Democrats' Health Care bill has been passed - SCOTUS ruling update

[Danoff]

...I do hear the stories about how much charity care they give out. It's ridiculous and you know there are a lot of people taking advantage of that.

It can't last. People will stop donating to a charity that is being taken advantage of. This is what is known as "competition".

 

[Joey D]

It can't last. People will stop donating to a charity that is being taken advantage of. This is what is known as "competition".

Considering it's been going for over 80 years and they just expanded it (and are planning a new, bigger, expansion next year), I'm inclined to say you are wrong in assuming it won't last.

People will always take advantage of charities and prevent someone who actually needs the service from obtaining it. This is why I don't think it's the right way to assist with health care.

 

[Jump_Ace]

Hint: The solution is not to have the government provide gas.

Or is it 💡 j/k

Jerome

 

[Danoff]

Considering it's been going for over 80 years and they just expanded it (and are planning a new, bigger, expansion next year), I'm inclined to say you are wrong in assuming it won't last.

They must be doing something very right then. Perhaps it isn't perfect (what is), but it's clearly doing something more appealing than other charities.

People will always take advantage of charities and prevent someone who actually needs the service from obtaining it. This is why I don't think it's the right way to assist with health care.

I don't see how you can think charity is a bad way to assist with anything. I don't think it should be relied on, but certainly you agree that it has a role.

 

[Joey D]

They must be doing something very right then. Perhaps it isn't perfect (what is), but it's clearly doing something more appealing than other charities.

You still have loads of people taking advantage of it, which is my point.

I don't see how you can think charity is a bad way to assist with anything. I don't think it should be relied on, but certainly you agree that it has a role.

Charities should be there yes, but I don't think it shouldn't even be apart of the equation when looking at the country's health care. They should not be relied upon to pick up the pieces if something goes wrong.

And this is what I have against the current system, insurance is very expensive, just as not having insurance can be very expensive. This is in part due to the overpriced health care in America and the we allow malpractice lawsuits up the wazoo. I believe we need reform, but not necessarily in the form of social medicine.

 

[FoolKiller]

You really are the most incurable Romantic.

To paraphrase Stephen R Covey in "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People": Values can change over time, but principles never do. I hold the same principles of individual freedoms and inalienable human rights that were used to declare independence and found this country. The fact that this country has begun abandoning those principles and acting in the same way the countries we tried to differentiate ourselves from over the last 100+ years does not change those principles.

I am not accusing you of supporting any of the nasty corporatist things, I am fascinated to know how you think these outcomes are to be avoided? Because, even if it were possible to start afresh with a Utopian Libertarian world (which it clearly is not), IMO, every kind of human nastiness & folly would inevitably creep back into existence in short order.

It is a natural trend for the individual rights to fade away and government interference to increase, but it is not inevitable. If you truly want to know how to avoid them, notice that I often mention the Constitution. Look at government entities (or supposed independent ones that work with the government) that have the power of law without elected officials that must answer to the voters: The Federal Reserve, FCC, FDA, etc. Look at the things they are over. The entities have been around for a very long time, yet somehow they manage to fail at their stated goals. They have constantly benefited the corporations, making it possible for the corruption to take hold.

The Federal Reserve plays games with monetary policy behind the scenes that benefit corporate bank executives (and its run by appointed bankers, imagine that) and the banks in ways that harm the low and middle classes, they play with loan rates in order to spur unnaturally fast economic growth and ignore the economists warnings. They also loan out money to the government with zero accounting for how they manage to do that. And they print paper money. All of this in violation of the Constitution which gives Congress the power "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures."

The FCC regulates content over the airwaves and grants licenses to broadcasters and communications industries based on a certificate of need, allowing for monopolies to be formed in regional areas. In fact, when it was chartered in 1934 it was determined it must do this to prevent "unneeded competition." It was determined by the government that certain competition was bad. Along the lines of communications, during World War I the government took over all telecommunications lines in the name of national security, effectively killing all the slowly growing competition that AT&T had. During that time long distance rates increased dramatically. At the end of the war AT&T was handed the entire network, along with 80% of the profits earned during the war from the increased rates, which did not go back down, along with a check for $13 million for any "losses incurred." Then in the 80's that same government accused AT&T of anti-trust due to their monopoly status, conveniently forgetting how that happened.

