|
Verge posted:Sure thing, bud. It's [pro-life ideals] not [part of Libertarian or my own ideals]. My point was that an "every life matters" stance is not self-proving as good. Simply misunderstanding of my motive you had there. My fault. Right, so, without saying whether I argue for or against it, the idea you're saying is that anyone who believes in the mother's choice to have an abortion would be a hypocrite if they believe Stephen Hawking should be provided healthcare? Nevvy Z posted:This is just falsely equalizing (spacing out on what word this should be) living persons with living fetuses. Equivocating (as in false equivalence). 
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
Verge posted:Van Gogh chose to donate his valuable invention. Nothing was stopping him from simply taking a FAIR price for his goods, then using the profits to give him a somewhat decent life (there's nothing wrong with making 72k/yr) and using the rest to either further his moral agendas in research and even making the drug available for free to those who he defined as unable to afford it. Of course, in a Libertarian society, he'd know to do this, as it would be the rule of the land, just as in a socialist society we'd all know NOT to do that. The problem with this argument is that it relies on the idea of a person being more "worthy" than others and by extension on the possibility of measuring said worthiness, but this easily falls apart the moment you try to establish some objective criteria. For example, if we take your Elon Musk vs. you example, first of all we need to establish some criteria for what constitutes worthiness in the first place. Who decides this? By majority vote or some other mechanism? You seem to argue that contributions to human scientific and technological progress is a valid criteria for judging Elon Musk more worthy than you, but this seems contradictory to the idea that we'd let Stephen Hawking die in Libertopia. And besides that, how do we compare the societal worth of people from different walks of life? Is Elon Musk worth more to society than Barack Obama or Stephen Hawking? If it's you vs. Obama and you're both in critical condition it might seem simple to conclude that he should get medical care first, but that situation is extremely unlikely to happen. What if it's you vs. your neighbour? Or Obama versus Elon Musk. Suddenly we're in much more murky waters. Naturally the Liberitarian solution would be to leave it to the markets, but that doesn't seem to square with any well-defined idea of worthiness. If money is the deciding factor, then somebody who has inherited a shitload of wealth and spend all their days lazing about would probably be considered more worthy than Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein, which seems to contradict the idea of some index of your importance to society. Lazy heirs are a dime a dozen, so how can they be worth more than a once-in-a-generation genius? Since you're not holding a Liberitarian position anymore, I'm not directing this against you specifically, but I just wanted to point out the weakness of this type of argument. It comes up surprisingly often because it sounds simple on paper, but once you start scratching on the surface that facade of simplicity falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Verge posted:I'm simply stating that handing business near-maximum freedom can make things much simpler, from one standpoint anyway. It would certainly be "simpler" if businesses didn't have to follow safety and other regulations, you'd have to make the case for why that is necessarily better. e: I don't really want to argue this here as there's already *two* libertarian threads, but what you're arguing goes in the direction of defending lawn darts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Verge posted:Van Gogh chose to donate his valuable invention. Nothing was stopping him from simply taking a FAIR price for his goods 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Equivocating (as in false equivalence). That's not what "equivocating" means. I sure was hoping that guy was going to source his quotes though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:That's not what "equivocating" means. True, I tend to not use equivocating in favour of meaner synonyms so I forget it doesn't have the meaning hinted at, but they were probably thinking of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The problem with this argument is that it relies on the idea of a person being more "worthy" than others and by extension on the possibility of measuring said worthiness, but this easily falls apart the moment you try to establish some objective criteria. Responding because it seems like you missed a major point: Stephen Hawking question was posed in a pre-success scenario. He received, according to my opponent, healthcare prior to any contributions to science. As for Elon vs me: I used money (available to the stakeholder via loan, savings, etc. - any way he can get it) as a measurer of contributions to society. I want to clarify, one more time, that I never said it was perfect or even the best measurer, just that wealth is the most efficient measurement of a person's contributions to society I can come up with. I've always welcomed better measuring devices which no one has pointed out (how do you measure scientific contribution? A vote would work if it was efficient).