4 ms·

> people claiming that "health care is a right" which is essentially saying they have the right to enslave everyone else for their own benefit. No, it's saying

> people claiming that "health care is a right" which is essentially saying they have the right to enslave everyone else for their own benefit. No, it's saying that as a society we're not going to let people suffer and die in the street when we have the technology and resources to help them. Probably you'll believe in society a bit more if you're ever in a position where you can't solve your problems yourself.

noarchy 14y ago
I don't think that we can classify government programs as being charities. Many of us believe in helping those who are in need, but for this was can give our money and time freely to organizations that address certain issues. Governments take your money by force, and spend it on things for which you have no say. It isn't "society" doing it.
- philbarr 14y ago
  > "spend it on things for which you have no say" Yes you do, you have a vote. Each party standing for election presents a set of policies some of which include spending policy. The elected party then has a mandate to spend as per the policies outlined. That's how democracy works (well, how it's supposed to work). If you really had "no say" then that would be a dictatorship? And let's think about this a little further. Let's say the government doesn't take any money off you and everyone has to fend for themselves. Now, some people with more money are in a position to manipulate those with less money, and we are suddenly ruled by unelected corporations etc. Some argue it's like that already. This is all pretty standard left vs. right stuff.
  - noarchy 14y ago
    >Yes you do, you have a vote. Each party standing for election presents a set of policies some of which include spending policy. The elected party then has a mandate to spend as per the policies outlined. That's how democracy works (well, how it's supposed to work). The latter part of your statement is what I agree with. We all know the theory, but we live the practice of democracy. And some of us have gradually quit buying into it. >And let's think about this a little further. Let's say the government doesn't take any money off you and everyone has to fend for themselves. Now, some people with more money are in a position to manipulate those with less money, and we are suddenly ruled by unelected corporations etc. Some argue it's like that already. I'd agree that it is essentially how things are already. The state-corporate partnership is quite a beast. Political influence is bought and sold as easily as stocks are. >This is all pretty standard left vs. right stuff. The left/right thing breaks down pretty quickly if you find that you loathe all of the major political parties our time. If you're a classical libertarian (or anarchist, depending on the term one prefers), for instance, there isn't a major party for you almost by definition.
- king_jester 14y ago
  > Many of us believe in helping those who are in need, but for this was can give our money and time freely to organizations that address certain issues. The whole reason gov't programs targeting social issues is because private charity failed to address them adequately or at all. > Governments take your money by force, and spend it on things for which you have no say. Governments do not take your money by force. People are not born in a vacuum and the services and programs you and your family take advantage of shape the experience of your life. That you yourself will pay into that system and its programs does not mean your money is taken by force, but rather you are contributing in the same way as others before you. This of course doesn't mean that governments cannot spend money wrongly or enact policies that are destructive towards people, but you are not being unfairly deprived just because you have to pay into services that you yourself will have benefited from, either directly or indirectly.
  - noarchy 14y ago
