Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Famine]

Maybe to fill the gaping hole that libertarians gayly assume will be filled with the milk of human kindness?

Social issues require social solutions, not governmental ones.

 

[Danoff]

That a law is enforced by the threat of force does not make that law corrupt. The threat of enforcement is not what makes a law just or unjust, but yet this concept is being continually alluded to in this thread - that socialised healthcare is corrupt because it is "healthcare at gunpoint".

I agree that the use of force does not inherently make an action corrupt. The problem is that the use of force in violation of human rights does make an action corrupt. So you're leading with the wrong argument here. What you want to argue is that Paul has a right to Peter's property, not that Peter's right to use force to protect his property proves that Paul can use force to violate Peter's rights.

The main thrust of my argument is that the threat of force is being grossly exaggerated in this instance and is being used as an emotive tool to support the view that socialised healthcare is corrupt.

Absolutely not. I categorically reject the notion that I am using the gunpoint illustration to reach an emotional response. Right now Joey D has a gun to my head. That's not intended to get an emotional response, it's the truth. It is designed to get those who support socialized medicine to understand the human rights sacrifices inherent in their position. The fact that lethal force is the end result for me if I defend my property from seizure to pay for other peoples' healthcare means that the folks who vote it are literally putting a gun to my head. That's not designed to make you react emotionally, it's designed to point out that you're doing much more than you see when you vote.

To the extent that I am forced to pay for the healthcare of others, or they are forced to pay for mine, we are slaves.

I live in a country where such a "threat" has existed for decades, and the fact of the matter is that the violent outcomes that are being repeatedly cited here just don't happen in reality.

There are not violent outcomes cited. Only the use of violence to coerce is cited. That people are motivated by violence and do not futily die in defense of their property against seizure by the government should not surprise you. But it changes nothing about the nature of the coercion.

True, but it is the law nevertheless. If you dislike the laws of the land, you can always go somewhere else where the law is different.

There are multiple problems with this. One is that there is no place were I can go to keep my rights intact. Another is that I should not have to do anything to keep my rights intact. Another is that I am not the one advocating a violation of my country's laws, the people proposing socialized healthcare are. It is they who should go elsewhere (to one of the many countries that commit this rights violation). I happen to live in a country where this sort of thing is illegal. I simply want that rule enforced.

Therefore what one considers "just" is of key importance. It seems that libertarians do not consider it "just" to help those who can't help themselves and who are not being helped by anyone, or are likely to be.

This is not correct. It is perfectly just for you to help anyone you want who cannot help themselves. What I do not consider just is the threat of violence being used to rob me of my property. (Which, btw, robs me of my ability to help those that I wish to help)

You're broke? I'm guessing then that you can't afford private healthcare. Here, have some funded by the taxpayer instead, it'll fix you right up...

*insert duke's original criticism*

 

[FoolKiller]

Not at all - I fully acknowledge that many laws are necessarily enforced by the threat of force. That a law is enforced by the threat of force does not make that law corrupt. The threat of enforcement is not what makes a law just or unjust, but yet this concept is being continually alluded to in this thread - that socialised healthcare is corrupt because it is "healthcare at gunpoint". The main thrust of my argument is that the threat of force is being grossly exaggerated in this instance and is being used as an emotive tool to support the view that socialised healthcare is corrupt.

No, truly socialized health care is taxes and charity used for health care at gunpoint threat of incarceration (with guards carrying guns). In this instance it is health care at gunpoint threat of incarceration as it is compulsory that the citizens go out and buy health care on their own or face fines of an equal cost with the threat of larger fines and/or incarceration.

In this instance it is clearly health care itself that is being forced upon people, not the taxes to redistribute wealth via health care.

Unless you are talking NHS when you say "in this instance," in which case my above statement regarding it being just another form of wealth redistribution stands.

I readily acknowledge that the threat of force by the state is real, but I am also suggesting that this threat has to be kept in perspective. In specific regard to a public option on healthcare insurance, I live in a country where such a "threat" has existed for decades, and the fact of the matter is that the violent outcomes that are being repeatedly cited here just don't happen in reality.

Just because no one resists to a point that forces the violent outcomes we mention doesn't mean that the threat doesn't exist. A few men learning that lesson in Massachusetts is what led to the birth of this country.

And before anyone tries to argue that revolution and protest are two different things, I suggest you check out the 1968 DNC protests to see what happens when people get worked up over their civil rights and have it confirmed when their voices are ignored (the nomination ignored an 80% vote in the other direction).

