Who do you REALLY side with?
-
I guess I consider it hard to consider oneself "civilized" if we are willing to let others die due to financial situation. I know I'm at odds with others on that (and often times myself). It's much easier to say "If you can't afford to get medical attention you should die" than it is to say "Let's find a way to provide services to help treat life threatening conditions for all".
-
Trafik Jamz;326619 wrote:
Does the "right" NEED to come from anywhere other than human compassion and caring about the well being of others? For me, it does not.As long as the extent of your compassion ends at YOUR wallet, I agree with you 100%.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Trafik Jamz;326623 wrote:
I guess I consider it hard to consider oneself "civilized" if we are willing to let others die due to financial situation.I find it hard to consider someone "civilized", when they want to pick peoples pockets to pay for someone elses medical expenses.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
So, you are in favor of abolishing the fire department, police departments, highway systems, etc? Seriously?
I'm in favor of abolishing government.
Imagine, for a moment, the Cass County Government building(s) were empty. Imagine the state capitol was empty. Imagine there was no group or groups of people who had the ability to "arrest" you or break into your house or tax you or any of the other things government does to people that "normal" people can't get away with.
In this world, would people stilll want roads? Would they still want fires to get put out? Would they still want security, someone they could call if they needed help?
I think they would.
Would they want these things badly enough that they'd be willing to pay for them -- voluntarily?
I think most of them would.
People in North Dakota put out fires without government help right now. I have driven on roads in this very state that were designed, built, and maintained entirely by private actors.
The biggest triumph of government is convincing so many people that they need it; that life without "them" would be impossible.
I personally don't think we need a violent group of pscyhopaths with an army of bean counters and busy bodies, all of whom are above the law and can extort from any of us, break into our homes, close our businesses, and even KILL us... I don't think we need a group like that. But that's what government is. It is force. It is compulsion. It is, by definition, immoral. It may occasionally do things that seem beneficial - but occasionally beneficial ends do not justify it's violent means.
If I had my choice between 1 large police department I could never get rid of, and who could arrest me for any reason they liked, or 15 small ones that competed with each other and didn't want to make waves because that would be bad for business, I'd choose the latter. If companies that wanted to build roads had to negotiate with me on MY TERMS to get rights to build on my property, I'd actually beleive I owned property instead of renting it from the God-State who takes it from me at its pleasure. If I build my house out of non-flammable materials and keep a tidy lawn, you had better beleive that I'm going to pay less to my private fire suppression company than the other dipshits on my block.
And if I'm a rich son of a bitch, you had better beleive that I'm going to make sure the cops, fire department, ambulances, and emergency room staff have me at the top of their lists to serve and treat FIRST. I'll pay them more and I'll get better service. I'll pay them so much money and use so little of their services that they'll all buy gobs of nice equipment and have their employees training constantly. And the result will be that all of the "normal" people who have "normal" plans with these agencies still get the benefits of their excellent services and technologies.
Government is made up of us. You think government builds the roads now? Horseshit -- road construction experts build roads. You think government puts out fires? You should know damn well that a large chunk of firefighters are volunteers!
What government does, is it takes normal, fallible human beings -- and hopefully, it only takes the nicest ones with the most generous motives -- and it gives them the power to hurt others and get away with it.
Nobody should have a power like that.
In a voluntary society, one with no government, there will still be evil people who hurt others. But we won't be conditioned to think that's ok. We won't make special offices and titles for them to lord over us; we won't PAY THEM TO HURT US.
No matter what you do, there will be evil men, and thre will be innocent men that suffer. The aggregate needs of humanity will always be greater than the available resources. Man's appetite is limitless.
Men have a perfectly good way of resolving how infinite needs will met by limited resources. That way is commerce. Its medium is money.
You beleive that there are only two choices: "let" people die in the street, vs. allowing the immorality of government to exist. You are wrong for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, people currently do and ever shall die for reasons that can be argued to be lack of resources. No system you can design will allocate 1 billion dollars per second of the public treasury to keep someone alive. There will always be a maximum expenditure, beyond which those holding the purse strings will say, "enough". Ergo, even in your socialist dystopia, "people will die in the streets". Except everyone else will still be poorer and the quality of care for everyone will be worse.
Furthermore -- and let's get something straight -- nobody has a moral obligation to so much as bat an eyelash to prevent the death or suffering of another. If you beleive they have this obligation, the onus is on you to explain why and where it comes from. Is it a social contract? I didn't sign it. I've never even seen it. Ergo, it's bullshit.
We've already established that with what you propose, people will still die due to limtied resources. So you fail entirely at your stated goal.
What you are actually proposing is a total perversion of justice. There are infinite desires. There are limited resources. How then, should the resources be allocated? Should each resource owner allocate them for him or herself, according to her preferences? Or should there be a mystery group of special people who may steal from whom they like and gift other's wealth as they see fit? You advocate the latter -- and you have the audacity to call this civilization? If the difference between my vision and yours is that in your "civilization", an armed group of monsters robs from some to benefit others, who but someone who loved injustice and worshipped failure would choose what you're offering? Or do you rest on the assumption that they'll have no choice at all?
Finally, like all state apologists, you present a false choice.
The choices aren't "have a violent redistributionist system" or "people will die". People will die anyway.
And free people have always had the option to give of their limited resources for the benefit of others.
Why don't you trust society? You don't trust society's allocation of money -- you want to take from some and give to others -- and you don't trust that society will provide for those it values most. Why not? Who do you think can do a better job?
