|
The Mattybee posted:jrodefeld, if you find taxation so deeply unethical, why do you insist on using products that have been shown, in this thread, to be only possible via taxation and statism (i.e. the internet)? I'm not sure you know the definition of "possible". You have not shown that anything was only possible through taxation and statism. What is plainly obviously is that things that the State funded partially or completely have yielded good benefits such as the internet. That hardly proves that such things could not or would not be created without State funding. Given the size and growth of the State, and the amount of money they collect in taxes, of course some "good" will come out of spending all that money. If the State builds a road or a highway, that road certainly has utility and value for the people that drive on it. It is easy to look at the result of State spending and say "look at that bridge! Without the State, that bridge wouldn't exist". While that may be true, what you need to ask yourself (as Bastiat suggested) is what would that money have been spent on had it not been taxed away and spent on public works projects? Was it the best use of scarce resources to spend money on construction of a road or a bridge? Who knows. There is no non arbitrary way to determine this. On the free market there exists economic calculation through the price of capital goods. The fluctuating price of these goods sends signals regarding which projects to undertake and when. That is all academic since the State DOES confiscate our property through taxation and some of it actually ends up funding the construction of roads or research that leads to technologies like the internet. Once public works projects are built, should a libertarian use tax funded goods and services? What if a private robber steals my money and builds a road with it then he disappears and I cannot take him to court or get my money back. Since I opposed being robbed, should I feel bad about using the road that he built with my money? I think it is quite obvious that I should not feel guilty in the slightest. The least I should be able to do is get some utility out of what my stolen money was spent on. Similarly, we are all taxed whether we like it or not. Given that that is the case, why should I feel guilty about getting some utility back by using the services and roads that my stolen money gets spent on? No, libertarians should not feel the slightest bit of guilt nor are they hypocrites for using tax funded roads and social services. The goal is to change this system but while it exists we should do our best to get back as much as we can from a State that expropriates us all. Recall that the libertarian answer to the transfer of "public" property to private hands is syndicalism. Since State property can never be legitimate since it must have been stolen from others and the goal is to get that property into ownership of the people, then surely the use of government property is far more libertarian than even refusing to use the property that our stolen money helped to build or develop?
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But they are ALL bad and they all violate the non aggression principle. As does private property because the second I decide the fruit tree we've all been eating from for generations is now "mine" I need to use force to keep all the other apes away from what was previously freely available to all. The homesteader myth that unowned land is just "out there" waiting to be claimed by men of farsighted vision and self-reliance is just that, a myth. Empty land hasn't existed in any reasonable quantity since before the invention of writing and the only example of it in recent memory is the Libertarian myth of the Old West which of course relied on sending the US Army out to murder everyone who was already there mixing their labor with the land. Except for maybe a few uncontacted tribes somehwere, all land currently owned goes back to the spoils of conquest of some band of apes over another, or something like the Enclosure Acts where peasants who had been using public lands for centuries were pushed off by landlords "mixing their labor with the land" in the time-honored fashion of sticking a sword in the people who were already using it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm not sure you know the definition of "possible". You have not shown that anything was only possible through taxation and statism. What is plainly obviously is that things that the State funded partially or completely have yielded good benefits such as the internet. That hardly proves that such things could not or would not be created without State funding. Given the size and growth of the State, and the amount of money they collect in taxes, of course some "good" will come out of spending all that money. If the State builds a road or a highway, that road certainly has utility and value for the people that drive on it. Read carefully, goons, because jrod is making a good point here: the fact that we get a bunch of nice things from the state isn't enough to prove that we wouldn't have nice things without a state. Of course, incentives need to exist before people will do stuff, and it's hard to provide incentives without money. We just don't think that enough incentives to make needful things for everyone would exist without involuntary taxation. e: clarification Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It is easy to look at the result of State spending and say "look at that bridge! Without the State, that bridge wouldn't exist". While that may be true, what you need to ask yourself (as Bastiat suggested) is what would that money have been spent on had it not been taxed away and spent on public works projects? Was it the best use of scarce resources to spend money on construction of a road or a bridge? Who knows. There is no non arbitrary way to determine this. On the free market there exists economic calculation through the price of capital goods. The fluctuating price of these goods sends signals regarding which projects to undertake and when. Nope. e: Really you're going to have to do better than just shouting FREE MARKET and expecting anyone to take you seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Democracy doesn't count because people don't vote how I'd like. Democracy is an immoral system because it involves permitting people to initiate the use of violence against the innocent. It is the initiation of violence that is the thing that libertarians object to. Therefore, if people use the democratic vote to try to lessen the amount of violence inflicted by the State, then that is an acceptable strategy for libertarians to take. Remember, we are talking about working within a system that we find morally obscene. Do you see how the advocacy of "Democracy" as an ideal political system is categorically different from using the democratic vote in an effort to abolish Democracy? It is the latter which some libertarians support. Others think that the whole effort is counterproductive and we must employ other means to undermine and abolish the State. How could Caros indict libertarianism based upon an examination of the current US healthcare system? They would be fundamentally different. A major fallacy promoted by the left is in looking at our current economy and assuming that libertarianism represents the same negative attributes they see except much worse. I am just suggesting that someone familiar with libertarian arguments would be able to see the distinctions quite clearly. Caros might well have ended up rejecting libertarianism for other reasons or argued against libertarian healthcare for some other reason. But his experience of his friend dying should have nothing to do with why he rejected libertarian solutions to healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:52
|
|
Are you for real?