That would be a National Guard soldier. The police and guardsmen became indiscriminate enough to even begin roughing up and macing bystanders, including newsmen Mike Wallace and Dan Rather.

But these things never happen in reality, right?

True, but it is the law nevertheless. If you dislike the laws of the land, you can always go somewhere else where the law is different.

This sounds very similar to Bush supporters telling Democrats, "If you don't like it then git out!" I think Glenn Beck even raised money to buy Robert Redford a one way ticket.

You can leave, or you can fight for justice. In the US it fortunately isn't the law yet, so I can completely ignore this statement and say that I will fight to prevent what I consider to be an injustice. And even then, I can say that I respect what this country was intended to be enough to fight to change any laws that I also find to be unjust. Patriot Act would be one.

Would you tell Americans that disagree with warrant-less wire taps, their phone and Internet records being searched, and so on to just leave if they don't like it? What about morality based laws that prevented embryonic stem cell research from receiving funding? Should scientists have just left the country or argued against it and worked to elect new representatives who would reflect their wishes? Because by your argument we should obviously just have another Bush-like Republican and all the stem cell researchers and war protesters should be in England or Canada.

Therefore what one considers "just" is of key importance. It seems that libertarians do not consider it "just" to help those who can't help themselves and who are not being helped by anyone, or are likely to be. Libertarians are seemingly convinced by the argument of Ben Franklin (see Duke's post above) that, although wishing to "help" the poor, welfare and charity to the poor actually makes the poor unwilling to help themselves, neglecting somewhat to mention those who are unable to help themselves. It is obvious that you won't encourage someone to improve their lot by allowing them to live comfortably on hand-outs. But there is also the question of what to do with people who, through no fault of their own, simply cannot act of their own volition to improve their lot e.g. the elderly, the sick, the mentally ill, the very young and the destitute for example. Hence I believe that a basic welfare state is a necessary part of a just society.


Which is fine when you are able to afford, are eligible for and have adequate health insurance. But if you aren't, then what? Currently, millions of Americans who want access to adequate health care coverage cannot get it, and that is the issue for alot of people.

I am reading through this and the best I can tell is that you think the Libertarian option is purely to eliminate all government health care aid, leave the rest as is, and say screw 'em to anyone not covered by charity. That is so far from accurate, because it completely ignores the actual reform plans proposed by both Mises and Cato, that it is sad.

No one argues that government provided auto insurance or property insurance is necessary, yet they all have moments when they are required by non-governmental agencies (although minimum driver's insurance is required by law). In fact, there are entire companies devoted to minimum necessary plans to cover catastrophic incidences. They are much less restricted, which is why they are able to do this.

See, the Libertarian plan is not this charity or else thing that you are alluding to. It starts with reform that allows insurance companies to work in ways that allows them and doctors much more flexibility to work with patients. It would not tie affordable care to employment and restrict choices by geographical location.

All of this is being ignored in your argument. Sure, even that will leave some people unable to afford it, but that number will be drastically reduced, making it easier for charities to cover as many of them as possible.

Not just a necessary part of society, but the very essence of the concept of society.

"a community of people living together for their mutual benefit"

Because in return you help pay for my well being from your portion of tax that goes to pay for the armed forces or police.

But you are also paying for the police protection. In a progressive system, it is even moreso. So, again you are actually paying for for your protection, and then some of Duke's while Duke is just paying for his own.

Again, how is it a mutual benefit for you to pay for more of everything than Duke?

Not to mention that you might be friends with the person whose healthcare you're paying for. Or they might be related. Or they might be your local baker who then goes out of business, and nobody can buy bread. Or the local Sherriff, whose absence sees an increase in crime, which affects everyone.

Extreme examples? Perhaps, but then metaphorically no less extreme than the example of someone holding a gun to your head demanding money. That was an example of a "small community" related metaphor, as was my metaphor. If you can apply one to wider society then you can apply the other.

And all of those would be good reasons to voluntarily help out. In fact, I have hired an out-of-work friend to do small jobs for me. He just finished redoing my kitchen floor last weekend and now my in-laws want to hire him to help them clean up a brush pile.

As TM points out, currently charity can only go so far, which is why there is so much more to the plan than just abandoning aid. Whenever government touches things they get more expensive. The larger picture is to reduce government interventionism and allow prices to fall in line with what the market can bear.

Don't worry, I don't think that - but I do think that libertarian policies are inadequate to address the needs of the truly dependent. For example, Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes at mises.org that we should "Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.". I simply cannot subscribe to the notion that need is akin to lifestyle choice, or a policy that disregards the truly dependent.

