90% of all health care cost in US due to preventable illnesses

[GenSeneca]

A Marxian utopia in which everyone strives to produce as much as possible for the good of society without regard to personal gain would work...

It would work if they choose to do it, voluntarily. Volitional consent is something that I espouse and you oppose.

...were mankind "moral" to the point of putting others ahead of themselves.

Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that concern with one’s own interests is evil means that man’s desire to live is evil—that man’s life, as such, is evil. No doctrine could be more evil than that.​

Yet that is the meaning of altruism. - The Virtue of Selfishness​

​

Unfortunately for both utopias, human beings tend to be selfish and therefore more motivated by individual gain than by the good of human beings at large.

Rational self interest is a virtue, not a sin. When every individual is free to seek his own personal gain, not at the expense of others, but through mutually beneficial exchanges and done by the volitional consent of all parties, all of mankind is better off.

Which is why some force is required to get people to pay enough taxes to keep government running,

You refuse to allow them the freedom to choose because you risk them saying, "No", so you you have chosen brute force over reason, tyranny over freedom.

why socialism doesn't work,

Does the maxim, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", does that "work" in real life, is it "practical"? Please take the time to answer that because I'll keep asking until you do.

and why a police force is necessary for a functioning society.

A Capitalist society limits the role of government to operating police, courts, and the military - all necessary for defending and protecting individual rights - and all these things together consume a very small percentage of our current government budget.

 

[GenSeneca]

I disagree that the gensenican utopia is unworkable.

A society based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange is not Utopian, it's just moral.

in capitalism people participate for their own benefit yet everyone comes out a winner.

Volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange are moral, that's why it results in Win-Win scenarios... The immoral use of force guarantees every scenario will either be Lose-Win or Lose-Lose.

 

[PLC1]

Does the maxim, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", does that "work" in real life, is it "practical"? Please take the time to answer that because I'll keep asking until you do.


.

Asked and answered, many times. No, it doesn't work. it has been tried and found wanting. The reason it doesn't work is that human beings are more interested in themselves and their immediate families and friends than they are in society at large. People will work to have a good life for themselves and their families, but not for society as a whole.

In a similar manner, human beings are willing to donate time and money for their families and their immediate neighbors. Dr. Who's fireworks anecdote is an example of that. It makes us feel good, gives us status in the eyes of our fellows, and so we donate. People are not, however, willing to donate to the nation at large, at least not enough to provide for a military, build roads, have fire and police protection, all of the things that make for a civilized society.

If a voluntary taxation system would work on the national level, why has it never been tried, anywhere in the world?

 

[GenSeneca]

Asked and answered, many times. No, it doesn't work. it has been tried and found wanting. The reason it doesn't work is that human beings are more interested in themselves and their immediate families and friends than they are in society at large. People will work to have a good life for themselves and their families, but not for society as a whole.

You are ignoring the use of force. That Marxist principle isn't a suggestion, it's a demand, brought to reality by the coercive force of government. So, does that principle "work" when government force is utilized to enact the principle?

If a voluntary taxation system would work on the national level, why has it never been tried, anywhere in the world?

Are you pretending there aren't sales taxes? Or did you conveniently ignore my comments about how sales/consumption taxes could be used to fund government without coercive taxation?

 

[PLC1]

You are ignoring the use of force. That Marxist principle isn't a suggestion, it's a demand, brought to reality by the coercive force of government. So, does that principle "work" when government force is utilized to enact the principle?


Are you pretending there aren't sales taxes? Or did you conveniently ignore my comments about how sales/consumption taxes could be used to fund government without coercive taxation?

Sales taxes are voluntary in a way. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the goods. However, you might get a little bit tired of making your own clothes from cotton you have grown, riding in a horse drawn carriage because you don't want to pay the taxes on an automobile, and so on.

But, sure, a national sales tax could work. the buyer couldn't have the option of purchasing the goods but just not paying it, of course, but it could work.

And, for the umpteenth and last time, no, Marxism doesn't work. It tends to encourage people to have needs rather than abilities.

