3 ms·

> You say "screwed", I say "contributing to society". How is a coercively collected subsidy for the health expenses of other demographics considered a contribu

by uiri 9y ago

> You say "screwed", I say "contributing to society". How is a coercively collected subsidy for the health expenses of other demographics considered a contribution to society? Is trading one's labour for capital not enough? > I can't really choose whether or not I get psoriasis or have a heart attack. There are plenty of places throughout the United States where the only viable means of transportation is the automobile (or a motorcycle, as you point out). The consequences of not having auto insurance is also bankruptcy. Would you characterize the auto insurance market in those locales as similarly coercive?

ceejayoz 9y ago
> Is trading one's labour for capital not enough? No? I believe folks in a modern, developed-world society have slightly more obligation to their fellow citizens than that. Some people can't labor, so we have things like SCHIP (kids), SSDI (disabled), etc. > Would you characterize the auto insurance market in those locales as similarly coercive? The US focus on private cars is problematic, but the choice to move somewhere with better public transport or closer to a job is generally available (if potentially difficult).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pikzen 9y ago
>Is trading one's labour for capital not enough? No? Capital is absolutely meaningless in a society. Capital doesn't give society anything. Actual, physical goods do, services do, a healthy population that protects us through the herd effect do. Capital in itself? It is on the brink of being nefarious for society. >There are plenty of places throughout the United States where the only viable means of transportation is the automobile (or a motorcycle, as you point out). The consequences of not having auto insurance is also bankruptcy. Would you characterize the auto insurance market in those locales as similarly coercive? Aside from the fact that you will rarely suddenly end up in such a place without warning (which cannot be said when it comes to health), I would say that it's a problem of society. Why is there no public transport that could do most of the job of your car?

by uiri 9y ago

ceejayoz 9y ago

> Is trading one's labour for capital not enough? No? I believe folks in a modern, developed-world society have slightly more obligation to their fellow citizens than that. Some people can't labor, so we have things like SCHIP (kids), SSDI (disabled), etc. > Would you characterize the auto insurance market in those locales as similarly coercive? The US focus on private cars is problematic, but the choice to move somewhere with better public transport or closer to a job is generally available (if potentially difficult).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pikzen 9y ago

>Is trading one's labour for capital not enough? No? Capital is absolutely meaningless in a society. Capital doesn't give society anything. Actual, physical goods do, services do, a healthy population that protects us through the herd effect do. Capital in itself? It is on the brink of being nefarious for society. >There are plenty of places throughout the United States where the only viable means of transportation is the automobile (or a motorcycle, as you point out). The consequences of not having auto insurance is also bankruptcy. Would you characterize the auto insurance market in those locales as similarly coercive? Aside from the fact that you will rarely suddenly end up in such a place without warning (which cannot be said when it comes to health), I would say that it's a problem of society. Why is there no public transport that could do most of the job of your car?