Personal Development for Smart People^TM Forums

Rose of Cairo · #31 (**permalink**) 10-19-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seeker5

(I guess to prevent the same kind of automatic reaction of "you're crazy" reaction you had toward my post)

I had no "you're crazy" reaction toward your post. I did not say "you're crazy" and I did not think it either. Dunno why you read this into what I wrote. What I said is "I think that's not possible now", neither more nor less. I think it's a valuable idea, and that it's not possible now.

Quote:

So, I'm quite used to people thinking I'm crazy for even thinking this is possible and even desirable. I thought the same thing before I studied this.

That's not a reason for assuming everybody does. I don't.

Quote:

Yes, going to 0% tax now is not realistic and dangerous. That's because we've got society set-up to depend on government actions.

See, you agree with me.

Quote:

But I believe it's possible as a long range goal

I agree with you. I think long-term it's very well possible. Just not now. The OP's claim was "No Obama", which is now. I think now it's not possible. To implement such an idea, we'd need to first completely shift our collective consciousness and mindset and I think today's society is not ready for it.

Quote:

- and it does not require "no violence, no scarcity" on the part of society.

Well now I'm really curious to know how this would be possible in a context of violence and scarcity!

Why don't you start a thread to share with us how you think we could make it possible?

Quote:

It involves aligning our government toward the principle of co-operation and love instead of using government force and violence.

That's exactly what I'd love to see (as a first step). So, how do you imagine doing it?

Gabo · #32 (**permalink**) 10-19-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

Theft can only exist if there is private property, which in turn requires force. Private property doesn't exist tangibly. What does it mean when you delcare an inanimate object "yours"? In anarchy you don't have immutable "rights", so you will have to physially back up ownership:

a) if you can, with your own bare hands
b) more realistically (and peacefully), through a judiciary which uses its monopoly on violence to ensure what is "yours" stays "yours". You are using force by proxy.

It seems you are saying that the willingness to defend something with force is the same as using force. That is not true.

The ownership of property stems from self ownership. If I own myself, then I own my time and consequently my labor. If I use my labor to create something, a desk for instance, then I own that desk. It represents the part of me I used to create it.

There is no force involved as long as I use my own labor to create my property, or trade for other people's property voluntarily with my own.

Force only happens when property is taken without consent.

Quote:

Excises, duties and tariffs are taxes.

Excises are taxes on government granted privileges, for example the privilege of holding public office or of creating a corporation.

Duties and tariffs are laid on foreign products, not on people in the US.

Quote:

Roads can be privatized, but you will be forced to pay tolls. If the owner says you have to get naked and do 100 push-ups to use is roads, you have to choose between that and restricted movement.

Tolls are one way to fund roads. There are many other ways as well.
Whatever the case is, you have the choice. Either you can pay to use someone else's property in a voluntary manner, or you can choose not to.

You are not "forced" to do something any more than I'm "forced" to choose between drinking water or orange juice with my breakfast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

Privatising health-care means that those who are too poor to pay for an expensive operation that would save their life just die. And that financially challenged people generally have no access to appropriate health services.

Most hospitals used to be funded in part or in whole by charity through private or church contributions. And most doctors would not turn someone away if they truly needed the help, even if they could not pay.

If every doctor in the country would turn terminal patients away that they could save, do we have a financial crisis or a moral crisis?

Quote:

I think everybody has the right to have access to decent health-care, no matter how much money they have.

In that case, we need to impose enough taxes on the American people to fully fund hospitals for every person in Africa.

It will probably be a 100% tax rate, but since they have a "right" to the health care, we have a duty to provide that for them.

Quote:

And everybody also has the right to get decent education when they're young, no matter how much money their parents have.

As with health care, education used to be provided for free for those who couldn't afford it. Again, private donations or church donations would fund schooling for the needy.

Today's public school system is in complete shambles. Everyone pays the same taxes for it, yet schools are obviously not equal in quality. The rich neighborhoods still have better schools than the poor ones, yet they all pay the same.

Quote:

I'm glad to pay taxes for such purposes.

Many people would be glad to pay for schooling and health care for the needy. Because of that fact, it would be possible and very effective to provide these things through private charities rather than government coercion.

