EdgePenguin wrote:The guy who is refusing to pony up cash has his property protected by men with guns. The idea that taxation is violence, but that somehow the control of property is not, is absolutely ridiculous.
So to you theres no distinction between theft and self defense?
You have decided that one is self defence and the other theft. Justify that.
So we're going to solve a problem caused by a bottom down, unresponsive approach to healthcare with... a bottom down, unresponsive tax system. What about those people who can eat "sin tax" food without adverse health effects? What about the fact that the government's idea of a balanced diet actually causes diabetes (too many carbohydrates)?
Got any evidence for that?
I know. It's government favouritism towards large companies that causes that imbalance.
Any evidence for that either?
No, yours is the arbitrary distinction. Theft is wrong - except when done on a large scale by majority vote. I'm absolutely saying freedom x is a right, and "freedom" y isn't, because the latter isn't a freedom. Its an obligation we put on the whole of society to benefit a certain group.
Theft is defined by property, and property is a creation of governments (enforced with tax money). To say that taxation is inherently theft is therefore self-evidently ridiculous.
Its an obvious good thing to a utilitarian. It's an obvious crime if we're speaking from natural rights.
Property isn't a natural right. It exists because states enforce it.
I have more sympathy for your position than your imaginary libertarian one here, but the actual libertarian position is pretty much "why shouldn't individuals be allowed to choose to give their money an alternate healthcare provider?"
Why shouldn't individual 5 year olds pay for their own cancer treatment? me
What if the state runs a gardening service everyone is obliged to pay for? You can opt out of benefitting from the government run one, and pay again for a private gardener, but if you don't pay for the government run gardener, then the government funded murderers will kill you.
The state runs several gardening services. It is why the green spaces in our cities are not overgrown with weeds. We are obligated to pay for it.
So you are saying that not only is publicly funded cancer treatment for 5 year olds an 'obvious crime' - but public parks are too? Do you like anything? Are kittens an abomination because they can't get jobs?
You're comparing pretty mch the best example of a public healthcare system with some hypothetical nightmare instance of a libertarian one. What do you say to the fact that healthcare would be cheaper in a libertarian system (unless you want to argue with all of economics ever)?
If it is a fact, you should have no trouble producing evidence for it (rather than a fairly shaky appeal to authority). The US system is closer to the libertarian ideal than ours, and costs substantially more whilst producing roughly equivalent outcomes (unless you do as US conservative pundits do and cherry-pick bad stats such as prostate cancer 5 year survival rates)
I'm receptive to the argument that healthcare isn't a free market (you can't shop around for life-saving time critical surgery, startup costs are immense etc) and as long as we're stuck with a state I'm happy to admit that Healthcare is one of the things it can do not-terribly - but it's hardly ideal. Look at the parking at the Royal infirmary for instance :p
To be honest, that is your most sturdy argument so far.
leady wrote:its not a moral no-brainer though or obviously a good thing for two obvious reasons
a) any consistent system of morality that allows for forceful redistribution also has deeply unpleasant end consequences. If I have failing kidneys and you have two perfectly healthy ones you are "rich" to me and I am morally justified in taking one at the point of a gun. If you try to put a line anywhere in that continuum its arbitrary, pretty much like the current system (i.e. rich is defined as anyone with more, and the correct level of forceful redistribution appears to be the level that the vast majority are on the take - 80th decile in the Uk...)
We've had the NHS here since 1948, and as yet we have managed to sidestep the moral hazard of state-enforced organ harvesting.
b) its not even obvious it has the best outcome for society - sure it has the best outcome for the immediate recipients (not unsuprisingly) but the opportunity cost is hidden. One example in the UK is that the whole of the welfare system system takes like £200bn per year and is about 70% of the tax burden. Thats 15 fusion reactors per year, which one success has the potential to save billions of lives indirectly...
Fusion reactors can't save anyone, seeing as a commercially viable one has yet to be demonstrated. Furthermore, the NHS is not funded out of the welfare system (most of which is pensions anyhow). I think you need to do some more research.