Glad to see you failed to mention that the article you are quoting has 4 points, three more than just what you quoted. It is also important to note that his elimination of subsidies is listed as the final step, after three intended to reduce the costs across the board, making it easier for many to gain access, thus reducing the number and costs of charity cases.

It is easy to say he disregards the truly dependent when you disregard his cost cutting proposals as well.

And even including them would risk missing the point that these steps are in addition to the larger overall plan.

 

[Touring Mars]

Social issues require social solutions, not governmental ones.

I disagree. Some social issues require solutions, full stop. Whether government intervention is required entirely depends on the effectiveness of the alternatives.

The problem is that the use of force in violation of human rights does make an action corrupt.

Not necessarily. If there is a conflict of rights, then the use of force in violation of one in order to enforce the other is not only justifiable, it is unavoidable. As I stated before, there are issues of conflicting rights, depending on which criteria you choose to define rights of course.

Right now Joey D has a gun to my head. That's not intended to get an emotional response, it's the truth.

Pic please - otherwise, I will continue to assume this is false.

It is designed to get those who support socialized medicine to understand the human rights sacrifices inherent in their position.

I understand the sacrifices inherent in my position. I don't need dodgy metaphors to make that any clearer.

The fact that lethal force is the end result for me if I defend my property from seizure to pay for other peoples' healthcare means that the folks who vote it are literally putting a gun to my head. That's not designed to make you react emotionally, it's designed to point out that you're doing much more than you see when you vote.

To the extent that I am forced to pay for the healthcare of others, or they are forced to pay for mine, we are slaves.

Again, this exact argument can be used against any form of taxation. Whether or not you feel persecuted or treated as a slave is your opinion - but I certainly don't share it. I accept the fact that some taxes are necessary and justified, and that refusal to pay them would ultimately result in a greater threat to my personal liberties than the taxman.

It is perfectly just for you to help anyone you want who cannot help themselves. What I do not consider just is the threat of violence being used to rob me of my property. (Which, btw, robs me of my ability to help those that I wish to help)

Evidently not, but then again, you appear to think that no form of taxation is just, so a public option on healthcare is presumably no different... in assessing the justice of taxation, solely considering individual property rights is insufficient - atleast, there is not a single developed nation in the world that defends itself with an army entirely funded by the private sector and via charity (please correct me if I am wrong about this). But since the welfare of the people is served by an effective military justifies taxation for defence spending, whether or not it conflicts with individual property rights.

 

[Danoff]

Not necessarily. If there is a conflict of rights, then the use of force in violation of one in order to enforce the other is not only justifiable, it is unavoidable. As I stated before, there are issues of conflicting rights, depending on which criteria you choose to define rights of course.

I've posted the criteria I use to define rights on this forum. What are yours?

Pic please - otherwise, I will continue to assume this is false.

Oh comeon! I know you're better than this. I tell you what, I'll refuse to pay my taxes. The government will attempt to seize my property, I'll defend it with every means at my disposal and I'll try to get a snapshot of the gun they use to kill me just before the bullet goes through my head. That way you'll see that there really is a gun pointed at me. Or I could just point out that if I shoot at them to keep them from taking my property (morally justifiable), they are legally authorized to shoot me. Hopefully that is sufficient without me actually dying to prove the point.

I understand the sacrifices inherent in my position. I don't need dodgy metaphors to make that any clearer.

I don't think you do. Because you balked at the example of the homeless man on the street in a way that suggests to me that you are NOT ok with that. Couple that with the fact that you have stated in this thread that you would NOT put a gun to someone's head to get their money for someone else's healthcare if you had to do it in person. But somehow it's ok if you do it by voting. That's an inconsistency that makes me think you need the sacrifices inherent in your position pointed out to you. If I'm wrong, admit that you'd be personally willing to threaten the lives of your friends and family for socialized medicine.

Again, this exact argument can be used against any form of taxation. Whether or not you feel persecuted or treated as a slave is your opinion - but I certainly don't share it.

Taxation is force. Sometimes the force is warranted and sometimes it is not. It depends entirely on the circumstances. A national park fee here in America is a form of warranted force. I am paying for a service that I am using. That is just - there is no rights violation inherent in that form of taxation, but it is force. It is force in defense of public property rather than force used against private property. There is a world of moral difference there.

That I am a slave, and that I have the threat of lethal force used against my property rights is not an opinion.

there is not a single developed nation in the world that defends itself with an army entirely funded by the private sector and via charity (please correct me if I am wrong about this). But since the welfare of the people is served by an effective military justifies taxation for defence spending, whether or not it conflicts with individual property rights.