I agree completely with seeker5. The problem with our mindset about government is that we are trying to achieve positive ends, such as good health care and education for everyone, through immoral means, theft by threat of violence.

The vast majority of people would agree that providing good health care and schooling, and a number of other amenities, are good things worth paying for. So there is no reason to think the only way to do this is by government force. Private charity can provide more effective services without using immoral means.

Marco Polo · #33 (**permalink**) 10-19-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabo

It seems you are saying that the willingness to defend something with force is the same as using force. That is not true.

The ownership of property stems from self ownership. If I own myself, then I own my time and consequently my labor. If I use my labor to create something, a desk for instance, then I own that desk. It represents the part of me I used to create it.

There is no force involved as long as I use my own labor to create my property, or trade for other people's property voluntarily with my own.

Force only happens when property is taken without consent.

Eiher way, the system hinges on force. Once your force is diminished, you do not own anything. Assume the government is destroyed in a war, and in this war you have been shot and paralyzed. However, by a miracle you survive. Now, let's say I'm a solipsist, and I believe I can do anything I want with everything in my consciousness, including you. I'll walk into "your" house and take the objects I desire, and you won't get them back, because you can't. It turns out your idea of property rights depended on two things: your ability to exert force, plus my agreement with your paradigm.

To understand why this is true, we need to approach this from a perspective of anarchy. In the beginning, no social convention exists. It seems you are using the ideas of Locke, who also had this axiom of self-ownership. In truth, you do not own yourself unless you can physically break yourself from bondage. After all, if I can over-power you, I can make you my slave and I will own you. So, using Hobbes words, "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man".

Laws and rights don't exist until we agree on them. Pragmatism is all. This is why the biblical message "as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them" (Luke 6:30) is such a fundamental basis of morality. One part of this pragmatism may be to agree on your axiom of self-ownership. Another one is that we could legitimize a small group of people to have monopoly on violence, in exchange for security and public services. We invent whatever system of thought which satisfies our requirements. I think a mixed economy with a fairly small government is a good arrangement.

Quote:

Duties and tariffs are laid on foreign products, not on people in the US.

Then self-ownership doesn't extend beyond the US borders. I shall move there soon so I can take part of your benefits.

Quote:

Tolls are one way to fund roads. There are many other ways as well.
Whatever the case is, you have the choice. Either you can pay to use someone else's property in a voluntary manner, or you can choose not to.

Then if I'm the CEO of a company that owns the highways, railways and land surrounding your town, I could keep you prisoner. If everything is hypothetically property of a person or corporate person, a corporation could even own the atmosphere.

ThoughtAddict · #34 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabo

Most hospitals used to be funded in part or in whole by charity through private or church contributions. And most doctors would not turn someone away if they truly needed the help, even if they could not pay.

If every doctor in the country would turn terminal patients away that they could save, do we have a financial crisis or a moral crisis?

Here in Memphis, where that great St. Jude hospital does great work, there was a hospital downtown. They recently shut down the hospital there and moved several miles east. The reason? Too many uninsured people coming in with serious injuries that required immediate attention. They weren't children, and often the injuries were trauma rather than cancer. Fundraising doesn't work so much when you've got 18 year old black gunshot victims. They were hemorrhaging money, but refused to turn people away. Instead, they left the area. There has been an increase in fatalities as a result... and the remaining downtown hospitals (government funded institutes) are being overloaded.

My point isn't that no doctor will take the case, but that those people making the most profit from healthcare (executives and shareholders) focus on profit rather than health. Private donations, while truly admirable, don't always bridge the gap between what is needed and what people can provide themselves.

Quote:

Today's public school system is in complete shambles. Everyone pays the same taxes for it, yet schools are obviously not equal in quality. The rich neighborhoods still have better schools than the poor ones, yet they all pay the same.

My understanding is that a substantial amount of funding from schools comes from county property taxes, rather than income tax. The richer the county, the more play money for the school... Let me know if this is incorrect.

Quote:

I agree completely with seeker5. The problem with our mindset about government is that we are trying to achieve positive ends, such as good health care and education for everyone, through immoral means, theft by threat of violence.