FDA - Do I need to explain how much they screw up in favor of the pharmaceutical industries? Drug companies do enough testing to show the drug does what they say and doesn't kill a small test group. Then they send their drug to the FDA for testing, and pay the FDA for their services. Let me reiterate: The FDA is paid by the same companies they are supposed to govern. The FDA does some testing for safety and effectiveness, holding the drugs from the public for two years or more, and then sends it out the door. If the FDA testing fails to catch something and someone dies, they blame the same corporation that paid them to test it.

I could keep going. Next I would go after the education department, but Danoff covered that already.

Anyway, before I get off track: I do not believe that we can change this all over night. That would cause panic and instability. It will have to be a slow and steady process, but if the goal is to avoid corruption that is found with wealth and power you have to start from the entity that controls wealth (monetary supply) and power (regulatory authority), the government. Start removing these entities that are exercising power only granted to the Congress (and some not, meaning they belong to the states) by the Constitution and make elected officials accountable for these problems. Assuming the Supreme Court follows the Constitution, and not examples set by other countries, and every single regulation or policy change will be overly researched and examined by the legislature for fear of their jobs. What you will see is them not ignoring petitions in newspapers signed by hundreds of economists all but calling the president a liar for saying that all economists agree with him. You will see multiple thousand page bills made viewable to the public for days so that it can be given proper scrutiny, assuming you ever see a thousand plus page bill again, which will be unlikely.

It took us over 100 years to get to a point where we are telling citizens what they can eat and drink, or even what light bulbs to buy. It will take a while to return to a state where individual liberties are protected once again.

But the fact is that if each individual is properly protected then the collective as a whole will be better off.

Just as one concrete example, I would like to know how you believe the recent financial crisis was arrived at, how (if at all) it could have been "fixed", & how (if at all) it could be prevented from re-occurring?

I imagine I likely covered this above when talking about The Fed, and have discussed it in multiple other places on GTP. But to make life easier, click on the picture in Omnis' post. It hyperlinks to a site I would pull half my stuff from anyway.

I will warn you though, Austrian economics are often scary for someone who has been told that Keynesian economics are all there is.

 

[orimarc]

After trying to read this thread...

*SPLOSH!* (head implodes)

Mixing politics, health, and long discussions = not good for me.

 

[Danoff]

You still have loads of people taking advantage of it, which is my point.

Charities should be there yes, but I don't think it shouldn't even be apart of the equation when looking at the country's health care. They should not be relied upon to pick up the pieces if something goes wrong.

I think we are in violent agreement. Rampant abuse will most certainly ruin a charity's credibility and result in fewer donations. Some abuses may go overlooked.

And this is what I have against the current system, insurance is very expensive, just as not having insurance can be very expensive. This is in part due to the overpriced health care in America and the we allow malpractice lawsuits up the wazoo. I believe we need reform, but not necessarily in the form of social medicine.

Here we also seem to be in violent agreement. Malpractice is one part of the problem, an important part. But I think a bigger part of the problem is the tax code-created employer healthcare link. I see this as the biggest stumbling block at the moment.

If I want to get my healthcare half off (which is obviously a big deal) the government mandates that I use my employer's plan. My employer offers 3 (which is more than many), but it's still only 3 - and they're tailored to different needs. So chances are, my set of needs requires me to go with one. The one my employer chose. They have to mistreat me enough to make me be willing to pay twice as much to someone else - which is a lot of mistreatment.

People all over America are in this position. They get a choice between 2 healthcare options if they're lucky because the tax code offers an extreme incentive to use your employer's health care option. This is not an environment conducive to competition at the individual customer level.

There lots of other problems with the system, but that's the top of my priority list - Equal tax treatment of healthcare plans so that people can stop being forced into their employer's plans.

 

[Touring Mars]

A major issue for me is the ability (or rather the lack of it) of the free market to address the needs of those who aren't going to help private companies turn a profit, hence are of little to no interest to the free market and beyond the scope of any 'solutions' it might provide. Morally, I think there will always be some justification for a public option, whether or not there are moral issues with regards to defending rights as well. Although I accept that the current state of affairs may not be a failure of the free market as much as it may be a symptom of the free market not being allowed to operate properly, there remains the issue of what happens to those that the free market simply doesn't address - the poor, the elderly, the disabled etc.. However much I like the sound of the arguments put forth by the libertarian contingent, I have to agree with Biggles in being highly skeptical as to whether or not libertarian ideals will ever be shown to actually work in the real world, let alone that the outcome of their application would be preferable or morally superior.