Will government care produce more resouces somehow? If not, you are tacitly admitting that you will actively see to it that some have less care than they previously had. Why would you want this?
You need a serious dose of Ayn Rand. Life requires sacrifice? Anytime someone says this, what they mean is "other's must sacrifice for my benefit". Why not just break in to my house and steal from me direclty? Don't tart up what you're doing with altrustic motives and fancy names. It's theft, and if you support it, you're a monster.
I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he is picking my pocket. But if he is acting in his own self-interest and says so, I have usually been able to work out some way to do business with him.
-- Robert Heinlein -
thrash;326627 wrote:
I'm in favor of abolishing government.Imagine, for a moment, the Cass County Government building(s) were empty. Imagine the state capitol was empty. Imagine there was no group or groups of people who had the ability to "arrest" you or break into your house or tax you or any of the other things government does to people that "normal" people can't get away with.
In this world, would people stilll want roads? Would they still want fires to get put out? Would they still want security, someone they could call if they needed help?
I think they would.
So far, I agree
Would they want these things badly enough that they'd be willing to pay for them -- voluntarily?
I think most of them would.
Agreed again.
People in North Dakota put out fires without government help right now. I have driven on roads in this very state that were designed, built, and maintained entirely by private actors.
Small fires, yes. Anything larger than a grass fire/small kitchen fire, etc.. typically involves the Rural Fire Departments. As for the roads, I have too... they are called prairie trails. Great for rally, shitty for daily use. Unless you know of some road that I am not aware of, the rest were built with Fed/State/County/City government money.
The biggest triumph of government is convincing so many people that they need it; that life without "them" would be impossible.
On principle I agree.
I personally don't think we need a violent group of pscyhopaths with an army of bean counters and busy bodies, all of whom are above the law and can extort from any of us, break into our homes, close our businesses, and even KILL us... I don't think we need a group like that. But that's what government is. It is force. It is compulsion. It is, by definition, immoral. It may occasionally do things that seem beneficial - but occasionally beneficial ends do not justify it's violent means.
I don't see the violence you are talking about, except maybe if you count taxation and death penalty as violence. Then you may have a point.
If I had my choice between 1 large police department I could never get rid of, and who could arrest me for any reason they liked, or 15 small ones that competed with each other and didn't want to make waves because that would be bad for business, I'd choose the latter. If companies that wanted to build roads had to negotiate with me on MY TERMS to get rights to build on my property, I'd actually beleive I owned property instead of renting it from the God-State who takes it from me at its pleasure. If I build my house out of non-flammable materials and keep a tidy lawn, you had better beleive that I'm going to pay less to my private fire suppression company than the other dipshits on my block.
Great in theory. In a perfect world, I'd agree.
And if I'm a rich son of a bitch, you had better beleive that I'm going to make sure the cops, fire department, ambulances, and emergency room staff have me at the top of their lists to serve and treat FIRST. I'll pay them more and I'll get better service. I'll pay them so much money and use so little of their services that they'll all buy gobs of nice equipment and have their employees training constantly. And the result will be that all of the "normal" people who have "normal" plans with these agencies still get the benefits of their excellent services and technologies.
And within this statement I find the flaws of your system. Your system states that he who has the money has the power. If I have a billion dollars, I can do whatever I want because there are no laws and I own whatever police force exists. They could in effect be my personal execution squad to squash whomever I don't agree with and no one could really do anything about it. I'd be able to walk into an emergency room and get my dislocated thumb set and force the staff to ignore the patient that had his arm cut off and allow him to die because I'd be willing to pay more. The problem with money in general is that it creates greed and can lead to very unethical situations like I outlined above. History has shown this.
Government is made up of us. You think government builds the roads now? Horseshit -- road construction experts build roads. You think government puts out fires? You should know damn well that a large chunk of firefighters are volunteers!
I know the Government doesn't "DO" those things, they simply allocate money to private contractors who do it for them. Who do you think pays for the roads? Who pays for the fire trucks that the volunteers use? Who dispatches them? Etc...
What government does, is it takes normal, fallible human beings -- and hopefully, it only takes the nicest ones with the most generous motives -- and it gives them the power to hurt others and get away with it.
To a degree I agree with you. In theory the constitution is supposed to protect us from that.
Nobody should have a power like that.
But a system based on net worth of an individual does that as well. You can abolish government, but I assure you that the very wealthy will act as their own government very shortly after this happens. They will have legions of people sworn to protect their way of life in exchange for special rights under the rule of their new "king" (for lack of a better term).
In a voluntary society, one with no government, there will still be evil people who hurt others. But we won't be conditioned to think that's ok. We won't make special offices and titles for them to lord over us; we won't PAY THEM TO HURT US.
I think you are naive on this point. I've beaten this to death in my reasoning above already.
No matter what you do, there will be evil men, and thre will be innocent men that suffer. The aggregate needs of humanity will always be greater than the available resources. Man's appetite is limitless.
Agreed. Hence the need for regulation.
Men have a perfectly good way of resolving how infinite needs will met by limited resources. That way is commerce. Its medium is money.
Again, you think that money is the answer? The rich decide what is best for everyone because their $100,000,000 gives them 1000x more power than the next guys $100,000. I see no way that this doesn't lead to more corruption than we currently have. People can be bought. Their way of thinking has a price on it. People are willing to look the other way if they feel their safety might be impacted by someone who has the means to make them disappear.