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Verge posted:Responding because it seems like you missed a major point: Stephen Hawking question was posed in a pre-success scenario. He received, according to my opponent, healthcare prior to any contributions to science. His disease was manageable at the time of diagnosis and his contributions were made over time, primarily in the 1970s, whereas he only lost his voice permanently in 1985 (at this point however only close friends and family could understand his speech patterns). He was in a wheelchair from the late 1960s but only lost the ability to move it himself in 2009.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Verge posted:How does freedom make people happy? I'm not sure I have the vernacular expertise to explain that. If it doesn't do this for you then we differ ideologically. There was a rare conservative/libertarian leaning poster on the board some time ago, who eloquently stated it: 'One thing I have strong feelings about is the New York City soft drink size limit. Yeah, there are so many more important things going on the world, and yet this is the sort of issue which cuts to the heart of my political leanings: You should not have to do a variety of random little things just because someone smarter than you thinks that you should. ' Verge posted:An extra for everyone: I do want to add one more thing to defend Libertarians: I suppose I came to Libertarian ideals to counter the bureaucracy that goes on in our system. And on that same note, I ended my own love affair with Libertarianism. I still have a disdain of bureaucracy, whether it's CitiBank or the Veterans Administration. But it's unnecessary to take the whole Libertarian line on abandoning people in emergencies, in order to oppose bureaucratic overload.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
It's also important to note that Libertariansm doesn't really even solve the issue of bureaucracy when it's actually looked at, all it does is move it from the public to the private sector. Insurance companies are almost entirely bureaucratic, as are many legal institutions, especially contract law. So in Libertarian-Land instead of one bureaucracy of many departments that in theory are all working together you get multiple private bureaucracies all competing with one another, cutting corners, and doing their best to undermine their competitors. And that's only going to lead to slower service, not faster. There's absolutely no reason at all for a company to process paperwork from the competition in a timely or efficient manner, because if you wanted that you'll need to transfer all business to the one company. It'd be a nightmare from the start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Verge posted:wealth is the most efficient measurement of a person's contributions to society I can come up with. I've always welcomed better measuring devices which no one has pointed out Just of the top of my head: a list that doesn't put Saddam Hussein's sons above Jonas Salk. Your list puts Vladimir Putin miles above Obama by the way. Verge posted:how do you measure scientific contribution?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=258&Itemid=232 Something like the h-index is good for some but most people aren't making breakthroughs. How do you determine whose more worthy between a nurse and a pump jockey? If education, how do you determine whose more worthy between a pump jockey and skilled mechanic? I wouldn't be opposed of using more accurate measuring methods, such as the h-index (although it seems flimsy looking at it, I hardly have the expertise to rate such a system's merits) to augment the currency scale but it still seems best, in general. Yes, there are anecdotes where it fails. The grand thing about the currency scale is that it can be done incredibly quick (though, albeit slower than currency method, the h-index doesn't fall too far short to be considered, I'll concede) and it accounts for past favors having already been called in. Let's say you cure AIDS. Well, that's pretty cool. You deserve to be rewarded. Would you like A+ medical care, a shitload of houses, a golden yacht or a combination? It allows the recipient to consider for themselves what's more important to them. I want to point out that I'd be fine with socialist medical care if there was also an opt out version where you get a tax break but no medical care unless you pay out of pocket. Actually, I think I just re-invented insurance...but ran by the government. Surely you can't hold the point that if you eat well, exercise regularly, don't smoke, etc. then you shouldn't have to pay the same bill that my dumb rear end does (I smoke and ride a motorcycle). I'm gonna take a moment and steer this toward a socialized medical care argument for a while if no one objects or "re-rails" the conversation. Everyone deserves healthcare, and food, and a warm place to sleep...and a job...and a warm house...but ya know, when it gets down to it...while we all deserve that, no one deserves a single drop of sweat off my brow unless we entered a pact to share sweat (that's what insurance is) or rather, no one deserves to have a single drop of sweat forcibly taken from them. As I've said before, I'm against seat belt laws [for adults] because it's my life to destroy. This is where socialist healthcare takes its biggest toll. It motivates the government to make more seat belt laws. It gives everyone else a tangible reason, it takes away the, "Let me do what I want, it doesn't affect