If taxes are theft, then all of the benefits from taxes (clean air, clean water, police protection, legitimate banks, safe products, travelable roadways, and the list goes on ad nauseum) are on your tab. Trust me, a government's arbitrary numbers would be kinder than those of a corporation with its own force behind it. The government has to maintain a semblance of popular support...

Gabo · #35 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

Eiher way, the system hinges on force. Once your force is diminished, you do not own anything.

I'm not talking about the capability of using force, I'm talking about the actual use of it. I agree that without the capability to use force to defend yourself, you can easily lose control of your property or your own life.

But that doesn't mean you do not rightfully own them. The concept of ownership is based on the belief in rights. Retaining what's rightfully yours certainly depends on your ability to defend your property, but the idea of property rights exists whether they are defended or not.

Quote:

In truth, you do not own yourself unless you can physically break yourself from bondage. After all, if I can over-power you, I can make you my slave and I will own you.

Again we are confusing control with ownership.
Ownership is the right to use something like your body or property.
Control of that thing naturally falls to the owner, but it can be taken or given.

(A note here, the distinction between ownership and control is somewhat semantics, so I won't keep addressing that here. What I think your point is, is that ownership is pointless if nobody will defend it. I absolutely agree with you on this, but my argument is precisely that we should defend ownership, rather than allow theft and slavery.)

Quote:

Laws and rights don't exist until we agree on them. Pragmatism is all. This is why the biblical message "as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them" (Luke 6:30) is such a fundamental basis of morality. One part of this pragmatism may be to agree on your axiom of self-ownership. Another one is that we could legitimize a small group of people to have monopoly on violence, in exchange for security and public services. We invent whatever system of thought which satisfies our requirements. I think a mixed economy with a fairly small government is a good arrangement.

The recognition and adherence to rights does depend on social constructs, but the existence of the rights does not. Rights are a natural part of all people, whether or not they are recognized.

Quote:

Then if I'm the CEO of a company that owns the highways, railways and land surrounding your town, I could keep you prisoner.

You could choose to not grant me use of your roads, land, and rails, but that does not make me a prisoner. I had no right to use your property in the first place, so I am not losing anything by your choice to prevent me from accessing your property.

Your neighbors don't make you prisoner by putting fences around their homes. This is the same principle, applied to other land around your home.

Quote:

If everything is hypothetically property of a person or corporate person, a corporation could even own the atmosphere.

To own something, you must establish ownership by creating something. For instance, making a table out of a piece of timber, or constructing a home on a tract of land. You can't simply claim ownership of something.

How could someone create something out of the entire atmosphere?

jeff3 · #36 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 03:39 AM

Socialism = less personal choices = less freedom = less liberty.

The problem with this country is that the people have lost control to politicians,who are controlled by big business. Stop the financial "lobbying" and all this would correct itself.

Dan.Linehan · #37 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff3

Socialism = less personal choices = less freedom = less liberty.

The problem with this country is that the people have lost control to politicians,who are controlled by big business. Stop the financial "lobbying" and all this would correct itself.

And who has zero lobbyists? And who has 59?

jeff3 · #38 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

And who has zero lobbyists? And who has 59?

I'm not sure why you are asking me that, is one of the candidates a socialist?
I was responding to the thread title "socialism is...." I simply stated that socialism is the antithesis of freedom and the solution to our problem is to let the govt operate the way it was intended....sans special interest groups circumventing the process with $$$'s. If Obama wants or thinks the .gov should interfere with the citizens right and ability to free choice in the arena of health care, retirement, education, ect...,he is not my choice.

It's been the way of the left to help people to death, and it always comes with a price, just like those checks your crazy aunt sends to "help" you out...in exchange for your loyalty,love and admiration. It has finally paid off, now it's time to earn those welfare checks and get out and vote Obama.

I vote for whomever seems least likely to expand the governments role in my life and from what I'm reading McCain still seems to be the best choice. The economy can be fixed and is prone to be like a yo-yo anyway, but, when freedom is lost in these little bits and pieces it is hard to get back, much harder than fixing a financial crisis. If we become a nation of subjects like the Brits a strong economy will be of no use anyway.