Are you telling me you don't think it's possible to collect tax dollars for a military in a way that is moral and consistent with the principles of trade? Have you thought about it? Have you really sat down and considered whether this is possible? Or have you assumed that it is not.

 

[Joey D]

Right now Joey D has a gun to my head. That's not intended to get an emotional response, it's the truth.

I do? That surprises me because I'm fairly certain you are in California and I'm in Michigan. Please don't make false accusations like that, especially as serious as me threatening your life like that.

 

[Danoff]

I do? That surprises me because I'm fairly certain you are in California and I'm in Michigan. Please don't make false accusations like that, especially as serious as me threatening your life like that.

You're not following me here at all? I want to make this crystal clear to you. When you vote to increase my taxes for socialized healthcare (by voting for people who promise to do so), you are putting a gun to my head. You need to understand what you're doing when you vote.

Naturally you're not the only one. I don't mean to single you out and pick on you, but it has become apparent to me that making this as personal as possible is the only way to drive the point home. Because otherwise people don't seem to be interested in the moral implications of government. It is essential that you understand what you're doing when you vote - and by "you" I mean anyone reading this thread.

 

[Joey D]

You're not following me here at all? I want to make this crystal clear to you. When you vote to increase my taxes for socialized healthcare (by voting for people who promise to do so), you are putting a gun to my head. You need to understand what you're doing when you vote.

And you need to understand that your opinion isn't solid fact. You also really need to realise making assumption like me holding a gun to your head is ridiculous and sort of offensive. I would never hold a weapon to anyone's head and it irritates me you keep using that example, especially singling me out with it.

 

[FoolKiller]

You're not following me here at all? I want to make this crystal clear to you. When you vote to increase my taxes for socialized healthcare (by voting for people who promise to do so), you are putting a gun to my head. You need to understand what you're doing when you vote.

Naturally you're not the only one. I don't mean to single you out and pick on you, but it has become apparent to me that making this as personal as possible is the only way to drive the point home. Because otherwise people don't seem to be interested in the moral implications of government. It is essential that you understand what you're doing when you vote - and by "you" I mean anyone reading this thread.

Perhaps dropping the symbolism and explaing that their vote is them literally giving the government permission to order an officer to shoot you if you do not abide by their wishes and give up your property.

Sure, the personal effect isn't as strong, but at least they can quit being coy.

 

[Famine]

I disagree. Some social issues require solutions, full stop. Whether government intervention is required entirely depends on the effectiveness of the alternatives.

Government not only has no place doing this, it has no need to do it either.

Unless you can tell me that centralised government knows best what value to place on my time or my health (and thus my life) for rather than, in the example of Foolkiller gave, my social group?

My time and my health are of "n" value to me. Government believes otherwise on both accounts. Who is right?

 

[Danoff]

And you need to understand that your opinion isn't solid fact. You also really need to realise making assumption like me holding a gun to your head is ridiculous and sort of offensive. I would never hold a weapon to anyone's head and it irritates me you keep using that example, especially singling me out with it.

Then why do you tell the government to do so? Do you think it makes you any less culpable that you're instructing government officials to seize my property (at gunpoint if necessary) than if you had put the gun to my head in person?

If you think its offensive to you that I'm accusing you of using force against me, how do you think I feel? I'm the one with the gun pointed at me. If you would never put a gun to my head in person, then you have absolutely no business voting for anyone who would enact socialized medicine. There is exactly zero difference between doing this in person and telling someone else to do it for you.

 

[Touring Mars]

I've posted the criteria I use to define rights on this forum. What are yours?

Logic, reason, morality, justice and pragmatism.

Oh comeon! I know you're better than this.

I'm sorry, but if you continue to post patently false statements like "Right now Joey D has a gun to my head. That's not intended to get an emotional response, it's the truth." then I'm not going to take them seriously any longer. Also, I would say that I agree with Joey's response, and applaud him for his restraint in calling you out on making a statement like this.

I tell you what, I'll refuse to pay my taxes. The government will attempt to seize my property, I'll defend it with every means at my disposal and I'll try to get a snapshot of the gun they use to kill me just before the bullet goes through my head. That way you'll see that there really is a gun pointed at me.

Be sure to leave someone instructions to post the pic on GTPlanet - we wouldn't want you going to all that trouble for nothing now, would we? In all seriousness, I have already explained (but evidently not clearly enough) that I don't doubt that this could happen if you wanted it to. But you could get the same response by doing any number of things that involved breaking the law, even a law that you feel is unjust...