you," argument because...it does. Just as I can't take a pickaxe to the road, I shouldn't take a pickaxe to my face because it's akin to public property in that way. So the government may be motivated to make a law. Will it? I have no idea. Probably not in the near future since we still people doing dumb poo poo like smoking in countries with free healthcare...but they sin tax the poo poo out of them. What's the sin tax on a motorcycle, wait, what's the sin tax on a high-calorie burger? High? Hey, that's fair. Except that I'm a special snowflake trying to gain weight. Who the gently caress are you to tax me! I'm TRYING to gain weight FOR my health. I wanna get healthier! Ok, cool, you removed the tax. HEY HOW COME THAT FAT GUY GETS UNTAXED BURGERS BUT MY MOTORCYCLE IS $50K!? See the problem? Now again, I'm not trying to be some doomsdayist, obviously this isn't likely to happen in the near future - no one's even talking about this in social healthcare countries so it's a non-issue...but then I have to ask...why should I care if I get diabetes? We should not be motivated by tangible consequences to worry about other people's health. Fat people get enough grief for being fat as it is. Note: No, I really am a special snowflake that needs high-cal burgers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Verge posted:Responding because it seems like you missed a major point: Stephen Hawking question was posed in a pre-success scenario. He received, according to my opponent, healthcare prior to any contributions to science. As for Elon vs me: I used money (available to the stakeholder via loan, savings, etc. - any way he can get it) as a measurer of contributions to society. That doesn't solve the problem. In fact, it makes it worse. As stated, Stephen Hawking began suffering from his disease before he made any of his big breakthroughs. If you had let him die there and then, human progress would have been set back. To explain my point a bit further, I'll create a hypothetical scenario comparing Hawking with a scientist of similar stature who would be considered more worthy by your criteria due to the man having made his major discoveries already. So let's compare Stephen Hawking and Bertrand Russell. Let's say that in 1965, Hawking and Russell are both caught in a freak accident and we can only save one of them. It seems that according to your reasoning, we would be obliged to save Russell, due to his prior extensive contributions to the fields of mathematics and philosophy, while Hawking can just be written off as some rando doctoral student. If we want to maximize societal progress it's clear that this would be a mistake in hindsight, but even at the time it would seem to be a mistake if we factor in what we can expect each person to provide to society in the future; Russell is very unlikely to contribute very much more as a nonagenarian, while the talented young academic might have huge contributions still in him. To be fair this is an unlikely example, but it's only meant to illustrate the difficulty in determining what a person is "worth" to society. As for the argument that money is a valid measure of contributions to society, I believe I dealt with it in my previous reply. However, to reiterate, there are countless counterexamples of very wealthy people who have contributed very little by any metric and correspondingly many exampled of people who have made enormous contributions without getting wealthy at all. Therefore it doesn't seem to be a very good measurement of a person's contributions to society, or at least you've not yet made a convincing case for why it should be considered one. Verge posted:I want to clarify, one more time, that I never said it was perfect or even the best measurer, just that wealth is the most efficient measurement of a person's contributions to society I can come up with. I've always welcomed better measuring devices which no one has pointed out (how do you measure scientific contribution? A vote would work if it was efficient). Well, as I have explained it may be a simple measurement, but it is by no means a good measurement even by your own criteria. In fact, as I also have explained, there probably are no simple and good measurements because the question of constructing one inevitably becomes extremely complex the moment you start scratching the surface.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Verge posted:Something like the h-index is good for some but most people aren't making breakthroughs. How do you determine whose more worthy between a nurse and a pump jockey? If education, how do you determine whose more worthy between a pump jockey and skilled mechanic? I wouldn't be opposed of using more accurate measuring methods, such as the h-index (although it seems flimsy looking at it, I hardly have the expertise to rate such a system's merits) to augment the currency scale but it still seems best, in general. Yes, there are anecdotes where it fails. Also, your smoking harms other people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
I think this is the best solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbU4VRs2rro
