Do you support universal healthcare?

^ Emigrate to a country with a more efficient government that actually insures its citizens against hardship and sickness

You're too upset Rob. 

^ Groovy colours 

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Great tactic Robert. Remember when I said out of my ass that "that's why the tea party is so successful?" Now I guess that weak statement gains credibility. You have turned what's essentially a decent (if naive if you want, or unrealistic if you want) wish (healthcare for all) into an "evil" thing (slavery). Brilliant. By using a ridiculous unlikely scenario you've turned the discussion into one of slavery vs free will... Master tactician Robert...  The opposite tactic worked for guys like Hitler.Come one we're on this stage now? Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: The stupid scenario used to "prove" that I'm for slavery and universal healthcare is slavery has, apparently, served its purpose, though I don't see what we get from it, other than knowing than under EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EXTREME circumstances some people would act in a certain way.  What would you do Rob if in the same hypothetical scenario your children were dying and these doctors had to be forced to cure them by your decision? Would you force them to act, thus becoming a slaverer? Would you act on your mighty high principles, thus killing your own children? Are you a murderer just because in this ridiculous scenario you would say yes or no? Is this a serious way to prove your high moral standing on issues? Are you trying to prove that you libertarians are on high moral ground just because in the most extreme circumstance you would act based on your imperturbable principles?  Anyway, I'm not running away from what I said. Luckily for all of us, this strange scenario will never occur.  This really insults me.  Sorry then. Especially since I put all this time explaining to you how the real world works.  Fine.  Things in bold, I want a direct answer. If your sister were dying (and she was) how much of every individual's wealth in a given country would be permissible for the government to take over to save her life? 10%? Not enough.  30%?Not enough.  How much is too much?  Would you have everyone give $1 if it could save your sister's life?  Would you have everyone give all their money if it could save your sister's life?  Where do you draw the line, and why? READ THE EMOTICON IN THE NEXT LINE. JOKE it was.  70%?Now you're too greedy...  All of it?  If it came to it, would you have everyone in the country give all their money to save your sister?  Why or why not? In what part did I say "the country has to give money to save my sister"?  Your sister benefited from something that other people had to pay for.  My sister also paid. With her taxes. She pays a LOT of taxes in Germany. relax Rob, I have expressed I'd like for a system where EVERYBODY puts a little bit for the benefit of EVERYBODY, not just my sister or yours. Taxes, yes. I've never said "people in the country has to give me money to save my sister".  What do you think taxes are?  They are monies taken from people in a given country, and in the case of your sister, paid out to provide her medical care. Or anybody else. Not just her.    This is ridiculous. Taxes, like in the rest of the industrialized world, not just for my benefit but for everybody's. I pay taxes too, and I've no problem with that.  I made my case clear enough.  If my child has a disease, and no one can save him or her, or no one is willing to, I will be the doctor.  If I fail, it's on me.  It's not on anyone else- period.  If you call me a murderer for not being a slaver, then you are a fool. No. Maybe you'r the fool. When all this ridiculous scenario is said and done I'll be left with a moral obligation to compensate the doctor that was forced to work to save lives, but I'd also be left with those people living, alive to pay back, too. You'll be left with your principles intact and with people who never were forced to do anything, but with a dead child. I will not enslave someone to save someone else.  I will beg and plead, but I would not put a gun to the doctor's head and make him work.  If you wouldn't put a gun to the doctor's head, how would you force him?  Would you have him fined?  Jailed?  Threaten his family?The service of said doctor would be horrible anyway. I prefer this scenario not to happen, ever.  All of this, as I said previously, is just your attempt to turn a wish that is at least in principle good (if flawed in reality) to an "evil" act. Nope.  It is already evil.  People love to call evil good and good evil (hey, that's in the Bible!)  Taking money from people by force to give to others who did not earn it is theft.  It doesn't make me a killer.  It makes me a father who did everything he could to save his child without stepping on the rights of anybody else.  