Thread: The world I would love to live in.

But if implied consent is good for paying the military, paying for roads, paying for post office, why isn't it good for paying for healthcare (specifically because that's the one you don't like)?

If it is assumed that no person in their right mind would object to be treated when ill/injured, just like it is assumed they wouldn't want some other nationals to be in charge of government (the need for defense), then surely everybody should contribute to a fund that covers healthcare when needed, the same way they should contribute to a fund that covers a military to defend when needed.

The only way I can see not forcing people to pay for health care is if the providers are not forced to provide it under implied consent. If this is purely transactional issue, then doctors should be able to provide services only after they are paid and unconscious people better have some cash in their pockets or an ID which could be used to track their funds and withdraw as much as necessary for the treatment, if that runs out treatment stops.
Just like in the parable of the good samaritan - unless you get charity you die.
Because as long as you force people to provide services without forcing the recipients to pay for them, then you force somebody else to assume the cost.

As I said, or may be only implied, this seems to me like a reasonable general welfare, just like disaster relief isn't explicitly mentioned in the constitution but it's been done by the federal government since at least the early 1800s.

Originally Posted by honedright

I'm stepping back in only (well maybe not) to comment that you have completely misrepresented my argument. I thought I was fairly, if not completely, clear. I never said that tax collection is an illegal activity. In fact I corrected myself in terms of clarifying the difference between legitimacy/ legality and morality. Yes, a tax may be legal, but is it ultimately moral? I think I've made the point clear with the definition of theft and it's relation to the practice of redistribution.

Thanks. Let me be the first to welcome you back. My intent was certainly not to misrepresent your argument. It was to try and fully understand it. So now that I understand you agree tax collection is not illegal we can turn to the moral aspects. As I mentioned earlier laws (in the context of a democratic process) are based on a moral imperative expressed by the majority through their elected representation. So to answer your question, yes they are ultimately moral and represent the moral beliefs of the majority (tax laws included). Of course both can change given evolution. Certainly one can disagree with the supporting moral argument but to do so doesn't change it or make it theft.

Originally Posted by honedright

Also, the article I submitted by Williams further clarifies, as well as mirrors, my view quite well. Yes, morality is subjective and may change per your perspective. As this thread has demonstrated, any view point can be rationalized. But certain acts, such as theft (legitimized or not - how's that for rationalization), have stood the test of time regarding the issue of morality. You may have a different view point, but you may find yourself on the wrong side of history

I totally agree with the fact that theft has stood the moral test of time as being unacceptable. Of course theft is an illegal act and there are laws dealing with this matter.

Originally Posted by honedright

(legitimized or not - how's that for rationalization)

Well actually no disrespect but this is a very poor rationalization. No individual or group can "legitimize" an existing illegal act without a majority agreeing to a change in the law. To do so would (using your words) "opened the door for an arbitrary, anything goes society that can basically do anything it wants anytime it wants". And we all know where that leads.

Originally Posted by honedright

Also, at no time have I even remotely suggested, as your straw man attempts to, that "people in need" should not be assisted. But to assist one by harming another is a zero sum game where everyone loses. The poor are not poor for lack of money, but for lack of ability to create and maintain wealth. Throwing money at them does nothing to solve the root cause of their poverty.

I'm very happy to hear you're supportive of assisting those who need help. I also agree root causes need to be determined and corrective actions taken. The real challenge is what they are and determining remedial actions (policies) required to maintain status quo until a fully implemented correction is in place. Let's take a scenario. Your standing in front of a dyke and it springs a small leak right in front of you. You have the tools in hand to stop or significantly slow the leak on the spot while you search for a root cause and affix a permanent solution. You also know the solution may not be available immediately. What do you do? Do you stop the leak and then search for the root cause or do you search for the root cause while the leak continues and the dyke deteriorates? With respect to the poor. What do you think are the root causes? What ideas would you propose to correct them and what policies would you implement?

Originally Posted by honedright

Taking wealth from those who generate it, without compensation in turn, is a crime. So if need is the only justification to change the terms of morality to allow any means necessary to meet the needs (a la - "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities"), you've opened the door for an arbitrary, anything goes society that can basically do anything it wants anytime it wants. It's only a matter of time until "what goes around, comes around."

