5 ms·

Mandating that insurance companies must not charge higher premiums for individuals with genetic diseases will raise the overall cost of premiums for all custome

Mandating that insurance companies must not charge higher premiums for individuals with genetic diseases will raise the overall cost of premiums for all customers or would at least inhibit any potential for decreases in premiums. So in essence you are saying that - through government force - other people should pay involuntarily for these people. I think it's laudable if you have the desire to help them, and even more laudable if you put your good intentions into action. But I think it's immoral to force people to do so.

GlennS 8y ago
Immoral? Is this a variant on a "taxation is theft" argument? (Legally enforced coverage for people with disabilities is reasonably close to taxation and redistribution, I would say.) It seems to me that if people don't collectively pay extra for people with disabilities or chronic illnesses, then a lot of those people would suffer and/or die young. Surely contributing to that situation would be far more immoral? Is the freedom for people to spend all of their money as they like really worth more to you?
raverbashing 8y ago
> other people should pay involuntarily for these people. I stopped reading here.
dsr_ 8y ago
By this argument, it is immoral to force people to pay taxes in order to support a local fire department. Only subscribers to a particular fire department deserve to have fires put out, and the free market will allow different fire departments to compete for your business. This might be arguable if everyone lived in well-separated domains where there is no significant risk of fire spreading from one to another, but that is not the case for the vast majority of people. If your morality doesn't work in the real world, it's not a good one.
- patricius 8y ago
  It is immoral to force people to pay taxes to finance a local fire department if you believe that it is immoral in general to force people to give up their property. You can argue that in certain special cases, like in the fire department scenario, you personally believe that theft is morally defensible from some perspective. But then you are not really basing your moral standpoint on any principle, but taking things on a case by case basis, and you end up in a situation where you can essentially always argue that using force is right.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    Nobody is _forced_ to pay taxes in the modern age of affordable travel. There is a competitive market of jurisdictions, offering different prices and products. Jurisdiction A includes trash pickup, which you might want because reducing fly tipping increases property values. Jurisdiction B has no trash pickup but low, low prices. People who want B but who buy A instead can hardly complain that A isn't B - any more than a person who buys wine can complain it's not beer.
    - patricius 8y ago
      So if I live in a city run by the mafia, who extorts me every month, I am not really forced to pay them, since I can just take the bus to the next town?
      - michaelt 8y ago
        Exactly. If the mafia have founded a city, and they offer plots subject to monthly extortion, why shouldn't fully informed adults have the right to consent to that?
  - dsr_ 8y ago
    Srguments which start with "it is immoral to force people to give up their property" ignore the initial origin of that property, and frequently several steps of conquest and theft in between.

GlennS 8y ago

Immoral? Is this a variant on a "taxation is theft" argument? (Legally enforced coverage for people with disabilities is reasonably close to taxation and redistribution, I would say.) It seems to me that if people don't collectively pay extra for people with disabilities or chronic illnesses, then a lot of those people would suffer and/or die young. Surely contributing to that situation would be far more immoral? Is the freedom for people to spend all of their money as they like really worth more to you?

raverbashing 8y ago

> other people should pay involuntarily for these people. I stopped reading here.

dsr_ 8y ago

By this argument, it is immoral to force people to pay taxes in order to support a local fire department. Only subscribers to a particular fire department deserve to have fires put out, and the free market will allow different fire departments to compete for your business. This might be arguable if everyone lived in well-separated domains where there is no significant risk of fire spreading from one to another, but that is not the case for the vast majority of people. If your morality doesn't work in the real world, it's not a good one.

patricius 8y ago
It is immoral to force people to pay taxes to finance a local fire department if you believe that it is immoral in general to force people to give up their property. You can argue that in certain special cases, like in the fire department scenario, you personally believe that theft is morally defensible from some perspective. But then you are not really basing your moral standpoint on any principle, but taking things on a case by case basis, and you end up in a situation where you can essentially always argue that using force is right.
- michaelt 8y ago
  Nobody is _forced_ to pay taxes in the modern age of affordable travel. There is a competitive market of jurisdictions, offering different prices and products. Jurisdiction A includes trash pickup, which you might want because reducing fly tipping increases property values. Jurisdiction B has no trash pickup but low, low prices. People who want B but who buy A instead can hardly complain that A isn't B - any more than a person who buys wine can complain it's not beer.
  - patricius 8y ago
    So if I live in a city run by the mafia, who extorts me every month, I am not really forced to pay them, since I can just take the bus to the next town?
    - michaelt 8y ago
      Exactly. If the mafia have founded a city, and they offer plots subject to monthly extortion, why shouldn't fully informed adults have the right to consent to that?
- dsr_ 8y ago
  Srguments which start with "it is immoral to force people to give up their property" ignore the initial origin of that property, and frequently several steps of conquest and theft in between.