-
You beleive that there are only two choices: "let" people die in the street, vs. allowing the immorality of government to exist. You are wrong for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, people currently do and ever shall die for reasons that can be argued to be lack of resources. No system you can design will allocate 1 billion dollars per second of the public treasury to keep someone alive. There will always be a maximum expenditure, beyond which those holding the purse strings will say, "enough". Ergo, even in your socialist dystopia, "people will die in the streets". Except everyone else will still be poorer and the quality of care for everyone will be worse./QUOTE]
Socialism implies that I want the government running the system and distributing the care. I don't. In theory I would rather see a base level of coverage (why do I feel like I'm repeating myself) being offered by private insurance companies with the premiums being paid by a single payer. I'm ok with allowing supplemental coverage if you feel you need more for any specific reason.
[QUOTE]Furthermore -- and let's get something straight -- nobody has a moral obligation to so much as bat an eyelash to prevent the death or suffering of another. If you beleive they have this obligation, the onus is on you to explain why and where it comes from. Is it a social contract? I didn't sign it. I've never even seen it. Ergo, it's bullshit.
I don't even know what to say to this.... but that's never stopped me from trying before. Here's my analogy on this: A mother doesn't want her baby anymore so she sets it on the highway so that it will get hit by a car. You see the situation happen and have ample time to rescue the child without endangering yourself. Instead you decide to watch and see what happens when the truck runs it over. What you said above is that this is perfectly acceptable behavior. Neither you nor the mother should face any repercussions because of this, especially if the mother has enough money to pay off the security forces...or get "arrested" by the security force of her choice that lets her off with a stern warning.
We've already established that with what you propose, people will still die due to limtied resources. So you fail entirely at your stated goal.
Yes, people will still die. Where did I say they wouldn't? That is the one trait that is truly equal of all humans, we are all mortal. With my idea/goal/thought/whatever at least everyone has a basic chance at living. Those with more money will still probably have access to advanced care beyond the basic coverage, but a cancer patient (for example) may receive life saving treatment that they would otherwise have been denied.
What you are actually proposing is a total perversion of justice. There are infinite desires. There are limited resources. How then, should the resources be allocated?
Much like they are in the rest of the world. Some systems obviously work better than others, but there are a number of working models out there that would actually make insurance for the WHOLE less expensive via taxation than the current premiums for the few.
Should each resource owner allocate them for him or herself, according to her preferences? Or should there be a mystery group of special people who may steal from whom they like and gift other's wealth as they see fit? You advocate the latter -- and you have the audacity to call this civilization? If the difference between my vision and yours is that in your "civilization", an armed group of monsters robs from some to benefit others, who but someone who loved injustice and worshipped failure would choose what you're offering? Or do you rest on the assumption that they'll have no choice at all?
I think that I know the limitations and struggles that my version would bring. I know there would still be shortcomings. I really don't think that you realize just how crazy the world would be if the super wealthy basically controlled everything that they bought into. Like you said, you would give them so much money that they would be falling over to help you out whenever you needed. The exact opposite affect will happen on the other end of the scale.
Finally, like all state apologists, you present a false choice.
The choices aren't "have a violent redistributionist system" or "people will die". People will die anyway.
I agree with you on the last part. People are mortal. They will die. See above, I don't feel like repeating myself even though you are stating the same thing over and over and over.
And free people have always had the option to give of their limited resources for the benefit of others.
Agreed
Why don't you trust society?
Easy, in your perfect society that you outlined above, I could VERY easily see myself being the rich tyrant that gets what he wants and tells the people with less resources than him to get fucked.
You don't trust society's allocation of money -- you want to take from some and give to others -- and you don't trust that society will provide for those it values most. Why not? Who do you think can do a better job?
Sadly, I don't trust society or the government 100%. I'd like to believe that a representative government would be a merger of both. Still not perfect, of course.
Will government care produce more resouces somehow? If not, you are tacitly admitting that you will actively see to it that some have less care than they previously had. Why would you want this?
You seem to think that I want the government to provide the care or the insurance. I do not. I want the government to provide the funding for the insurance (in this thought.... this isn't my ONLY thought on how to deal with healthcare)
You need a serious dose of Ayn Rand.
No thanks. I've tried a few doses, didn't like the side affects.
Life requires sacrifice? Anytime someone says this, what they mean is "other's must sacrifice for my benefit".
I disagree. I'd probably sacrifice more than most on this board if we went to a tax based collection for health insurance vs a premium based option. FWIW, I also am in favor of a flat tax across all brackets, even the super poor. You earn a dollar, you pay $.XX cents tax. Period.
Why not just break in to my house and steal from me direclty? Don't tart up what you're doing with altrustic motives and fancy names. It's theft, and if you support it, you're a monster.
Why not just shoot the poor now and put them out of their misery before they get in your way at the hospital. Don't tart up what you're doing with fancy ideas. It's murder, and if you support it, you're a monster.
I wanted to see if it sounded just as dumb when I typed it. It does.
-- Robert Heinlein
-
Seems to me like we could do better by just using ANY of the models that the other countries are using....except maybe Norway who spends more per person on their public system than we do. EVERY other country in the OECD spends less than us and the majority live longer (yes, I know fat American's makes a difference too.... but Canadians are just as fat in my personal experience)
-
Why not just shoot the poor now and put them out of their misery before they get in your way at the hospital. Don't tart up what you're doing with fancy ideas. It's murder, and if you support it, you're a monster.
I wanted to see if it sounded just as dumb when I typed it. It does.