No- my children are not worth more than other people's rights. Your position that under an extreme circumstance it's okay to enslave anybody is repulsive.Your position that property is above pretty much anything but freedom is repulsive to me. But we come from different worlds, you can't understand me and I can't understand you. No, I understand you.  You are a collectivist who places appeals to emotion, ad hominem remarks, and blatantly untrue statements over reason.The ad hominem part I don't get where from... I would concede that sometimes I fall for emotion. Hey, it's in my blood!  I also have seen the worst side of poverty, a real poverty unknown to you. Maybe that colors my statements, I give you that.   In response to your larger response to me, here is all I must say: 1. You call theft taxes and say it's okay.I called taxes "theft"?? You've got one beer too many Rob, if I ever used that expression is in reference to libertarians' views... I DON'T think taxes are theft. Nor does more than half the entire planet. Remember I wasn't born here. I don't have those views. Only a (sadly large) group of Americans (and maybe some people outside) agree with that. No, you have it backwards.  You don't call taxes theft.  You call theft taxes.  Please read more carefully.That's what you have determined then. I don't see it as theft.  I don't think they're theft because, one, we are ALL paying taxes; two, because our elected representatives, for bad or good, have created this tax system, hence in way WE have created them. Everybody doesn't pay taxes.  If you make under a certain amount, you don't pay.  So your first statement is false. EVERYBODY who makes a certain amount in a fair society where the worst-off are not left to rot. My elected officials didn't create this system- people long since dead created this system, so your second statement is false.And your current elected official have reinforced this.  By the logic of your first statement, if everyone breaks into his neighbor's home and steals something, is it no longer theft because everyone is doing it?  No that's theft. By the logic of your second statement, does this mean you are okay with the Iraq War because our elected officials created the system of how we go to war, hence in a way WE have created this?I'm not ok with it. Our elected officials also fail.  Again, we'll never agree on this.  2. You consider slavery admissible under at least one (maybe more) scenarios.  3. You don't see the elimination of government programs the answer...then you are apparently okay with Ponzi scams as well as long as the government is performing them. You're drawing ridiculous conclusions. I don't like Ponzi schemes. I'm repulsed by greed, remember. I failed to see how social security and medicare are ponzi schemes with your examples (I saw a bit of that with the last two paragraphs of your real world explanation). That is inefficient, yes, maybe I could agree with that. Tell me something- why is it okay that Madoff goes to jail and the US government is in the clear for doing the same thing?  And in broad daylight?  And at all our expense?  And through several programs? It's very simple- the government is running several blatant Ponzi schemes and has been for decades.  Just because the government does it doesn't make it right.  In fact, I'd say it makes it more wrong.  You keep saying my words are ridiculous, yet you never show how.  Show me how social security and Medicare are not a Ponzi Schemes. < ="utf-8">"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going." Ok I see what you try to get at. But:  < ="utf-8">In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; Then it's not. It maybe is a failed or flawed policy. No a Ponzi scheme. It might resemble one in some ways, I can give you that.  Tell me- why is Bernie Madoff in jail for his scam and the US government okay continuing to do the very same thing?  Calm down, relax. I wouldn't be ok with that. If that's the case, I'd put the responsibles in jail. The government is doing this.  Only on a grander scale. I didn't miss your point about not being able to take your life to the grave.  Hence my wink.  But I guess...aw f**k it.  You're okay with theft always and slavery under extreme circumstances. Great conclusion. Now you can go to tea party rallies to convince people that liberals are for theft and slavery. Most of them will buy it, too. I don't have to convince them of this.  They already know it.  Also, ad hominem statements do you no credit.  I'm okay with neither ever.  Period. I'm not okay with people dying because of greed, ever. Period.  Then you'd best start by criticizing the US government. I'm not saying the US government is perfect, never had. If you recall, this entire conversation is about universal healthcare. I support it. If there is a way to have it without the government being present, show me the way, I'll support it too.

