|
CommieGIR posted:Because when the person you are citing not only has questionable motives for his beliefs, but has already been outed as a pseudohistorian, his validity is highly questionable. I disagree. I can say that the sky is green and I am a martian and e=mc squared, and the fact that I'm wrong about the first two is irrelevant to my convictions about the third. Besides, if I'm saying e=mc cubed, then I'm wrong because I'm wrong, not because I said the sky was green.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you allow the southern states to secede, immediately you repeal all fugative slave laws. What this means is that if a slave escaped to the North they would be free immediately and not returned to their "master" in the South. You have to remember that the institution of slavery was heavily subsidized and propped up by government law. Non-slave owning whites where made to go on slave patrols hunting for runaway slaves and then returning them to the plantations. Fugative slave laws existed where slaves who had escaped to other States, including States where slavery was illegal, would be returned. What part of 'Fort Sumter' do you not get? Now you are trying to replay history that happened with big 'What Ifs'. History is not going to be revised by your 'What Ifs' Muscle Tracer posted:I disagree. I can say that the sky is green and I am a martian and e=mc squared, and the fact that I'm wrong about the first two is irrelevant to my convictions about the third. Depends. Am I citing you for saying E=MC2 or am I citing you because you said the sky was green? Because he is citing people with the history equivalent of saying the sky is green
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Everything is bold now, like our privileged crusade against the state while it supports our ability to exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What part of 'Fort Sumter' do you not get? Now you are trying to replay history that happened with big 'What Ifs'. History is not going to be revised by your 'What Ifs' Ah, I guess I'm looking at this more from the racism angle than the history angle. No argument that there's no value in his historical sources. But Jrode has not brought up race on his own to my knowledge. People have frequently said "How can you believe this thing HHH said about what property is, when he also said this other thing about Inferior Races!?" and yeah, it's clear he's a horrible person, but that's irrelevant to his property theory. It's dogpiling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Ah, I guess I'm looking at this more from the racism angle than the history angle. No argument that there's no value in his historical sources. That is kind of the issue though: He doesn't have to bring it up if he is citing people that are arguing against historical fact based on flawed pretenses, specifically noted neo-Confederates. Whether or not Jrod does or does not support slavery, he is trying to make arguments about the South that ignores the entire reason for the Secession to begin with, while at the same time white-washing Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant and racist warmonger. There is no validity in arguing about property laws of the South, when the entirety of the South's issues were based upon the ownership of people and whether or not they could regulate that ownership at a state level. He either needs to clear up the water with proper historical references to make his arguments and stop using noted liars, or give up on those arguments entirely and approach it from a different perspective: Specifically one that does not involve defending the Confederacy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:jrod's right, though, as much as his historical revisionism and Southern apologism show an inherent lack of morality on his part, it's his abhorrent views on letting the lowest 25% of earners die in the streets of tooth abscesses and the common cold is even worse and it's what we should be hammering home. Remember that Bastiat quote? “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” You think that because I oppose a system where the State violently expropriates us at the point of a gun and redistributes wealth in a political manner to supposedly provide for social services, you conclude that I oppose social services. This is entirely the sort of argument that Bastiat debunked more than a century ago. I would like to replace violently funded social services with voluntarily funded social services. I would like the market to increase the quality and lower the cost which will make healthcare services more widely available and better distributed throughout society. I would like to see mutual aid societies and voluntary social service providers compete to best provide assistance to those that need it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I would like to replace violently funded social services with voluntarily funded social services. Allow me to highlight the VERY issue why it won't work: Voluntarily Funded jrodefeld posted:I would like to replace violently funded social services with voluntarily funded social services. I would like the market to increase the quality and lower the cost which will make healthcare services more widely available and better distributed throughout society. I would like to see mutual aid societies and voluntary social service providers compete to best provide assistance to those that need it.  SAVE US FREE MARKET!Its not going to happen, and there is overwhelming evidence that it will never happen. You keep presenting 'Golden Philosophies' and expecting us to accept them without any evidence that they even work. Its more like a religion than a economic philosophy. Also I can't stop laughing at 'violently funded social services'. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:I disagree. I can say that the sky is green and I am a martian and e=mc squared, and the fact that I'm wrong about the first two is irrelevant to my convictions about the third. He is referencing racists discussing slavery and revised historical narratives around the Civil War, a well understood part of history directly dealing with race relations. It would be one thing if it were a racist discussing cell division and particle theory. But do you think racism might influence opinions concerning the "War of Northern Aggression"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Perchance you would also like a unicorn pony and an inexhaustible fountain of candy given to you by the King of the Potato People? Because that scenario has as great a chance of happening as the one you outlined, based on all previous human existence and experience, as has been repeatedly hammered home again and again and again, ad nauseam. Also, I'm quite intrigued by the fact that you cited Lysander Spooner, who was an ardent supporter of... the Labor movement. That's to say out-and-out Socialism. So I'm glad to see you're coming around to our way of thinking here!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You think that because I oppose a system where the State violently expropriates us at the point of a gun and redistributes wealth in a political manner to supposedly provide for social services, you conclude that I oppose social services. This is entirely the sort of argument that Bastiat debunked more than a century ago. You're opposed to providing it to people who can't pay for it. You are opposed to everyone having the right to access to those services; charity will have to be enough for them. Except that charity is never enough; history has shown this to be inexorably true. You love to confiscate wealth. All those sales and employment taxes over the years, that all those poor people have paid for, you'd love to cut them off from it. You want to sell off what we've all paid for and declare a societal "do-over". All the people who became rich because of programs paid for with taxation get to keep their ill-gotten gains, but everybody who didn't loot the system is SOL. That's you. You oppose social services.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I would like to replace violently funded social services with voluntarily funded social services. I would like the market to increase the quality and lower the cost which will make healthcare services more widely available and better distributed throughout society. I would like to see mutual aid societies and voluntary social service providers compete to best provide assistance to those that need it. The problem is that, if the market fails, there is no recourse for society under your paradigm as it would be aggression to use collective resources to undermine the market. All you can do is insist that the market will not fail, which happens to be a well understood and documented phenomenon. But a state may directly intervene where the market fails. Of course, the state may intervene in many ways, which is why there are different forms of government to address how the state power is brought to bear. We all recognize that it is not perfect, but we accept some levels of imperfection because we know the alternative is abject horror. This comes back to what I asked you before, what would it take for us to convince you to reconsider your position? According to your arguments, it should simply require demonstrating instances of market failures, which undermines your entire system of belief. But we have done that and you have not budged. All it would take to convince me is that market failures are impossible. This is something you have put no effort into advancing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You're opposed to providing it to people who can't pay for it. You are opposed to everyone having the right to access to those services; charity will have to be enough for them. Except that charity is never enough; history has shown this to be inexorably true. "Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?" archangelwar posted:This comes back to what I asked you before, what would it take for us to convince you to reconsider your position? According to your arguments, it should simply require demonstrating instances of market failures, which undermines your entire system of belief. But we have done that and you have not budged. All it would take to convince me is that market failures are impossible. This is something you have put no effort into advancing. Which brings us back to the biggest issue with Libertarianism: Its all based on faith in something that they've never experienced nor seen. They obey a golden philosophy that cannot be questioned despite overwhelming evidence. Its a religion. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Can we steer this back to healthcare? Jrod said this:jrodefeld posted:I don't want to spend much time on this subject because that could take away from more important topics of discussion, but I'll restate my views for those that don't know them. He said that after Caros' last post on health care where he was called out for plagiarism, but somehow has gotten away with just ignoring the post and baiting you guys into talking about a different subject. Here's a link to Caros' last big post on healthcare that was left without a response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:Can we steer this back to healthcare? Jrod said this: He tends not to answer things he cannot argue against.