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm not sure you know the definition of "possible". You have not shown that anything was only possible through taxation and statism. What is plainly obviously is that things that the State funded partially or completely have yielded good benefits such as the internet. That hardly proves that such things could not or would not be created without State funding. Given the size and growth of the State, and the amount of money they collect in taxes, of course some "good" will come out of spending all that money. If the State builds a road or a highway, that road certainly has utility and value for the people that drive on it. Explain to me how the Internet would be created and regulated in Libertopia. Note that if any single person decides that they don't want their property rights infringed upon, then you can't lay cable and thus can't have a proper network without prohibitive cost.  And don't use your "here's a link to someone else who hasn't actually explained it!"; I want to hear it from you, in your own words. How would this come about?Alternatively, answer the frequency spectrum questions posited to you earlier. jrodefeld posted:It is easy to look at the result of State spending and say "look at that bridge! Without the State, that bridge wouldn't exist".[ While that may be true, what you need to ask yourself (as Bastiat suggested) is what would that money have been spent on had it not been taxed away and spent on public works projects? Presumably something that would have profited somebody privately. This isn't hard to figure out! See, the government, since I vote it in, has a somewhat vested interest in doing things that may not be inherently profitable but are good for society as a whole (see: USPS). jrodefeld posted:Was it the best use of scarce resources to spend money on construction of a road or a bridge? Who knows. There is no non arbitrary way to determine this. On the free market there exists economic calculation through the price of capital goods. The fluctuating price of these goods sends signals regarding which projects to undertake and when. "Whoever profits from it" is not arbitrary? "Whoever has resources to begin with"? jrodefeld posted:That is all academic since the State DOES confiscate our property through taxation and some of it actually ends up funding the construction of roads or research that leads to technologies like the internet. Once public works projects are built, should a libertarian use tax funded goods and services? I would assume that you don't want to utilize the labors of theft, since that indirectly advocates the use of force. Your words say you don't advocate it, but your actions state that you are willing to benefit from other people not following the NAP, which makes you a gigantic loving hypocrite. jrodefeld posted:What if a private robber steals my money and builds a road with it then he disappears and I cannot take him to court or get my money back. Since I opposed being robbed, should I feel bad about using the road that he built with my money? I think it is quite obvious that I should not feel guilty in the slightest. The least I should be able to do is get some utility out of what my stolen money was spent on. So you advocate benefiting from other people violating the NAP. Okay! If someone else's money were stolen, my guess is that your response would be "gently caress it, whatever" and use it anyway. jrodefeld posted:Similarly, we are all taxed whether we like it or not. You have chosen not to leave the country. Therefore, you have consented to being taxed. jrodefeld posted:Given that that is the case, Which it isn't. jrodefeld posted:Why should I feel guilty about getting some utility back by using the services and roads that my stolen money gets spent on? "Gosh, these people are doing something that is diametrically opposed to my moral code, which I live by. It's okay if I utilize it and totally ignore that they're capable of doing more with it than I am!" jrodefeld posted:No, libertarians should not feel the slightest bit of guilt nor are they hypocrites for using tax funded roads and social services. Yes they are. You are directly benefiting from other people choosing not to follow the NAP, the sacred cow of ancap. Literally a child could figure it out. jrodefeld posted:The goal is to change this system but while it exists we should do our best to get back as much as we can from a State that expropriates us all. Alternatively you could, you know, actually stick to your moral code. jrodefeld posted:Since State property can never be legitimate since it must have been stolen from others and the goal is to get that property into ownership of the people... The State is the people, though. Alternatively, we could go back to what your idol HHH says and that the ubermensch are the people and the untermensch should just suck it up and take it? jrodefeld posted:then surely the use of government property is far more libertarian than even refusing to use the property that our stolen money helped to build or develop? Again, you are directly benefitting from other people failing to follow the NAP. You don't see how this is hypocritical at all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Democracy is an immoral system because it involves permitting people to initiate the use of violence against the innocent. It is the initiation of violence that is the thing that libertarians object to. depending on your definition of "initiation" and "of" and "violence" quote:How could Caros indict libertarianism based upon an examination of the current US healthcare system? They would be fundamentally different. A major fallacy promoted by the left is in looking at our current economy and assuming that libertarianism represents the same negative attributes they see except much worse. Polygynous fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:How could Caros indict libertarianism based upon an examination of the current US healthcare system? They would be fundamentally different. A major fallacy promoted by the left is in looking at our current economy and assuming that libertarianism represents the same negative attributes they see except much worse. Explain how. In your own words. What would inherently make free market healthcare better?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is not what I am arguing here. I know that people can comprehend libertarian arguments and still reject them for many different reasons. You say you comprehend it, but then you keep saying stuff like this: quote:Libertarian scholars and economists have written lengthy scholarly articles and dozens of books describing why and how the inflated costs in the healthcare market came to be. how this state of affairs has caused so much misery, putting quality healthcare out of the reach of far too many? Dozens of books, scholarly articles - yes, the libertarians have certainly produced many arguments, but the quality of those arguments is what's at stake here. Ultimately I suspect that many libertarians buy into this rather shoddy reasoning because they're already committed to anti-statism (for reasons of basic ethics), but when the real-world consequences are revealed, they don't match the ideal. If state intervention inflates healthcare costs, why is it that countries with nationalised or universal healthcare (a much greater level of state intervention) have worse outcomes AND costs than countries with relatively little intervention (e.g. the US before 2010)? How do you respond to the fact that powerful large buyers like the UK's NHS actually bring costs down by negotiating as a single customer? How do you explain that the efficiency of state-run healthcare is exceptionally high? How do you explain the very high administrative costs incurred in the US by companies who spend hundreds of millions combing through voluntarily signed contracts looking for ways to deny coverage, because denying coverage is cheaper than providing it? How does state intervention cause that to be somehow profitable? The simplistic libertarian arguments just don't explain away all these questions, and until they do, people will continue to regard state-provided healthcare as superior. Want to change things? Address these questions. Don't obfuscate, don't bluster, don't post links, don't go back to "humans act", take them head-on with facts, reason and clear language. Then we'll actually have a real conversation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm not sure you know the definition of "possible". You have not shown that anything was only possible through taxation and statism. What is plainly obviously is that things that the State funded partially or completely have yielded good benefits such as the internet. That hardly proves that such things could not or would not be created without State funding. Given the size and growth of the State, and the amount of money they collect in taxes, of course some "good" will come out of spending all that money. If the State builds a road or a highway, that road certainly has utility and value for the people that drive on it. Where does money come from in your stateless society? Who guarantees its value? Or are you suggesting that people will simply barter the milk from their cows to a bridge company or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:Explain how. In your own words. What would inherently make free market healthcare better? a flourishing market in snake oil