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: The stupid scenario used to "prove" that I'm for slavery and universal healthcare is slavery has, apparently, served its purpose, though I don't see what we get from it, other than knowing than under EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EXTREME circumstances some people would act in a certain way.  What would you do Rob if in the same hypothetical scenario your children were dying and these doctors had to be forced to cure them by your decision? Would you force them to act, thus becoming a slaverer? Would you act on your mighty high principles, thus killing your own children? Are you a murderer just because in this ridiculous scenario you would say yes or no? Is this a serious way to prove your high moral standing on issues? Are you trying to prove that you libertarians are on high moral ground just because in the most extreme circumstance you would act based on your imperturbable principles?  Anyway, I'm not running away from what I said. Luckily for all of us, this strange scenario will never occur.  This really insults me.  Sorry then. Especially since I put all this time explaining to you how the real world works.  Fine.  Things in bold, I want a direct answer. If your sister were dying (and she was) how much of every individual's wealth in a given country would be permissible for the government to take over to save her life? 10%? Not enough.  30%?Not enough.  70%?Now you're too greedy...  All of it?  If it came to it, would you have everyone in the country give all their money to save your sister?  Why or why not? In what part did I say "the country has to give money to save my sister"?  relax Rob, I have expressed I'd like for a system where EVERYBODY puts a little bit for the benefit of EVERYBODY, not just my sister or yours. Taxes, yes. I've never said "people in the country has to give me money to save my sister". This is ridiculous. Taxes, like in the rest of the industrialized world, not just for my benefit but for everybody's. I pay taxes too, and I've no problem with that.  I made my case clear enough.  If my child has a disease, and no one can save him or her, or no one is willing to, I will be the doctor.  If I fail, it's on me.  It's not on anyone else- period.  If you call me a murderer for not being a slaver, then you are a fool. No. Maybe you'r the fool. When all this ridiculous scenario is said and done I'll be left with a moral obligation to compensate the doctor that was forced to work to save lives, but I'd also be left with those people living, alive to pay back, too. You'll be left with your principles intact and with people who never were forced to do anything, but with a dead child.  All of this, as I said previously, is just your attempt to turn a wish that is at least in principle good (if flawed in reality) to an "evil" act.   It doesn't make me a killer.  It makes me a father who did everything he could to save his child without stepping on the rights of anybody else.  No- my children are not worth more than other people's rights. Your position that under an extreme circumstance it's okay to enslave anybody is repulsive.Your position that property is above pretty much anything but freedom is repulsive to me. But we come from different worlds, you can't understand me and I can't understand you.  In response to your larger response to me, here is all I must say: 1. You call theft taxes and say it's okay.I called taxes "theft"?? You've got one beer too many Rob, if I ever used that expression is in reference to libertarians' views... I DON'T think taxes are theft. Nor does more than half the entire planet. Remember I wasn't born here. I don't have those views. Only a (sadly large) group of Americans (and maybe some people outside) agree with that.  I don't think they're theft because, one, we are ALL paying taxes; two, because our elected representatives, for bad or good, have created this tax system, hence in way WE have created them.  Again, we'll never agree on this.  2. You consider slavery admissible under at least one (maybe more) scenarios.  3. You don't see the elimination of government programs the answer...then you are apparently okay with Ponzi scams as well as long as the government is performing them. You're drawing ridiculous conclusions. I don't like Ponzi schemes. I'm repulsed by greed, remember. I failed to see how social security and medicare are ponzi schemes with your examples (I saw a bit of that with the last two paragraphs of your real world explanation). That is inefficient, yes, maybe I could agree with that. Tell me something- why is it okay that Madoff goes to jail and the US government is in the clear for doing the same thing?  And in broad daylight?  And at all our expense?  And through several programs? Tell me- why is Bernie Madoff in jail for his scam and the US government okay continuing to do the very same thing?  Calm down, relax. I wouldn't be ok with that. If that's the case, I'd put the responsibles in jail.  I didn't miss your point about not being able to take your life to the grave.  Hence my wink.  But I guess...aw f**k it.  You're okay with theft always and slavery under extreme circumstances. Great conclusion. Now you can go to tea party rallies to convince people that liberals are for theft and slavery. Most of them will buy it, too. I'm okay with neither ever.  Period. I'm not okay with people dying because of greed, ever. Period.