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:Can we steer this back to healthcare? Why, because he's about to have a breakthrough? If you haven't caught on by now, take a look at his posts on The Straight Dope five years ago. Ideas don't penetrate. CommieGIR posted:Its a religion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:Can we steer this back to healthcare? Jrod said this: Actually, yeah, that's a good point: JRod, I've caught you twice, now, in ( admittedly forgiveable, but still embarassing ) factual errors, and Caros caught you, in flagrante, on plagiarism. I would like you to respond to that please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You think that because I oppose a system where the State violently expropriates us at the point of a gun and redistributes wealth in a political manner to supposedly provide for social services, you conclude that I oppose social services. This is entirely the sort of argument that Bastiat debunked more than a century ago. That is not a debunking, that is someone saying that their form of Ancap would somehow be able to deliver everything the state does but without a state. The free market is not a charity. If you cannot afford a kidney transplant, you do not get one unless you are very fortunate and someone who can afford the cost pays it for you. Universal healthcare gives every person a chance, rich or poor. Unless you can make the guarantee that no person in Libertopia will be too poor to be able to treat any illness they get, you are in fact objecting to universal healthcare being done at all, or you don't consider it a very worthwhile goal. quote:I would like to replace violently funded social services with voluntarily funded social services. I would like the market to increase the quality and lower the cost which will make healthcare services more widely available and better distributed throughout society. I would like to see mutual aid societies and voluntary social service providers compete to best provide assistance to those that need it. Yes, I'm sure the way you have this envisioned, everyone who needs healthcare services can either pay for it or go to the Followers of the Apocalypse and get all the free medicine they need, but put bluntly you're saying your fantasy based on nothing more than just "Well it'd be real swell if ancap turned out to be paradise instead of a society that's even more FYGM than what we have today" is better than an actual functioning model for providing healthcare that we see working just fine countless times every day. The only criticisms you have of UHC other than your opinion that taxes are theft are fears you entirely made up for reasons I can only guess at. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've already explained the sort of alternatives I'd support to help people. Charity should fill a larger role in society. Tough poo poo, it doesn't and won't. If charity was sufficient to support people in need, then we wouldn't have had to create programs like social security and medicare in the first place. Food stamps wouldn't exist because they wouldn't need to exist. While you're sticking your fingers in your ears, the harsh reality is that people aren't nearly generous enough to cover the people who need help. "That's great jrod, but then again, all of human history" quote:If I lived with a nationalized healthcare system where I thought that, should I ever get sick, all my medical bills will be paid by the State and I'll be taken care of (whether that is true or not) of course that provides a perverse incentive to not avoid illness as you otherwise might. This is loving idiotic. "If only state healthcare didn't exist, then I wouldn't have come down with this darn cancer". This is the dumbest idea that you have ever presented here
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This is loving idiotic. "If only state healthcare didn't exist, then I wouldn't have come down with this darn cancer". This is the dumbest idea that you have ever presented here Cancer is just another form of government dependency!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Remember that Bastiat quote? Bastiat is loving wrong, seriously, Government is the final arm of society, it is societies final means beyond it other fores to coerce and mold persons that belong to it. If a society desires that all have knowledge than it is its prerogative to grant government the power to do so. If society as a whole desires that everyone be equal economically than yes it is its prerogative to grant the government that ability. If society instead from some insane reason believes your horseshit, than the same applies. He also seems to think that property existed before laws, it has only existed because Societies decided that the idea of holding what one could not tend by calling that property. How one could not see that it would impossible without the rest seeing what was not currently in use belonged to a person claiming it is beyond me. Besides the fact that the man seemed to think that alot of classical liberals were also socialists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you allow the southern states to secede, immediately you repeal all fugative slave laws. What this means is that if a slave escaped to the North they would be free immediately and not returned to their "master" in the South. You have to remember that the institution of slavery was heavily subsidized and propped up by government law. Non-slave owning whites where made to go on slave patrols hunting for runaway slaves and then returning them to the plantations. Fugative slave laws existed where slaves who had escaped to other States, including States where slavery was illegal, would be returned. This is a nice hypothetical. What if, before you were able to enact any of these things, Southern troops began attacking Northern troops and invading Northern lands?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Remember that Bastiat quote?  we just want to dismantle public education and leave a hole that boot strappers will be sure to fill! why do you say we're anti-education