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:That doesn't solve the problem. In fact, it makes it worse. As stated, Stephen Hawking began suffering from his disease before he made any of his big breakthroughs. If you had let him die there and then, human progress would have been set back. To explain my point a bit further, I'll create a hypothetical scenario comparing Hawking with a scientist of similar stature who would be considered more worthy by your criteria due to the man having made his major discoveries already. You're really missing the point. Stephen Hawking is a very odd example. Stephen Hawking is...unlikely. Let's use your scenario of Bertrand Russell. You're a surgeon. You have only enough time to save one. The other will die. Who do you save? Triage is impossible. Hawking will revolutionize the way we view the universe but right now, he's just another random guy. Bertrand Russell, however, has shown himself to be a promising man. Now...do you make the world a better place or roll the dice on a random dude, as far as you can tell? We have a finite amount of resources on this planet and we can't waste them on every Tom, Dick and Harry that gets hurt. This is exactly why I extend this to abortion. Y'know, in all likelihood, we probably have aborted someone at Stephen Hawking's level of magnitude. Maybe not as smart but as magnificent, probably. Think about that for a second. We probably killed someone perfectly equivalent to Stephen Hawking. Are you ok with that? Well, naturally, you're probably not - no one's comfortable with this subject but do you consider it acceptable? I do. I think a woman should have a right to choose whether a fetus, which is a parasite in many ways, lives or dies within her. On that same vein, if someone comes to me asking for help, I should have the right to choose not to. You can tell me I should help them but when I look at many people on this world, 30 year olds with no achievements, do-nothings, evidenced by their low income (they'll be replaced in exactly 1 week by someone equally qualified that was previously unemployed), I see them as a number. A value to the world. They're asking for a procedure that will end up costing the equivalent in the nation's (whatever nation, we all pay the same for imports) resources that if reallocated could fuel the average car to go 500 thousand miles? Repair the roads a bit? Increase the number of inspectors ensuring pollution-reduced factories? Money is a representation of work or resources owed to the bearer. When you ask the people for a hundred thousand USD, you're asking A LOT. I'd be ok with the government offering low-interest loans to those that could not afford their procedures, up to a certain amount (the lendee must be able to pay it off) if the banks won't offer better - I'm totally ok with that, seems fair. I'm even ok with the government owning hospitals to ensure competitive pricing. Cingulate posted:Also, your smoking harms other people. You're right. The sin tax should stay on some level. You're polluting. Of course, we'd also have to tax the poo poo out of campfires. Also, it's not a ranking system, it's a measuring system. Since Einstein had connections BECAUSE of his intellect to powerful people who valued him, he'd be taken care of. Most people of importance to the world would be taken care of...so long as they proved themselves as worthy prior to their need. I wanna be clear that I'm not saying person A is better than person B, just that person B is not worthy of medical treatment if he can't show the world that he's capable of 'paying back the favor.' When I'm hungry, I work for an hour, get paid, feast. When I'm hurt, I work for a week, then pay someone for a treatment. The system of universal healthcare is as follows: do nothing, get hurt, get treated, do nothing. I'm not saying everyone, or anyone, will do that but why should I have to pay an assload of money into a system I barely use, where 90% of my payment goes to someone that's chronically ill. Where many of them will die anyway. Do you know how many terminally ill patients get hundreds of thousands of USD in medical treatment, even though we KNOW they'll die? Do you just hate resources?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
Verge posted:You're right. The sin tax should stay on some level. You're polluting. Of course, we'd also have to tax the poo poo out of campfires. You say you should be free to take an ice pick to your own face. But you're swinging it in such a way that other people are getting hurt. Verge posted:Also, it's not a ranking system, it's a measuring system. Since Einstein had connections BECAUSE of his intellect to powerful people who valued him, he'd be taken care of. Most people of importance to the world would be taken care of...so long as they proved themselves as worthy prior to their need. Your measuring system implies ranking Bob Ross > Van Gogh. Verge posted:I wanna be clear that I'm not saying person A is better than person B, just that person B is not worthy of medical treatment if he can't show the world that he's capable of 'paying back the favor.' When I'm hungry, I work for an hour, get paid, feast. When I'm hurt, I work for a week, then pay someone for a treatment. The system of universal healthcare is as follows: do nothing, get hurt, get treated, do nothing. I'm not saying everyone, or anyone, will do that but why should I have to pay an assload of money into a system I barely use, where 90% of my payment goes to someone that's chronically ill. Where many of them will die anyway. Do you know how many terminally ill patients get hundreds of thousands of USD in medical treatment, even though we KNOW they'll die? Do you just hate resources?