 

[Danoff]

...what happens to those that the free market simply doesn't address - the poor, the elderly, the disabled etc..

How poor are we talking? The market does not cater to those that provide zero productivity it is true. But they inherently rely on the charity of others to survive. I simply prefer to allow that charity to be freely given rather than coerced at gunpoint. If we're talking about people with small but tangible productivity then we're talking about people that the market will and does cater to.

Let's take a step back from the solutions though and first agree on what the problem is. Health care costs in the US are rising rapidly. I submit that this is because the consumer is at least 2 steps removed from the actual payment of the product. If you told someone that they could buy whatever food they wanted at the grocery store for a monthly fee, you can imagine that monthly fee would go up over time as there is no disincentive on consumption. The food example is not a fantastic one since it is not a constantly-developing and innovating industry that has new expensive leading edge technology to share - but the basic principle of divorcing the relationship between consumption and cost remains.

So my first question is this... can we agree that this is the problem? That costs rise when consumers are shielded from them?

 

[FoolKiller]

I see your point and no denying its a good one 👍 I just see the bill as a way of helping people stay healthy. If an accident happens, I hate to see people have to sell their house or claim bankruptcy just to pay off the medical bills

Jerome

How much help does it give? It offers a cheaper alternative and additional restrictions to current systems, but it is giving nothing to no one. And if your financial situation is one in which you can't afford the plan you risk prison time. I don't know about you, but I would take freedom in bankruptcy over prison any day.

And I have yet to hear anyone explain how any supposed benefit to someone justifies the threat of imprisonment for failure to comply.

A major issue for me is the ability (or rather the lack of it) of the free market to address the needs of those who aren't going to help private companies turn a profit, hence are of little to no interest to the free market and beyond the scope of any 'solutions' it might provide.

To say this you must assume that a government plan will address everyone no matter what. Otherwise you have to explain the exact same thing for any social plan.

You also must assume that a free market does not leave room for charity and aid. A free market system would be far more inclusive than the current status quo, and without the need to force it on supposedly free citizens.

Morally, I think there will always be some justification for a public option, whether or not there are moral issues with regards to defending rights as well.

So, forced health care at gunpoint, needed or not, can be morally justified in any way?

However much I like the sound of the arguments put forth by the libertarian contingent, I have to agree with Biggles in being highly skeptical as to whether or not libertarian ideals will ever be shown to actually work in the real world, let alone that the outcome of their application would be preferable or morally superior.

If the current plan didn't have a mandate that punished those that fall in the cracks (too much for aid, not enough to afford it) with prison you may have an argument for debating whether it is more morally justified to defend property rights or to violate those rights to provide for the less fortunate. And we could discuss which group is better to have fall through the cracks in what kind of system.

But this current plan with a mandate reminds me of Scrooge saying, "Are there no prisons?" At least the free market plan would allow those who fall through the cracks to remain free to attempt to work their way up to it.




EDIT: Just adding this video from the debates that asks a very good question. "Why do you have to criminalize people to coax them into a health care plan that is fabulous?"

 

[Public'sTwin]

I disagree. Now is exactly the time to fix our healthcare system. But the fix involves a net decrease in government expense. It mostly involves legislation that levels market playing fields rather than creating a new bureaucracy.

I will agree with you here, danoff—but it's my pessimism regarding the outcome of the American free market which I cannot personally trust to see this come to fruition. So, while our ideals can be compatible, I simply don't find it realistic to re-visit that route.

Secondly, FoolKiller & Omnis: I challenge you to provide me with a single Libertarian federal government/society functioning today.

(I will respond more thoroughly in the next couple of days, as I've just had 3 wisdom teeth extracted and the shiny reflections of my monitor on my keys alone has delayed this message 5 times—nevermind the amount of time spent correcting typos.)

 

[Danoff]

I will agree with you here, danoff—but it's my pessimism regarding the outcome of the American free market which I cannot personally trust to see this come to fruition. So, while our ideals can be compatible, I simply don't find it realistic to re-visit that route.