The difference is simple. It would be wrong for me to shoot poor people haven't done anything to harm me. It wouldn't be wrong for a doctor to prefer to give me better service if I am giving them more money -- although it would be perfectly fine if the doctor gave me worse service or no service at all -- after all, in a voluntary society, that's their right.
Taxation is theft. Living on the same planet as someone else who happens to get sick doesn't make me responsible for their sickness. It's not my fault if other people get sick. It's not my responsibility to help them. I can do so if I choose to, but nothing can obligate me to do so.
I keep repeating myself because you continue to not get it. You are advocating for an objective moral evil. I don't care how great you think it will make things -- it's just plain wrong. If you're willing to commit harm to innocent people because you think it's going to make society better, what's the difference between putting the sickest 10% of Americans in the gas chamber every year? Won't that also reduce health costs dramatically?
Of course, that's ridiculous. I'd never suggest such a thing because it is morally reprehensible to harm people in that way.
The other thing you need to ask yourself is this: how do people get rich? I asked before and you didn't answer. In a voluntary society -- how will people get rich?
-
Trafik Jamz;326631 wrote:
Seems to me like we could do better by just using ANY of the models that the other countries are using....except maybe Norway who spends more per person on their public system than we do. EVERY other country in the OECD spends less than us and the majority live longer (yes, I know fat American's makes a difference too.... but Canadians are just as fat in my personal experience)
The bad thing about data is that it's easy to misinterpret. First off, Americans have the highest disposable income of any nation. Looking at how much we spend on healthcare and then determining "OMG SKY FALLING" is kind of strange. Do you want to know what I spend on groceries? Hint: it's more than what most people in most of the world make in 1 month.. or even 1 year. Doesn't bother me -- I try to buy the highest quality foods possible for my kids, and I can afford it. If you looked at how much I spent on food you might conclude that food cost to much. Or that I need "improved Access to food" or some similar socialist code-words. You'd be wrong.
Life Expectancy is impacted by all kinds of things. Did you know that the #1 cause of death for black men in the USA under age 35 is murder? Are black men factored into our national average life expectancy? Do you think they are dying because the US has a "bad" healthcare system? Do you think Norway has the same problem?
Did you know that in the much vaunted "infant mortality" study, that the US has the lowest rate of infant mortality if your baby is premature? And that our aggregate mortality is impacted by our extremely high rate of prematurity? And that European nations calculate infant morality entirely differently?
There are European countries where if a baby is born prior to full term and dies, they don't count that in our infant mortality data. Is it reasonable to draw comparisons from those countries to the US?
Look, you can get your health care anyway you like it to. Changing how I get mine via force of government is immoral. Making me pay for your healthcare is immoral.
Even though I am happy to debate the "technical" problems of state-run care with you, the conversation misses the point entirely: what you want to do is morally unacceptable, so I don't care how good or bad it is.
Stop avoiding the question of morality.
-
thrash;326632 wrote:
The difference is simple. It would be wrong for me to shoot poor people haven't done anything to harm me. It wouldn't be wrong for a doctor to prefer to give me better service if I am giving them more money -- although it would be perfectly fine if the doctor gave me worse service or no service at all -- after all, in a voluntary society, that's their right.I made the point because it was silly, just like your point.
Taxation is theft. Living on the same planet as someone else who happens to get sick doesn't make me responsible for their sickness. It's not my fault if other people get sick. It's not my responsibility to help them. I can do so if I choose to, but nothing can obligate me to do so.
So, if there is some insanely killer epidemic that if treated will save millions of lives but if left untreated will end millions of lives, you would rather watch a million people die than see a government step in and pay for those services? And YOU want to lecture ME on morality?
I keep repeating myself because you continue to not get it. You are advocating for an objective moral evil. I don't care how great you think it will make things -- it's just plain wrong. If you're willing to commit harm to innocent people because you think it's going to make society better, what's the difference between putting the sickest 10% of Americans in the gas chamber every year? Won't that also reduce health costs dramatically?
Saving lives>Saving money in my moral definition. Though, I strongly feel my idea would save both in the long run (compared to what we are doing NOW.)
Of course, that's ridiculous. I'd never suggest such a thing because it is morally reprehensible to harm people in that way.
So, it's more moral to let them suffer and die than it is to put them out of their misery? It's somehow moral to know that you might have been able to do something to save/treat/cure thousands of people less fortunate than yourself, but your money is more important than a human life? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?
The other thing you need to ask yourself is this: how do people get rich? I asked before and you didn't answer. In a voluntary society -- how will people get rich?
In a number of ways, and it probably wouldn't take all that long to happen either. They will either have the force necessary to take the resources that they need to acquire wealth or they will persuade others that by following them they will be able to provide goods or services for those people, they will show them how working for them has it's perks beyond doing something for themselves. Eventually there will be a huge selection of haves and have not's, which will ultimately lead to a war (either for resources or for rights/freedoms). Some of the "rich" will side with the rest of the rich and create a federation of sorts, some will show compassion and side with the poor and create their own federation. There will then be leaders (s)elected on both sides and different groups will be assigned different tasks within these federations. Some will provide military leadership/insight, some will control the budget and finances, some will work on diplomacy, some will work on making sure that the agricultural system is sustainable, some will work on imports and exports, some will work on a way to ensure that there are enough revenue sources to sustain this new federation, some will work to establish laws and rules and a means to enforce them, some will work to develop a system that doesn't rely entirely on the bartering of goods and will create money...... Wait, that has all already happened. We call it creating a government.
Anarchy, EVERY TIME it has been tried has failed. If it hadn't, we would not see any governments in the world today.