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You're right, the money would be much better spent sending it to impoverished Africans whose lives can be saved with much less money. If we can agree on that and nothing else, let's agree on that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Verge posted:If we can agree on that and nothing else, let's agree on that. You don't agree on that. You have asserted that nobody deserves anything, if it has to come from you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Verge posted:You're really missing the point. Stephen Hawking is a very odd example. Stephen Hawking is...unlikely. Let's use your scenario of Bertrand Russell. You're a surgeon. You have only enough time to save one. The other will die. Who do you save? Triage is impossible. Hawking will revolutionize the way we view the universe but right now, he's just another random guy. Bertrand Russell, however, has shown himself to be a promising man. Now...do you make the world a better place or roll the dice on a random dude, as far as you can tell? We have a finite amount of resources on this planet and we can't waste them on every Tom, Dick and Harry that gets hurt. We can, actually. We can very easily feed, clothe, house, educate, and provide for medically every single person in America right now. We just don't. Because Capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
What type of sources would count as good evidence for claims like these? 'Most soldiers are prepared to kill if they must.'--would a poll actually be able to show whether this claim was true? 'Most professional athletes take undetectable performance enhancing drugs they find on the black market.'--would interviews with former athletes count as evidence? Note that I'm not actually searching for citations about these particular issues, instead, I was curious about a more general discussion of what counts as evidence of 1) beliefs and 2) topics that appear to resist study by their very nature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:We can, actually. We can very easily feed, clothe, house, educate, and provide for medically every single person in America right now. We just don't. Because Capitalism. But what will it cost me? How many hours will I have to work extra (since you can't know the goods I consume) to keep the lifestyle I have given myself? CSPAN Caller posted:What type of sources would count as good evidence for claims like these? The soldiers one: depends on how you define prepared. Mentally? I suppose finding out how many soldiers have FAILED to kill when ordered would be far less than those who have killed when ordered, which would qualify the 'most' attitude. The athletes one...that's difficult. You'd have to take a poll but who would answer that honestly? At any rate, I wouldn't believe a word that came out of anyone's mouth that claimed that, since they can't know. That is, unless they were able to cite a source that shocked me by its own existence. Every member of the U.S. military gets a psychological screening, whether it's active or passive. If you fail it, you don't go forward.That same screening can vaguely tell if someone is prepared to kill or not. It's not the most accurate but it's there. Source: first hand experience. I saw a thing once where they explained how the military essentially...well...for lack of a better term, brainwashes you into killing first and hesitating later. Forgive the use of the word brainwashing, I don't have a better one, it's lifesaving, not evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Verge posted:But what will it cost me? How many hours will I have to work extra (since you can't know the goods I consume) to keep the lifestyle I have given myself? Don't you mean the lifestyle your parents and the government have given you? You are not Robinson Crusoe creating the fabric of society from nothing. A great deal was given to you by the collective, then you put forth a comparatively insignificant effort for yourself and now claim 100% of the responsibility for your position in life. You ought to be grateful you're permitted any disposable income at all, while people in your own community go without even though they've tried as hard or harder than you did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Don't you mean the lifestyle your parents and the government have given you? You are not Robinson Crusoe creating the fabric of society from nothing. A great deal was given to you by the collective, then you put forth a comparatively insignificant effort for yourself and now claim 100% of the responsibility for your position in life. You ought to be grateful you're permitted any disposable income at all, while people in your own community go without even though they've tried as hard or harder than you did. What did society or my parents give me? I joined the military out of high school. I only had HS education. Now I'm a living, working civilian. Roads? Education? I'm ok with these taxes. As far as nourishment and overall care ages 0-18, hey, I don't recommend anyone has a child but they knew the costs. Even then, shouldn't I be paying THEM back, not someone else? I'm not gonna create some grand fantasy where I was left in the mud with nothing but a spoon and I built a business out of scooping people's dirt but drat it I got where I am without any help that anyone else didn't have!