 

[GenSeneca]

Sales taxes are voluntary in a way. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the goods. However, you might get a little bit tired of making your own clothes from cotton you have grown, riding in a horse drawn carriage because you don't want to pay the taxes on an automobile, and so on.

Once again showing that you didn't actually bother reading what I wrote about the subject.

And, for the umpteenth and last time, no, Marxism doesn't work. It tends to encourage people to have needs rather than abilities.

Yet that is the very principle you are claiming is "practical", the use of force to benefit some at the expense of others.

 

[dogtowner]

Of course it's because not everyone pays. That's why everyone should be covered.
You can possibly offer cash and negotiate, sometimes. It doesn't always work, however.

BTW, are you suddenly typing from your phone, or from some sort of unconventional keyboard?

that was phone, sorry.

there is always room to negotiate on big ticket items, always has been so long as honesty is leading the way.

 

[PLC1]

that was phone, sorry.

there is always room to negotiate on big ticket items, always has been so long as honesty is leading the way.

Perhaps. My daughter just got a bill that the insurance didn't pay. She asked the doctor's office what the insurance would have paid, and they wouldn't tell her. Nope, they wanted the whole tab, or they would turn her in to collections. Honesty doesn't always lead the way.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well "society" works just fine with private sector companies who cannot force you to purchase their goods or services. I think your real question is how would government work without coercive taxation, and my answer would be - The same way the private sector works.

Protection: 2%
General Government: 1%
Defense: 9% (this includes veteran services)
Debt service: 6%
Total: 18% of the current budget
Cost: $683.2 billion
Revenue: $2.468 Trillion
Surplus: $1,785.392 Trillion

So as long as gov provided services that were desired (like protection of rights) and the costs were low (which they easily could be) then people would be willing to pay. Makes sense.

I have to disagree with your premise that we would have to amend the constitution. Our constitution authorizes government, through congress, to lay and collect taxes. This authorization should not be confused as an obligation. There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent government from choosing NOT to lay or collect taxes for any of the items listed under article I section 8, same is true with any spending we do beyond that which is outlined in that section. Congress chooses what to tax and how much that tax should be, it chooses what to spend that money on as well, there is nothing in our constitution that says the government cannot choose to NOT do those things.

Good point

 

[Dr.Who]

Asked and answered, many times. No, it doesn't work. it has been tried and found wanting. The reason it doesn't work is that human beings are more interested in themselves and their immediate families and friends than they are in society at large. People will work to have a good life for themselves and their families, but not for society as a whole.

In a similar manner, human beings are willing to donate time and money for their families and their immediate neighbors. Dr. Who's fireworks anecdote is an example of that. It makes us feel good, gives us status in the eyes of our fellows, and so we donate. People are not, however, willing to donate to the nation at large, at least not enough to provide for a military, build roads, have fire and police protection, all of the things that make for a civilized society.

If a voluntary taxation system would work on the national level, why has it never been tried, anywhere in the world?

People would support gov because they do benefit themselves. However there are countless examples of people making donations when they gain no direct benefit. I am willing to bet that the amount of money americans donate to various charites like "save the cats" exceeds the amount the gov would need to provide the basics for protecting rights.

It is the nature of politicians to want power.

 

[Dr.Who]

And, for the umpteenth and last time, no, Marxism doesn't work. It tends to encourage people to have needs rather than abilities.

You seem to be saying that marxism and socialism dont work but what will work is to do something that is just a little bit socialistic. A lot of poison is bad and a little poison should be avoided as well.

 

[Dr.Who]

Perhaps. My daughter just got a bill that the insurance didn't pay. She asked the doctor's office what the insurance would have paid, and they wouldn't tell her. Nope, they wanted the whole tab, or they would turn her in to collections. Honesty doesn't always lead the way.