Your Utopian libertarian anarchist view is as flawed as communism. Both SOUND like good ideas in theory (and I'm not advocating for either).
Communism because everyone is "equal" under the system. There is no privileged class. Everyone earns the same wages.
Your view because everyone is "free" to do what they want, no rules exist and everyone has an equal chance at success.
Both fail because humans will find a way to advance themselves and oppress others. In both systems people find ways to become rich, and the rich become powerful and the powerful eventually abuse their powers in an effort to keep those whose financial status is below their's in check. Both figure out a way to have a glimmer of hope, but neither (after generations of power/wealth) make it possible for the rest to achieve what they have. The flaw in both plans is that people are corruptible, people like having more than the next guy and people find ways to prevent others from succeeding (I do this every single day in my job.... I bid construction jobs and my goal is to win every project by whatever means necessary) -
thrash;326633 wrote:
The bad thing about data is that it's easy to misinterpret. First off, Americans have the highest disposable income of any nation. Looking at how much we spend on healthcare and then determining "OMG SKY FALLING" is kind of strange. Do you want to know what I spend on groceries? Hint: it's more than what most people in most of the world make in 1 month.. or even 1 year. Doesn't bother me -- I try to buy the highest quality foods possible for my kids, and I can afford it. If you looked at how much I spent on food you might conclude that food cost to much. Or that I need "improved Access to food" or some similar socialist code-words. You'd be wrong.Life Expectancy is impacted by all kinds of things. Did you know that the #1 cause of death for black men in the USA under age 35 is murder? Are black men factored into our national average life expectancy? Do you think they are dying because the US has a "bad" healthcare system? Do you think Norway has the same problem?
Doesn't even make the top 10 for all males though. Meaning less than 1.8% as a whole.
http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod/index.htm
Looks like Norway is about on par with us for what causes death.
Did you know that in the much vaunted "infant mortality" study, that the US has the lowest rate of infant mortality if your baby is premature? And that our aggregate mortality is impacted by our extremely high rate of prematurity? And that European nations calculate infant morality entirely differently?
I did know that. I never said our system sucks at everything. We do a lot of things well, I don't hate America, I just think we can improve on what we currently do.
There are European countries where if a baby is born prior to full term and dies, they don't count that in our infant mortality data. Is it reasonable to draw comparisons from those countries to the US?
No, if you are comparing apples to oranges (which THEY are, not you thrash) and/or the means for calculation are different, it is impossible to call it a fair comparison. That's why I dealt with DEATHS as a whole, not each individual cause.
Look, you can get your health care anyway you like it to. Changing how I get mine via force of government is immoral. Making me pay for your healthcare is immoral.
Assuming you are paying for insurance now, you are subsidizing my health care as well. Even if we have different insurance companies. Every choice (good or bad) that you make that affects your body has an impact on what I pay for health insurance as well. Every healthcare plan that you are a part of creates a broader risk pool for your company AND for all the other companies as they are all re-insured (insurance companies insuring other insurance companies) to help offset a catastrophic event.
Even though I am happy to debate the "technical" problems of state-run care with you, the conversation misses the point entirely: what you want to do is morally unacceptable, so I don't care how good or bad it is.
Stop avoiding the question of morality.
Alright... is it moral to ask/demand that others pay into a system that redistributes wealth? No. Is it moral to stand back and watch others suffer because you weren't willing to help the people of your country (every man for himself)? No. Neither system is moral. The first one is less immoral than the second in my opinion. There is nothing preventing anyone from accumulating more wealth. Once you reach a certain point your tax rate reaches a maximum percentage (and typically your deductions/write offs/loopholes get more and more as well making your effective tax rate lower). I've never met anyone that said "You know, last year I made $379,000 and was in the 33% tax bracket so I paid $125,000 in taxes ($254,000 after taxes), this year I have the opportunity to make $405,000 because I got a 7% pay raise as CEO of my company.... I think I'm going to decline that pay raise because I'll have to pay 2% more taxes ($141,000) even though my after tax income is $10,000 more than it was the year before". Yes, the guys right at the cutoff do get a bad deal though. I agree 100%. Which is why I again support a flat tax at a fixed point with virtually no deductions (and yes, I know about the headache that this causes as well since if there were no deductions businesses that lost money for the year would still have to pay income taxes on what they did make....I worded that poorly, I know...but I think you are smart enough to figure out what I mean)
-
You need to get over this "let them die" bullshit.
Why is socialized medicine only good for this country? Suppose we get whatever healthcare system you want in place here. Why doesn't it extend coverage to people in Africa? How many Africans are you willing to let die? You're really not willing to lift a finger to help them? What kind of jerk are you?
I was clear about my obligations -- or lack therof -- in the first post.
Yes, It is more moral for me to sit by and do NOTHING to help someone than it is to allow you to HURT and STEAL from me when I've done nothing wrong!
What i want is for people to help each other. But i want to be clear about the ground rules -- I cannot be legally COMPELLED to help someone. I have no obligation to do so.
If i have an obligation to help people, as you seem to claim, what releives me of that obligation? Am I allowed to sleep? Am I allowed to eat until I am full? Am I always required to lift heavy objects for weaker people? Do I need to keep fixing people's computers for free? How much time am I allowed to spend playing with my kids when there are needy people nearby?
If you concede the principle that I must sacrifice for the good of others, then all is lost.