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Verge posted:What did society or my parents give me? I joined the military out of high school. Well, for one, society gave you a military to join out of high school and all the opportunities that afforded you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well, for one, society gave you a military to join out of high school and all the opportunities that afforded you. Society offered me currency in exchange for a talent I have. That wasn't a gift, it was an exchange, just like the one between me and my employer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Verge posted:What did society or my parents give me? I joined the military out of high school. I only had HS education. Now I'm a living, working civilian. Nobody in the western world should be pointing fingers at you. You should be pointing fingers, at those ripping you off. And you're not being ripped off by poor people spending a fraction of your tax contribution on food stamps or grandpa's cancer medication. You're being ripped off by people who will never even be at a place where food stamps are produced, or the word "medicare" used when discussing how to pay for medical care. Still, "I'm willing to pay taxes for roads, but not for medical aid for those in need" is a pretty vile position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Tbh in that case, it's not so much that you're massively profiting from the system, but that you're the one being ripped over. There's people born much wealthier than you will ever be, than any of your children will ever be, and they never offered to be shot at for the sake of the nation, they don't work, they're just - ripping you off. If you could promise me that I stand to lose nothing, or that anything I lose I would gain something else of equal value (example: equivalent healthcare to what I already have by getting taxed for what I pay in healthcare bills) I'd be on board with your little plan. I pay $100/mo. in healthcare. It's pretty decent healthcare, nothing really breaks the bank...though I never use it. It's really for if I get in a bad auto accident. I'm not being ripped off. They've taken nothing from me I haven't freely traded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Verge posted:If you could promise me that I stand to lose nothing, or that anything I lose I would gain something else of equal value (example: equivalent healthcare to what I already have by getting taxed for what I pay in healthcare bills) I'd be on board with your little plan. I pay $100/mo. in healthcare. It's pretty decent healthcare, nothing really breaks the bank...though I never use it. It's really for if I get in a bad auto accident. Do you think there is such a thing as undeserved wealth? Not necessarily from a criminal source.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Do you think there is such a thing as undeserved wealth? Not necessarily from a criminal source. What, like, heirs? Sure. No, I'm just playin' dumb of course I do. Undeserved, yes. But who deserves it? If I'm willing to sell a product for $25 and a million people think that's a fair price, shouldn't I get $25 from each of them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Verge posted:What, like, heirs? Sure. No, I'm just playin' dumb of course I do. Undeserved, yes. But who deserves it? If I'm willing to sell a product for $25 and a million people think that's a fair price, shouldn't I get $25 from each of them? what does that have to do with the question
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Verge posted:What did society or my parents give me? I joined the military out of high school. I only had HS education. Now I'm a living, working civilian. i went to a public institution which my parents paid taxes to support and then i joined a public organization which my parents paid taxes to support and i don't understand what the public or my parents have ever done for me Verge posted:I'm not gonna create some grand fantasy where I was left in the mud with nothing but a spoon and I built a business out of scooping people's dirt but drat it I got where I am without any help that anyone else didn't have! i congragulate you for having a job and continuing to breathe based on the fact that you went to public education and joined the military, very few have achieved as much as you have starting from such humble beginnings my point is that you're not any different from any other of the billion odd first world humans, who all come from a society which expects taxes as participation for services, so you really need a better excuse for why you alone should be excluded from this social framework than you just don't see the point in paying taxes to anyone boner confessor fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i went to a public institution which my parents paid taxes to support and then i joined a public organization which my parents paid taxes to support and i don't understand what the public or my parents have ever done for me Whoa whoa whoa, miscommunication here. My fault. I don't want to pay into healthcare taxes. Got no beef with school taxes and military taxes (I've got no beef with most taxes we currently pay). poo poo, I even donate to Planned Parenthood (because we all benefit when others don't have accidents). You missed the context of the quotechain or I didn't make myself clear enough. Naturally I should pay back what I have consumed, give or take a few percents or wholes. If you check my history in this thread, btw, you'll note that not only do I admit to being average, at best, I relish in it for the purpose of the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Verge posted:I don't want to pay into healthcare taxes. To clarify, you're saying you opposed to single-payer healthcare, wherein the government pays for healthcare by taxing the general population?