Bitcoin Forum

A bit of a startling moment happened near the end of Monday night's CNN debate when a hypothetical question was posed to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? "Are you saying society should just let him die?" Wolf Blitzer asked.

"Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out.

The level of fundamentalism has no become toxic folks...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/tea-party-debate-health-care_n_959354.html

Aye Caramba!

He doesn't necessarily deserve to die (nor does he necessarily deserve to live), but it's immoral to steal from others to pay for his care.

I don't know if it's "immoral" to steal from others to pay for the sick but it is without a doubt serfdom to steal from the public to build a $700 million embassy in Iraq with a 16,000 square foot ambassador's home that will cost TWO BILLION A YEAR to operate while this fictitious man lays in a hospital on medicare which means he will get substandard care so in essence he is already left to die.

FOLKS WAKE UP! The media is in on the game, the Republican Leadership is in on the Game, The Democrat Leadership is in on the Game (if there is even a true difference in who they are). They air crap comments like this to stir up the uninformed, the uneducated and frankly the morons out there as a distraction so you don't ask why we are spending a Billion dollars on an embassy in Iraq, why we are deploying troops to Djibouti, Yemen, Libya, Somali and probably more than 50 other nations around the world. They don't want you doing your own learning that Bank Of America is on the edge which if it fails will crash the EU and send the US into a certain depression so expect another bailout of bankers who took risk with your money, more so than playing Keno in Vegas.

Want to know why they try to discredit Ron Paul day after day, because he tells the truth unlike 99% of the rest of the politicians, from your local mayor on up.

steal from others? Are you serious?

I am very saddened by your response. We are human beings not animals, its not survival of the fittest and if you were in that situation you would be thinking differently.

If someone profits so greatly from our country, they start their own business and work there way up and become a millionaire or billionaire, they should not contribute something back to the country that helped make them who they are?

but it's ok for billion dollar a year corporations to destroy the earth, pay less taxes than some mother of 4 who works at walmart and get richer and richer off the backs of hard working lower / middle class Americans.

but if you get sick screw you right? go die right?

We are human beings, our country was founded by Christians. If we ever get to the point where we will refuse to show the love of Christ and refuse to take care of the disabled, and the old I will move.

The notion that you would rather let someone die than pay taxes to have health care for those who cant afford it is absolutely disgusting and revolting.

If you like socialized health care, why have it on a federal level instead of at the state level?

Cablepair: didn't Jesus say to give your OWN money to the poor? Fiscal conservatism is not incompatible with Christianity. And who is saying we should allow corporations to destroy the Earth? That's completely irrelevant and misrepresents your opposition.

Fuck jesus. I don't give shit about christ , god , or any other divine entity , but leaving a man die is just worst than bestial. Even animals empathies with the dieing but unfortunately a animal has no means to save it's pears. But then again this is coming from one of the most disgusting societies from the 21st century - AMERICAN SOCIETY. The same society that has deployed troops around the world , spends more money on military and aggression wars than any other country , and the same society that is responsible for the most deaths of the 21st century. So yeah let him die .. and use the money to search for Gaddafi and kill a few dozens more people along the way.  Americans are so pathetic that they feel this burning desire to save the Libyans from the "oppression" of Gaddafi or to find a rogue CIA agent turned terrorist and are willing to spend whatever sum it takes but they aren't willing to spend money on sick compatriots. Like I said- PATHETIC. What i actually don't understand is why would anyone pay taxes in such a scheme , unless the majority of Americans are just a bunch of disgusting THUGS.

http://www.emtala.com/history.htm

I think you'll find that charity sometimes covered emergency care but that ongoing or expensive treatment meant that you'd be sent home to die.

Thank you for clarifying viperjbm!  I was beginning to think I watched a different debate with all these posts distorting what Dr. Paul said.  It is so easy to see how a candidate's opinions can be twisted.

Correct.  It was the audience shouting and cheering that the person should die - Ron Paul strikes me as having a decency that puts their boorishness to shame.

So we love edge cases do we? Let's try this one on for size:

Let's suppose that you walk up to a bus stop. There is another man standing there. He's holding a rope. The rope is attached to something, but you don't know what it is. He asks you if you'd assist him in holding the rope while he ties his shoe laces. You oblige.

He hands you the rope and tells you that he'll get back to you in a sec. Unbeknownst to you, it's a ruse. However, before he leaves, he reveals to you that the rope you're holding is attaced to a guillotine, there's a man locked in, and the blade is very heavy. Don't let go, he says. He then departs leaving you by yourself. There is no one and nothing else around for miles. The bus stop is not a bus stop, but a mirage. It's just you, the rope, and the man headlocked in the guillotine.

You only have so much strength and stamina. Your only option is to hold the rope or let go. Do you let go of the rope, or hold on as long as you can? If you aren't under any obligation to hold the rope (you've been deceived) can you let go? If you let go, are you legally responsible for the man's death?

Sure you can let go but then your just a lazy stupid fuck , and no you ain't legally responsible for the mans death. Whoever got him in that situation is. If someone pushes someone on top of you from a building you can't blame the one that crushed you because he didn't fly the pusher is responsible for both deaths. But if there are some people around you that aren't lazy stupid fucks than they should try to save you.

