30 ms·

Law enforcement and military exist to prevent you from using force on others, and others from using force against you. You're absolutely correct, I'm in favour

Law enforcement and military exist to prevent you from using force on others, and others from using force against you. You're absolutely correct, I'm in favour of forcing you to not use force on others. The only positive right I believe in is the enforcement of negative rights. Alternatively, I simply state that we both agree on law enforcement and military but not healthcare, so at a baseline you want to force others to pay for more things than I do. I don't support the US healthcare system, but I won't support socialized healthcare because of that. The government can follow the rules it enforces onto private companies by operating its own healthcare service without forcing those that did not choose to use it to pay. Problem?

nobodyandproud 4y ago
> Law enforcement and military exist to prevent you from using force on others, and others from using force against you. You're absolutely correct, I'm in favour of forcing you to not use force on others. The only positive right I believe in is the enforcement of negative rights I specifically also mentioned highways. How does that fit into this narrative? > Alternatively, I simply state that we both agree on law enforcement and military but not healthcare, so at a baseline you want to force others to pay for more things than I do. I’m already paying for your care, so I’m paying for more than my fair share.
- alphanullmeric 4y ago
  Highways are no different from healthcare. I don't care if the government does them. You use it you pay for it. You have no idea how much I make, which your claim entirely depends on. You also don't seem to be reading very carefully, I'm stating what I believe should happen. I would like people to be forced to pay for less things. You would like people to be forced to pay for more things. Simple as that.
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    > Highways are no different from healthcare. I don't care if the government does them. You use it you pay for it. So you’d pay for law enforcement and a military, but without roads and highways they would be ineffective. What is your proposal? Do police and soldiers have to pay money for its use? > You have no idea how much I make, which your claim entirely depends on And you have no idea whether I’m overpaying for healthcare to subsidize your care. Those services you’re enjoying now and the professionals you’re relying on? Those are costs far beyond just the single treatment and whatever private insurance you’re paying for.
    - alphanullmeric 4y ago
      The government already operates roads. Nothing would change. The people that use it (ie. most people including myself) pay for it. I like the idea that part of the police and military budget be put towards the highways they use. You made the claim, the burden of evidence is on you. All I said is that you wish people be forced to pay for things they don’t use and I do not, which you conveniently ignored after asking me to address every bit of your comment. People like you always pull this “indirectly use” argument to justify making people pay for things they do not use. I don’t pay for the gym membership of the delivery guy, this is no different.
      - nobodyandproud 4y ago
        > Highways are no different from healthcare. I don't care if the government does them. You use it you pay for it. … > The government already operates roads. Nothing would change. Okay. So we established that you don’t mind if the government runs the roads as long as they pay for it (tolls, gas tax). I’ll go out on a limb and say that until the Federal stepped in, our road system was haphazard and ineffective. Having standards and an interstate system was crucial, and only possible with government. Now given that law enforcement and military can incur injuries, can we have an effective law enforcement without the medical support to get them back up when injured or sick? Now for this portion: > So it’s not unsurprising that your attempts at forcing others to pay for your things is met with hostility when you and others that share your views don’t even want to face those policies themselves. Why would you assume the worst ? This goes against Hacker News’ core principles. > People like you always pull this “indirectly use” argument to justify making people pay for things they do not use. I don’t pay for the gym membership of the delivery guy, this is no different. I help pay for all of infrastructure, the building safety codes that ensure the gym doesn’t collapse or electrocute me, that the machines aren’t death traps, etc. It’s great that I don’t have to pay for a membership or other services if I don’t want it, but the foundation that makes these services even possible or reliable costs money. Having these services on standby also costs money, even if you don’t use it. So yes, I’m already paying more than I’ve ever received in healthcare. Back to healthcare. What I find frustrating is that your kneejerk reaction is neither unique nor uncommon, yet it never comes with a workable alternative and solution.

nobodyandproud 4y ago

> Law enforcement and military exist to prevent you from using force on others, and others from using force against you. You're absolutely correct, I'm in favour of forcing you to not use force on others. The only positive right I believe in is the enforcement of negative rights I specifically also mentioned highways. How does that fit into this narrative? > Alternatively, I simply state that we both agree on law enforcement and military but not healthcare, so at a baseline you want to force others to pay for more things than I do. I’m already paying for your care, so I’m paying for more than my fair share.

alphanullmeric 4y ago
Highways are no different from healthcare. I don't care if the government does them. You use it you pay for it. You have no idea how much I make, which your claim entirely depends on. You also don't seem to be reading very carefully, I'm stating what I believe should happen. I would like people to be forced to pay for less things. You would like people to be forced to pay for more things. Simple as that.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  > Highways are no different from healthcare. I don't care if the government does them. You use it you pay for it. So you’d pay for law enforcement and a military, but without roads and highways they would be ineffective. What is your proposal? Do police and soldiers have to pay money for its use? > You have no idea how much I make, which your claim entirely depends on And you have no idea whether I’m overpaying for healthcare to subsidize your care. Those services you’re enjoying now and the professionals you’re relying on? Those are costs far beyond just the single treatment and whatever private insurance you’re paying for.
  - alphanullmeric 4y ago
    The government already operates roads. Nothing would change. The people that use it (ie. most people including myself) pay for it. I like the idea that part of the police and military budget be put towards the highways they use. You made the claim, the burden of evidence is on you. All I said is that you wish people be forced to pay for things they don’t use and I do not, which you conveniently ignored after asking me to address every bit of your comment. People like you always pull this “indirectly use” argument to justify making people pay for things they do not use. I don’t pay for the gym membership of the delivery guy, this is no different.
    - nobodyandproud 4y ago
      > Highways are no different from healthcare. I don't care if the government does them. You use it you pay for it. … > The government already operates roads. Nothing would change. Okay. So we established that you don’t mind if the government runs the roads as long as they pay for it (tolls, gas tax). I’ll go out on a limb and say that until the Federal stepped in, our road system was haphazard and ineffective. Having standards and an interstate system was crucial, and only possible with government. Now given that law enforcement and military can incur injuries, can we have an effective law enforcement without the medical support to get them back up when injured or sick? Now for this portion: > So it’s not unsurprising that your attempts at forcing others to pay for your things is met with hostility when you and others that share your views don’t even want to face those policies themselves. Why would you assume the worst ? This goes against Hacker News’ core principles. > People like you always pull this “indirectly use” argument to justify making people pay for things they do not use. I don’t pay for the gym membership of the delivery guy, this is no different. I help pay for all of infrastructure, the building safety codes that ensure the gym doesn’t collapse or electrocute me, that the machines aren’t death traps, etc. It’s great that I don’t have to pay for a membership or other services if I don’t want it, but the foundation that makes these services even possible or reliable costs money. Having these services on standby also costs money, even if you don’t use it. So yes, I’m already paying more than I’ve ever received in healthcare. Back to healthcare. What I find frustrating is that your kneejerk reaction is neither unique nor uncommon, yet it never comes with a workable alternative and solution.