I don't think you do. Because you balked at the example of the homeless man on the street in a way that suggests to me that you are NOT ok with that. Couple that with the fact that you have stated in this thread that you would NOT put a gun to someone's head to get their money for someone else's healthcare if you had to do it in person. But somehow it's ok if you do it by voting. That's an inconsistency that makes me think you need the sacrifices inherent in your position pointed out to you. If I'm wrong, admit that you'd be personally willing to threaten the lives of your friends and family for socialized medicine.

I balked at the example because it was ridiculous, and about as out of step with reality as I am coming to expect from this debate. I would vote for socialised healthcare because I don't have a problem with the idea that taxation is a legitimate way to address a range of pressing issues that need to be addressed but aren't being addressed (nor are they ever likely to be) by other means. My friends and family don't object to paying taxes either, so I have no problem if they vote for it either...

Taxation is force. Sometimes the force is warranted and sometimes it is not. It depends entirely on the circumstances.

Atleast we agree on something.

Are you telling me you don't think it's possible to collect tax dollars for a military in a way that is moral and consistent with the principles of trade? Have you thought about it? Have you really sat down and considered whether this is possible? Or have you assumed that it is not.

No, I admit that I haven't - although I would be interested to hear what you mean by "a way that is moral and consistent with the principles of trade".

 

[Danoff]

No, I admit that I haven't - although I would be interested to hear what you mean by "a way that is moral and consistent with the principles of trade".

I had intended to make that thread today, but I didn't want to detract from the discussion here until it dies down.

I'm sorry, but if you continue to post patently false statements like "Right now Joey D has a gun to my head. That's not intended to get an emotional response, it's the truth." then I'm not going to take them seriously any longer. Also, I would say that I agree with Joey's response, and applaud him for his restraint in calling you out on making a statement like this.

You applaud him for his restraint. He advocates stealing from me, I call him out, and you applaud his restraint. I (verbally) defend my rights here and you call me the bad guy.

Considering what is being stolen from me each year, I think I'm exercising a great deal of restraint here. Last year my government seized over $50,000 from me - most of it in violation of my rights. This year they will seize another $50,000. I see the blood and sweat that goes into making that money. I work around the clock to make that money, as does my wife. And you and Joey have the gall to sit here and tell me that that money is not enough - that I don't care about the poor - that I don't earn that money have have no right to it - that Joey is exercising restraint when I point out that I don't fork over that kind of cash for any reason other than the threat of death and the he's partially responsible.

Look, this is as real as it gets. I'm telling you as bluntly as I know how. The $50,000 that is taken from me each year is taken by force. That force is authorized by each and every person who advocates taking it. I would not give up that property if I did not know for certain that a gun is pointed directly at me if I don't give it up.

Some taxation is warranted. It can be done morally. The current system is not moral, and advocating that my property be taken from me and given to someone else is similarly not moral. Your position on this subject is not moral. Put a face on the money that you advocate gets stolen. That face is me and my wife working at 2am to earn the money that you think you have a right to spend.

(btw- that $50k is a lowball number. You don't want to know what happens to it when I include state income tax, social security (both me and my employer), medicare and sales tax.)

 

[Omnis]

And you need to understand that your opinion isn't solid fact. You also really need to realise making assumption like me holding a gun to your head is ridiculous and sort of offensive. I would never hold a weapon to anyone's head and it irritates me you keep using that example, especially singling me out with it.

It's not an opinion. It's a claim in an argument that can be (and is) proven valid by logic.

 

[Duke]

You're broke? I'm guessing then that you can't afford private healthcare. Here, have some funded by the taxpayer instead, it'll fix you right up...

...by taking money I haven't earned away from other people who have earned it so they can be forced to pay for me to get better.

Seriously.

If something catastrophic happened to me today, you can bet I would try to get what I could back out of the system I've already been forced to pay into. But if the system never existed in the first place (which it shouldn't) I'd be left to my own devices and voluntary charity, and I wouldn't think there was anything wrong with that.

"Fair" and "just" do not mean the same thing as "nothing bad ever happens to you".

Regardless of who's role it is to decide whether something is just or not, there remains the issue of how to tackle social injustice even after charity is exhausted.

See above. "Social injustice" means the law is interfering with people's inherent rights unequally, not that people are in unequal circumstances. It is quite possible that a just and fair system can allow radical differences in comfort, success, health, wealth, etc. That in no way means there is "injustice" in the system itself.