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Democracy is an immoral system because it involves permitting people to initiate the use of violence against the innocent. It is the initiation of violence that is the thing that libertarians object to. Therefore, if people use the democratic vote to try to lessen the amount of violence inflicted by the State, then that is an acceptable strategy for libertarians to take. Remember, we are talking about working within a system that we find morally obscene. Obviously an absolute monarchy would be an improvement because those don't have a bloody and atrocious historical record of initiating violence at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:Explain to me how the Internet would be created and regulated in Libertopia. Note that if any single person decides that they don't want their property rights infringed upon, then you can't lay cable and thus can't have a proper network without prohibitive cost. Stop it. You're basically This Guy Here: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Stop it. You're basically This Guy Here: If you're going to advocate for a non-aggression principle as literally the only morality that is needed for an ideal society, I think it's intensely hypocritical to utilize things that not only are created because of violation of the non-aggression principle, but (especially in the case of things like the Internet) almost certainly would not be possible without the evil spectre of ~the State and Taxation~.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Democracy is an immoral system because it involves permitting people to initiate the use of violence against the innocent. It is the initiation of violence that is the thing that libertarians object to. Therefore, if people use the democratic vote to try to lessen the amount of violence inflicted by the State, then that is an acceptable strategy for libertarians to take. Remember, we are talking about working within a system that we find morally obscene. Democracy does involve "violence" (in quotes here to distinguish it from its colloquial meaning), it's true. So does anarcho-capitalism. The difference is that Democracy permits violence explicitly, defines when it is acceptable, and works to prevent unacceptable cases. Anarcho-capitalism forbids it, but provides no mechanism to prevent it, other than assuring us that it just won't happen. This doesn't make Anarcho-capitalism less violent than democracy, because an Ancap society would doubtless be much more violent than a democracy. Democracy prevents violence by actively managing and controlling it. Anarcho-capitalism allows violence implicitly, by providing nothing stronger than condemnation and praxeology to protect the weak.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:If you're going to advocate for a non-aggression principle as literally the only morality that is needed for an ideal society, I think it's intensely hypocritical to utilize things that not only are created because of violation of the non-aggression principle, but (especially in the case of things like the Internet) almost certainly would not be possible without the evil spectre of ~the State and Taxation~. Just as the Occupiers were hypocritical for protesting corporate greed while using products of corporate greed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Stop it. You're basically This Guy Here: Thank you. I've got to agree with jrodefeld on this one. Criticizing Libertarians for driving on tax-funded roads is like criticizing a supporter of fair trade for relying on gasoline
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Cocaine water is a proud American tradition. You statists ruined it with your war on drugs. Remember you advocate for the existence of government thus are culpable for all government actions, regardless of your other positions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
bokkibear posted:Democracy does involve "violence" (in quotes here to distinguish it from its colloquial meaning), it's true. So does anarcho-capitalism. The difference is that Democracy permits violence explicitly, defines when it is acceptable, and works to prevent unacceptable cases. Anarcho-capitalism forbids it, but provides no mechanism to prevent it, other than assuring us that it just won't happen. You don't know what you are talking about. In a libertarian society the people who protect us from violence are: Police, defense contractors, courts, injunctions, the law, restitution, etc. This is how we protect people from violence and punish criminals that engage in violence. This is not at all dissimilar to what we have today with the following exceptions. There is no monopoly on the provision of defense and police services. There is no compulsory taxation. There are no laws that permit the initiation of force. The law is concerned only with what behavior is forbidden and the only behavior that is forbidden is violence against the person or property of another. The result inevitably would be a less violence society since the police and courts are concerned only with violent crime rather than enforcing State laws against the innocent or punishing people for using or selling drugs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
I'm holding a bake sale Saturday to fund Joe's Air Force, please attend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:How could Caros indict libertarianism based upon an examination of the current US healthcare system? They would be fundamentally different. A major fallacy promoted by the left is in looking at our current economy and assuming that libertarianism represents the same negative attributes they see except much worse. Industrial pollution, rent seeking, price gouging and discrimination are not caused by government regulations meant to reduce these things, but by unfettered greed and private property. Democracy is the only means that people without resources have of defending and mitigating against these things. Libertarianism, particularly of the Anarcho-capitalist strain, seeks to eliminate these protections, and put the common man at the total mercy of the rich and powerful. History has shown us just how "merciful" they really are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:There are no laws that permit the initiation of force. Wait, why wouldn't there be laws that permit the initiation of force. The initiation of force is obviously extremely profitable, in fact you always point to how the State supports corporate profits with force, so under competing systems of law why wouldn't the top 10% who control more than 50% of the wealth patronize or own police and legal systems that permit them to initiate force against the rest of us? This is of course, ignoring the whole issue of the NAP being incoherent in the first place since you have to initiate force against people to exclude them from lands once you decide you own them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You don't know what you are talking about. In a libertarian society the people who protect us from violence are: Police, defense contractors, courts, injunctions, the law, restitution, etc. This is how we protect people from violence and punish criminals that engage in violence. Billionare investor Lance Manly's private police force and paid Judge/Lawyer team have determined that you're in violation of poor Mr. Manly's property rights by squatting under one of Mr. Manly's bridges. Submit yourself to restitution by labor, or be destroyed. You have 5 seconds to comply.