3 ms·

But I don't think that is the strongest version of the argument: it's based on the rather weak premise that taxes are inherently unconscionable. Imagine we were

But I don't think that is the strongest version of the argument: it's based on the rather weak premise that taxes are inherently unconscionable. Imagine we were talking about the army, instead of healthcare. The argument would start with the question "is the state obliged to protect its citizens?", not "my taxes shouldn't pay for it". The counter-argument here is not one around taxes, but around the obligations of the state. If you don't believe in universal healthcare then you ipso facto believe the state has no obligation to provide it, and that's where the counter-argument needs to come from.

brucephillips 9y ago
It's not based on that premise, no. A person can think that the country should tax its citizens to protect them, while simultaneously think that the country should not tax its citizens to redistribute wealth.
- bocajuniors 9y ago
  Societies with more evenly distributed wealth tends to have lower crime rates.
- pgeorgi 9y ago
  > the country should not tax its citizens to redistribute wealth. The army is also a huge wealth distribution machine: Raytheon or Boeing are businesses, and army personnel presumably is paid, too. > tax its citizens to protect them For example, from life threatening conditions. Same statements, different cherry picking -> entirely different results.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > A person can think that the country should tax its citizens to protect them Ah, so you are in favour of universal socialised health care! (/joking, mostly. But I feel that protecting citizens only from other humans but not from the far more deadly problems of disease and ill-health is a very limited view. If the US really believed in the inherent superiority of the private model, it would use it for its troops. No medevac if you've not paid your premiums!)
- AsyncAwait 9y ago
  So protecting its citizens using military force is fine, not wealth redistribution, but taking care of its sick citizens, (arguably the ones needing the most protection), is somehow questionable?
lancewiggs 9y ago
>Imagine we were talking about the army Police yes, army no. In Costa Rica the answer to whether government have an army is no. In many other countries the answer is "not really" or "not required" The USA stands alone when it comes to the amount of money spent on military. It is somewhat absurd.
- jeswin 9y ago
  Not an American. But truth be told, more authoritarian countries and their armies will have a field day if the US military is weaker than it is. Europe is not going to stand up to Putin. And forget about Taiwan, South Korea, Syria etc. The only thing holding them back is massive American firepower. In its absence every midsize Asian country is going to acquire nuclear weapons.
- negamax 9y ago
  US pretty much guarantee current world order and international treaties. I know there had been many scandalous allegations against overspending. And conspiracy theories for overreach. But with weak US, world will pretty much go on a war the next day
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    >>But with weak US, world will pretty much go on a war the next day What makes you say that? You might see more territorial wars, such as with Russia invading former USSR states and China making stronger claims over the islands in the South China Sea, but there is no indication that other countries would not pick up the slack and fill in the gaps created by reduced American military presence.
- briandear 9y ago
  Actually on US military spending by percentage of GDP, the US spends less than Singapore and as much as Morocco. The amount the US spends isn’t absurd on a percentage of GDP or even a per capita basis. It could be “absurd” when looking at it in raw dollar amounts, but you could say that American expenditures for movie tickets are absurd — Americans spend more money on movie tickets than the entire GDP of 65 different countries. The US stands alone on the amount spent on the military, but it also stands alone for the amounts spent on everything: it’s the world’s largest economy and it would seem rather prudent to be able to defend that economy — and it does, at a reasonable level of military spending as a percentage of that economy. A bank that protects $50 might not need a guard. A bank that protects $50,000 might need one guard. A bank that protects $5 trillion might need a few more guards. Comparing Costa Rica to the United States is pretty ridiculous in terms of national defense. It’s rather naïve to suggest that militaries are not required. It’s never required, until it is. If someone were to invade Costa Rica, who do you think would come to the rescue when asked? Costa Rican security is benefiting from the military of the United States. The Rio treaty gives Costa Rica the luxury of not having to worry about invasion since the US military is standing by to help. Denmark doesn’t need much of a military because it’s part of NATO.. a risk to Danish national security wouldn’t last very long when you have the most advanced military in the world as your ally and treaty-bound to protect you. These treaties and arrangements make it easier for countries to reduce their military since they are allied with the United States. My point is that making comparisons isn’t very accurate without considering defense treaties that might exist and thus incentivize smaller military expenditures. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?year_high_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?year_...