I simply cannot subscribe to the notion that need is akin to lifestyle choice, or a policy that disregards the truly dependent.

The issue remains of how to provide essential care for those who have no means to pay for it (nor any realistic chance of changing their ability to pay), other than expecting them to rely on charity that is not up to the task.

Why is it automatically somebody else's duty to provide for me if I cannot provide for myself? Why is that a priori considered "just"?

 

[Joey D]

You applaud him for his restraint. He advocates stealing from me, I call him out, and you applaud his restraint. I (verbally) defend my rights here and you call me the bad guy.

I do not advocate stealing from anyone, it's against the law and once again you are being ridiculous in suggesting that I'm pro-theft. I'd really appreciate it if you stopped taking digs at me, stopped making false accusations against me, and stop making ridiculous comments citing me as an example.

It's not an opinion. It's a claim in an argument that can be (and is) proven valid by logic.

It is still an opinion, opinions can easily be backed up with facts and logic.

 

[Danoff]

I do not advocate stealing from anyone, it's against the law and once again you are being ridiculous in suggesting that I'm pro-theft. I'd really appreciate it if you stopped taking digs at me, stopped making false accusations against me, and stop making ridiculous comments citing me as an example.

No problem. Tell me that you have not and will support any initiative to enact government-sponsored healthcare and I'll gladly retract my statements.

 

[Touring Mars]

You applaud him for his restraint. He advocates stealing from me, I call him out, and you applaud his restraint. I (verbally) defend my rights here and you call me the bad guy.

Considering what is being stolen from me each year, I think I'm exercising a great deal of restraint here. Last year my government seized over $50,000 from me - most of it in violation of my rights. This year they will seize another $50,000. I see the blood and sweat that goes into making that money. I work around the clock to make that money, as does my wife. And you and Joey have the gall to sit here and tell me that that money is not enough - that I don't care about the poor - that I don't earn that money have have no right to it - that Joey is exercising restraint when I point out that I don't fork over that kind of cash for any reason other than the threat of death and the he's partially responsible.

Look, this is as real as it gets. I'm telling you as bluntly as I know how. The $50,000 that is taken from me each year is taken by force. That force is authorized by each and every person who advocates taking it. I would not give up that property if I did not know for certain that a gun is pointed directly at me if I don't give it up.

Some taxation is warranted. It can be done morally. The current system is not moral, and advocating that my property be taken from me and given to someone else is similarly not moral. Your position on this subject is not moral. Put a face on the money that you advocate gets stolen. That face is me and my wife working at 2am to earn the money that you think you have a right to spend.

(btw- that $50k is a lowball number. You don't want to know what happens to it when I include state income tax, social security (both me and my employer), medicare and sales tax.)

I applaud him for his restraint because you are making a patently untrue statement and stating it as fact. That just isn't on, no matter how firmly you state it or believe it.

Don't blame us for your tax issues - you are as much to blame for your own situation as anybody, if not considerably more so. I appreciate that you and your wife work hard for your money, but don't we all. But please don't be so quick to make moral judgments. I believe that it is a principled and moral stance to pay my taxes, in return for the services I and others benefit from in one way or another, and I remain strongly in favour of the fact that the country where I live provides basic welfare in part return for those taxes. I can't state it any plainer than that either. I'm sorry if this attitude strikes you as immoral or offensive - but that's my reality and I'm happy with it.

 

[Danoff]

you are as much to blame for your own situation as anybody, if not considerably more so.

I am to blame for my rights being violated... Wow.

I'm out. I need to cool off. I can't respond to that dispassionately right now. I'll check back in with this thread tomorrow.

 

[Joey D]

No problem. Tell me that you have not and will support any initiative to enact government-sponsored healthcare and I'll gladly retract my statements.

So I need to say you are right for you to some making ridiculous, untrue, and offensive statements against me and my beliefs? You should retract your statements just based on the fact that they attacking, misleading and untrue.

I will to continue to support a government health care plan because I believe every person has the right to a healthy life. The only reasonable way to do that is through the government's help. Just because you have a difference in opinion doesn't automatically make whatever you say 100% true.

 

[Duke]

What he's saying is 100% backed by a logical, rational progression, and I think it's funny that you guys (PLURAL) are getting so offended by that logic being shown to you, and are so unwilling to accept the direct logical reduction of the "moral" stance you seem so proud to take.

 

[Omnis]

It is still an opinion, opinions can easily be backed up with facts and logic.

Uh, not exactly. An opinion is, "I don't like the taste of arsenic." A claim is more like, "Nobody likes the taste of arsenic."