I still think honesty has its own merits. I dropped a vial of insulin the other day and it shattered on the floor. PRice tag - a hudred forty three. I could have told the insurance company that the insulin simply stopped being effective. Instead I gave full disclosure and they rightfully declined to pay for a new vial. After a bit they told me how to handle it. I switched from getting one month at a time to getting three months at a time. That way I could get more right away. I was still one bottle short - but the doctors office is going to give me a sample.

 

[PLC1]

You seem to be saying that marxism and socialism dont work but what will work is to do something that is just a little bit socialistic. A lot of poison is bad and a little poison should be avoided as well.

More like water. Too much, and you drown. Not enough, you die of thirst.
But, there is no such thing as a little bit of Marxism. Either you have private property and individual wealth, or you don't.
I think we have a different definition of "socialism" anyway. I use the dictionary definition.

 

[GenSeneca]

More like water. Too much, and you drown. Not enough, you die of thirst.

Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.​

But, there is no such thing as a little bit of Marxism. Either you have private property and individual wealth, or you don't.

Normally you're the guy who's all, "There is no black and white, everything is gray" but when it comes to Marxism/Socialism, suddenly you believe there is no gray... Weird.

I'll tell you what is black or white... The use of force. Either the use of force is being used against some for the benefit of others, or it's not. Forced labor is immoral. Any society that uses a system of forced labor is immoral, is evil, and cannot be considered civilized. It is only by utilizing a system of volitional consent, rather than force, and mutually beneficial exchange, rather than forced redistribution, can a society consider itself moral, good, and qualify as being civilized.

I think we have a different definition of "socialism" anyway. I use the dictionary definition.

Social democracy is a political ideology that considers itself to be a form of reformist democratic socialism. It advocates for a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism.​

​

Common social democratic policies include advocacy of universal social rights to attain universally-accessible public services such as: education, health care, workers' compensation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly. Social democracy is connected with the trade union labour movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers. Most social democratic parties are affiliated with the Socialist International.​

​

Social democracy in its reformist form was developed by revisionist Marxist Eduard Bernstein who rejected many major tenets promoted by Marx and Engels that he viewed as inaccurate or obsolete.Bernstein and his supporters opposed classical and orthodox Marxisms' support of revolution and class conflict, claiming that socialism could be achieved through evolutionary means via representative democracy and cooperation between people regardless of class. Bernstein claimed that a mixed economy of public, cooperative and private enterprise would be necessary for a long period of time before private enterprises would evolve of their own accord into cooperative enterprise.​

​

The danger we're facing is Progressive Socialism, meaning it will not meet your one dimensional dictionary definition until it finishes it's quest to "fundamentally transform" the US into a Socialist State - and only then, when it's too late to stop it, will you finally realize what has happened. Claiming, "we're not there yet, so it must not be happening at all" is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand; it's easier to pretend it's not there if you refuse to look at it for what it is.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'll tell you what is black or white... The use of force. Either the use of force is being used against some for the benefit of others, or it's not. Forced labor is immoral. Any society that uses a system of forced labor is immoral, is evil, and cannot be considered civilized. It is only by utilizing a system of volitional consent, rather than force, and mutually beneficial exchange, rather than forced redistribution, can a society consider itself moral, good, and qualify as being civilized.

[]

​

Common social democratic policies include advocacy of universal social rights to attain universally-accessible public services such as: education, health care, workers' compensation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly. that a mixed economy of public, cooperative and private enterprise would be necessary for a long period of time before private enterprises would evolve of their own accord into cooperative enterprise.

So lets clarify: in social democracy one trades the basic fundamental right to freedom of the fruits of ones labor in exchange for public "rights" like education and health care. More importantly one trades one's neighbor's fundamental rights and will use force to make sure that he complies. To continue the analogy that is on some levels literally true one is making his neighbor a slave.

Personally, I think if one wants to trade the fruits of ones labor (time and money) for payment of health care one should buy insurance. If one wants someone else to get said healthcare then one should pay for it himself. But we must draw the line at deciding that someone else should pay for another persons healthcare. As you said that is immoral. Again, as you said; there is no defined end to how much will be taken from some and how much will be given to others.