NOT legally responsible but morally responsible.

you require a reality check on how much malpractice lawsuits cost.

in 2002, approximately 24 billion dollars were paid out as a result of malpractice suits.

Total primate healthcare spending in 2002 was approximately 1,400 billion dollars.

So malpractice suits made up 1.7% of healthcare costs.

Even if you completely eliminated malpractice suits for any reason, you would only save that much.

source: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

But is it not true that legal matters are derived from morality (i.e. mores)? To me there appears to be very little difference.

Flip Pro let me ask you the other side of that question:

Do you think government burocrats should be in the business of deciding who is worth of getting treatment and deciding who is not worth being saved?

If someone needs government money for treatment, the government must decide if the treatment is worth doing.  If a bureaucrat is most likely the a person on the board you appoint to do that, then yes.  Otherwise you are committing yourself to a US style system where money is wasted hand over fist.

That is a really easy question to answer. You hold the rope as long as you can if it's heavy. If it's light, you follow the rope to its end to see if you can address the situation or determine the truth of it.

Very simple.

So basically yes, ignoring your stupid emotional cheap-shots, what you are propossing is that someone takes the money of your labour and decides if your mother deserves to receive treatment or she should be left to die. Quite amazing someone can take such an unhuman position.

ok, we'll look at the whole ice cube rather than the tip of it.

that $24 billion includes both insurance premiums and payouts.

Furthermore, Texas already implemented tort reform as you suggest with stringent caps on lawsuit payouts, back in 2003.

as a result, malpractice lawsuits have plummeted by about 80%.

but despite that, healthcare costs in Texas continue to grow at well above the national average.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gov-rick-perrys-texas-medical-malpractice-law-what-it-does-doesnt-and-might-do/2011/08/02/gIQAlafZJJ_blog.html

That would appear to support the conclusion that malpractice lawsuits are not a major factor in the cost of healthcare.

Your mother is free to use private medicine.  But if she wants the government to pay, then the government has a duty to make sure that the money is spent on effective treatment.  I can't see the case for public funding of quackery when its already hard to finance treatments that are known to be effective.

Forgive me if that seems inhuman or a cheap shot to you.  To me it seems blatantly obvious.

Man is the animal.


Yes, the "profiteer" benefits in a purely parasitic relationship and should recompense his tribe for not having contributed anything in a free exchange...


I think this is a fine example of hyperbole.


YOU do not have to refuse to take care of the disabled and elderly. I know I won't. But obligating others to is not the way to go about doing so.

Also, fuck Christianity. We're talking about HELPING people, here.


GOD IT SURE WOULD BE COOL IF AMERICAN TAXES WENT TO HEALTH CARE INSTEAD OF WAR, WAR, AND WAR.

As if "pay[ing] taxes to have health care" was an option on the table.

i think the problem really lies in how stupid the actual healthcare system is. it literally costs a fortune if you don't have insurance, i think we need to fix that instead of burning billions.

I rather have a publicly elected "burocrat" who doesn't care about profits, and only cares about the quality of my care, than have an insurance broker who doesn't give a damn about my health, and is only focused on making money off me.

Life is protected in the constitution that Republicans and Tea Party followers like to spout about at rally's. If it's protected in the constitution, then by no means should anyone be living without healthcare since not having healthcare is in essence denying yourself life, it is literally suicidal behavior.  We all need healthcare to visit the medical professionals who extend our lives well beyond the years that people were living before healthcare even existed.

I think every single person deserves the right to free, high quality healthcare. How do we pay for it? Easy, raise Warren Buffets taxes, it's disgusting that someone like him pays 17% while people who have absolutely no health insurance somehow deserve to suffer because they are MUCH less fortunate financially. Lets get down to the nitty gritty here, which is something conservatives seem to hate to do. One party wants to take the country in a direction where every single human being in this country gets high grade health care, and the other party want's a primitive "every man for himself" mentality to surface. This kind of thinking is destructive, and absolutely counter productive to the progression of the Human race.

Although the Tea Party is closer aligned to the Republican Party than the Democrat Party I think it is unfair and a mistake to reference the Tea Party and the Republican Party as the same or even similar. The Republican Party, and I mean the Party itself not republican voters, has lost it's way and forgotten we have a Constitution. Republican first and Tea Party second the so called leader of the Tea Party Caucus, Bachmann, has signed onto The Patriot Act which IMHO you cannot agree with and respect the fundamentals of The Constitution. With little deviation the Republican Party as a whole supports Life yet at the same time supports such actions as the U.N. Bombing of Libya, a sovereign nation that posed no security risk to the U.S.

I think it's funny that you tell me not to lump the Tea Party and Republicans together, when the Tea Party just finished hosting a debate for all the Republican Presidential candidates.

So yes, you would preffer the opinion of a burocrat to decide if your mother is "worthy" of receiving treatment or should be left to die. Honestly, I just can not understand it.

You are intelligent enough to not believe your justification. Burocrats are not interested in getting more money? Burocrats are interested in you? You know government burocrats and politicians are humans, just like business man, and most of them, as far as their job goes, care about money and not you.