This claim that i have an obligation to help based on the neediness of others is Crazy. It's crazy because it's moral condemnation bullshit -- its not even an acheivable guideline. I could spend every waking second of my life and every dollar of my income giving my all for everyone. And there'd still be suffering. You could take 100% of my income and just $2 more could feed some kid in africa for 10 years. If you took everything someone, would still find that I should work 1 more hour per day to feed 30 more kids.
It IS moral to "let" someone suffer because suffering is infinite! No matter what I do, I can never stop everyone's suffering! If the suffering of others places a moral burden on me, how can any human being anywhere be moral? How can there even be virtue? Every second of my existance I "let" someone die -- and so do you!
Do you want a system of government who's premise is infinite sacrifice? Because that's what your sacrificial standard of morality is. Hopefully you never get what you're asking for good and hard - like so many of the people who got socialized medicine BEFORE the countries in your dinky chart.
I have not wronged someone by "letting" them die. But you HAVE wronged me by stealing from me.
How do you think I got that money? By spending my fucking hours working. You know how much time I get to spend with my kids? Not enough. Know how much time I get to spend with my wife? Not enough. I spend time working because I need to to serve myself and to serve society. When you dock my paycheck for your emotionally-driven pity parties, you're keeping me away from my kids. You're keeping me from donating as much to church. You are disrespecting my family, and you are taking a giant shit on the entire concept of work, value, and life.
You think what you're advocating is moral? What have I ever done to you? What gives you the audacity to think what you're proposing is acceptable?
-
I like this thread.
Here is a web site that allows you to enter your income, and it spits out a chart that shows where your tax money goes and how much they take, it's pretty cool. Basically all my income so far this year went to federal taxes. But from here on out I get to keep what I earn (less state taxes, sales taxes, etc). Pretty sad really.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
thrash;326636 wrote:
You need to get over this "let them die" bullshit.Why is socialized medicine only good for this country? Suppose we get whatever healthcare system you want in place here. Why doesn't it extend coverage to people in Africa? How many Africans are you willing to let die? You're really not willing to lift a finger to help them? What kind of jerk are you?
I know where you are coming from on this. I really do. Maybe I should have been more clear: This country already spends more than most on the public portion of healthcare. I truly believe we would spend LESS and have LESS coming out of each of our pockets in a universal multi-payer system than what we currently spend.
Maybe a better way would be a tax rebate for $X amount of dollars (not sure what that amount will actually be, so I don't want to throw a "real" number at it yet... basically enough to cover one year of basic premium) if you opt into one of the healthcare programs offering AT LEAST a pre-defined minimum level of coverage. Each family would get this every year on January 1st. If you failed to have insurance during the next 12 months you owe all or a portion of that back on the following years taxes. If you don't want the coverage, you simply send the rebate back to the government within 45 days and there is no penalty. You can always opt for better coverage as long as it meets a minimum standard.
I think we all realize that right or wrong there is going to be a welfare program in this country regardless of what any of us wants. There is always going to be "free" healthcare to the very poor who qualify for assistance.
I was clear about my obligations -- or lack therof -- in the first post.
Yes, It is more moral for me to sit by and do NOTHING to help someone than it is to allow you to HURT and STEAL from me when I've done nothing wrong!
I really don't have anything more to add here.
What i want is for people to help each other. But i want to be clear about the ground rules -- I cannot be legally COMPELLED to help someone. I have no obligation to do so.
I'm pretty sure you are being legally obligated to do so already via Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs that have been deemed constitutional. I forget who it was from the Cato Institute, but I was watching Fox the other day and this guy came on and said "I don't believe it is constitutional to have the individual mandate, especially when they had the opportunity to just extend Medicare for everyone which has been deemed constitutional" (paraphrased).
If i have an obligation to help people, as you seem to claim, what releives me of that obligation? Am I allowed to sleep? Am I allowed to eat until I am full? Am I always required to lift heavy objects for weaker people? Do I need to keep fixing people's computers for free? How much time am I allowed to spend playing with my kids when there are needy people nearby?
Again, maybe I worded it poorly and maybe I was looking at it from a what it costs the government now for healthcare vs what it might cost with my idea.
If you concede the principle that I must sacrifice for the good of others, then all is lost.
Again, I completely understand where you are coming from. 100%. In principle I agree with you (I think I've said this before). In REALITY the odds of being in a society without government is less that .00000000000001% People will always prop up others to lead/protect them. ALWAYS. About 520 years ago people started settling this land (more if you count native americans...) to be "free" and in 1775 they started a movement to make themselves free of foreign rule. The first thing they did was organize and sacrifice for the good of themselves and others. They went to war, but first they established a basic government.
So yes, in principle you are right, you shouldn't NEED to sacrifice for the good of others, but society, any REAL society (Why does this sound like a fast & furious quote??) will eventually "require" it, even though it may be morally wrong to do so.
This claim that i have an obligation to help based on the neediness of others is Crazy. It's crazy because it's moral condemnation bullshit -- its not even an acheivable guideline. I could spend every waking second of my life and every dollar of my income giving my all for everyone. And there'd still be suffering. You could take 100% of my income and just $2 more could feed some kid in africa for 10 years. If you took everything someone, would still find that I should work 1 more hour per day to feed 30 more kids.
See above, I understand the point you are making. And I don't disagree with it in principle.
It IS moral to "let" someone suffer because suffering is infinite! No matter what I do, I can never stop everyone's suffering! If the suffering of others places a moral burden on me, how can any human being anywhere be moral? How can there even be virtue? Every second of my existance I "let" someone die -- and so do you!
Good point. I have no counter.
