GOP Tea Party Debate: Audience Cheers, Says Society Should Let Uninsured Die

[FirstAscent]

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.

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?

[1714035175]

1714035175

[1714035175]

1714035175

[1714035175]

1714035175

[FredericBastiat]

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.

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.

[Hawker]

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.

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.

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?

[Hawker]

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.

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 appropo way of handling such issues.

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

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. 

[FredericBastiat]

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?

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.

[FredericBastiat]

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. 

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.

[Explodicle]

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.

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?

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.

[Hawker]

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. 

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.

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?

[deuxmill]

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.

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

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.
  

[FredericBastiat]

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?

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.

[FredericBastiat]

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.

...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?

[FirstAscent]

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.

[deuxmill]

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.

...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?

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.

[FredericBastiat]

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.

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.

[FredericBastiat]

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.

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.

[Hawker]

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. 

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.

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?

Is this really your proposal Fred?

[cryptobard]

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

"Necessary"? rofl

[FredericBastiat]

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?

Is this really your proposal Fred?

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.

[Boussac]

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.

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...

[FredericBastiat]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.