When you advocate government control you are advocating giving monopollistic power to some people that care about getting more money and dont care about you (except for discovering the best way to lie to you to get your vote).


1. Advocating against government healthcare is not advocating against healthcare, its actually advocating against bad healthcare.
2. If you go the constitutional way you are going to loose and you know it. The constitution of the USA does not allow for government healthcare.


Government healthcare is not free and its not high quality. You know how I know? Because I suffer it. Let me give you an example: My grandma had cataracts and she was starting loosing her vision. She lived alone. The government said there was a long queu for that operation and she had to wait 6 months. 6 months without barely seeing. Her daughters got together and payed for her a private operation. And all of them had been paying government healthcare all their lives. Now my grandma, who has payed government healthcare, is paying as well a private insurer. Thats the reality of what you are asking. You are asking for hospitals collapsing, not metaphorically, our authorities asks us not to go to the hospiral unless its live or dead some weekends each year because the hospitals basically can not deal with people getting ill (yes this is the Europe you are told is great) and long waiting lists for basic operations. Thats what you call human progress and the reality behind the promises you are hearing.

Its not random that most europeans countries, like Germany or some nordic countries, have gone away from government run healthcare and now run in some sort of mandatory private insurance system.

I think the fact you link the Tea Party with that debate shows exactly what I mean. The Tea Party, the real people on the ground who believe in the ideas of the Tea Party, had nothing to do with that debate. That debate was put on by GOP loyalist which are as much of the Republican Party as the Republican Party itself.

I think the bigger concern is when they booed Ron Paul when he was talking about slashing military spending. If people are so stupid that they cannot see through the BS that the USA needs military bases in 100+ countries and that suggesting a draw down means you are in bed with Osama then it's gonna be another 4 years of Corporatist policies on all fronts.

I don't have the time to reply to posts like this. All I can say is it's impossible to argue with you, because you believe that government fundamentally flawed. I don't believe this, I choose to believe that there are good people out there who run for office with the intention of helping others.

Yes I would rather have a congress man that me and my peers VOTED in to legislate healthcare, than have some HC C.E.O who I have NO power or influence over besides MONEY. Legisliating my healthcare.

The real answer isn't so much that you can or can't get good healthcare from government. I'm sure there are many people who have received excellent care, and others who have not.

The real issue is the one that continues to get muddled by the underlying facts. This fact is the method by which government acquires the resources or monies to fund such healthcare. If you look closely enough you'll very soon realize that for government to provide healthcare, they have to seize the assets and monies of others.

For lack of a better word, we call this plunder. It isn't any different than me going to my neighbor and stealing from him to provide for the healthcare of my loved ones. It is no more legal for me to do it than for anybody else to do it. And all of you who say that it merely takes a majority vote, or for that matter, a unanimous vote (excluding the one being plundered) does not make it any more right.

Why should theft have exceptions? Last I checked, just about everybody I talk to, excepting a few criminals wasting away their time behind bars, finds theft unacceptable. Your ivory towers, your well dressed politicians, your auspicious lawyers and your champions of higher society can't get past the ugly fact that theft is the underlying operating function of government-controlled healthcare.

I know there will be some in this forum who will shoot me down. They've done it in the past and they're not going to stop now. At the very least, please address the theft issue. If you have a way around that, then I'm all ears.

You vote, so what? Do you really think voting changes anything? Do you really think voting makes politicians accountable? Information is limited and local. People can not have infinite information and vote accordingly. Voting is just a popularity contest.

Fred, good news!  We have a better word.  Its "tax."  And unlike your scheme to rob your poor neighbour, its perfectly legal :)

I bet that makes you day.  A new word and a crime avoided :)

I could take the property of my neighbor and call it love too. It doesn't change the outcome. I'm not going to 'love' my neighbor then, I guess. All I have to do then is call love 'theft', as they would then be equivalent at that point.

Of course, you're going to tell me some poppycock that taxes are voluntary somehow right? Oh, and that I don't have to pay them, except that there are some pretty serious consequences for not doing so.

I can see where this argument is headed.

Tax is NOT voluntary.  In fact if a payment is voluntary, it falls outside the definition of tax.

So let me get this straight. Plunder = Theft = Tax.

Glad we got that out of the way. Wow that's giving me the chills. [sarcasm] I feel so much better now. Thanks [/sarcasm]

Um no.  Get a dictionary.  Tax is legal - the other 2 are not. 

So we just have to legalize theft and then you will be allright with it?

These following concepts are more or less equivalent or at least progress from one to the next.

Collective coercion = fear of physical threats = involuntary force = theft = expropriation = plunder = tax = violation of contract = violence = lack of liberty = injustice.

That about covers it. I didn't miss anything did I?

Then it won't be theft.  Theft by definition is illegal.  

The problem you and Fred have is that you both equate solitary individuals with states.  An individual is one person in a society and if he wants something, he has to persuade the society its a good idea.  A State is the embodiment of a society; all your rights and freedoms are provided by the state.  Therefore its bad logic to try to redefine "tax" to be illegal and "theft" to be legal.  Its the law of the State that provides the meaning of both words.