Anyway, I'm not liking the trend here. Let me remind everyone that we're trying to come to an understanding, not arguing for the sake of who wins and who loses. I just can't understand why there is still conflict. I think our side (danoff, me, Duke, et al) has said everything there is to say. Forgive the personal references but, like danoff said, it seems to be the only stone left untouched. I don't know if you're too stuck behind a front, where you still have faith in the government or what. I think the other side of this argument will adjust in time if you consider the alternatives-- really consider them, not just cast them off as fantasy or whatever. Walls don't last forever.

 

[Duke]

I would vote for socialised healthcare because I don't have a problem with the idea that taxation is a legitimate way to address a range of pressing issues that need to be addressed but aren't being addressed (nor are they ever likely to be) by other means.

I believe every person has the right to a healthy life.

Why? Someone answer my question - what is the logic for an a priori assumption that everyone has a right to be provided for just because they exist?

 

[Joey D]

I think the other side of this argument will adjust in time if you consider the alternatives-- really consider them, not just cast them off as fantasy or whatever. Walls don't last forever.

I've considered a lot of alternatives, like I said I like a lot of the Libertarian ideas (although it's fading pretty fast). I still do not think they work in the real world though, in a utopian society yes they would work flawlessly and be wonderful. It's like any other political philosophy, it only works under ideal conditions.

Why? Someone answer my question - what is the logic for an a priori assumption that everyone has a right to be provided for just because they exist?

Because everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To deny them a healthy life you are denying them life (at times) and happiness. Plus why should those who aren't fortunate enough to have health care be cast away if you will because they can't afford anything in a broken system.

 

[FoolKiller]

Because everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To deny them a healthy life you are denying them life (at times) and happiness.

Pursuit of happiness and happiness are two very different things. If happiness itself were a right we could file civil suits against every ex to break our hearts.

Similarly, equal opportunity is very different from equal outcome. No one can be guaranteed equal outcomes without giving everyone a lobotomy and putting them in wheelchairs.

Plus why should those who aren't fortunate enough to have health care be cast away if you will because they can't afford anything in a broken system.

Again, ignoring that libertarian ideals are not supporting the broken system. No one is taking the Glenn Beck stance that our health care system is awesome and doesn't need to be fixed. We are opposed to the idea that it can be fixed by ordering our government to take earned property away from people with the threat of force, because it creates more problems.

 

[Joey D]

Similarly, equal opportunity is very different from equal outcome. No one can be guaranteed equal outcomes without giving everyone a labodomy and putting them in wheelchairs.

Under our current system I don't believe we have equal opportunity when it comes to health care. If I work for a company that does not offer insurance (which I do) it is probably not reasonable for me to get it, so I go without. Not all jobs offer insurance and insurance plans without the help of a company are so expensive that a lot of people who work in these jobs without insurance can't afford it.

I'm lucky enough to be on my parents insurance, but if I had to pay for it and was living away from home I think I would be struggling.

Again, ignoring that libertarian ideals are not supporting the broken system. No one is taking the Glenn Beck stance that our health care system is awesome and doesn't need to be fixed. We are opposed to the idea that it can be fixed by ordering our government to take earned property away from people with the threat of force, because it creates more problems.

To me, libertarians want to break the system even more. Letting those without insurance fight for charity care is only going to cause more problems. Eventually the people who give money won't be giving enough to cover the charity care, it already happens at a lot of non-profit hospitals and other organisations. Then where does that leave us? I believe we'd still be left with a broken system and still a bunch of unhealthy and uncared for people.

 

[Omnis]

I've considered a lot of alternatives, like I said I like a lot of the Libertarian ideas (although it's fading pretty fast). I still do not think they work in the real world though, in a utopian society yes they would work flawlessly and be wonderful. It's like any other political philosophy, it only works under ideal conditions.



Because everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To deny them a healthy life you are denying them life (at times) and happiness. Plus why should those who aren't fortunate enough to have health care be cast away if you will because they can't afford anything in a broken system.

Unlike a utopian society, these libertarian ideals (free enterprise, respect) don't have to be built up. They exist. They are already the foundation. We have them now. Why do you think our species has advanced to where it is? Because of some bureaucrat? Lol, no. The question is not one of building a libertarian society-- it's of knocking down that which impedes what is already naturally in place.