Taking wealth from anyone without their agreement regardless of the compensation is absolutely a crime. The process of redistribution of wealth through tax collection and disbursement however has been agreed to by the majority (through the establishment of tax laws) and willingly paid by the majority. So that can't be a crime. Are you somehow making a link between the two? Are you asserting that if you don't personally agree with the moral reasoning behind a law that the law is then immoral to all? Please explain?

Originally Posted by honedright

Now I'm done with this thread.

Your choice of course but I for one am enjoying the discussion. If you choose to return please once again correct any misrepresentation I may have made on your behalf.

Originally Posted by gugi

But if implied consent is good for paying the military, paying for roads, paying for post office, why isn't it good for paying for healthcare (specifically because that's the one you don't like)?

If it is assumed that no person in their right mind would object to be treated when ill/injured, just like it is assumed they wouldn't want some other nationals to be in charge of government (the need for defense), then surely everybody should contribute to a fund that covers healthcare when needed, the same way they should contribute to a fund that covers a military to defend when needed.

The only way I can see not forcing people to pay for health care is if the providers are not forced to provide it under implied consent. If this is purely transactional issue, then doctors should be able to provide services only after they are paid and unconscious people better have some cash in their pockets or an ID which could be used to track their funds and withdraw as much as necessary for the treatment, if that runs out treatment stops.
Just like in the parable of the good samaritan - unless you get charity you die.
Because as long as you force people to provide services without forcing the recipients to pay for them, then you force somebody else to assume the cost.

As I said, or may be only implied, this seems to me like a reasonable general welfare, just like disaster relief isn't explicitly mentioned in the constitution but it's been done by the federal government since at least the early 1800s.

Therein lies the total solution to the health care issue in this country.

We used to have a saying back in NYC relating to views on crime. The definition of a Conservative is a Liberal who was mugged last night.

I can assure you if the federal law requiring hospitals to treat everyone who walked in the door for free was rescinded well, when Joe Rightwing comes into the emergency room at 3 in the morning with his 7 year old suffering from acute appendicitis and the clerk says "that will be 60 grand, cash check or charge and they are shown the door for lack of funds how long do you think it would be before the Obamacare haters are singing a different tune?

Originally Posted by Brenngun

Thanks. Let me be the first to welcome you back. My intent was certainly not to misrepresent your argument. It was to try and fully understand it. So now that I understand you agree tax collection is not illegal we can turn to the moral aspects. As I mentioned earlier laws (in the context of a democratic process) are based on a moral imperative expressed by the majority through their elected representation. So to answer your question, yes they are ultimately moral and represent the moral beliefs of the majority (tax laws included). Of course both can change given evolution. Certainly one can disagree with the supporting moral argument but to do so doesn't change it or make it theft.




I totally agree with the fact that theft has stood the moral test of time as being unacceptable. Of course theft is an illegal act and there are laws dealing with this matter.




Well actually no disrespect but this is a very poor rationalization. No individual or group can "legitimize" an existing illegal act without a majority agreeing to a change in the law. To do so would (using your words) "opened the door for an arbitrary, anything goes society that can basically do anything it wants anytime it wants". And we all know where that leads.




I'm very happy to hear you're supportive of assisting those who need help. I also agree root causes need to be determined and corrective actions taken. The real challenge is what they are and determining remedial actions (policies) required to maintain status quo until a fully implemented correction is in place. Let's take a scenario. Your standing in front of a dyke and it springs a small leak right in front of you. You have the tools in hand to stop or significantly slow the leak on the spot while you search for a root cause and affix a permanent solution. You also know the solution may not be available immediately. What do you do? Do you stop the leak and then search for the root cause or do you search for the root cause while the leak continues and the dyke deteriorates? With respect to the poor. What do you think are the root causes? What ideas would you propose to correct them and what policies would you implement?




Taking wealth from anyone without their agreement regardless of the compensation is absolutely a crime. The process of redistribution of wealth through tax collection and disbursement however has been agreed to by the majority (through the establishment of tax laws) and willingly paid by the majority. So that can't be a crime. Are you somehow making a link between the two? Are you asserting that if you don't personally agree with the moral reasoning behind a law that the law is then immoral to all? Please explain?




Your choice of course but I for one am enjoying the discussion. If you choose to return please once again correct any misrepresentation I may have made on your behalf.