I have a neighbor girl who has 50 pieces of gold. I want it. However, I don't want to steal it. I go to my local politician (a legally elected representative) and tell him I want the girl's gold. He passes a law permitting me to abscond with it. It is no longer theft. I take the 50 pieces.

Amazing how my conscience is assuaged. Very interesting concept.

P.S. I also have an idea for an assassination... You wouldn't mind helping me out with that would you?

So far you have described taxation and capital punishment. You must be a fan of Ben Franklin who said that death and taxes are unavoidable.

I suppose there is also the capital punishment debate.  In the UK, the vast majority of people support the death penalty but parliament won't enact it.  Having laws we disagree with is a pain.

I guess I did miss a few steps after all.

Societal Voting => State => State Definitions => collective coercion => Gang => fear of physical threats = involuntary force = theft = expropriation = plunder = tax = violation of contract = violence = lack of liberty = injustice.

Sorry, the last version was a bit off-the-cuff. This ought to be more or less complete.

The assassination comment was a tongue-in-cheek joke and had nothing to do with capital punishment. Answer the 50 pieces of gold problem.

Was there a problem?  You described a rubbish way to collect tax.  I can't see it working if applied to large groups of people.

Yes, but you described it perfectly. It's rubbish. My hypothetical version just makes it more out in the open, where yours conceals it in legalese and societal norms.

Taxing is a concealed means of stealthily plundering from those who don't know you personally, and who are separated by many persons; and when questioned about the acts they commit, summarily state that they are legally empowered by their "authorized agents" whose so-called representatives of the people were voted into office in some "official" manner to create legislation purporting to protect the best interests of the majority.

All in all, it's merely a convenient way to separate the thief from the theft.

Again, you are confusing yourself.  The administration of a taxation system may be rubbish but its is still a taxation system.  Tax is taking legally; theft is taking illegally. 

I think what you are trying to say is that you don't like the idea of law and therefore all actions that are "legal" under the present system are outside the law for you.  Its a valid viewpoint but you can't use words like "theft" or "property" if you don't like the idea of law.  They are legal creations.

The concepts of property and theft existed long before the concepts of legality and law.

I've never heard of a human society that didn't have laws.  Can you tell me specifically where and when such a society existed?

Homo Sapien humans have been around for a lot longer than there have been nation states. Earlier in human history, people would travel, looking for food and protecting themselves from the elements etc. It was agriculture that apparently allowed humans to begin to settle easier and from this societies grew.

THis is what Ron Paul said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6n51UEt1F4&t=4m40s

Nomadic tribal societies have laws.  Historically, some, for example, the Australian tribes, had no concept of personal property.  But all have codes of behaviour that involve duties to the group and rights within the group.

There are several examples of pre-human hominid skeletons showing serious injuries/disease. These "people" would have not been able to take care of themselves. Someone chewed their food, set their bones, cared for them. Taking care of each other goes way back.

I'm not confused. My logic is sound. I know exactly what the definitions of property and theft are. I've got a treatise on law that I spent much time perfecting. It has very few flaws, if any. For the most part, property can only exist if one man may possess, own, or control an object independent and exclusive of another person.

The second you violate that principle, and despite your reasoning (collectivism, majority rule, taxation, norms, societal coercion), the concept of property goes away. It dissolves into some version of "might makes right" or the "strongest survive". If you believe in such things, then there is very little need for laws.

Laws are created out of the need to protect the individual life, liberty and property of man. If you wish to play the game of prey and predator, then we can argue the finer points of superior species or top-of-the-food-chain animal behaviour characteristics.

EDIT: A law ceases to be a law when it conflicts with itself and its own principle.

I disagree with that point. Human beings already have universal rights, and most states protect them. But no state can grant or take away your rights; only respect or abuse them.

That being said I still agree with your central thesis. Laws are just societal norms that have put down on paper. I wouldn't go so far as to argue for/against strong property rights either, although some people on this forum might.


The girl with 50 gp is a bad example because that would essentially be a selective head tax, which are generally frowned upon by society at large. Taxing some gold while she engages in state-protected commerce is a whole different story; she never agreed to the tax, but her purchases are partially enabled by the people around her and she was aware of local taxes when she decided to spend her gold there. So I'd consider the arbitrary seizure of her gold to be far worse than most real-life taxes.

You are funny.  You have your little theory based on excluding reality and within the reality free bubble your "logic is sound."

In reality, property is a legal concept.  It comes from the society that you are in.  It doesn't exist in a vacuum.  What is the point is talking about some other unreal version of property that only exists in your head?

I can give 50 gp to my neighbor right now. You taxing me didn't enable me to do so. That's a non sequitur. If I want to acquire personal security or voluntarily pay into a system that protects my rights, I don't have a problem with that.

Taxes are not voluntary. And even if I were aware that taxes in my locale existed, still doesn't justify its application. I've had robbers in my neighborhood too, but that doesn't justify theft does it?

You are still confused between individuals and the State.  A robber acts in the knowledge that he is breaking the law and going against the society he is preying upon.  A democratic state acts on behalf of its citizens, it acts within the law and tax is an agreed part of the system.

And you're a cutie. Cooool duuude, whatever!!