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You don't know what you are talking about. In a libertarian society the people who protect us from violence are: Police, defense contractors, courts, injunctions, the law, restitution, etc. This is how we protect people from violence and punish criminals that engage in violence. You hope those things will protect you from violence. You have no way of knowing whether those things will even exist. When you say "this is how we protect people", you're guessing, speculating that this is what will occur, but you're using misleading language that implies that this is somehow an established fact. quote:This is not at all dissimilar to what we have today with the following exceptions. There is no monopoly on the provision of defense and police services. There is no compulsory taxation. There are no laws that permit the initiation of force. As far as we know, these three things may be the only practical solutions to the problem of "violence". quote:The law is concerned only with what behavior is forbidden and the only behavior that is forbidden is violence against the person or property of another. Without a robust enforcement mechanism, the law can be anything and it doesn't matter. In Ancapland you could say that breathing is against the law; what difference would it make? Law can only be relevant if authority exists to uphold it. Again, you hope that the hypothetical private police will choose to uphold it, but we're still in the realm of wishful thinking based on spherical frictionless humans in a vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I know this post wasn't aimed at me but I want to respond to it nonetheless. I know nothing of Shiranaihito or his posting history. But for myself, I don't expect for a minute that I am going to win converts here. It could happen but I would concur that arguing with intransigent ideologues on internet message boards is one of the least productive ways to build a mass political movement. I do this primarily for selfish reasons. I like to engage with people who have ideas that are diametrically opposed to mine. Hardly anyone does this. Most people congregate in close communities of like minded people who just reinforced their existing biases. I would rather be an ambassador for libertarianism and mingle among people who are not libertarians or are skeptical of the ideology. It benefits me because I can become much more intimately aware of the sorts of arguments used by the "other side" (though there are far more than two sides in politics). You can check someone's posting history by pushing the little question mark in the bottom left hand of his post. It shows you everything he has posted in this thread. In this particular instance you'd learn that he basically came in after your last bout of posts and threw a temper tantrum of epic proportions. As others have pointed out he started by calling anyone who disagreed with him 'subhuman scum' and then decried the fact that most of the replies made in his direction were Ad Hominem attacks while at the same time declaring any replies of substance to be 'filibustering' him. Shiranaihito is not a good poster. For what it is worth I too enjoy engaging with the other side. Part of why I argue so much in the libertarian thread is that I very much enjoy debate in and of itself, and it is something I scarcely get to practice in day to day life anymore. It is nicer when you guys come to me however, largely because in my experience libertarian forums actually tend to be way more banhappy than we are. quote:SA is interesting because it is indeed a tight knit community of people who are very ideological and tenacious in their defense of leftist ideals which is sorely lacking on free message boards. There is also no lack of snarky condescension and misplaced arrogance on the part of some posters. People behave differently in groups than they do as individuals and they similarly behave differently with the protection of anonymity afforded by the internet. I wonder how bold many of you would be if our places were reversed and you were engaging in a discussion with thirty or so Austrian economists and/or knowledgeable libertarians and voluntarists? Surely you can feel good about yourself and congratulate yourselves about how you are "winning" and showing (as you put it) "facts" and "evidence" by engaging in a 30 to 1 pile on and then bitches about how I haven't responded to YOUR particular criticism. I'm not complaining about this state of affairs since I welcome it (there is a reason I post here after all) but you ought to check some of your smugness and realize the inherent disadvantage a single contrarian voice has in engaging in a mob who relentless seek to poke holes in any argument offered. Back earlier this year I posted daily, substantive replies to the Libertarian Party of Canada's private forums as a way to wake myself up and flex out my hands for work. In my experience I actually gave significantly better than I got, but that probably has more to do with the fact that their forums are home to people who are largely uneducated on even their own belief system, let alone mine. I don't mean that as an insult, more that many of them are bell weather libertarians who picked up the ideology because they like pot and haven't really paid any attention to the rest of what their party believes. I've mentioned multiple times that it is unfair for people to criticise you for not replying to every post. If you'd like I can go back to the intro post and edit in a request not to mention that since it is in fact, unfair to you. quote:With that said, I want to respond to your story about how you stopped being a libertarian due to your friends illness and subsequent death. I've heard this before and I don't want to be dismissive about what must have been a very traumatic and horrible experience to go through. I have never personally had anyone I was very close to die so I can't relate to that. But I have a few comments all the same. Before I mention anything else, I just want to ask... do you know what my Avatar/Text refers to? It was purchased for me in the last thread you made before you got banned, specifically referencing this exact circumstance. You'd asked me why I stopped being a libertarian, and in nearly the same words as this you condescendingly explained to me why I was wrong to make the decision. It was the post you got banned for as I recall, though the fact that you stopped posting was the actual reason you were banned. That out of the way, before I reply I'd like if you could finally answer the question I'd asked months and months ago. I've given you both my reasons why I became and later stopped being a libertarian. Why are you, JRodefeld, a libertarian? quote:I'll take your word for it that you were once a dedicated and well read libertarian. But I find it incoherent that someone with any familiarity with libertarian arguments would cite a failure of the healthcare system in the United States as the reason they abandoned libertarianism. Surely you are aware that libertarians heavily criticize the American healthcare system? Surely you are aware that the ideal described by libertarianism for the healthcare market is as far removed (maybe farther removed) from our current system as any State run system envisioned by left social democrats? Libertarian scholars and economists have written lengthy scholarly articles and dozens of books describing why and how the inflated costs in the healthcare market came to be. how this state of affairs has caused so much misery, putting quality healthcare out of the reach of far too many? I'm a little torn over whether I should go line by line in reply to this, but I think a post with a coherent narrative is better