To "re" visit the route we must have visited it once without success. The last time this was "visited" was 100 years ago, when healthcare hadn't even really been invented. Since then we have linked healthcare packages with employers due to tax incentives.

So I wonder how you could possibly think we have exhausted this avenue. Quite simply put, our healthcare system was broken from the get-go.

 

[the Interceptor]

Just for clarification, since I'm curious: does the planned health care system really force any US-American to get some form of health care or receive punishment for failing to do so? I'm asking because in Germany, only those who can afford it are bound to have it, and those who can't will be covered for by the state.

As for health care being forced on people: this is a fundamental problem in my eyes. Most of those who say that this plan is faulty are the ones currently on the receiving end of the system. They can afford health care (insurance), therefore they don't accept to probably pay more into a system which provide less coverage for them. That however arguably is necessary, because the system is meant to provide coverage for those who can not afford it today. I understand that this system is a blatant violation of the rights of the individual person, since it takes away specific freedoms. However, it is impossible in my eyes to install a system which helps the greater public good and maintains the rights of every individual. That is a very basic antagonism. The logical conclusion is that you simply can not install a system like this in a society like the US.

On a sidenote, I might add that all the public health care systems in the western world have their fair share of problems, and that, given that it was a good idea to try to introduce it in the US, it would have needed a good makeover, including getting rid of some problems and altering it to work in a society as large. Overall however, I by now think that it simply is not applicable to the USA.

 

[Omnis]

Secondly, FoolKiller & Omnis: I challenge you to provide me with a single Libertarian federal government/society functioning today.

As if that's supposed to prove your point?

 

[Famine]

Just for clarification, since I'm curious: does the planned health care system really force any US-American to get some form of health care or receive punishment for failing to do so?

Yes. You must either buy private insurance or pay the cost of the public insurance. There isn't an opt-out.

Call it a "being alive tax".

 

[Omnis]

But the question is what constitutes private insurance according to them. Are we talking managed care or catastrophic?

 

[Duke]

People will always take advantage of charities and prevent someone who actually needs the service from obtaining it. This is why I don't think it's the right way to assist with health care.

So it's better to make that into legislate that and turn it into a federal institution that you face jail time for not participating in?

Since when is doing a bad thing on a titanically larger scale a good thing?

 

[Public'sTwin]

As if that's supposed to prove your point?

💡

Libertarianism is the only working philosophy.

Since it's not working, you can't claim that. So, no—but it invalidates yours.

And if your financial situation is one in which you can't afford the plan you risk prison time. I don't know about you, but I would take freedom in bankruptcy over prison any day.

Funnily enough, the ironic part is that medicare is provided in jail. How long is that term for? (I'm in no way condoning this, er, "option", but it's an amusing dichotomy which illustrates the quagmire you're all facing.)

Edit: Thank you, Famine—but quoting myself instead of clicking edit was unintentional; perhaps that should be brought to Jordan's attention, as I've already done it 3 times while sober as well.

 

[the Interceptor]

Yes. You must either buy private insurance or pay the cost of the public insurance. There isn't an opt-out.

Call it a "being alive tax".

Any idea why they made it like that?

 

[Shadow Wulf 2k]

Any idea why they made it like that?

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's!

 

[Famine]

Any idea why they made it like that?

If you're going to trample on the rights of every citizen, there's no sense doing it one right at a time?


There isn't really a single idea I can come up with that stands up to scrutiny as to why they'd make insurance compulsory, so I can't make any logical guesses. Even the most obvious one - so there's uptake of the public insurance - doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[FoolKiller]

Just for clarification, since I'm curious: does the planned health care system really force any US-American to get some form of health care or receive punishment for failing to do so? I'm asking because in Germany, only those who can afford it are bound to have it, and those who can't will be covered for by the state.

Yes, and employers have to offer a plan to all employees as well. Many, many, many small businesses cannot afford this.

But anyway, for the individual mandate, it is a bit worse than just that. The section of the bill is here.

SEC. 501. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

`PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

`subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

`Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage

`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

`SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

Before we go further, I want to point out the part I highlighted in red. Don't miss a payment. It isn't just a matter of not getting it. It is a matter of not having it at any time.