Do you want a system of government who's premise is infinite sacrifice? Because that's what your sacrificial standard of morality is. Hopefully you never get what you're asking for good and hard - like so many of the people who got socialized medicine BEFORE the countries in your dinky chart.
We already have a system of government who's premise is infinite sacrifice. I have many friends who live in countries with socialized medicine. Most of whom used to live in the US. Most of whom prefer that system over ours.
I have not wronged someone by "letting" them die. But you HAVE wronged me by stealing from me.
What have I personally stolen from you? You made a choice (a sacrifice if you will) by choosing to live here. You could choose to live anywhere on earth, including a remote desert island with your friends who share your ideals and started your ideal society. But YOU chose to live in a country that forces you to pay taxes to support all sorts of social programs... heck, even our military by definition would be a social program.... tax dollars go in to fund a system of protection for the good of the whole country. It doesn't get much more social than that.
How do you think I got that money? By spending my fucking hours working. You know how much time I get to spend with my kids? Not enough. Know how much time I get to spend with my wife? Not enough. I spend time working because I need to to serve myself and to serve society. When you dock my paycheck for your emotionally-driven pity parties, you're keeping me away from my kids. You're keeping me from donating as much to church. You are disrespecting my family, and you are taking a giant shit on the entire concept of work, value, and life.
I share those EXACT same feelings and face the exact same issues as you. But like I said, I think MY approach would be less of a financial burden than the current system. My system may be wrong/flawed, but so is the current one. I think we can BOTH agree on that.
You think what you're advocating is moral? What have I ever done to you? What gives you the audacity to think what you're proposing is acceptable?
mor·al   [mawr-uhl, mor-]
adjective- of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
- expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
- founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
- capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
- conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
100% moral. No, probably not. MORE moral than our current system? Yes.
Can we at least agree that our current system could be better?
Can we also agree that the overall likelihood of EVER getting 100% away from taxes and distributed wealth is about the same and finding out that we have found a winning lottery ticket.... from another planet...and that we actually will be able to drive our car from our planet to their planet to redeem it?
Can we agree that the current system will never go away, but can be changed?
Can we agree that even if we do change it, there is virtually zero chance of it not distributing wealth or funding some form of social program for the perceived "good" of all?
Can we agree that all humans are immoral and even in a truly free society people will form some form of government to protect them from others, which will lead to some form of taxation and redistribution?
If we can, then I can concede your basis of my idea being immoral in principle and your moral idea being impractical in practice.
-
DaveH;326641 wrote:
I like this thread.Here is a web site that allows you to enter your income, and it spits out a chart that shows where your tax money goes and how much they take, it's pretty cool. Basically all my income so far this year went to federal taxes. But from here on out I get to keep what I earn (less state taxes, sales taxes, etc). Pretty sad really.
That is kinda neat/disturbing, but not all that surprising. From what I can tell, starting today (literally) I get to keep everything I make. I was surprised that Medicare was lower than income security (which I'm assuming is unemployment taxes) and military. FWIW, I'm 100% in favor of making unemployment benefits an optional coverage that you can opt in/out of via a private system.... much like disability insurance, etc...
Social security I'm ok with weaning us off of as well and privatizing... or at least making it optional. Not sure how I'd do it without completely destroying the funding for the currently retired individuals who rely on the system that they paid into their whole life.
-
TJ: i think it's worth pointing out that there was no social welfare of any kind prior to 1930, no federal income tax prior to 1913..
We had a much freer society at one point in history. Why can't we have one again? People just have to want it. Part of getting people to want it is to discuss the current situation and the other possibilities with them frankly.
If you say, "yes, but over 50% of Americans are entirely dependant on the state and are net leeches on the system", you'd be right. And this is certainly an impediment to progress. This is why it is important to understand the inherent immorality of the current situation, and what the correct moral destination is. There is no way forward without common ground on morality, principles, objectives, etc.
Once we establish that the military industrial complex, oil companies, welfare recipients, etc... do not DESERVE the subsidies they receive via theft (called "taxation" by some), then it is a straightforward matter to end such practices. Once we understand that we have no moral obligation to support these entities against our will, and that we have the power and the moral high ground, we can figure out a way out of this mess and a way forward.
These things will end one way or another. The current system is unsustainable. The people are misinformed and the demogogues depend on this. The social safety net is wearing thin as we speak. We can engineer as soft of a transition as possible if we accept the inevitability of disaster. If we pretend that what we're doing is both sustainable and morally justifiable, the house of cards will surely collapse.
-
thrash;326648 wrote:
TJ: i think it's worth pointing out that there was no social welfare of any kind prior to 1930, no federal income tax prior to 1913..We had a much freer society at one point in history. Why can't we have one again? People just have to want it. Part of getting people to want it is to discuss the current situation and the other possibilities with them frankly.
If you say, "yes, but over 50% of Americans are entirely dependant on the state and are net leeches on the system", you'd be right. And this is certainly an impediment to progress. This is why it is important to understand the inherent immorality of the current situation, and what the correct moral destination is. There is no way forward without common ground on morality, principles, objectives, etc.
Once we establish that the military industrial complex, oil companies, welfare recipients, etc... do not DESERVE the subsidies they receive via theft (called "taxation" by some), then it is a straightforward matter to end such practices. Once we understand that we have no moral obligation to support these entities against our will, and that we have the power and the moral high ground, we can figure out a way out of this mess and a way forward.