It's good to be loved. Glad you missed me and glad your happy I'm back.

It occurs to me that maybe, at least in part, of the confusion, or better yet, disagreement, lies with a misunderstanding between Federalism and Nationalism?

Originally the federal government was designed to be a small, limited body with enumerated powers as is evident by reading the Constitution, as well as the writings of the founders as found in their personal letters and The Federalist Papers. The states, and the people, on the other hand, were intended to retain all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Therefore, when you talk about a "Majority" maybe you are referring to states rather than the federal government. That would make more sense since then, if one did not agree with a certain states policies or laws, one could move to a different state with more favorable laws. By enlarging the federal government and going from a federal to a more national system, contrary to the original intent of the founders, it eliminates ones choices between states as then all states tend to be under the control of one centralized administration. If that had been the intent of the founders then the federal system would not have been limited and enumerated in it's powers, and there would have been no need to emphasize the fact re: the 9th and 10th amendments as the states could essentially do what ever they wanted as long as what they did was not prohibited by the Constitution, and reserved to the federal government.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

I'm very happy to hear you're supportive of assisting those who need help. I also agree root causes need to be determined and corrective actions taken. The real challenge is what they are and determining remedial actions (policies) required to maintain status quo until a fully implemented correction is in place. Let's take a scenario. Your standing in front of a dyke and it springs a small leak right in front of you. You have the tools in hand to stop or significantly slow the leak on the spot while you search for a root cause and affix a permanent solution. You also know the solution may not be available immediately. What do you do? Do you stop the leak and then search for the root cause or do you search for the root cause while the leak continues and the dyke deteriorates? With respect to the poor. What do you think are the root causes? What ideas would you propose to correct them and what policies would you implement?

I like your scenario. In fact I think within your scenerio is possibly the crux. At least, I think we are very close to agreement. Imagine, though, that the dyke continues to spring leaks, and no one has really bothered to find a root cause for the leaks. I would not, and I doubt many Americans would, refuse a temporary sacrifice in order to help out their fellow man. But imagine another scenario where you are going to your doctor for a specific illness, the doctor prescribes his "remedy" but your symptoms continue to return. Year after year after year. You continue to pay your doctor for his "remedy" which gives temporary relief, but no lasting cure. I think eventually you would be, at least, very disappointed with your doctor. Especially if you discovered that the good doctor was only masking your symptoms instead of diagnosing and curing your problem. The two scenarios are basically the same and I think we can both agree. I agree that I would not allow the leak to exacerbate into a flood endangering the town while instead searching for a root cause. But I think you must also agree that while temporarily fixing the leak and mitigating further immediate damage, we must also begin a serious effort to find and alleviate the root cause(s) of the problem(s).

In over 80 years of "good intention" policy in the US, I think that there has been a lot of symptom masking at the expense of finding root causes. It's one thing to help a man up out of the hole he fell into, it's another to fill the hole so that no one else suffers the same fate.

And it's another thing entirely to set up a publicly funded first aid station to fix broken bones and scraped knees next to the hole, and because of the first aid station, no one can afford to buy a shovel. Fill the darn hole!

Originally Posted by honedright

It occurs to me that maybe, at least in part, of the confusion, or better yet, disagreement, lies with a misunderstanding between Federalism and Nationalism?

Originally the federal government was designed to be a small, limited body with enumerated powers as is evident by reading the Constitution, as well as the writings of the founders as found in their personal letters and The Federalist Papers.

This is most likely true, but it is also true that the very same people in the very same document ensured that this is not an immutable dogma. As you stated earlier, it's the government of the people for the people, so if the people want it modified in any way they can do that through the established system of voting. It's fairly complicated to ensure that drastic changes don't happen at a whim, but at the same time flexible enough that the founders grandchildren don't have to be bound to the exact same government that their grandfathers thought would be good at the time.

So, starting from day one the federal government started growing as people's identity shifted from bostonians, pennsylvaniians, etc. to americans first.
If the people wanted to keep the government the exact same way it was set up in late 1700s, they'd have voted the representatives who made bad changes out of office and elected ones who would return it back to how it was.

Originally Posted by honedright

That would make more sense since then, if one did not agree with a certain states policies or laws, one could move to a different state with more favorable laws. By enlarging the federal government and going from a federal to a more national system, contrary to the original intent of the founders, it eliminates ones choices between states as then all states tend to be under the control of one centralized administration.