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:To clarify, you're saying you opposed to single-payer healthcare, wherein the government pays for healthcare by taxing the general population? Yes sir, unless you can promise me I would end up with better service and/or less cost to me for the service...which you probably can't, if other universal healthcare nations are an indicator. Reader's note: I don't have kids because having kids and losing my job would cause me to need welfare. I don't want to be a sap on the system. Extra reader's note: no, that's not an insult to those who use welfare. I know that 'welfare-queens' are rare as gently caress and the majority are people like you and I scraping by doing the best they can. I just know that I have an option in if I take that route so I won't. Thank you, Planned Parenthood, for not allowing my teenage stupidity gently caress up my life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
It seems like you're okay with school taxes because that's the system you fell into completely outside of your choices. Like, if society were geared to be providing universal healthcare but only private education (except for the very poor or disabled), would you feel that paying taxes for school is ridiculous/unnecessary/a bad thing? How do you feel about a universal basic income btw?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Verge posted:Yes sir, unless you can promise me I would end up with better service and/or less cost to me for the service...which you probably can't  Source: Forbes. I admit, data from 2009 so not taking the ACA into account. From the same link:  Your insurance and premiums may be fine right now, but the price rises with age.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Verge posted:Yes sir, unless you can promise me I would end up with better service and/or less cost to me for the service...which you probably can't, if other universal healthcare nations are an indicator. Reader's note: I don't have kids because having kids and losing my job would cause me to need welfare. I don't want to be a sap on the system. OK. Let's pretend for a minute that all the research isn't in on nations with single-payer health care. Take a look at this guy's logic: Verge posted:poo poo, I even donate to Planned Parenthood (because we all benefit when others don't have accidents). Oh hey that's you! You seem to be admitting that people receiving good health care is a good thing, and benefits you as well. What is the difference between reproductive health and any other kind of health?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
A reminder to non-Americans: from 65 upwards the costs are already put on the taxpayer (via Medicare), so the vast majority of the cost is already being paid by the current generation of taxpayers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
Verge posted:Yes sir, unless you can promise me I would end up with better service and/or less cost to me for the service...which you probably can't, if other universal healthcare nations are an indicator. Reader's note: I don't have kids because having kids and losing my job would cause me to need welfare. I don't want to be a sap on the system. If you can see why you benefit from Planned Parenthood helping others', and why you benefit from others' schooling, why helping others afford healthcare should be obvious. Some illnesses are communicable. Most treatable diseases are less expensive to treat the earlier caught. Having large swathes of people unable to receive health care is a drain on the labor force. You went to school, and then went to the military. You are already a sap on the system. Someone payed taxes so you can do that. You participate on the Internet, buy food, buy goods, work a job. You drive on streets or take public transit. All of these things happen due to regulation and are dependent on some amount of public spending. You are a sap on the system, and still are, and will even be so until you die and your body and property is dealt with. That's not a threat or an insult, we all are such. Unless you are rich enough to buy your own villa in a third world country, and do so, you are a sap on society. But even that person will still be a sap on the land around them, and likely benefiting from a weak or controlling government that keeps the people around them from attacking them. Bill Gates is a sap on society. He needs to eat, he needs to drive/fly around to support his humanitarian ideas, he needs health care. People's time and money go to see that happen, and much of that is funneled to him through state organizations. Even in the many ways he gives back to society, he's still ultimately a sap on it, as long as he lives and takes from it. Libertarianism plays a game where they pretend that society and private enterprise is somehow completely divorced from the state. It never has been, at least in what we consider "civilization". Even the yeoman farmer depended on the existence of a market for their goods. That market was ensured by some type of state-like organization, whether it was a feudal lord or a cartel or just the government of a town.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 05:37
|
|