than breaking it up piecemeal, so lets do that. First off, I want to make something abundantly, fully clear. I am not an expert on most things, and I never went to college. I am a writer by profession, and I have had no formal education on any subject since I was eighteen. When I talk economics, most of what I know is from libertarian books I read in my youth, and from information I've learned since. When I talk philosophy, or math or education, all of these things I am knowledgeable enough to discuss but I would never consider myself a primary source. I am an expert when it comes to healthcare schemes. I have immersed myself in this topic for the better part of half a decade, I've read dozens of books on the subject, attended lectures and been involved in local lobbying to prevent Canada from adopting semi-privatization schemes that I'm sure you'd delight in. I don't say this to brag, merely to underscore the point that despite your assertion this is not merely some flight of fancy or some emotional collapse that pulled me away from pure reason. While I am still open to the idea that I could be wrong, as I have been wrong before, the bar to discredit my beliefs on the subject is ridiculously high based on the evidence that I have reviewed over time. With that said, I am going to bring my argument against you in five separate points: I. That my friend would have been cured in a Socialist State. II. That Healthcare can, or should be efficiently run as a market. III. That Healthcare costs are inflated well beyond what they should otherwise be. IV. That a Libertarian healthcare system would be more available or moral than a Socialist one. V. That I was somehow 'not a true libertarian' when I converted away from the doctrine. I apologize in advance for the wall of text. I - That my friend would have been cured in a Socialist State Let me begin by saying that it is entirely unclear, due to your word usage, whether we are talking about Universal Healthcare in Canada, or in Soviet Russia. Considering the topic at hand I assume you meant a typical UHC scheme, but you did say Socialist State, of which there are scant few left in the world. For the purposes of this argument I am going to assume you meant to say UHC, and I will be using Canada for my example. Furthermore let me clarify that I do not argue that my friend would have been cured in a Socialist State, merely that she would have been treated. A 95% five year survival rate seems like a certain thing to my monkey brain, it is true, but it does still leave a 5% rate of death within those five years. It is entirely possible that her death would have been unavoidable, just as it is entirely possible that she could have gone into spontaneous remission at any point while she fought tooth and nail to receive treatment. If your argument is that I have to prove 100% that she would have been cured, the congratulations, you've won that argument outright since it is impossible to prove. I am going to proceed under the believe that you are not intellectually bankrupt, and that you actually meant she would have received treatment. Because that is the point I believes we are discussing. We are not discussing the cruel winds of fate and whether treatment would have been effective if given, we are discussing the fact that treatment was not given at all. Just like it is entirely possible she could have recovered on her own, it is entirely possible the treatment would have done nothing. Statistically however, the treatment would have given her many more years of life. I believe her twenty year rate was still around 80%, which is about as good as you can get for cancer. If we accept that the argument is about receiving treatment, which I believe is the only argument worth having... then I don't see how you have any leg to stand on. While I will be the first to admit that Canada's Universal Healthcare system is far from perfect, the idea of a Canadian not receiving the critical care they are entitled to is simply absurd. I find it difficult to even argue my point here because as far as I am concerned you do not have any points to argue against. Yes, Canada has waiting lists, but only for non-life saving care. If she were coming here to get a hip replacement you'd have a point, but if you have Cancer in Canada you get treated, and treated quickly. Its possible you're hinting that she might have needed experimental drugs that are not approved in Canada, but every typical example of that I can find involves Cancer drugs that are not proven to work being denied on the basis of them not working or not being fully tested. I know of about two dozen cases over the last ten years of Canadians dying due to lack of medical care to which they were entitled. In each and every one of these cases the defining issue at fault was malpractice. Someone messed up triage and a person bled to death in the waiting room and so forth. You simply do not end up dying in Canada due to inability to afford medical care. II - That Healthcare can, or should be efficiently run as a market. One of the defining moments for my switch from Libertarian to the more utilitarian beliefs I hold now was learning of the various ways that market based healthcare is flawed. I'm going to do a bit of a nested list and give you five more points: -Inelastic Demand -Insurance -Imbalanced information -Discounting -Inability to pay -Lack of Choice I call it the Four I's, one L and a D (I don't call it that). Lets jump in shall we? Inelastic Demand - This is perhaps the biggest and most damning of all the various problems with market based healthcare, and I'd be very curious to see your reply as to why it is not in fact, a problem. In short inelastic is an economic term used to describe the situation in which the supply and demand for a good or service are unaffected when the price of that good or service changes. Inelastic means that when the price goes up, consumer's buying habits stay about the same, and when the price goes down, consumers' buying habits also remain unchanged. Medicine is in many ways the perfect example of inelastic demand. If I tell you that you are going to die without say... this insulin, then the typical method of determining price, supply and demand, pretty much goes out the window. You will pay what you need to pay to survive. It is typically a little more complicated than that, but study after study has shown that supply and demand have almost no impact on the pricing of medical procedures. Typically this is quantified by a price elacticity of 0.2, that is, quantity demanded declines by only 2 percent when price rises by 10%. Such a market is incredibly unbalanced, and effectively nonfunctional. If your prices aren't determined by supply and demand then you are working with a fundamentally unstable market. If this were the only problem we might be able to say a market could still work, but I've still got three I's, one L and a D. Insurance - Given the choice humans will prefer a certain future to an uncertain one. Because of the uncertainty of health care costs, people are willing to invest money to gain some certainty and in doing so they buy insurance. Now I'm sure I don't have to tell you the problem with insurance companies, with the perverse incentive structure that exists when you run a business predicated on trying to take in as much as possible, and pay out as little as possible. Moreover, the problem with non-universal insurance is that there is a disconnect between people who need insurance, and people the companies want to insure. If you are sick, I don't want to insure you, I want to insure steve the youngun with a perfect health record. This disconnect drives up costs, and is the primary factor behind such wonderful concepts as 'pre-existing conditions'. Simply speaking, in a free market people who need insurance are typically the ones who cannot get it. Imbalanced information - While it is true that a market does not NEED to have perfectly balanced information on both sides of the equation, a market that is heavily unbalanced in favor of one side or the other is typical inefficient, which only adds onto the trouble that we've discussed thus far. Your doctor has at least twelve years of medical training, and you effectively have to trust her at her word