The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft. But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights. That statement that it is theft assumes that property rights actually exist without existence of government-like organization in place. There is written a lot of litterature about this. I haven't had time to study anarchy that much, but there are a lot of different approaches to anarchy (capitalistic). David Friedman had one that was kinda utility based, and Murray Rothbard is more rightbased. I am not familiar which exact approach Friedman has taken, but if he did use utilitarian-like approach then he also probably would not call taxes theft in general, he would just call them unnecessary/wasteful based on his opinion about government inefficiency. Pretty sure he called them theft. But just because you think something is theft, doesn't mean you can't justify it according to your own ideology (Hi Robin Hood).
I just randomly googled some interview of his and his opinions on taxes seemed form that pretty close to what I described. Did not seem he considered them theft per se.
|
On February 04 2012 05:05 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 04:50 Hider wrote:On February 04 2012 04:49 mcc wrote:On February 04 2012 04:40 Hider wrote:On February 04 2012 04:29 mcc wrote:On February 04 2012 04:12 Hider wrote:On February 04 2012 03:38 junemermaid wrote:On February 03 2012 21:09 Hider wrote:On February 03 2012 18:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 03 2012 15:33 Rabbet wrote:
[quote]
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude. Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_HoodRobin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good. The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft. But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights. That statement that it is theft assumes that property rights actually exist without existence of government-like organization in place. There is written a lot of litterature about this. I haven't had time to study anarchy that much, but there are a lot of different approaches to anarchy (capitalistic). David Friedman had one that was kinda utility based, and Murray Rothbard is more rightbased. I am not familiar which exact approach Friedman has taken, but if he did use utilitarian-like approach then he also probably would not call taxes theft in general, he would just call them unnecessary/wasteful based on his opinion about government inefficiency. Pretty sure he called them theft. But just because you think something is theft, doesn't mean you can't justify it according to your own ideology (Hi Robin Hood). Right, the whole point to defining taxation as theft is to ensure that taxes are procured in the most moral way possible and to ensure that the government has a sufficient justification for the things which it taxes the citizens for. It isn't to simply state that all taxes are unjustified and therefore should be completely eliminated, as a lot of people assume regarding libertarian ideology. It's simply a way of saying "is the forceful taking of this citizens property justified for this purpose?" In many cases the answer is a clear no, but people lump all taxes together and simply assume that libertarians want people to starve to death or something. I'll admit that many libertarians come off as naive or plain crazy, but the important thing to note is that most of the philosophy is based upon a very simple morality which the majority of people, including liberals, agree with. To simply throw the whole issue of morality out the window because you can't figure out how to solve some economic problems is a terrible mindset to have. "Do your best to not cause harm to other people." It's a pretty basic moral principle, right? Try to start with this foundation instead of just jumping into "omg libertarian philosophy is stupid and crazy."
So basically calling taxes theft is a PR move ?
|
On February 03 2012 18:20 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 15:33 Rabbet wrote:On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote:
But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude. your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health. you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too. whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen. you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense. Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude. The government ends up representing the majority. The VAST majority are for the system we have in place. You are an EXTREME minority (thank god for that). You either take part in what the majority of society wants it to be like, or get out. A country ruled by private enterprise, one where the dollar is the most important thing in any and all situations, and self preservation, without a sense of unity is prominant, is not my type of country. Almost everyone in Canada would agree with that stance. You dont like it, get out. Period. The government isnt stealing your money. You are free to pick up and leave if you dont like the lifestyle this country provides you. Im just letting you know, it will be almost impossible to find somewhere your selfish naive ideals are the standard, that has a higher quality of life.
Actually this is exactly why we have the constitution, to avoid tyranny by majority. Maybe it's people who want mob rule should get out.
the "selfish naive" ideas were the standards of the founders of our country, and pretty much all of them were actually great humanitarians, and had uni-vocal support from the general population, it's just that they also had the common sense to realize that a body that has a monopoly on force (the government) needs to have very strict restrictions on how it can use this force within the law REGARDLESS of how many people support it.
|
On February 03 2012 10:37 aksfjh wrote:
With the exception of housing, which is widely under debate at this moment, the programs you list do things cheaper than the private sector. Education tuitions rose because state budgets have refused to increase funding based on demand for nearly a decade. Military costs went through the roof because we turned to the private sector to help fight the war, instead of sticking to tradition and conscripting.