Your logic is more fallible than mine. I accept the fact that property and liberty are concepts invented by humans to bring order and civility to their actions. It's one of the reasons I believe the way I do. I believe in basic principles of law, not the arbitrariness of their meaning and application by society as a whole.

By being arbitrary you create the possibility where the division in classes of individuals, special privilege, monopoly and a whole host of manipulatory behaviour springs forth from "special circumstances". The second your law violates its original purpose and intent, it no longer is law but the violation of law.

The purpose and mission of law is to prevent injustice, not cause it.

If you accept "the fact that property and liberty are concepts invented by humans to bring order and civility to their actions", than you must accept that society has to defend the property and liberty of its citizens.  Even if you limit the defence to mental homes for the violently mentally ill and jails for violent robbers.  That defence must be paid for - its called tax.

I'm glad you've compromised with reality at last.

The "STATE" is a group of individuals elected by voters, a coup de'tat, or a succession of "royal blood". It's likely that they may not even represent a majority as this is rare, even today. At best, a democratic state should only legally act on behalf of only those voters who expressly gave their consent.

If I haven't contracted for services, or at the very least voted for you and your "highwaymen", you don't represent me (this is unequivocal as my life is mine and not state owned). You may have superior forces and may apply those betimes, but superior force does not a legal state make.

Legal does not equal most powerful. I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but it isn't much of a stretch.

Again, as I've said in the past, if "might makes right" then why not just dispense with the laws? Who are you trying to kid anyway? That's the entire sum total of your argument.

That's all well and good. Let's say it works like that. And so the state only taxes those individuals consenting to the tax, and only provides services to those being taxed.

Fine.

What happens when you leave your property and drive on the road paid for by the taxpayers?

A tax may be one way to defend against violent individuals whether they be mentally ill or robbers. It however isn't the only way, and it certainly isn't the way I would suggest. I'm arguing that there is a better more just and apropos way of handling such issues.

I've got a very short list of compromises I'd remotely consider. Taxing isn't one of them.

If the state only acts on behalf of those who voted for the last government, on what authority does it lock up the violently mentally ill?  Does a fireman check if you voted correctly before attending to a fire in your area?  What if you changed your mind and now want the fireman to save your family - can you announce you renounce your vote?

But you do agree that mental institutions and jails are needed.  Unless you want to have the mentally ill "contract" to pay for their care and the victims of crime forced to pay again for the jail, you need tax. 

That would be trespass if I don't have permission. If I must pay a toll or some other fee for the use of some property that isn't mine, then I must decide if it is in my best interests to do so. It's not so unlike me wanting access to your house and you deny me unless I provide something in exchange.

In the context you use the word 'taxpayer', I could substitute the word shareholder, affiliate, member or associate.

The mentally ill aren't violent are they? If they are, then there are a number of options available to the victims. Again, taxing isn't necessary here. You could join an association of jail service providers, and pay membership fees, etc.

I know it sounds unusual, perhaps even a bit unorthodox, but you never know, it might just work. Just because there isn't anybody trying it, doesn't mean it won't.

In the event you just give 50 gp to your neighbor, that's just a gift, and we're in agreement. I can't think of an ethical justification for gift taxes.

In the event you wish to engage in a deal, you have to pay a transaction cost:
A) pay in the form of % chance you will be cheated/robbed
B) pay a third party to meditate in the event of a dispute/fight
If you guys can actually build a society where people can easily make this choice for everyday business, I'm in. I'm willing to help achieve it with peaceful means like cryptocurrency. Heck, I'd even be willing to try private courts if someone proposed it where I live. But until I see proof that it actually works, making people pay for the courts necessitated by their commerce seems legit.

What ?  You and your friends make a private club, round up people who you deem a danger to themselves or society and lock them up for life at your own expense?

Are you serious?

No. Legal means allowed to be done more exactly tolerated. Moral from exactly the term you pointed out : Mores, in sociology, are any given society's particular norms, virtues, or values. but they are not enforced and it would be stupid for many to be put in to laws.

And the main difference is HOW they work. LAW works by making you risk a very physical action being taken against you (imprisonment , fine , )  , Morality on the other hand works extremely different it only works inside your mind (you Conscience) and you can accept or not the mores that are thrown your way by society.

It's immoral to have extramarital sex. But it would be stupid to be illegal. (I don't value this, it's mine and my partner's business only)
It's immoral not to help someone in need . But it would be stupid to have a law demanding you do so.
it's immoral to prostitute yourself . And yes many countries have stupid laws that enforce this . IMO all trades are full of prostitutes , not sexual , but prostitutes , so the law should be abandoned. (I don't value this)
It's immoral to be selfish ....
It's immoral to let someone die. But you can't have a law demanding that someone should save someone.
It's immoral to kill yourself . But a law demanding that you don't would be useless. (also don't value)
It's immoral to harm yourself . And yes many countries have laws against drugs , but no laws against cutting yourself for example, wonder why. (not valuable.)

Morality is used by those in power to pass stupid laws that never should exist.
  

You make it sound as if that doesn't already happen now. I've got a pair of glasses you could look thru, but they're not rose colored.