ExittheLemming wrote: ^ I think I'm getting a feel for this now. Libertarianism and its accompanying concepts invariably flourish in soil as abundantly rich in b.s. as that tended over by your elected representatives.

And Brisbanians must be dodgeball champions.

ExittheLemming wrote: Epignosis wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: If the natural resource hoarding Libertarians have bequeathed anything to the world by way of recompense that is remotely entertaining, (does MOM do standup?) it just might be a pig headed insistence that you can reduce every human interaction to property rights and contractual laws. Reductio ad absurdum They would even claim that your life is really just a bag a perishable groceries for which a receipt is provided in the event of your ownership being challenged. God is reduced to a cameo role as storekeeper. Pluck any Libertarian essay from the internet at random and substitute 'the free market' with 'Christ' et voilà, you got yourself a fire breathing evangelical fundamentalist diatribe to kill for. (Spooky) Should the Libertarians start breeding (clearly not a spectator sport) it seems certain their accumulated wealth will be passed to people who will erm...not have earned it? How can those who have willingly and presciently given over their earned tax dollars by way of social security premiums be any less deserving of charity in the event of their circumstances forcing them to make a claim on the insurer? (the state) Um...I realize you aren't from around here, but in the US, that's what liberals do, not Libertarians- reducing every human interaction to property rights and contractual laws.  Did you not see the nonsense a few pages ago from liberals who insisted the poor people were most likely to be fat because they were poor?  No that's correct I'm not American but when you say 'Liberal' you're indicating 'Socialist' or 'Left Wing' by any other definition applicable in the rest of the world? (outside the USA). I'm neither a socialist or a liberal - just a humanist who doesn't like humans much The rest of your commentary merely shows that you've no idea what a Libertarian is.  You don't have to earn wealth (as in the case of a bequeathing)- you just shouldn't have wealth taken from you by those who didn't earn it.  Not earning does not equal stealing. Au contraire, I do think I have a reasonable grasp of that political philosophy, the benchmark being a redistribution of power from a coercive state to that of voluntary associations. The rights that Libertarianism ascribes to the individual are life, liberty and property with all three being deemed 'natural inalienable rights' which unfortunately I think is disingenuous bollocks. If Ayn Rand is correct when she stated 'Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think' then yes, this inheritance lark is a real no-brainer. Your last sentence shows you know even less about the Ponzi scheme run here in the US.  People don't get what they put in- they get what anther generation is going to pay for.  And this is not sustainable. Agreed, I know squat about whatever the Ponzi scheme might be but irrespective of the iniquities of fraudulent investment schemes or the haplessness of your own current administration to correct same, my statement still stands: social security if run efficiently is just like any other insurance policy, you pay a premium for a future eventuality and are perfectly entitled to make a claim on its inception. Most prudent democracies forbid their elected governments from using such funding to meet any spending shortfalls e.g. budgetary deficits.

People should save for themselves and their families, not allow the government to borrow money from them interest free in order to possibly pay them back later.  It is not a "future eventuality."  Social security programs here are running out fast.  Did you not see my analysis of it earlier?  It is robbery- nothing less.  I'm amazed people don't see social security for what it is- a total scam.