My argument is that when private sector is forced to the compete with the government the prices go up disproportionately to the quality.
So all my examples basically on point. I'm talking about costs both private and public. Government drove up the price of education with easy credit, housing with easy credit, medicine with guarantees and subsidies, and military with contracts.
These types of economies don't work, you either need to have the whole thing nationalized or privatized without government incentives, and when you're dealing with a situation of individual customers private sector tends to be better, while for something like the military, you obviously want that fully nationalized, but the point is that when you have the two compete you get basically the worst possible situation.
|
On February 04 2012 05:21 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 18:20 Focuspants wrote:On February 03 2012 15:33 Rabbet wrote:On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote:
But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude. your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health. you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too. whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen. you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense. Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude. The government ends up representing the majority. The VAST majority are for the system we have in place. You are an EXTREME minority (thank god for that). You either take part in what the majority of society wants it to be like, or get out. A country ruled by private enterprise, one where the dollar is the most important thing in any and all situations, and self preservation, without a sense of unity is prominant, is not my type of country. Almost everyone in Canada would agree with that stance. You dont like it, get out. Period. The government isnt stealing your money. You are free to pick up and leave if you dont like the lifestyle this country provides you. Im just letting you know, it will be almost impossible to find somewhere your selfish naive ideals are the standard, that has a higher quality of life. Actually this is exactly why we have the constitution, to avoid tyranny by majority. Maybe it's people who want mob rule should get out. the "selfish naive" ideas were the standards of the founders of our country, and pretty much all of them were actually great humanitarians, and had uni-vocal support from the general population, it's just that they also had the common sense to realize that a body that has a monopoly on force (the government) needs to have very strict restrictions on how it can use this force within the low REGARDLESS of how many people support it.
Well, you can go so far in that direction that it's essentially oligarchy, where the power is so concentrated in the hands of the few (your country is pretty well close to that anyways). Unfortunately the constitution has actually aided the destruction of individual rights through things like Cit united, which is the exact issue where most certainly the majority should rule. The constitution should exist to protect minorities, not those with the most power.
I always get this creepy feeling republicans are into eugenics and Naziism when they talk about democracy. It's as if they don't think the population could ever be fit to rule themselves and need to be slaves. They also seem to think that non-government (i.e. corporations) will always do good deeds if only the government would leave them alone, and that there should be absolutely no way for a citizen to gain compensation for the ills put on them, especially when the wrong-doer is rich. It's as if you don't think a corporation has more power than the state, which is ludicrous.
|
On February 04 2012 05:21 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 18:20 Focuspants wrote:On February 03 2012 15:33 Rabbet wrote:On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote:
But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude. your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health. you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too. whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen. you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense. Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude. The government ends up representing the majority. The VAST majority are for the system we have in place. You are an EXTREME minority (thank god for that). You either take part in what the majority of society wants it to be like, or get out. A country ruled by private enterprise, one where the dollar is the most important thing in any and all situations, and self preservation, without a sense of unity is prominant, is not my type of country. Almost everyone in Canada would agree with that stance. You dont like it, get out. Period. The government isnt stealing your money. You are free to pick up and leave if you dont like the lifestyle this country provides you. Im just letting you know, it will be almost impossible to find somewhere your selfish naive ideals are the standard, that has a higher quality of life. Actually this is exactly why we have the constitution, to avoid tyranny by majority. Maybe it's people who want mob rule should get out. the "selfish naive" ideas were the standards of the founders of our country, and pretty much all of them were actually great humanitarians, and had uni-vocal support from the general population, it's just that they also had the common sense to realize that a body that has a monopoly on force (the government) needs to have very strict restrictions on how it can use this force within the law REGARDLESS of how many people support it.
No constitution will prevent tyranny of determined majority. There is no societal order that would prevent it. You can only try to minimize the chance of that happening.