Dan.Linehan · #39 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 06:43 AM

You said,

Quote:

The problem with this country is that the people have lost control to politicians,who are controlled by big business. Stop the financial "lobbying" and all this would correct itself.

I asked if you knew which candidate has zero lobbyists, and which has 59.

Not sure what the disconnect is...?

Still Growing · #40 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 02:53 PM

I had said...If the market were truly free health care would be affordable. Think about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

Could you explain this more in detail?

Its about supply and demand. The cost of healthcare is artifically high due to an artifical control over the supply. Hospitals are businesses and there is a lot of regulation over creating new hospitals that might increase supply and drive down prices.

The cost of becoming a doctor is also artificially high and the insurance is artifically high due to the crazy settlements awarded.

In most countries doctors do not make as much money relative to cost of living as they do in the US. Certainly education costs the doctors more here in the US however we should examine why. Also if they weren't working half their career trying to pay back their student loans and didn't have such high insurance costs certainly the costs would be lower.

Every industry starts out with higher profits however with increases in competition companies are forced to become more lean and micro improvements over the system and pressure is put on laws that prohibit a business from running efficiently.

Due to the protectionist behavior and due to medical industry lobbyists the middle class tax payer is the one who suffers. So many industries have their hands in the pie.... Universities, the FDA, Insurance Companies, Lawywers, Hospitals, Medicine Companies and the Doctors themselves. Everyone is making a killing and its the hard working people who are paying for it. Each of these industries have lobbyists that keep costs high.

I don't think the only solution is to have the gov't run our health care. They couldn't even run the post office and it had to be turned over to private hands.

We all mention countries like Germany that have "Free Health Care" however my colleague in Germany pays the same per month for his insurance as I do. The difference is that I have a $2500 deductable!

The problem is not FREE HEALTH Care... NOTHING IS FREE. You either pay at the counter or you pay through taxes.
The problem is High Cost Health Care. $20 for a band aid, $30 for an aspirin... C'mon.

The solution for Health Care is not more regulation but deregulation. Sure we need basic laws of protection however its the gov'ts control and manipulation over the Health Care system that makes it cost prohibitive.

beautyscientist · #41 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff3

If we become a nation of subjects like the Brits a strong economy will be of no use anyway.

A strong economy is a handy thing to have whatever your constitution.

You do know that we have elections over here do you? I know we are technically subjects because we have a monarch, but we still have an elected government, the rule of law and freedom of speech. And less of our economy is owned by the government than in the US (at time of writing - it seems to be changing pretty quickly at the moment both sides of the Atlantic).

jeff3 · #42 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

You said,

I asked if you knew which candidate has zero lobbyists, and which has 59.

Not sure what the disconnect is...?

which one, I don't know?

which one has the most experience? in leadership, in life experience, in governmental affairs, in dealing with hostile aggressors.

Which one has only proved that he can make good speeches, has charisma, is possibly not even a US citizen?

Dan.Linehan · #43 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 06:23 PM

I just think it's funny that you say the main issue with politics is that politicians are controlled by lobbyists and big business -- then you proceed to defend the candidate with 59 lobbyists on staff.

You must not really believe lobbyists are an issue.

jeff3 · #44 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I just think it's funny that you say the main issue with politics is that politicians are controlled by lobbyists and big business -- then you proceed to defend the candidate with 59 lobbyists on staff.

You must not really believe lobbyists are an issue.

I mean what I said, Obama is clean because he has no record, no history, no experience, we also see he has authored no legislation, and thus passed no legislation and can deduce that he has not instigated any change because he has done nothing. Easy to keep your hands clean while everyone else is working and your just writing and practicing your next speech., and getting your teeth polished.

Dan.Linehan · #45 (**permalink**) 10-20-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff3

I mean what I said,

Apparently not. Obama has zero lobbyists in his campaign.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff3

Obama is clean because he has no record, no history, no experience, we also see he has authored no legislation, and thus passed no legislation and can deduce that he has not instigated any change because he has done nothing.

Factually inaccurate.

Media Matters: claim that Obama has not "authored ... a single major law or reform" without noting laws he has passed

List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate

Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL] - Sponsored Bills - GovTrack.us