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Remember that Bastiat quote?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
A hungry and compliant workforce is profitable, making it in the best interest of the capitalist class to keep education, food and medical care forever barely within reach of the wages they dangle in front of the workers. gently caress that. But not in reach of everyone of course, the rich do love their cautionary examples. Talmonis fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
I realize people are starving, but we have to give charity time to catch up. We wouldn't want to feed anybody unethically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
19th Century benevolent societies: a cutting-edge idea who's time has come! No seriously, he's previously suggested mutual-aid societies like impoverished urban minorities used to create to keep from starving all the way to death are capable of entirely filling the gap that would be left by restraining the violent hand of State social programs. It's almost as if he doesn't understand history at all! EDIT: Someone post that Chuck Asay cartoon about feeding bears/the poor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
If we feed people, they may become dependent on food, and need to be fed again 3-6 hours later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:19th Century benevolent societies: a cutting-edge idea who's time has come!  Look at all that progress!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you look at any State mandated welfare program you will see two groups of people. The first group are those who genuinely have fallen on hard times and need some assistance or those with physical and mental disabilities who cannot get by without help. The second group are those that take advantage of the system and allow welfare programs to disincentivize them. They could be working and getting out of dependence but they make the decision to rely on State aid. There are many cases where State welfare programs pay as much or more than minimum wage jobs, so the rational thing to do would be to not work and get welfare. This is a classic example of you saying something that might be true on its face, that there are people who abuse social programs, but which tells us nothing of real value as a statement. I can just as easily say that if you look at any state, it contains two groups of people, murderers and non-murderers, as a statement it is just as much true as yours, but like your statement it doesn't tell me the really important bit of information, which is how many of each there are. Lets talk about that information, shall we? For starters, here is the wikipedia that details how SNAP (Food Stamp) mispayment account for only 4% of the program, with another 1% in trafficking (which is not really all that bad. If 95% of SNAP benefits are being utilized for their intended purpose, that is, keeping people from starving, don't you think it is a little disingenuous to simply say "There are two groups of people!"  How about Medicaid? Well the US GAO study from 2013 indicated that no more than 10% of all medicaid payments were fraudulent or incorrect. In addition they found that the vast majority of fraud perpetuated in the Medicaid and Medicare systems was committed by sophisticated individuals working specifically to attempt fraud, rather than poor people trying to get medicare. That is to say, doctors would overbill, or bill for non-existent procedures in an attempt to gain more money, neither of which are being 'disincentivized' by the system. Beyond all that, I do know what you are talking about, I'm guessing that you probably pulled the talking point from Peter Schiff as it is one of his favorites. Yes, there are some states where there are what are called donut gaps, where someone earning more money will push them up and out of the social safety net, meaning that they eventually get back to work, but are gaining no more money working 40 hour weeks. The problem with your reasoning here is that you assume this discredits social programs in general, instead of merely being a commentary on some poorly designed systems. There are plenty of ways to fix such programs, with one of the easiest being an increase in overall availability, meaning that as someone increases their wage the benefits do not drop away at a dollar for dollar rate. Such a person would still lose all of their benefits eventually, but if we cut them at say... $12 an hour or $15 an hour, that person would still have tons of incentive to work when their total benefits were only worth $7.50 to start with. quote:I've already explained the sort of alternatives I'd support to help people. Charity should fill a larger role in society. Mutual aid societies, friendly societies, lodges and clubs should, as they have in the past, provide a safety net through the market where lower class people have a community to rely on in case they get sick or need assistance. The crucial difference between State welfare, aside from the immorality of violently expropriated people to fund it, and mutual aid and charity is that the State is incentivized to get more people on welfare and assistance while market based aid is focused on getting people back on their feet and into the workforce again, able to sustain their own lives. You have already explained them, and yet you have been notably silent