As for your founders, they were progressive for their time, today they would be called immoral or misguided in many aspects. They also did not have uni-vocal support from the population. Far from it.
|
On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote:
But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude. your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health. you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too. whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen. you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
That's a ton of trash.
The money that he pays that goes to public health-care does absolutely nothing for his ability to participate in the marketplace and make hard-earned money that he's got.
Just because some people want a free-hand out and don't understand how prices work when government starts pouring on the money doesn't mean that the government all of a sudden has the power to ignore the constitution.
|
On February 04 2012 05:40 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote:
But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude. your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health. you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too. whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen. you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense. That's a ton of trash. The money that he pays that goes to public health-care does absolutely nothing for his ability to participate in the marketplace and make hard-earned money that he's got. Just because some people want a free-hand out and don't understand how prices work when government starts pouring on the money doesn't mean that the government all of a sudden has the power to ignore the constitution.
Actually, his post is factual. You, on the other hand, consistently base your posts on ideology rather than reality, as red_b himself showed in your exchange on healthcare.
By the way, Kiarip, since you never replied to my last post in our previous exchange, I take that as an acknowledgment from your part that your initial statement, which I rebutted, was indeed wrong.
|
On February 04 2012 05:39 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 05:21 Kiarip wrote:On February 03 2012 18:20 Focuspants wrote:On February 03 2012 15:33 Rabbet wrote:On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote:
But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude. your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health. you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too. whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen. you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense. Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude. The government ends up representing the majority. The VAST majority are for the system we have in place. You are an EXTREME minority (thank god for that). You either take part in what the majority of society wants it to be like, or get out. A country ruled by private enterprise, one where the dollar is the most important thing in any and all situations, and self preservation, without a sense of unity is prominant, is not my type of country. Almost everyone in Canada would agree with that stance. You dont like it, get out. Period. The government isnt stealing your money. You are free to pick up and leave if you dont like the lifestyle this country provides you. Im just letting you know, it will be almost impossible to find somewhere your selfish naive ideals are the standard, that has a higher quality of life. Actually this is exactly why we have the constitution, to avoid tyranny by majority. Maybe it's people who want mob rule should get out. the "selfish naive" ideas were the standards of the founders of our country, and pretty much all of them were actually great humanitarians, and had uni-vocal support from the general population, it's just that they also had the common sense to realize that a body that has a monopoly on force (the government) needs to have very strict restrictions on how it can use this force within the law REGARDLESS of how many people support it. No constitution will prevent tyranny of determined majority. There is no societal order that would prevent it. You can only try to minimize the chance of that happening.
You're arguing a strawman, I'm saying the constitution limits the legal power of the government. Of course in an absolute sense anyone can do whatever the hell they want, but we're talking about the power that the Government is supposed to have according to the document that establishes its existence.
As for your founders, they were progressive for their time, today they would be called immoral or misguided in many aspects. They also did not have uni-vocal support from the population. Far from it.
George Washington won the re-election with 100% Electoral College vote, and basically 100% popular vote.
Progressive for their time? I guess if you use a the dictionary definition of progressive, and not the political one. They would only called immoral and mis-guided by the people in the actual government because the current government is basically a police state in comparison to the functional government we've used to have, and of course it doesn't want to give up all this power.
|
On February 04 2012 05:35 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 10:37 aksfjh wrote:
With the exception of housing, which is widely under debate at this moment, the programs you list do things cheaper than the private sector. Education tuitions rose because state budgets have refused to increase funding based on demand for nearly a decade. Military costs went through the roof because we turned to the private sector to help fight the war, instead of sticking to tradition and conscripting. My argument is that when private sector is forced to the compete with the government the prices go up disproportionately to the quality. So all my examples basically on point. I'm talking about costs both private and public. Government drove up the price of education with easy credit, housing with easy credit, medicine with guarantees and subsidies, and military with contracts. These types of economies don't work, you either need to have the whole thing nationalized or privatized without government incentives, and when you're dealing with a situation of individual customers private sector tends to be better, while for something like the military, you obviously want that fully nationalized, but the point is that when you have the two compete you get basically the worst possible situation.