These things will end one way or another. The current system is unsustainable. The people are misinformed and the demogogues depend on this. The social safety net is wearing thin as we speak. We can engineer as soft of a transition as possible if we accept the inevitability of disaster. If we pretend that what we're doing is both sustainable and morally justifiable, the house of cards will surely collapse.
I can agree with most of this. We actually had an income tax in 1861 to help pay for the costs of the civil war. Our current income tax (16th Amendment) was ratified (some say unconstitutionally, though it has passed supreme court scrutiny) in 1913. As a representative government we chose people who decided that this was best for the good of the country (which is kind of what the basis of a representative government is all about) and there is literally no way that you, I or anyone else will be able to put that genie back in the bottle. We can wish it away, we can want it to go away but it will still be there. All we can do is shape what we have, little by little.
I honestly believe that my system is less intrusive on your wallet than the current system. Thereby making it less immoral than what we already have.
For those keeping track at home, the federal government funded itself with tariffs (primarily) prior to the start of income tax. Our current system is seeing less and less tariffs on imports/exports as we are trying to compete on a global scale with virtually all of our goods and services.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a link supporting the >50% of Americans are entirely dependent on the system portion of above? I know lots of people and very very few are ENTIRELY dependent on the system... though I do know a few that do qualify as net leeches (taking in more than they pay out), and most of them are not poor people.
-
... its because it's nowhere near 50%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_dependency#Measuring_dependency
Measuring dependency
The United States Department of Health and Human Services defines ten indicators of welfare dependency:[23]
Indicator 1: Degree of Dependence, which can be measured by the percentage of total income from means-tested benefits. If greater than 50%, the recipient of welfare is considered to be dependent on it for the purposes of official statistics.
Indicator 2: Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance and Labor Force Attachment, or what percentage of recipients are in families with different degrees of labor force participation.
Indicator 3: Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance, or the percentage of the population receiving TANF, food stamps, and SSI.
Indicator 4: Rates of Participation in Means-Tested Assistance Programs, or the percentage of people eligible for welfare benefits who are actually claiming them.
Indicator 5: Multiple Program Receipt, or the percentage of recipients who are receiving at least two of TANF, food stamps, or SSI.
Indicator 6: Dependence Transitions, which breaks down recipients by demographic characteristics and the level of income that welfare benefits represented for them in previous years.
Indicator 7: Program Spell Duration, or for how long recipients draw the three means-tested benefits.
Indicator 8: Welfare Spell Duration with No Labor Force Attachment, which measures how long recipients with no one working in their family remain on welfare.
Indicator 9: Long Term Receipt, which breaks down spells on TANF by how long a person has been in receipt.
Indicator 10: Events Associated with the Beginning and Ending of Program Spells, such as an increase in personal or household income, marriage, children no longer being eligible for a benefit, and/or transfer onto other benefits.
In 2005, the Department estimated that 3.8% of the American population could be considered dependent on welfare, calculated as having more than half of their family’s income coming from TANF, food stamps, and/or SSRI payments, down from 5.2% in 1996.[24] As 15.3% of the population was in receipt of welfare benefits in 2005, it follows that approximately one-quarter of welfare recipients are considered dependent as per the official measures. In general, measures of welfare dependence are assessed alongside the statistics for poverty in general.[25]
Government measures of welfare dependence include welfare benefits associated with work. If such benefits were excluded from calculations, the dependency rate would be lower.[26] -
Jim;326652 wrote:
... its because it's nowhere near 50%.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_dependency#Measuring_dependency
Measuring dependency
The United States Department of Health and Human Services defines ten indicators of welfare dependency:[23]
Indicator 1: Degree of Dependence, which can be measured by the percentage of total income from means-tested benefits. If greater than 50%, the recipient of welfare is considered to be dependent on it for the purposes of official statistics.
Indicator 2: Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance and Labor Force Attachment, or what percentage of recipients are in families with different degrees of labor force participation.
Indicator 3: Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance, or the percentage of the population receiving TANF, food stamps, and SSI.
Indicator 4: Rates of Participation in Means-Tested Assistance Programs, or the percentage of people eligible for welfare benefits who are actually claiming them.
Indicator 5: Multiple Program Receipt, or the percentage of recipients who are receiving at least two of TANF, food stamps, or SSI.
Indicator 6: Dependence Transitions, which breaks down recipients by demographic characteristics and the level of income that welfare benefits represented for them in previous years.
Indicator 7: Program Spell Duration, or for how long recipients draw the three means-tested benefits.
Indicator 8: Welfare Spell Duration with No Labor Force Attachment, which measures how long recipients with no one working in their family remain on welfare.
Indicator 9: Long Term Receipt, which breaks down spells on TANF by how long a person has been in receipt.
Indicator 10: Events Associated with the Beginning and Ending of Program Spells, such as an increase in personal or household income, marriage, children no longer being eligible for a benefit, and/or transfer onto other benefits.
In 2005, the Department estimated that 3.8% of the American population could be considered dependent on welfare, calculated as having more than half of their family’s income coming from TANF, food stamps, and/or SSRI payments, down from 5.2% in 1996.[24] As 15.3% of the population was in receipt of welfare benefits in 2005, it follows that approximately one-quarter of welfare recipients are considered dependent as per the official measures. In general, measures of welfare dependence are assessed alongside the statistics for poverty in general.[25]
Government measures of welfare dependence include welfare benefits associated with work. If such benefits were excluded from calculations, the dependency rate would be lower.[26]Are you saying that Limbaugh, Hannety and Beck have been lying to me? How dare you!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login