Anyway, the penalty is actually a tax penalty, as this is adding it to the Internal Revenue Code. But of course if finances, and not just stubborn refusal, is the reason you don't have it then you can't pay that tax either and will face tax evasion penalties.

So, then we must look up the tax code. See how well hidden this is? It is like the Arthur Dent looking for the notice that his house will be destroyed in order to make way for a bypass. Fortunately, the wonderful Internet prevents me from needing a torch.

§ 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
How Current is This? Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting “felony” for “misdemeanor” and “5 years” for “1 year”.

So basically, if you can't pay but are up front about it you just get the misdemeanor of up to $25,000 and 1 year in prision. If you just choose to lie about it (as Sec 6050I in the tax code refers to information required when filing), then it will likely become a felony and result in the 5 year prison sentence.

On a sidenote, I might add that all the public health care systems in the western world have their fair share of problems, and that, given that it was a good idea to try to introduce it in the US, it would have needed a good makeover, including getting rid of some problems and altering it to work in a society as large. Overall however, I by now think that it simply is not applicable to the USA.

So, would you agree then that the Obama Administration's attempts to initially push it through in less time than it took him to pick out a puppy was wreckless at best?

Funnily enough, the ironic part is that medicare is provided in jail. How long is that term for?

See above.

 

[the Interceptor]

So, would you agree then that the Obama Administration's attempts to initially push it through in less time than it took him to pick out a puppy was wreckless at best?

Yes. To put it clearly, I'd say it is outright foolish to try to force-feed the system in this shape to the US citizens. It was obvious from the beginning that there would be a lot of anti-movement, so introducing an idea with many faults and then pushing it through violently can only lead to more protesting. I do still believe that such a system can work quite well (yet, no system is without fault), but I do recognize that this case should have been handled very differently by your current administration.

I think that there's a lot of emotion involved on both sides, emotion which clouds the ability to judge a situation neutrally and probably leads to spiteful acts, also on both sides. Nonetheless, I really wish that the whole matter would be discussed in a way which is way more mature than it is right now. Not here, this discussion is excellent. I mean out there, in a biased and misinformed public. If a system is faulty, people should be told it is. But in todays time, this should happen in an appropriate way. What's happening out there reminds me of the dark ages.

 

[Omnis]

💡


Since it's not working, you can't claim that. So, no—but it invalidates yours.

Which is exactly why I said "as if". You can't be serious if you honestly think free choice and mutually beneficial trade don't work. Absent coercion (government), every society is libertarian. Society only functions because of human action, and when you look at praxeology, the sole motivation for man to act is to better himself, his situation, and surroundings. Unfortunately, every society today is hindered by some form of coercive force. You're made to believe there is barbarism in government's absence. But that's entirely dependent on the people. I think we're beyond capable of behaving intelligently, but unfortunately there are some people who just have to insist that they are the superior decision-makers, if you catch my drift. Treat people like dogs and they'll act like dogs. Anyway, it's a miracle that even despite everything against it, free enterprise according to libertarian ideals has provided us with the wonderful goods and services we enjoy.

Meanwhile, your collectivist worldview has done nothing but provide the world with a collective headache.

 

[Duke]

Yes, and employers have to offer a plan to all employees as well. Many, many, many small businesses cannot afford this.

*raises hand*

If this is the case, my employer, which consists of 2 partners, 1 full-time employee (me), and 1 part-time employee, just got saddled with about $60,000 worth of overhead per year.

 

[Biggles]

If you're going to demand answers, it seems rather rude to ignore questions posed to you.

Sorry. I was temporarily called away by RL.

Human rights are derived directly from logic (like math).

It just doesn't work that way in practice. There's going to be an endless array of "grey areas" where it's not clear where one person's rights begin & another person's end. Those grey areas will end up being governed by rules, regulations & laws.

My example of somebody building munitions next door: they work away causing you no harm for months, years even. Then one day ... BOOM ... a little accident - your neighbour's house, your house & your family are blown to pieces. Your right to life , liberty etc. has been seriously, terminally, impinged. As a result the government steps in & imposes legislation forbidding the building of munitions in a residential neighbourhood.