...It's immoral to rape another person.
...It's immoral to enslave another person.
...It's immoral to murder another person.
...It's immoral to steal from another person.

It's still a moral question regardless of how you phrase it. The only real issue is what is both illegal and immoral. Which is to say, there can be an infinite number of immoral or moral things that can be done. The ones that we can make laws for are much more limited in nature. That's all I was trying to convey. Every question of 'ought' is more or less a moral, or at the very least, a preferential one. There are a lot of things going on in the world around us, the question is which of them ought we to concern ourselves with in relation to our fellow man?

Which ought we to make laws for, and which should we ought not to make laws for?

Great use of the word we. If we decide that we're going to make laws, and enforce them, then we have to pay to have those laws written and enforced.

As consistently as possible, otherwise they don't qualify as laws or enforcement. Consistency means everyone. And that means everyone pays.

Taxes.

You see bro if violence, forcing against one's will is illegal then all those examples are covered regardless of the morality/amorality .

Morality should have no role in law making.

I don't see how 'I', 'we', 'me', or 'you' changes anything with regards to lawfulness. I've written a few laws of my own, but I certainly don't expect to be paid. If on the other hand you'd like to contribute, I've got a bitcoin address you can send me donations to.

Consistency is important no doubt. Taxes are unnecessary in my mind.

legal:
   1. Of, relating to, or concerned with law.
   2. One that is in accord with certain rules or laws.

law:
   1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
   2. (Law) a rule or set of rules, enforceable by the courts, regulating the government of a state, the relationship between the organs of government and the subjects of the state, and the relationship or conduct of subjects towards each other.
   
conduct:
   1. The way a person acts, especially from the standpoint of morality and ethics.
   
morality:
   1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
   2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
   3. Virtuous conduct.
   4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
   
See how I got from legal to moral? You can't say morality has no role in law making when that is exactly the reason laws exist. Laws concern themselves with morality. Laws and morals are 'is-ought' issues.

Dumb example:

The force due to gravity keeps me from leaving earths orbit...
                  vs.
I hate the force due to gravity so we should outlaw it...

The first statement 'is', the second statement is 'ought'. Different animals altogether.

Is this really your proposal Fred?

Abolish all prisons and stop treating "mentally ill" people like anything less than superheroes.

"Necessary"? rofl

I'm not sure what you mean by private "club". And you make "round up" sound like a cattle drive. I certainly don't do things for free either, unless I'm so inclined.

Talking about gravity: money has keplerian caracteristics. More money goes where there is a mass of money.
Banks create money through lending: they prefer to lend to wealthy, solvable individuals and corporations.
Taxes are just one measure to maintain the balance by redistribution.

Talking about medical insurance: health care is not about making money.
To be a medical doctor or a nurse is a to have a job that makes sense.
Everyone in need should have access to free medical care.

A trader may make a ton of money but he or she is wasting is time on this planet.
Derivates are toxic instruments that should be outlawed because incompatible with sustainabable development.
By the same token, shares in any corporation should have a minimum holding period of one quarter.
Etc...

If taxes are used to redistribute wealth, then I'm having nothing of it. What you're suggesting is that when certain individuals (or groups thereof) of society acquire wealth of "greater value" than what "value" you think you have, you try to "even the score" by stealing from them and giving it to those who have less. There sure are a lot of people in this forum who have a "robbin(g)hood" complex.

So stealing is legally acceptable? That's not even considering the fact that banks, if they're permitted to issue "legal tender" laws, are also stealing from the mostly unsuspecting public when their currency gets debased by willy-nilly fiat inflated paper.


Why wouldn't health care be about making money? Why couldn't it be charity-run too? You have a job only because somebody else values your skills and are willing to give you something in exchange for it. I suppose it would be nice to have free medical care, but you shouldn't force me to give it to you. I like free as much as the next person, but if it's not, we shouldn't be stealing to get it.


Walmart could be defined as a trader. It buys products from suppliers, ships them to a store where they inventory and shelve them, and then they trade them for a profit, hence trader. You should be more specific.

There is nothing wrong with derivatives specifically. The only 'derivative' I don't like are fiat currencies. If you think about it, most fiat currencies are derivatives of some sort, so in a way it depends on who wants to play what game and based on what rules. Are the participants in said market willing, able, and knowledgeable? If you can't make heads or tails of a contract, is it a contract?

Anybody should be able to hold a share of ownership in a company for as long as s/he wishes. Again, it all depends on the specific contract covenants.

So in your dream society, mentally ill people will be incarcerated for life and charged for it.  You think that someone who is so ill that they are a danger to themselves or society is going to be able to pay for 24/7 medical care.

That's delusional.  Really even for a person who doesn't like to deal with the real world such as yourself, that is daft.

Are we to assume that these mentally ill people are violent and incapable of survival? Are we also to assume that these menally ill people don't have parents, friends, or other caring individuals (charitable organizations) who would want to take care of them? A similar argument could be made about children.

That's delusional and daft too. I've seen the real world, and much of what I see doesn't impress me when it comes to government intervention programs.

Try to think outside the box, and stop insisting you need society to mollycoddle you so much.