Epignosis wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: If the natural resource hoarding Libertarians have bequeathed anything to the world by way of recompense that is remotely entertaining, (does MOM do standup?) it just might be a pig headed insistence that you can reduce every human interaction to property rights and contractual laws. Reductio ad absurdum They would even claim that your life is really just a bag a perishable groceries for which a receipt is provided in the event of your ownership being challenged. God is reduced to a cameo role as storekeeper. Pluck any Libertarian essay from the internet at random and substitute 'the free market' with 'Christ' et voilà, you got yourself a fire breathing evangelical fundamentalist diatribe to kill for. (Spooky) Should the Libertarians start breeding (clearly not a spectator sport) it seems certain their accumulated wealth will be passed to people who will erm...not have earned it? How can those who have willingly and presciently given over their earned tax dollars by way of social security premiums be any less deserving of charity in the event of their circumstances forcing them to make a claim on the insurer? (the state) Um...I realize you aren't from around here, but in the US, that's what liberals do, not Libertarians- reducing every human interaction to property rights and contractual laws.  Did you not see the nonsense a few pages ago from liberals who insisted the poor people were most likely to be fat because they were poor?  No that's correct I'm not American but when you say 'Liberal' you're indicating 'Socialist' or 'Left Wing' by any other definition applicable in the rest of the world? (outside the USA). I'm neither a socialist or a liberal - just a humanist who doesn't like humans much The rest of your commentary merely shows that you've no idea what a Libertarian is.  You don't have to earn wealth (as in the case of a bequeathing)- you just shouldn't have wealth taken from you by those who didn't earn it.  Not earning does not equal stealing. Au contraire, I do think I have a reasonable grasp of that political philosophy, the benchmark being a redistribution of power from a coercive state to that of voluntary associations. The rights that Libertarianism ascribes to the individual are life, liberty and property with all three being deemed 'natural inalienable rights' which unfortunately I think is disingenuous bollocks. If Ayn Rand is correct when she stated 'Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think' then yes, this inheritance lark is a real no-brainer. Your last sentence shows you know even less about the Ponzi scheme run here in the US.  People don't get what they put in- they get what anther generation is going to pay for.  And this is not sustainable. Agreed, I know squat about whatever the Ponzi scheme might be but irrespective of the iniquities of fraudulent investment schemes or the haplessness of your own current administration to correct same, my statement still stands: social security if run efficiently is just like any other insurance policy, you pay a premium for a future eventuality and are perfectly entitled to make a claim on its inception. Most prudent democracies forbid their elected governments from using such funding to meet any spending shortfalls e.g. budgetary deficits.

If the natural resource hoarding Libertarians have bequeathed anything to the world by way of recompense that is remotely entertaining, (does MOM do standup?) it just might be a pig headed insistence that you can reduce every human interaction to property rights and contractual laws. Reductio ad absurdum
They would even claim that your life is really just a bag a perishable groceries for which a receipt is provided in the event of your ownership being challenged. God is reduced to a cameo role as storekeeper.
Pluck any Libertarian essay from the internet at random and substitute 'the free market' with 'Christ' et voilà, you got yourself a fire breathing evangelical fundamentalist diatribe to kill for. (Spooky) Should the Libertarians start breeding (clearly not a spectator sport) it seems certain their accumulated wealth will be passed to people who will erm...not have earned it? How can those who have willingly and presciently given over their earned tax dollars by way of social security premiums be any less deserving of charity in the event of their circumstances forcing them to make a claim on the insurer? (the state)

The T wrote: Final question: you're ok with defense spending. How are we going to fund it? You said not all taxes are theft so I guess you would answer "taxes". What is the line that divides "taxes are theft" from "taxes are ok"?

Taxes for defense purposes are theft as well. No question about it. I only support it because I think the alternative is worse. At least Dean gave an explanation of why he thinks taxes are not theft. All you have done is say they aren't because all governments engage in them. You can admit that taxes are theft and still support taxes. You would just be saying that theft is justifiable under certain circumstances. Why don't you just say that?
Alternatively, can you provide a cogent explanation for why taxes are not theft, as Dean did (although I disagree with his conclusion, I respect him for having thought it out)? My argument is simply the following:

1. Theft is the taking of someone's property without consent.
2. My wages are my property.
3. Income tax takes part of my wages without my consent.
4. Therefore, income tax is theft.

Which part of this do you disagree with? I suspect it's 2, but why? What about estate tax, surely you can't disagree that my  estate is my property, can you?