I might agree with you on this partially. But I would add that private sector tends to do better only if the customer has at least some ability to actually judge the service at least somewhat objectively. Healthcare is one of those where that is not true and consequences of error are often fatal. Education also but for somewhat different reasons.
|
On February 04 2012 05:46 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 05:40 Kiarip wrote:On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote:
But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude. your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health. you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too. whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen. you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense. That's a ton of trash. The money that he pays that goes to public health-care does absolutely nothing for his ability to participate in the marketplace and make hard-earned money that he's got. Just because some people want a free-hand out and don't understand how prices work when government starts pouring on the money doesn't mean that the government all of a sudden has the power to ignore the constitution. Actually, his post is factual. You, on the other hand, consistently base your posts on ideology rather than reality, as red_b himself showed in your exchange on healthcare. By the way, Kiarip, since you never replied to my last post in our previous exchange, I take that as an acknowledgment from your part that your initial statement, which I rebutted, was indeed wrong.
I replied to it. The "right to health-care" as you defined it wasn't a right, if you would have used quotations you could have avoided the misunderstanding which resulted in you arguing semantics, but yeah you're right in the fact that we're done with that now, because like I stated, I have no interest in arguing about semantics with you.
|
On February 04 2012 05:46 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +
As for your founders, they were progressive for their time, today they would be called immoral or misguided in many aspects. They also did not have uni-vocal support from the population. Far from it.
George Washington won the re-election with 100% Electoral College vote, and basically 100% popular vote.
Yes, because back then universal suffrage already existed, right?
|
On February 04 2012 05:40 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote:
But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude. your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health. you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too. whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen. you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense. That's a ton of trash. The money that he pays that goes to public health-care does absolutely nothing for his ability to participate in the marketplace and make hard-earned money that he's got. Just because some people want a free-hand out and don't understand how prices work when government starts pouring on the money doesn't mean that the government all of a sudden has the power to ignore the constitution.
His point is I think, how would you earn anything without the society, not necessarily without the government. Without other people you would earn nothing.
|
On February 04 2012 05:48 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 05:46 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 05:40 Kiarip wrote:On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote:
But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude. your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health. you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too. whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen. you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense. That's a ton of trash. The money that he pays that goes to public health-care does absolutely nothing for his ability to participate in the marketplace and make hard-earned money that he's got. Just because some people want a free-hand out and don't understand how prices work when government starts pouring on the money doesn't mean that the government all of a sudden has the power to ignore the constitution. Actually, his post is factual. You, on the other hand, consistently base your posts on ideology rather than reality, as red_b himself showed in your exchange on healthcare. By the way, Kiarip, since you never replied to my last post in our previous exchange, I take that as an acknowledgment from your part that your initial statement, which I rebutted, was indeed wrong. I replied to it. The "right to health-care" as you defined it wasn't a right, if you would have used quotations you could have avoided the misunderstanding which resulted in you arguing semantics, but yeah you're right in the fact that we're done with that now, because like I stated, I have no interest in arguing about semantics with you.
No, you did not reply to it, and that's not what we were arguing about: we were arguing about your assertion that the rights of healthcare providers would be violated, while YOU were trying to derail the discussion into a debate about semantics and what constitutes a right. Nice to see you're still trying to avoid having to defend your claim!
|
On February 04 2012 05:47 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 05:35 Kiarip wrote:On February 03 2012 10:37 aksfjh wrote:
With the exception of housing, which is widely under debate at this moment, the programs you list do things cheaper than the private sector. Education tuitions rose because state budgets have refused to increase funding based on demand for nearly a decade. Military costs went through the roof because we turned to the private sector to help fight the war, instead of sticking to tradition and conscripting. My argument is that when private sector is forced to the compete with the government the prices go up disproportionately to the quality. So all my examples basically on point. I'm talking about costs both private and public. Government drove up the price of education with easy credit, housing with easy credit, medicine with guarantees and subsidies, and military with contracts. These types of economies don't work, you either need to have the whole thing nationalized or privatized without government incentives, and when you're dealing with a situation of individual customers private sector tends to be better, while for something like the military, you obviously want that fully nationalized, but the point is that when you have the two compete you get basically the worst possible situation. I might agree with you on this partially. But I would add that private sector tends to do better only if the customer has at least some ability to actually judge the service at least somewhat objectively. Healthcare is one of those where that is not true and consequences of error are often fatal. Education also but for somewhat different reasons.