when you are told that you need 'x test' and 'y treatment' because you are not even remotely qualified to diagnose or treat yourself, despite what WebMD might suggest. In addition there is that perverse incentive structure once again, in that the doctor has every reason to perform or suggest unnecessary procedure, since everything they charge you is money in their pocket. A knife in the back is a wonderful article that discusses this exact problem. Dicounting - You might know this as time preference. The gist is that people tend to maximize what makes them happy now as opposed to what might do so in the future. This is especially troublesome because there is a, say it with me now, perverse incentive to doctors once again. In a non-universal healthcare system, my doctor makes more money from repeat visits. He has no financial incentive to try and work towards preventative care with me, because if he prevents my illness then he has one less patient Inability to pay - While I'll get into the inability to pay moral argument later, it is worth mentioning that the inability to afford treatment is in and of itself a serious flaw in market based healthcare systems. People who are poor are typically the ones who will be least likely to pay for their medical care, while at the same time being most likely to need medical care. This leads to two separate problems. The first is that they make healthcare cost more for everyone else, as the hospitals increase their prices to make up for giving emergency treatment to those who cannot afford it (assuming they would do this in a libertarian society, which they would not). Moreover, their inability to pay for medical care creates a hazard for society. Simply speaking, if a poor person could afford treatment, they'd be less likely to be contagious to others. Lack of Choice - Perhaps the second most damning of all the problems I've listed is the lack of choice in healthcare. The most obvious example of this is emergency care. If you get hit by a bus, the ambulance is going to take you to the nearest hospital, regardless of whether it is the best, or whether your insurance covers it or any other factor. Choice is probably the biggest thing required for a market to function, as 'voluntary' exchanges are the basis of your entire system. Yet the most expensive and important medical care is often made completely without any option or say in the matter by the person involved. Even when the person is concious, they are frequently making these choices under duress. A prime example is one of the many people who die every year from something as simple as a tooth infection. A Cincinnati resident died in 2003 because of a tooth abscess after going to the hospital. He was given two prescriptions, but only had the money to afford one, and wrongly chose pain relief over the antibiotics that would have saved his life. III - That Healthcare costs are inflated well beyond what they should otherwise be. Libertarians love this talking point, despite it being factually untrue. Now I'm going to be a little brief on this one since you didn't do much other than just flatly assert it to be true, but I know most of the talking points on the issue, so let me lay out a few of the common ones. If I miss any feel free to bring up substantive points and I'll tell you why those are wrong too: 1. The AMA limits doctors and thus costs are too high! 2. The Government interferes and thus costs are too high! 3. Healthcare was cheap in the 1960's! Doctors made housecalls! People could stay in the hospitals for almost nothing! So lets go down the list. First off the AMA thing is garbage based entirely on looking at the salaries of doctors in the US vs anywhere else in the world. While the costs for US doctors are slightly higher, this is in large part due to the abundance of specialist doctors in the US. Comparing Primary physicians across the world finds that US primaries are actually lower paid than ones in France, Germany and elsewhere. While the AMA does arbitrarily limit the number of doctors in the US in an attempt to increase their overall pay, that difference in pay is a drop in the bucket compared to total US healthcare spending. For comparison, US doctor salaries account for 1/5 of all US healthcare costs. In Canada they account for 15%, or roughly 1/6. Considering the US pays literally twice what Canada does in healthcare costs, this does not make the difference. What about government interference? It is certainly true that the US government spends as much on public care via Medicare and Medicaid as the private sector does to cover everyone else. But think about why this is. You might be tempted to point and scream 'inefficient' but the US government covers 119.24 million people with medicare and medicaid, and it is crucial to remember that the people being covered by those two systems are the poor, the disabled and the elderly. In short, Medicare and Medicaid cover a little over 1/3rd of the US population for the same cost as it takes the private market to cover 170 million, and the 1/3rd that they cover are the most at risk individuals in the nation. You might also complain about interstate healthcare sales and so forth, or barriers to entry, but the cost savings there are minimal and I can't even begin to debunk every single tiny thing. If I missed something please bring it up. Finally we come to the 'healthcare was cheap' part of it. The big problem with this argument is that it is based primarily on a healthcare system that holds almost no relation to modern healthcare. In the early 1960's healthcare was much less costly than it is today; and there was much less that doctors or hospitals could do for patients. I like to quote Henry Aaron, a healthcare specilist at the Brookings Institution: "...health care was much less costly than it is today; and there was much less that doctors or hospitals could do for patients. It didn’t cost much for a hospital to let a heart attack victim lie in a bed or for a physician to stop by and prescribe nitroglycerin for someone with angina. It is rather different when pain in the chest calls for angiography and possibly for angioplasty and costly maintenance drugs. It is the rare physician today who can afford to give a full work-up to a person who presents with persistent chest pains, which calls for thousands of dollars worth of tests." Moreover, access to care in the 1960's was not nearly as available as JRodefeld or libertarians would like to suggest, which I'll point out with some statistics: quote:In a 1963 survey, patients from the general population were given a list of symptoms and asked whether they had been able to see a physician about them. Among those who reported "pains in the heart," 25 percent said they did not see a physician; for "unexpected bleeding" it was 34 percent; for "shortness of breath," it was 35 percent; for "abdominal pains," it was 31 percent; for "repeated vomiting," it was 40 percent; for "diarrhea for four or five days," it was 38 percent. Meanwhile, comparing the annual rates of hospital admissions per 100 persons suggests that Medicare and Medicaid had a tangible impact on widening access to health care. In 1963, the rate of hospital admissions for patients with private insurance was 15 percent, compared to 9 percent for those without private insurance. By 1970, the rates had equalized at 13 percent each, with the rate for those without private insurance increasing due in part to expanded access through Medicare and Medicaid. "Many people in the U.S. prior to 1965 had very limited access to medical care," said Ronald Andersen, an emeritus professor of health services and sociology at the UCLA School of Public Health who has studied this data since the 1960s and provided the data to us. "This situation improved considerably after the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid." quote:For instance, in a year without hospitalization, married couples incurred median medical costs of $173, or $1,289 in today’s dollars. In contrast, a year with at least one hospitalization meant incurring median costs of $938, or just short of $7,000 in today’s money. I can go on, but I won't. IV - That a Libertarian healthcare system would be more available or moral than a Socialist one. As I've pointed