You think care of the mentally ill is mollycoddling! Are you totally cut off from the real world?  Right now over half of all who are imprisoned in the US for violence are mentally ill.  You can't possibly expect poor families to cope with the 24/7 care of violent ill people.  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/opinion/15harcourt.html 

Please stop trying to avoid the reality that there are people who are so dangerous they need to be locked up.  And offer a semi-intelligent way for their 24/7 care to be paid for.

didn't you hear him?  charities will take care of it.  obviously, Good Libertarian People will joyfully donate much of their income to Worthy Charitable Organizations providing all necessary services to those who can't pay for them themselves.

I was speaking about the mollycoddling of you and your ideology specifically. Assisting the inferm is not mollycoddling. I do believe that it is possible to take care of the ill without plundering your neighbor to do it. You have no faith in humanity at all it seems.

You misread the article. It said that many of the inmates were reporting mental illness problems. That does not necessarily imply that was the reason they were imprisoned in the first place. Unless what you're going to say next is, they are mentally ill because they commit violent crime. I sure hope not.

You are avoiding answering the question. 

There are people who need to be incarcerated and cared for 24/7 because they are a danger to themselves and to society.  This is expensive.  You have said that you personally would not contribute to this cost.  If we do not have taxation, how will their care be paid for?

How about you try and use your imagination and assume that taxes aren't available to you. Now come up with a solution. It isn't that hard to do. If you can't do that, you really are putting blinders on, or you're more ignorant than you sound. Should I have to do your homework for you?

You remind me of some people I work with. They feign ignorance, do nothing but ask questions all day long, and then defer to others when they want to get something done. If they can't do that, they pretend to do something, intentionally fail at it, and then say it wasn't possible because they couldn't do it -as if that conclusion had any veracity whatsoever.

Don't be so naive to think that if a solution can't be found by you, it can only be found at the end of a bayonet.

So you say there is a problem with taxes, then you want me to come up with something better?  There is no problem with taxes - tax is the correct way to pay for the incarceration of people who need to be incarcerated.  If you have an issue with that, then you come up with something better.  If you can't, stop bleating that society is "plundering" its citizens when it raises taxes to pay for the services they voted for.

I have no problem if the citizens in "your" society voted for a tax. Go right ahead and "plunder" each other. I did not vote for that so, therefore and thusly, I'm not in accord with your methods and means. Do not come after me to collect, for I did not give you my explicit consent to do so. I will not use your services, so I should not be expected to pay for them. Thanks.

Um, you are using the service.  The incarceration of violent mentally ill protects you just as much as it protects any citizen.  

The important thing here is that you agree the service is needed.  You just don't want to pay for the protection you receive.  Unless you have something more intelligent that "I want it for free and I want it now" I think your attempt to offer an idea for organising a society has just fallen apart.

I'd really appreciate it that you not put words in my mouth. I'm also not interested in organizing a society. If a society comes about by and thru its individuality, then great. I'm not interested in social engineering. I'll leave that up to the Lenin's and Hitler's and Stalin's to figure out.

I do agree with you that the service is needed, just not that I need to steal to get it. I'd like to avoid that, as it has a really bad stigma associated with it, and tends to leave a bad taste in my mouth... you know, a lot like the words you were trying to shove in there.

If you agree with the need for the service, then you agree it must be paid for.  The service is not for 1 person or for 1 group of people - its for everyone in society.  So everyone in society has to pay for it.  The mechanism for collecting that payment is called tax.  Stop please calling it "plunder" and "stealing" and "theft" - tax is the best way to provide the service. 

I need food or I will eventually starve...
I need air or I will eventually suffocate...
I need water or I will eventually dehydrate...
I need clothes in cold weather or I will eventually die of hyperthermia...
therefore...wait for it...

I must tax to get those things I need.

Yes? Lovely logic. Non sequitur. Straw Man argument. Moving on.

You are capable of better logic so please stop being silly.  You need society to provide 24/7 care for the violently mentally ill.  You can do the rest yourself.  Since you are using the service society provides, you must pay for it through taxation.

If you have a better alternative, feel free to offer it.  So far all you say is "Yes I need the service." and "No I won't pay for it."

+1 I can't stand people who benefit so greatly from our current system, seeking to destroy it for everyone else. Disgusting selfishness is what I call it.

Can you explain in concrete terms how it is that Bastiat here is "benefiting so greatly from our current system"? Without assuming things about him or her as an individual.

I think people who make statements like yours are generalizing from their own case more than they realize.

Fred agrees that the incarceration of violent mentally ill is needed to protect people from violence.  Fred agrees that he benefits as much as anyone else does from that protection. The specific point he disagrees with is whether or not he should have to pay for that protection.  

If you don't mind, go read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. The text is available online and it's only about 50 pages. Let me know what you think.

Why bother?  The issue is that you want to consume public services but you don't want to pay for them.  Reading books by obscure 19th century guys won't really do in lieu of payment.

Because even when technology changes, human nature does not. Obscure, huh? Yeah, the 'old' truth can't be anything like the 'new' truth now can it? As if murder, theft and enslavement are out of vogue these days.