There are still significant differences between states. Especially when it comes to taxation. For example if you move from California to New Hampshire you would stop paying 8.75% sales tax and instead would pay 0% sales tax. Your income tax would also change from progressive 1% to 12.3% to flat 5%. Or you could move to neighboring Nevada and pay 0% income tax.
Of course, those are less compared to the federal tax rates ranging from 10% to 39.6%, but you have still chosen to live in one of the states with most taxes, biggest redistribution, and most populist way of government (direct referendums). There are surely more factors than tax rates and redistribution that enter into deciding what is ultimately the better option.

Originally Posted by gugi

This is most likely true, but it is also true that the very same people in the very same document ensured that this is not an immutable dogma. As you stated earlier, it's the government of the people for the people, so if the people want it modified in any way they can do that through the established system of voting. It's fairly complicated to ensure that drastic changes don't happen at a whim, but at the same time flexible enough that the founders grandchildren don't have to be bound to the exact same government that their grandfathers thought would be good at the time.

So, starting from day one the federal government started growing as people's identity shifted from bostonians, pennsylvaniians, etc. to americans first.
If the people wanted to keep the government the exact same way it was set up in late 1700s, they'd have voted the representatives who made bad changes out of office and elected ones who would return it back to how it was.


There are still significant differences between states. Especially when it comes to taxation. For example if you move from California to New Hampshire you would stop paying 8.75% sales tax and instead would pay 0% sales tax. Your income tax would also change from progressive 1% to 12.3% to flat 5%. Or you could move to neighboring Nevada and pay 0% income tax.
Of course, those are less compared to the federal tax rates ranging from 10% to 39.6%, but you have still chosen to live in one of the states with most taxes, biggest redistribution, and most populist way of government (direct referendums). There are surely more factors than tax rates and redistribution that enter into deciding what is ultimately the better option.

The only problem I have with your argument (not addressing the state issue) is the fundamental ideology. I believe, as did the founders, that the fundamental, self evident Lockean truths that they recognized then are just as true today, and tomorrow, as they were then. And from that Lockean based ideology flows all the rest.

And beyond ideology, Locks treaties just make common sense.

Originally Posted by honedright

The only problem I have with your argument is the fundamental ideology. I believe, as did the founders, that the fundamental, self evident Lockean truths that they recognized then are just as true today, and tomorrow, as they were then. And from that Lockean based ideology flows all the rest.

Well, I just don't see any evidence that the US government is based on Lockean ideology. May be that was one of the big influences, but ultimately they didn't state that everything ought to flow from Lockean ideology.

The principles that they stated are:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If you want to go back to the declaration of independence it's just as limited there:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

I don't find it reasonable to extrapolate from the explicitly stated principle that people are entitled to self-governance which they think would be good for them, to some more general philosophy from which this principle is derived and by doing so deny them the right of self-governance replacing it with a dogmatic system that may not reflect their views on how to be governed.

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, I just don't see any evidence that the US government is based on Lockean ideology. May be that was one of the big influences, but ultimately they didn't state that everything ought to flow from Lockean ideology.

The principles that they stated are:


If you want to go back to the declaration of independence it's just as limited there:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


I don't find it reasonable to extrapolate from the explicitly stated principle that people are entitled to self-governance which they think would be good for them, to some more general philosophy from which this principle is derived and by doing so deny them the right of self-governance replacing it with a dogmatic system that may not reflect their views on how to be governed.

Interesting how you left out both the Preamble and the Declaration of Natural rights from the Declaration of Independence.

Originally Posted by honedright

Interesting how you left out both the Preamble and the Declaration of Natural rights from the Declaration of Independence.

I left it as not very relevant to the matter - after all it didn't really apply in practice - children of slaves were apparently born without the explicitly enumerated right of liberty, and sometimes to life.

The argument I'm making is that the right to self-governance is the primary one - it is explicitly stated and is the only one that was defended with guns.
You argued that there is the general philosophy of John Locke from which the US government system follows and therefore it's not what is actually written down, practiced, and fought over that matters, but what is most important is Locke's philosophy. I simply rejected that notion as extrapolation lacking direct evidence, while the specific principle that it would conflict with is stated very explicitly.