out above, there are quite a few problems that I believe make an equitable or inexpensive market based healthcare solution impossible. Beyond all of that however there is the simple moral argument. Many, many times I have bandied about the figure 64,000 deaths. That is the number of annual fatalities in the USA due to the lack of availability to medical care, it is the number of people who simply cannot afford to gain access to medical care, and who die from preventable illness, such as dental abscesses. In my opinion there is no moral argument to be had for a market healthcare system. While it is entirely true that a system such as Canada's has waiting lists, it is equally true that US has waiting lists of its own. In both instances the lists result from the fact that we are living in a society of scarce resources. The difference is that in the Canadian system, access to care is based on decisions made by doctors and professionals based on need. A heart patient gets treatment before a knee surgery and so forth. In the US the waiting system is based entirely on ability to pay, and for many, many americans it approaches infinity. JRodefeld will make arguments that the US healthcare system is not a true free market healthcare system, but the onus is on him to tell us what will be different about it, how the costs will be reduced and access will be increased. I have read the same thinkers he has on the matter, and I have personally found their arguments very wanting in favor of real, hard evidence on the matter. V - That I was somehow 'not a true libertarian' when I converted away from the doctrine. Now let me start by saying that it is very insulting that you keep insinuating that I am a liar. While you say outright that you don't think I am, the insinuation is that I am either a liar, or that I was simply delusional about my beliefs up to that point. As I have pointed out to you multiple times, you are not the arbiter of what is a 'true' libertarian, and more to the point, you greatly underestimate the effect a personal tragedy can have on a persons viewpoint. For the record, I did not decide to simply quit being a libertarian cold turkey. I did not wake up one day, hear the bad news and go 'whelp, now I'm a socialist'. Instead it came as a series of slow realizations about how utterly wrong my belief system had been up to that point. You keep arguing that the US is not a Free Market healthcare system, that 'something something government intervention' is the reason that they pay twice as much and have tens of thousands of preventable deaths annually. Frankly speaking I think that argument falls apart when brought to light. For one thing I'd like you to answer this if you answer nothing else: Why is the US system worse than every UHC system in the world? I ask this because you have made the argument numerous times that the government cannot do anything right. If this is the case, then why is a system that is a mixture of socialism and capitalism so much worse than systems that are purely socialism. For all its faults the US healthcare system is still primarily free market, half of all transactions, and most doctors, hospitals etc are privately run. At what level of government intervention does a free market healthcare system collapse under the weight of government intervention? What if government intervention was only 10%, or 20%? Would it be a paragon of virtue then? Why is it that the only example of even partially free market healthcare in the world is an enormous clusterfuck? Shouldn't all the socialist systems collapse due to being 100% socialist? I abandoned libertarianism because I saw first hand the effect of libertarianism. I have never seen a libertarian argument that has convinced me that a free market would lower US healthcare costs to the point where everyone could afford it, or even where most people could afford it. Every argument I've seen has been at best wishful thinking and at worst outright denial of historical facts. By all means try and explain it to me, and I will happily point out your errors, but please bring actual arguments next time so I don't have to just dig up the libertarian top 10. quote:That is not what I am arguing here. I know that people can comprehend libertarian arguments and still reject them for many different reasons. However, Caros' story implies that he blamed his friends death on libertarianism somehow. That is what I don't understand. I didn't say that had he truly understood libertarianism he wouldn't have found it lacking and then rejected it. What I am saying is that someone who understood the libertarian position correctly wouldn't be equating the US healthcare system with anything close to a libertarian healthcare market. To be clear, I blame my friends death on free market healthcare. Despite your assertions to the contrary I have never seen any substantive proof that a libertarian healthcare 'solution' would in any way improve conditions in the US system for the many, many reasons I have enumerated above. Since I have no belief that a Libertarian healthcare system would solve the problems that lead to unnecessary deaths I was forced to look elsewhere for a way to correct what I believe to be a very significant problem. Edit: I've removed some pretty angry words that I directed at you. Suffice to say, it is incredibly insulting to suggest that the change was easy or quick. Caros fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It is easy to look at the result of State spending and say "look at that bridge! Without the State, that bridge wouldn't exist". While that may be true, what you need to ask yourself (as Bastiat suggested) is what would that money have been spent on had it not been taxed away and spent on public works projects? Well seeing as how we have drastically reduced taxes on the wealthy at the expense of public infrastructure, I think we can pretty safely say that the money would be spent on gigantic yachts, underage sex workers and suites at the Burj al-Arab. For the most part, wealthy people are decadent and stupid, and if you let them "keep" their money (a misnomer, since they had no right to it in the first place; we enabled them to "earn" it) they spend it on stupid and unproductive things. They need to be taxed heavily, and your playtime ethics don't enter into it or have any value.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Democracy is an immoral system because it involves permitting people to initiate the use of violence against the innocent. It is the initiation of violence that is the thing that libertarians object to. Therefore, if people use the democratic vote to try to lessen the amount of violence inflicted by the State, then that is an acceptable strategy for libertarians to take. Remember, we are talking about working within a system that we find morally obscene. Just to harp on this one more time, I have a question for you JRodefeld: Do you believe that everyone would receive lifesaving medical care in a libertarian society? Because for me that is the single biggest thing. Ignore cost savings, all of the various reasons why healthcare as a market is dumb and just talk about saving lives for a moment. Do you honestly believe that in a for profit system that everyone who needs lifesaving care will be able to receive it? I don't. I think that even in a libertarian system that gives you every benefit of the doubt, there will still be people who cannot afford care and who cannot get charity to cover it. Even ignoring the bankruptcies and the pain caused to families that can't get care, I fully believe that many, many people will die from preventable illness because the free market says they don't deserve to live. Frankly one is too many.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You don't know what you are talking about. In a libertarian society the people who protect us from violence are: Police, defense contractors, courts, injunctions, the law, restitution, etc. This is how we protect people from violence and punish criminals that engage in violence. People have already sarcastically made these points, but I want to ask them point-blank: how are these things paid for without taxes? If the courts are privately funded, why do you assume they will stay impartial to their benefactors? What if the privately-funded police force starts breaking the law (say, by implying your house might burn down if you don't voluntarily purchase their services), and who are they accountable to in this scenario?