People die every single minute of every single day. I'm terribly, terribly sorry (seriously, I wish we didn't have to get sick and die) but what have I done to make them meet their end? Is it original sin? Perhaps; but that's why I pray to God for forgiveness. Here is the most important point: I did not deny them life. I did not terminate that life. My grandmother died in June. She died of cancer. How ridiculous is it to say that you killed her, for whatever reason. She just died. Nobody denied her life. Please abandon that argument because it holds no water. The right to life refers to the right to live without being murdered by someone. It does not provide for the theft from others to keep yourself alive.

 

[Duke]

Because everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To deny them a healthy life you are denying them life (at times) and happiness.

You were born alive. There's your right to life. It doesn't say you have the right to have your life be supported by others, just that others may not take it away from you.

It also says that you have the right to pursue happiness - where does it say that happiness must be provided to you?

Declining to provide != Taking away/denying. Thinking they are the same is a serious logical flaw in the assumption.

Plus why should those who aren't fortunate enough to have health care be cast away if you will because they can't afford anything in a broken system.

Should people be given everything they need for life without bearing the full cost themselves? Everything is expensive. Does that excuse me from having to pay for it for myself?

I'm getting my house repaired. I've having to borrow a boatload of money to do it. It's costing me a lot. Shouldn't somebody rich be made to help me pay for it? I need this house to live in, after all.

 

[Joey D]

Unlike a utopian society, these libertarian ideals (free enterprise, respect) don't have to be built up. They exist. They are already the foundation. We have them now. Why do you think our species has advanced to where it is? Because of some bureaucrat? Lol, no. The question is not one of building a libertarian society-- it's of knocking down that which impedes what is already naturally in place.

People die every single minute of every single day. I'm terribly, terribly sorry (seriously, I wish we didn't have to get sick and die) but what have I done to make them meet their end? Is it original sin? Perhaps; but that's why I pray to God for forgiveness. Here is the most important point: I did not deny them life. I did not terminate that life. My grandmother died in June. She died of cancer. How ridiculous is it to say that you killed her, for whatever reason. She just died. Nobody denied her life. Please abandon that argument because it holds no water. The right to life refers to the right to live without being murdered by someone. It does not provide for the theft from others to keep yourself alive.

Gotcha, so we have yet another person who doesn't agree so they use they "you're wrong" argument. Please. I don't want to play that game.

Denying someone health care that has cancer because they don't have insurance to cover the overly inflated costs of the care is essentially condemning them to death for being poor (or at least not well off) or not having the right job. I'm sure one could even argue that in a roundabout way this is a form of genocide.

And to be honest I'm begin to think more and more that I don't want to live in a libertarian world if it's anything like this thread.

Should people be given everything they need for life without bearing the full cost themselves? Everything is expensive. Does that excuse me from having to pay for it for myself?

I'm getting my house repaired. I've having to borrow a boatload of money to do it. It's costing me a lot. Shouldn't somebody rich be made to help me pay for it? I need this house to live in, after all.

Here is the flaw with that, you don't need to repair your house to survive as long as your home gives you shelter from the elements. You have the basics covered, they might not be what you want but they are there. With health care if you don't have it, you are screwed if something is wrong. I don't believe we should deny those people a right to life.

 

[FoolKiller]

Under our current system I don't believe we have equal opportunity when it comes to health care. If I work for a company that does not offer insurance (which I do) it is probably not reasonable for me to get it, so I go without. Not all jobs offer insurance and insurance plans without the help of a company are so expensive that a lot of people who work in these jobs without insurance can't afford it.

Interesting, you see a problem with insurance being severly tied to employment. Now, why do you think the libertarian plan to break that tie is bad again? I mean, if this is a complaint you have then you should be all for the libertarian plan because its goal is to break down these barriers to make access easier for everyone, as well as reduce other restrictions that are part of the reason why costs are so high.

I'm lucky enough to be on my parents insurance, but if I had to pay for it and was living away from home I think I would be struggling.

Out of pure curiosity, does this play a part in why you support the current plan? Judging by your age and average insurance plans here in KY you are likely not going to be keeping this policy for much longer.

To me, libertarians want to break the system even more. Letting those without insurance fight for charity care is only going to cause more problems. Eventually the people who give money won't be giving enough to cover the charity care, it already happens at a lot of non-profit hospitals and other organisations. Then where does that leave us? I believe we'd still be left with a broken system and still a bunch of unhealthy and uncared for people.

See, like TM you are taking one very small part of the idea and latching on to it. You can't take an article called "A Four-Step Health Care Solution," point at step four and declare it a failure. Austrian economists aren't underwear gnomes. They know that previous steps have to take effect before you can jump straight to pulling aid.