That may sound like an extreme example, but actually, not long ago, a propane supply company blew up near a Toronto neighbourhood. People were killed, houses destroyed. It turned out the Propane company was not following strict safety rules legislated by the Provincial & municipal governments. Were those rules an infringement on the "rights" of the propane company to do business as it saw fit? When the government changed the rules to ban any possibility of a propane company operating near a residential neighbourhood, was it infringing on the "rights" of other propane companies (who may actually have been following all the existing rules & regulations) to operate freely?

I could come up with endless examples of conflicting "rights". But take a simple example like the one above, & multiply it over thousands, millions of other similar issues that effect the quality of life of citizens all over the world. Where one person's, or corporation's, or institution's or country's "rights" end, & another's begins is always going to be a contentious issue. The idea that there is a simple "mathematical" logic governing the balancing of different & often competing "rights", is charming, but hopelessly, absurdly naive.

 

[Danoff]

I could come up with endless examples of conflicting "rights".

First come up with one.

My example of somebody building munitions next door: they work away causing you no harm for months, years even. Then one day ... BOOM ... a little accident - your neighbour's house, your house & your family are blown to pieces. Your right to life , liberty etc. has been seriously, terminally, impinged.

How is this a special case of any kind? My neighbor has a car. He could accidentally crash it into my house with it and kill myself, my wife, and my hypothetical children. It is no different. He has no right to kill me certainly, and that doesn't change. Nor does it give me the right to dictate that he not be capable of killing me - which would be impossible.

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that logic may not adequately cover a situation, but I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Biggles]

How is this a special case of any kind? My neighbor has a car. He could accidentally crash it into my house with it and kill myself, my wife, and my hypothetical children. It is no different. He has no right to kill me certainly, and that doesn't change. Nor does it give me the right to dictate that he not be capable of killing me - which would be impossible.

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that logic may not adequately cover a situation, but I haven't seen it yet.

So you're OK with the idea of someone building explosives next to your house, perhaps a toxic waste dump, experimentation with biological germ warfare, nuclear by-products, asbestos disposal? Yes, any kind of unpredictable accident could happen, but what you're apparently saying, is that there's no type or level of dangerous activity that you would find objectionable? Your neighbour has no right to kill or injure you, but has an unlimited right to engage in any activity that increases the likelihood that he might kill or injury you, up until the point that it actually happens?

It's really impossible to argue the point further with you, because if you really believe what you're saying, your ideas strike me as simply ridiculous.

Do you believe that Libertarianism equates to no government and no rules? You'd be wrong if you do.

I don't know anymore, Danoff's got me thinking you're all just completely nuts ...

 

[Danoff]

So you're OK with the idea of someone building explosives next to your house, perhaps a toxic waste dump, experimentation with biological germ warfare, nuclear by-products, asbestos disposal? Yes, any kind of unpredictable accident could happen, but what you're apparently saying, is that there's no type or level of dangerous activity that you would find objectionable? Your neighbour has no right to kill or injure you, but has an unlimited right to engage in any activity that increases the likelihood that he might kill or injury you, up until the point that it actually happens?

At the most fundamental level, yes. I don't want to be intellectually dishonest here by picking at your wording, but I think I understand what you are saying and it is the gist of what I'm claiming. That you do not have a right to control the activities of your neighbor. You have a right to your property, your life, and your pursuits. His property, his life, and his pursuits are his own rights.

Now, practically speaking - none of what you said above would happen. Because it would be completely impossible to manufacture munitions without trampling the property of your neighbor. Toxic waste disposal, etc. is similarly impossible without a great deal of care taken and a great deal of carefully surveyed land to play with. One whiff of gas wafting over from the neighbor's land, one trickle of liquid coming onto your property and you'd have a case to bring against him.

Now, is zoning really all you have to play with when it comes to these claimed conflicting rights?

It's really impossible to argue the point further with you, because if you really believe what you're saying, your ideas strike me as simply ridiculous.

What gives you the right to use force against your neighbor? You claim that I can march over to my neighbor's property with a gun and demand that he cease whatever activity he engages in that enough people think is unacceptable. This is a clear violation of his rights and with no sound reasoning to support it. He has done nothing wrong. He has not harmed me or threatened me in any way. He has not violated a contract with me (contracts which, btw, can and are used to prevent these sorts of disputes) or destroyed my property. I have nothing but my own apprehension to point to as a justification for the use of force against him...

...that is a clear breach of morality.