If you want I'll even provide a link for you, if you're still inclined.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G001

I've linked and see that you reproduce his logic errors.

Still waiting to see why you think you are entitled to the protection of the state but that you feel that you should not have to pay for it.

While I'm sure there are very few documents in recorded history that reproduce logic in perfection, I'm sure your philosophies are much worse, have more holes and less logic than his. I prefer to take a less dangerous, more logical and less government route.

In answer to your entitlement question regarding the protection of the state. I never asked for the protection of the state. I don't want the protection of the state. If I were to accept their assistance, I would probably be "on the hook" for it. I'm not. I don't have a problem with finding my own security. The state doesn't want to give me a choice, so they tax me. It's forced "entitlement" - not nice.

Sorry you can't get away with that sophistry.  You say that the protection is needed but that you should not have to pay because you don't "want" it.  If its needed, "want" doesn't arise.

See my example of "needs" earlier in this thread. If you like, I can substitute 'need' with 'want' if you like. No prob.

See my rebuttal.  You confused things that you can do yourself with things that you need society to do for you. You need society to provide 24/7 care for the violently mentally ill.  Since you are using the service society provides, you must pay for it through taxation.

Non sequitur and Straw Man. What actions can be done collectively can also be individually. Forceful organizing can also be done by freely organizing.

Please withdraw and rescind your false statements.

Fred, you have acknowledged that the service is needed.  You are using the service - the protection that every member of society needs is provided to you.  It has to be paid for and taxation is the correct way to do it.  The only false statement is your strange idea that you can enjoy the protection and opt out of paying for it.

Taxation is one way to provide for services, saying it is correct is an is-ought fallacy. If you believe that unprovoked aggressive force is illegitimate, then taxation is theft. I don't enjoy the "protection" society provides me, because it is forced upon me at the point of a gun. I very much find that to be very much unenjoyable. By using force, you provide few other choices. How unfortunate.

Weirdo. Please cite all times that you experienced unenjoyable moments where a gun was pointed at you so that you could benefit from said services.

It was a metaphorical "point of a gun". Metaphor withdrawn. Statement stands.

The statement does not stand, since "point of a gun" was the statement.

Replace "point of a gun" with unprovoked and un-consented-to aggressive force. Statement stands.

Whether you enjoy it or not is not really the issue.  You need safety; I need it; children need it.  Its fortunate we are able to organise ourselves in a way that provides that safety.  If you do come up with a better system, please feel free to let us know.  Meanwhile, whether you enjoy it or not, this is the real world and its the best we can do.  The system works well :) And you have no alternative system. 

I hope you are jesting. If you do not pay your taxes you are surely to be forced into imprisonment, that is the point of the gun. Those taxes pay for many services which I may or may not make use of nor perform any level of security service to the general public. Explain to me how the Dept. Of Education provides for "security" of the public? Explain to me how providing millions to nations around the world, many of which are already wealthy, provides me with security or benefit? Explain to me why being forced to pay a tax on my airfare so some minor airport in the middle of nowhere is able to run air service which at times files when there is no demand provides me with security or benefit?

That is a very disturbing thought, that the system we have is the best we can do and worse still that you somehow think the system works.

The die hards here trying to justify a crowd cheering for death is part of the reason why much of the mainstream society thinks Bitcoiners are fucking NUTS. I refuse to fall into that category.

Here in the UK, we live in a rich society where our only serious problems are terrorism and how to handle obesity.  Things are good.  I don't know where you live but can it really be that bad that you think releasing violent mental patients won't make it worse?

You are joking right? UK unemployment is nearly as high as in the US and if properly reported it's in double digits. Unemployed youth is extremely high at around 20%, Wales even higher. The inflation rate is at 4.5% or higher and it looks like your trying your best to start another war over the Falklands.

Speaking of youth unemployment this is something the media and our politicians have ignored completely. The loss of lifelong earnings by our youth is something no country can ever recover from.

Even though our unemployed live more comfortably than the rich did 50 years ago, I absolutely agree that its terrible that a section of our society is being locked out of the middle class lifestyle.

But that isn't the issue here.  The issue here is paying for the care of the violently mentally ill.  We are all, Fred included, agreed that they do need 24/7 care and that everyone in society benefits from the protection that their being incarcerated/treated provides.  I think this is a valid activity for government and its ethically OK to pay for it with taxes - Fred thinks that he should not have to pay for it at all.

There are a few things Gov't has done well over the past 100 years. One of those is the improvement of long term care for the mentally ill  and to a degree those with mental handicaps. I can justify spending of tax dollars for the care of those that CAN'T take care of themselves not those that WON'T. Large scale public works as we had in the WPA helped build this country and were justified at the time, such tactics now are not and would be abused by the "system", that was proven with Obama's first round of Building America spending and Solyndra.

As long as tax dollars are spent to create giant speaking point boards for Congress for no reason other than to prove to their voters they are working hard, Air Force One (747) trips of 200 miles, $15 Billion on new aircraft carriers, billions of dollars in jet fighters that sit on the ground because the air exchange system is poisoning pilots, $400 million dollar bridges to serve 50 people and so on and so on then I retain the right to complain about taxes every day.

100% agree JBDive.