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Thank you. I've got to agree with jrodefeld on this one. Criticizing Libertarians for driving on tax-funded roads is like criticizing a supporter of fair trade for relying on gasoline That's also a fair criticism, though? It doesn't completely, or even partially, invalidate or negate any arguments, but it is still an example of hypocrisy. And while it would be extraordinarily difficult to completely divorce oneself from society it is not actually impossible. But even going that far wouldn't necessarily be required if at least some effort was made to take as little advantage of government services as possible, something I highly doubt Jrod actually does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It is the initiation of violence that is the thing that libertarians object to. Every example that you've shown us has proven that this is false. What libertarians object to is not the initiative of violence. Libertarians object to the definition of violence
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Can people's beliefs or opinions even count as valid until they have experienced loss of some kind?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's also a fair criticism, though? It doesn't completely, or even partially, invalidate or negate any arguments, but it is still an example of hypocrisy. And while it would be extraordinarily difficult to completely divorce oneself from society it is not actually impossible. But even going that far wouldn't necessarily be required if at least some effort was made to take as little advantage of government services as possible, something I highly doubt Jrod actually does. I don't think it is useful, but it is interesting to note the relative position of privilege that one possesses as they go on to deny the value of the state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
I'm going to disagree with Vital signs here in that jrod has been able to change the argument from information technology, which is a highly sophisticated system, to roads, which wild animals like deer make just by existing. Humans will always have roads, their quality will be determined by the level of investment in infrastructure. The Internet is not a forgone conclusion as I and others have repeatedly laid out the reasons for. You all let him get away with way too much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Caros posted:Just to harp on this one more time, I have a question for you JRodefeld: The answers I've consistantly received from Libertarians, are some variation on "Nobody deserves anything" or "It's more immoral to use violence on innocent doctors to force them to treat deadbeats" and my favorite; "you're appealing to emotion". 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's also a fair criticism, though? It doesn't completely, or even partially, invalidate or negate any arguments, but it is still an example of hypocrisy. And while it would be extraordinarily difficult to completely divorce oneself from society it is not actually impossible. But even going that far wouldn't necessarily be required if at least some effort was made to take as little advantage of government services as possible, something I highly doubt Jrod actually does. Accusations of hypocrisy are ad homs that say nothing about the issue at hand. Is colonialism immoral? Yes. Do I benefit from colonialism? Yes. Am I making the effort to take as little advantage of the benefits as possible? No. Does that make colonialism moral after all? NO. It's a legitimate criticism if you agree with me that it's immoral and you're trying to convince me to be more active because then my actions are the issue. But it's not legitimate to concern troll with it: "How canst thou oppose the King when presently walkest thou upon the Kingsroad! Cheque-mate, democrats!  "
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Pre-trauma: "why should there be governments? death isn't even real." Post-trauma: "oh my god, grandma. somebody should do something about this state of affairs."
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Pre-trauma: "why should there be governments? death isn't even real." Um, did you ever consider that without regulation, healthcare would get so cheap grannie could have afforded it? For the purpose of my question, please ignore all evidence of universal healthcare providing healthcare for all in almost every other nation on Earth, but do pay attention to the 1960s in the USA where healthcare was really cheap (assuming you only need treatment that was available in 1960)!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Accusations of hypocrisy are ad homs that say nothing about the issue at hand. That's not the point of the hypocrisy criticism at all, though, and I even explicitly said that the accusation doesn't invalidate every single one of his arguments. However he is trying to establish a position of moral superiority over us who do willingly pay taxes so that we can enjoy the fruits of modern civilization. The point RuanGaucho is right, bringing up roads is a completely red herring that completely misrepresents the criticism. A much more accurate analogy would be someone protesting the fur trade while wearing a mink coat, or someone saying that eating meat is always immoral while stuffing a porterhouse down their gullet. Does the wearing of the fur coat or the eating of a steak necessarily mean that those practices moral? Not necessarily, no. Does it call into question those people's claim of moral superiority? Yes, it absolutely does. And I don't believe anyone here has said "You've used roads therefore the entirety of libertarianism is a farce" so it really confuses that that's what you think the criticism was about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
I'd like to add that any Healthcare system (Free Market Healthcare) that boils down to "pay or die" is, by default, immoral. A man should not need to choose between extortion or death.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I'm going to disagree with Vital signs here in that jrod has been able to change the argument from information technology, which is a highly sophisticated system, to roads, which wild animals like deer make just by existing. Humans will always have roads, their quality will be determined by the level of investment in infrastructure. The Internet is not a forgone conclusion as I and others have repeatedly laid out the reasons for. I agree with you about the Internet obviously, but that's just more proof that Libertopia would be lovely. It's perfectly consistent of him to go "well if the Internet is impossible without the state, then in principle it shouldn't exist in a moral society and I will be happy to abandon it once the state stops taxing me, but until they do that I'm going to use it". Who What Now posted:A much more accurate analogy would be someone protesting the fur trade while wearing a mink coat, or someone saying that eating meat is always immoral while stuffing a porterhouse down their gullet. Does the wearing of the fur coat or the eating of a steak necessarily mean that those practices moral? Not necessarily, no. Does it call into question those people's claim of moral superiority? Yes, it absolutely does. In every thread that touches on social justice, right-wing concern trolls show up to remind everyone that we're in the global top 1%, our  to post here could have fed children, and we obviously don't believe anything we say because we're not giving away all our money above the global median wealth. This criticism is no different.Would I be fine with paying higher taxes to get a more equitable society with universal health care and a robust safety net and so on? Sure. Does that mean I should tax myself today by giving away my money? No, because we don't have universal health care and a robust safety net so it would be irresponsible of me to open myself and my family up to that kind of risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:38
|
|