brucephillips 9y ago

It's not based on that premise, no. A person can think that the country should tax its citizens to protect them, while simultaneously think that the country should not tax its citizens to redistribute wealth.

bocajuniors 9y ago
Societies with more evenly distributed wealth tends to have lower crime rates.
pgeorgi 9y ago
> the country should not tax its citizens to redistribute wealth. The army is also a huge wealth distribution machine: Raytheon or Boeing are businesses, and army personnel presumably is paid, too. > tax its citizens to protect them For example, from life threatening conditions. Same statements, different cherry picking -> entirely different results.
pjc50 9y ago
> A person can think that the country should tax its citizens to protect them Ah, so you are in favour of universal socialised health care! (/joking, mostly. But I feel that protecting citizens only from other humans but not from the far more deadly problems of disease and ill-health is a very limited view. If the US really believed in the inherent superiority of the private model, it would use it for its troops. No medevac if you've not paid your premiums!)
AsyncAwait 9y ago
So protecting its citizens using military force is fine, not wealth redistribution, but taking care of its sick citizens, (arguably the ones needing the most protection), is somehow questionable?

lancewiggs 9y ago

>Imagine we were talking about the army Police yes, army no. In Costa Rica the answer to whether government have an army is no. In many other countries the answer is "not really" or "not required" The USA stands alone when it comes to the amount of money spent on military. It is somewhat absurd.

jeswin 9y ago
Not an American. But truth be told, more authoritarian countries and their armies will have a field day if the US military is weaker than it is. Europe is not going to stand up to Putin. And forget about Taiwan, South Korea, Syria etc. The only thing holding them back is massive American firepower. In its absence every midsize Asian country is going to acquire nuclear weapons.
negamax 9y ago
US pretty much guarantee current world order and international treaties. I know there had been many scandalous allegations against overspending. And conspiracy theories for overreach. But with weak US, world will pretty much go on a war the next day
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>But with weak US, world will pretty much go on a war the next day What makes you say that? You might see more territorial wars, such as with Russia invading former USSR states and China making stronger claims over the islands in the South China Sea, but there is no indication that other countries would not pick up the slack and fill in the gaps created by reduced American military presence.
briandear 9y ago
Actually on US military spending by percentage of GDP, the US spends less than Singapore and as much as Morocco. The amount the US spends isn’t absurd on a percentage of GDP or even a per capita basis. It could be “absurd” when looking at it in raw dollar amounts, but you could say that American expenditures for movie tickets are absurd — Americans spend more money on movie tickets than the entire GDP of 65 different countries. The US stands alone on the amount spent on the military, but it also stands alone for the amounts spent on everything: it’s the world’s largest economy and it would seem rather prudent to be able to defend that economy — and it does, at a reasonable level of military spending as a percentage of that economy. A bank that protects $50 might not need a guard. A bank that protects $50,000 might need one guard. A bank that protects $5 trillion might need a few more guards. Comparing Costa Rica to the United States is pretty ridiculous in terms of national defense. It’s rather naïve to suggest that militaries are not required. It’s never required, until it is. If someone were to invade Costa Rica, who do you think would come to the rescue when asked? Costa Rican security is benefiting from the military of the United States. The Rio treaty gives Costa Rica the luxury of not having to worry about invasion since the US military is standing by to help. Denmark doesn’t need much of a military because it’s part of NATO.. a risk to Danish national security wouldn’t last very long when you have the most advanced military in the world as your ally and treaty-bound to protect you. These treaties and arrangements make it easier for countries to reduce their military since they are allied with the United States. My point is that making comparisons isn’t very accurate without considering defense treaties that might exist and thus incentivize smaller military expenditures. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?year_high_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?year_...