every time I have debunked them. I'm going to do this for probably the third time in this thread. Mutual Aid Societies, Friendly Societies, Lodges and Clubs are not a replacement for the social safety net. Such programs are effectively just small pool public insurance policies, and like all insurance policies they can and will collapse when their exposure to risk gets too high. The reason that there are no mutual aid societies in modern day America is because the ones that did exist folded up immediately during the great depression. Mutual Aid Societies work when only 5% of people are unemployed, because they can cover for small problems. When the economy gets bad however, there are less people paying into such societies, and more people taking out from them, which means they very, very quickly run out of money. The crucial difference is that state Welfare is an automatic stabilizer. When more people become poor, spending on food stamps automatically goes up as more people fall into the net. This is why Social Welfare programs are better than private programs like the ones you suggest. Because they continue to function when people need them the most. If you can refute the point, please do so JRodefeld. I've brought it up multiple times in this thread, and in previous ones besides, and the fact that you have never addressed it suggests to me that you really cannot. Edit: Oh, and while I'm at it, I have one more question: Are you seriously going to ignore the fact that you were caught plagiarizing in this thread? You've made half a dozen posts over two days, and there is no way you didn't notice people calling you out on it. Why should we take you seriously in the slightest if you won't even admit wrongdoing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
I still can't believe that someone seriously thinks that affordable medical care will make people more sick because they no longer have to worry about the financial consequences of getting sick. Like jrod must think that there are just a ton of people in Canada and the UK sticking random needles in their arms and drinking puddle water because they're not worried about having to pay for medical care if they get sick. And yet despite all of those lack of disincentives to get sick, they still pay less per capita for medical care, but jrod won't recognize that. And the implied assumption that the body has some mechanism for detecting the financial cost of a particular illness, which in turn effects immune response, is just 
QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
I think what he was going for is the same thing my mom bitches about endlessly from her time as a doctor. People showing up in the ER who probably shouldn't have gone there but don't know any better because they're not loving doctors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:People are staying poor because they want to be poor? Cool, makes sense. Do you think that people who don't exercise every day want to get sick? Do you think people that eat too many sweets want to get diabetes? Do you think people that smoke want to get cancer? No, they all assume that they will be able to lead unhealthy lives and get away with it. Yes, getting cancer should be disincentive enough. But what of just getting the flu and then getting a week of paid vacation from work? Or free doctor care? Getting a mild case of the flu is not that bad but if you get free doctor care and paid vacation there is far less incentive to avoid that outcome than if you lost a weeks pay and had to pay a couple hundred dollars to see the doctor. Does this same incentive structure work in reverse for the very wealthy? To a degree, I'd argue that it does. The difference is that if the wealthy become sick through negligence of their own health, they have the means to pay for their own care and they don't force anyone else to pay for it. For social welfare programs for the middle class and lower class, if you are disincentized from taking care of your own health, you rely on State aid that is forcefully extracted from the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No, I am using the term "fascism" to mean corporatism, the collusion between the State and business interests. The pharmaceutical lobby, insurance companies, and medical lobbyists of all sorts collude with the government to pass legislation to benefit them at the expense of the rest of the market. They distort the market in their favor, give themselves a monopoly and create a barrier to entry for would be competitors. I'm sad that people got to you before I did, because that quote is hilariously misattributed. My favorite part about that is the fact that you didn't realize that it was misattributed. Seriously, I woke up, looked at my phone and went "Yeah... no, there is no way that is a real historical quote from Mussolini." Do you know why I knew it was not a quote from Mussolini? Because Mussolini is the loving person who coined the term Fascism. quote:If you allow the southern states to secede, immediately you repeal all fugative slave laws. What this means is that if a slave escaped to the North they would be free immediately and not returned to their "master" in the South. You have to remember that the institution of slavery was heavily subsidized and propped up by government law. Non-slave owning whites where made to go on slave patrols hunting for runaway slaves and then returning them to the plantations. Fugative slave laws existed where slaves who had escaped to other States, including States where slavery was illegal, would be returned. Okay... couple of things. First and foremost, Union conscription was 2%... so gently caress right off with that 'relied upon' bullshit. Secondly, as other posters