The extremity of the consequences is what let's people judge the comparative quality of the services in these cases where the immediate clarity isn't there.
If you have two competing services A, and B, and the difference in quality isn't immediately obivous, but the consequences are also very mild, there is basically no way to determine which is better, so they're practically very similar in quality.
if you have two competing services A, and B, and the difference in quality is immediately obvious, than people pick the one that's better unless it's way more expensive, and in general the consequences of picking the thing that's worse are probably not so bad, because if they were no one would ever pick the thing that's obviously worse.
If you have two competing services A, and B, and the quality in difference isn't immediately obvious, and the consequences ARE extreme (the case you're talking about,) the only real way to judge what's better is based on how often this extreme consequence occurs. That's just how life is. If you're doing experimental treatment, there IS a good chance that something may go wrong, that's one of the reasons that someone may decide AGAINST experimental treatment. On the other hand if it's something as simple as getting aspirin, then you're not very likely to be dying because you bought the wrong one.
If you think the government can at all hedge the risks on this more effectively than the private sector using studies you're grossly mistaken. All it takes is a lobbyist to push a new treatment through the regulations that can possibly be fatal, and all of a sudden you have a situation where a certain treatment that has no competitors is fatal, which means that all the orders for it the government made is going to get destroyed (hopefully not repackaged,) and new legislature is going to have to be passed, and new research is going to have to be done, and meanwhile there's no alternative treatment out there.
|
On February 04 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 05:48 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 05:46 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 05:40 Kiarip wrote:On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote:
But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude. your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health. you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too. whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen. you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense. That's a ton of trash. The money that he pays that goes to public health-care does absolutely nothing for his ability to participate in the marketplace and make hard-earned money that he's got. Just because some people want a free-hand out and don't understand how prices work when government starts pouring on the money doesn't mean that the government all of a sudden has the power to ignore the constitution. Actually, his post is factual. You, on the other hand, consistently base your posts on ideology rather than reality, as red_b himself showed in your exchange on healthcare. By the way, Kiarip, since you never replied to my last post in our previous exchange, I take that as an acknowledgment from your part that your initial statement, which I rebutted, was indeed wrong. I replied to it. The "right to health-care" as you defined it wasn't a right, if you would have used quotations you could have avoided the misunderstanding which resulted in you arguing semantics, but yeah you're right in the fact that we're done with that now, because like I stated, I have no interest in arguing about semantics with you. No, you did not reply to it, and that's not what we were arguing about: we were arguing about your assertion that the rights of healthcare providers would be violated, while YOU were trying to derail the discussion into a debate about semantics and what constitutes a right. Nice to see you're still trying to avoid having to defend your claim!
I said that a right to healthcare would violate the rights of the health-care providers. However, since there's no actual right to healthcare anywhere right now I can't give you an example of the rights of health-care providers being violated, because there's no such right. I can only give you an example of the risks and expenses being socialized amongst the general population as a result of the government trying to deliver on their promise of this privilege.
|
On February 04 2012 05:49 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 05:46 Kiarip wrote:
As for your founders, they were progressive for their time, today they would be called immoral or misguided in many aspects. They also did not have uni-vocal support from the population. Far from it.
George Washington won the re-election with 100% Electoral College vote, and basically 100% popular vote. Yes, because back then universal suffrage already existed, right?
no but 13000 something people voted, and it was basically a unanimous vote.
What does Universal suffrage have to do with anything?
|
On February 04 2012 05:49 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 05:40 Kiarip wrote:On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote:
But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude. your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health. you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too. whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen. you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense. That's a ton of trash. The money that he pays that goes to public health-care does absolutely nothing for his ability to participate in the marketplace and make hard-earned money that he's got. Just because some people want a free-hand out and don't understand how prices work when government starts pouring on the money doesn't mean that the government all of a sudden has the power to ignore the constitution. His point is I think, how would you earn anything without the society, not necessarily without the government. Without other people you would earn nothing.