    >Governments do not take your money by force. So everyone pays taxes voluntarily? Glad to hear we can get rid of the threatening language used in tax forms... clearly superfluous. Back to reality, with a thought experiment: imagine that government subsisted exclusively on voluntary contributions. No threats of fines, interest charges, or arrest and jail time. In other words, like an actual charity. That is the difference between force/coercion, and voluntary action.
    - king_jester 14y ago
      > So everyone pays taxes voluntarily? Glad to hear we can get rid of the threatening language used in tax forms... clearly superfluous. I'll retract what I said earlier, governments do employ force to collect various taxes (for those governments that collect taxes at all). > Back to reality, with a thought experiment: imagine that government subsisted exclusively on voluntary contributions. No threats of fines, interest charges, or arrest and jail time. In other words, like an actual charity. I'm not really sure that this is even possible. This implies that there is already material wealth or skills available to be contributed, but it sounds as though that kind of organization isn't collectivist and control is routed through some subset of a population. That social structure sounds really unstable, as its unlikely that the most established and wealthy will continue to ignore other members of society (as they do now).
crusso 14y ago
we're not going to let people suffer and die in the street It's funny how people are going to die in the street when they're arguing for nationalized healthcare, but the healthcare laws somehow need to cover free contraception, abortions, and breast pumps. When taxes need to be raised, it's because children are starving in poverty, cops are being fired, and single mothers are being turned out into the streets. Yet, we're wasting billions in foreign aid, sponsoring an Indian reality show for hundreds of millions[1], and wasting billions on obvious avoidable failures like Solyndra. How can we have an honest dialogue about where we've been, where we are, and how we should proceed when this kind of extreme rhetoric/propaganda is so commonplace? [1] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/16/top-10-examples-of-wasteful-federal-spending-in-2012/ http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/16/top-10-examples-of-waste...
- king_jester 14y ago
  > It's funny how people are going to die in the street when they're arguing for nationalized healthcare, but the healthcare laws somehow need to cover free contraception, abortions, and breast pumps. Giving birth can be deadly, but more importantly providing those things helps to reduce the suffering and negative impact on society when people have children, planned or not. > When taxes need to be raised, it's because children are starving in poverty, cops are being fired, and single mothers are being turned out into the streets. Taxes aren't raised for any of those things in particular. They are raised increase gov't revenue and that revenue may or may not be allocated to programs to tackle those issues. > Yet, we're wasting billions in foreign aid, sponsoring an Indian reality show for hundreds of millions[1], and wasting billions on obvious avoidable failures like Solyndra. The TV show you refer to didn't receive hundreds of millions of dollars. Rather, the Dept. of Agriculture runs a program at a cost of $200 million, part of which went to that show. Note that the heritage foundation (yuck) link you posted makes no mention of the actual amount of money allocated to that TV show and what it was actually for. As for Solyndra, they received a loan of $535 million from the Dept. of Energy, of which the govt can recoup up to 19% of $142.8 million of that loan (the rest is a loss). To claims billions in losses, you will have to prove that other companies that took loans under that DoE program have all failed and will not repay any part of their loans. There is waste in gov't spending, for sure, but specifics are needed if we are going be even close to accurate about what is a loss and what is a gain, both in the short and long term.