have brought up, slavery accounted for a massive amount of the total economic output of the united states in 1860. The idea that the southern states would suddenly find slavery becoming 'unprofitable' because of abolitionist movements in the loving south shows how utterly ignorent of history you are. Slavery was massively popular in the south because it was the basis for their entire economy. Frankly life would be very dangerous to be an abolitionist in the confederacy, and considering the lengths that the confederacy went to allowing slavery in its constitution I have little to no doubt that slavery would still be a thing in modern day america without the civil war. Other posters have commented on this, but I would really like it if you would just pick a subject or two that you actually know something about. You don't know anything about the civil war, you barely know anything about healthcare and it really, really shows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:For social welfare programs for the middle class and lower class, if you are disincentized from taking care of your own health, you rely on State aid that is forcefully extracted from the rest of us. If the filthy poors didn't want to get sick and go bankrupt perhaps they should have invested in a positive pressure bubble suit 
Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Does this same incentive structure work in reverse for the very wealthy? To a degree, I'd argue that it does. The difference is that if the wealthy become sick through negligence of their own health, they have the means to pay for their own care and they don't force anyone else to pay for it. For social welfare programs for the middle class and lower class, if you are disincentized from taking care of your own health, you rely on State aid that is forcefully extracted from the rest of us. Okay. Stop right there. Taxes are not theft. End of discussion. The wealthy benefit from taxes as well, and taxes are a social contract, we all benefit from them. Despite what you think, despite what you've been told, its not theft. Its even more ironic, being that most wealthy can afford to avoid even having to PAY taxes since they can find enough loopholes or offshore accounts to ensure they are taxed as little as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Remember that Bastiat quote? The bolded section only applies if we accept your definition of violence. None of us accept your definition of taxation as theft, which means that we don't accept your idea that social services are being paid for by violence. Moreover, we've concluded that you are opposed to social services because social services cannot be provided by a private market. You suggest that voluntary social service providers will 'compete' but those aren't social service providers, they are loving insurance companies. One of the defining aspects of a social service program is that they take care of you regardless of your ability to pay. If you have a degenerative disease from day one of your life that prevents you from working you are still eligible for medicare, where as Mutual aid societies and 'voluntary' social service providers would tell you to take a hike because you haven't paid your premiums. Because they are just really small, lovely insurance companies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you think that people who don't exercise every day want to get sick? Do you think people that eat too many sweets want to get diabetes? Do you think people that smoke want to get cancer? No, they all assume that they will be able to lead unhealthy lives and get away with it. By your logic the US should not be one of the most obese nations in the world, because the cost of medical care is loving insane, especially for obese people. Yet we are one of the most obese nations in the world. Have you ever encountered a situation where reality conflicted with your opinions and you allowed your opinions to change? Your entire post is just so factually wrong that I don't even know where to begin discussing it
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes, getting cancer should be disincentive enough. But what of just getting the flu and then getting a week of paid vacation from work? Or free doctor care? Getting a mild case of the flu is not that bad but if you get free doctor care and paid vacation there is far less incentive to avoid that outcome than if you lost a weeks pay and had to pay a couple hundred dollars to see the doctor. OK, let's assume you are correct. So we take away doctor care and paid vacation for the flu. So that person comes to work and coughs on me. And despite the fact that I do EVERYTHING RIGHT, I still get sick, because "germ theory." I am now stuck with the flu through no fault of my own and you have taken away from me access to resources I need to recover.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I still can't believe that someone seriously thinks that affordable medical care will make people more sick because they no longer have to worry about the financial consequences of getting sick. Like jrod must think that there are just a ton of people in Canada and the UK sticking random needles in their arms and drinking puddle water because they're not worried about having to pay for medical care if they get sick. And yet despite all of those lack of disincentives to get sick, they still pay less per capita for medical care, but jrod won't recognize that. I swear, it sounds like the exact same line of thought that probably led a hardcore Catholic to tell me that if masturbation wasn't a sin, then they wouldn't have an incentive to find a partner and procreate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 20:37
|
|