Well without a society money is worth nothing, and without division of labor he probably would never have all the material things that he's got, which is just another argument for the market, and capitalism, as it makes people a lot more productive.
But the taxes aren't collected for the good of the society, it's actually quite the opposite, a small portion of the money collected from the people is given back out selectively to the groups from which the government thinks it can get the most votes per dollar spent. Not only is this not an optimal way to redistribute wealth, but redistribution of wealth in the first place undermines property rights, which undermines an individual's incentive to work their hardest, and yes a society in which everyone is waiting for a hand-out and slacking off will definitely collapse.
|
On February 04 2012 05:46 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 05:39 mcc wrote:On February 04 2012 05:21 Kiarip wrote:On February 03 2012 18:20 Focuspants wrote:On February 03 2012 15:33 Rabbet wrote:On February 03 2012 15:04 red_b wrote:On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote:
But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude. your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health. you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too. whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen. you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense. Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude. The government ends up representing the majority. The VAST majority are for the system we have in place. You are an EXTREME minority (thank god for that). You either take part in what the majority of society wants it to be like, or get out. A country ruled by private enterprise, one where the dollar is the most important thing in any and all situations, and self preservation, without a sense of unity is prominant, is not my type of country. Almost everyone in Canada would agree with that stance. You dont like it, get out. Period. The government isnt stealing your money. You are free to pick up and leave if you dont like the lifestyle this country provides you. Im just letting you know, it will be almost impossible to find somewhere your selfish naive ideals are the standard, that has a higher quality of life. Actually this is exactly why we have the constitution, to avoid tyranny by majority. Maybe it's people who want mob rule should get out. the "selfish naive" ideas were the standards of the founders of our country, and pretty much all of them were actually great humanitarians, and had uni-vocal support from the general population, it's just that they also had the common sense to realize that a body that has a monopoly on force (the government) needs to have very strict restrictions on how it can use this force within the law REGARDLESS of how many people support it. No constitution will prevent tyranny of determined majority. There is no societal order that would prevent it. You can only try to minimize the chance of that happening. You're arguing a strawman, I'm saying the constitution limits the legal power of the government. Of course in an absolute sense anyone can do whatever the hell they want, but we're talking about the power that the Government is supposed to have according to the document that establishes its existence.
if that was you point, then it was completely not related to what he meant.
On February 04 2012 05:46 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +
As for your founders, they were progressive for their time, today they would be called immoral or misguided in many aspects. They also did not have uni-vocal support from the population. Far from it.
George Washington won the re-election with 100% Electoral College vote, and basically 100% popular vote. Progressive for their time? I guess if you use a the dictionary definition of progressive, and not the political one. They would only called immoral and mis-guided by the people in the actual government because the current government is basically a police state in comparison to the functional government we've used to have, and of course it doesn't want to give up all this power.
Oh, one of them got elected with 100 electoral votes of his fellow high class countrymen in election where 0.5% of the population voted. Color me impressed. Not even whole population was for independence for f's sake.
Anyway of course I am using dictionary definition, I am not an American to use it as an insult when it is a positive word. From current point of view slavery and women not having voting rights are quite immoral. They were misguided, because of the fear of tyranny they made the political system so extremely ineffective. I do not know if they also came up with majority voting system, but that was also rather bad decision.
Does that mean they did not achieve a rather great thing, no, it just means they were no shining beacons of morality or eternal geniuses that need to be worshiped for 300 years.
|
On February 04 2012 06:01 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 05:49 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 05:46 Kiarip wrote:
As for your founders, they were progressive for their time, today they would be called immoral or misguided in many aspects. They also did not have uni-vocal support from the population. Far from it.
George Washington won the re-election with 100% Electoral College vote, and basically 100% popular vote. Yes, because back then universal suffrage already existed, right? no but 13000 something people voted, and it was basically a unanimous vote. What does Universal suffrage have to do with anything?
You said the founders had uni-vocal support from the population, mcc disputed that claim, and your defense was that George Washington received "basically 100% popular vote". I pointed out that there was no universal suffrage back then (only a limited percentage of the population could vote) - your argument is therefore insufficient to defend the claim that the founders had uni-vocal support from the population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