noarchy 14y ago

I don't think that we can classify government programs as being charities. Many of us believe in helping those who are in need, but for this was can give our money and time freely to organizations that address certain issues. Governments take your money by force, and spend it on things for which you have no say. It isn't "society" doing it.

philbarr 14y ago
> "spend it on things for which you have no say" Yes you do, you have a vote. Each party standing for election presents a set of policies some of which include spending policy. The elected party then has a mandate to spend as per the policies outlined. That's how democracy works (well, how it's supposed to work). If you really had "no say" then that would be a dictatorship? And let's think about this a little further. Let's say the government doesn't take any money off you and everyone has to fend for themselves. Now, some people with more money are in a position to manipulate those with less money, and we are suddenly ruled by unelected corporations etc. Some argue it's like that already. This is all pretty standard left vs. right stuff.
- noarchy 14y ago
  >Yes you do, you have a vote. Each party standing for election presents a set of policies some of which include spending policy. The elected party then has a mandate to spend as per the policies outlined. That's how democracy works (well, how it's supposed to work). The latter part of your statement is what I agree with. We all know the theory, but we live the practice of democracy. And some of us have gradually quit buying into it. >And let's think about this a little further. Let's say the government doesn't take any money off you and everyone has to fend for themselves. Now, some people with more money are in a position to manipulate those with less money, and we are suddenly ruled by unelected corporations etc. Some argue it's like that already. I'd agree that it is essentially how things are already. The state-corporate partnership is quite a beast. Political influence is bought and sold as easily as stocks are. >This is all pretty standard left vs. right stuff. The left/right thing breaks down pretty quickly if you find that you loathe all of the major political parties our time. If you're a classical libertarian (or anarchist, depending on the term one prefers), for instance, there isn't a major party for you almost by definition.
king_jester 14y ago
> Many of us believe in helping those who are in need, but for this was can give our money and time freely to organizations that address certain issues. The whole reason gov't programs targeting social issues is because private charity failed to address them adequately or at all. > Governments take your money by force, and spend it on things for which you have no say. Governments do not take your money by force. People are not born in a vacuum and the services and programs you and your family take advantage of shape the experience of your life. That you yourself will pay into that system and its programs does not mean your money is taken by force, but rather you are contributing in the same way as others before you. This of course doesn't mean that governments cannot spend money wrongly or enact policies that are destructive towards people, but you are not being unfairly deprived just because you have to pay into services that you yourself will have benefited from, either directly or indirectly.
- noarchy 14y ago
  >Governments do not take your money by force. So everyone pays taxes voluntarily? Glad to hear we can get rid of the threatening language used in tax forms... clearly superfluous. Back to reality, with a thought experiment: imagine that government subsisted exclusively on voluntary contributions. No threats of fines, interest charges, or arrest and jail time. In other words, like an actual charity. That is the difference between force/coercion, and voluntary action.
  - king_jester 14y ago
    > So everyone pays taxes voluntarily? Glad to hear we can get rid of the threatening language used in tax forms... clearly superfluous. I'll retract what I said earlier, governments do employ force to collect various taxes (for those governments that collect taxes at all). > Back to reality, with a thought experiment: imagine that government subsisted exclusively on voluntary contributions. No threats of fines, interest charges, or arrest and jail time. In other words, like an actual charity. I'm not really sure that this is even possible. This implies that there is already material wealth or skills available to be contributed, but it sounds as though that kind of organization isn't collectivist and control is routed through some subset of a population. That social structure sounds really unstable, as its unlikely that the most established and wealthy will continue to ignore other members of society (as they do now).

crusso 14y ago

we're not going to let people suffer and die in the street It's funny how people are going to die in the street when they're arguing for nationalized healthcare, but the healthcare laws somehow need to cover free contraception, abortions, and breast pumps. When taxes need to be raised, it's because children are starving in poverty, cops are being fired, and single mothers are being turned out into the streets. Yet, we're wasting billions in foreign aid, sponsoring an Indian reality show for hundreds of millions[1], and wasting billions on obvious avoidable failures like Solyndra. How can we have an honest dialogue about where we've been, where we are, and how we should proceed when this kind of extreme rhetoric/propaganda is so commonplace? [1] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/16/top-10-examples-of-wasteful-federal-spending-in-2012/ http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/16/top-10-examples-of-waste...

king_jester 14y ago
> It's funny how people are going to die in the street when they're arguing for nationalized healthcare, but the healthcare laws somehow need to cover free contraception, abortions, and breast pumps. Giving birth can be deadly, but more importantly providing those things helps to reduce the suffering and negative impact on society when people have children, planned or not. > When taxes need to be raised, it's because children are starving in poverty, cops are being fired, and single mothers are being turned out into the streets. Taxes aren't raised for any of those things in particular. They are raised increase gov't revenue and that revenue may or may not be allocated to programs to tackle those issues. > Yet, we're wasting billions in foreign aid, sponsoring an Indian reality show for hundreds of millions[1], and wasting billions on obvious avoidable failures like Solyndra. The TV show you refer to didn't receive hundreds of millions of dollars. Rather, the Dept. of Agriculture runs a program at a cost of $200 million, part of which went to that show. Note that the heritage foundation (yuck) link you posted makes no mention of the actual amount of money allocated to that TV show and what it was actually for. As for Solyndra, they received a loan of $535 million from the Dept. of Energy, of which the govt can recoup up to 19% of $142.8 million of that loan (the rest is a loss). To claims billions in losses, you will have to prove that other companies that took loans under that DoE program have all failed and will not repay any part of their loans. There is waste in gov't spending, for sure, but specifics are needed if we are going be even close to accurate about what is a loss and what is a gain, both in the short and long term.