Government Deregulation

[bobbyjimmy]

Where is it written that government is to be moral ?

It's not. But most people on this board love playing the moral card when they bring up policies they don't like. In their minds, anything that isn't part of the extreme libertarian right-wing group = liberal = socialism = immorality. Apparently those last 3 words are all synonyms. So, since a moral argument against universal healthcare is being invoked, I'm playing ball. The minute folks want to admit it's a bullshit argument, the minute I'm happy to stop.

On the other hand, though, governments reflect the values of that society, so while I don't expect them to be moral, we all do expect them to uphold our values. It's just that values are extremely subjective, hence all the disagreement. If someone wants to say "I don't care about other people and I don't want to pay for their well-being" that's certainly a value you are welcome to have. I don't agree with it, but it's your choice. But to say "I won't support X because it goes against my morals" is pure hypocrisy. As I've noted quite thoroughly.

 

[cashmcall]

Okay, well, first of all, it doesn't necessarily follow that if initiating force is wrong, creating a government that punishes those that initiate force is a "moral use of force." I mean, you can say that this is what you believe, but it certainly isn't some innately logical stance. In fact, since folks around here love to invoke Christianity and its values often, one should be reminded that Christianity's own doctrine contradicts what you just said. "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" is a pretty direct commandment that completely contradicts your statement. Basically, someone initiating force on you does not give you the moral right to use force on them.

But let's leave that aside for a moment. I'll still accept the system of belief you're proposing because at least there's logic to it- even if it's not morally provable. Even going by that, one is still forced (no pun intended) to be against socialism, capitalism, feudalism, marxism, and basically any major governmental force I can think of. Capitalism does not work without a set of rules in place that people HAVE to follow; according to you, we would have a police force that merely defends, that merely exists to punish those who have used force against others. Fine, but here's a couple of things that couldn't happen under your system:

-the ability to collect any taxes whatsoever from anyone for any reason.
-the ability to regulate any commerce; I don't mean over-regulate, I mean ANY regulations. At all.

let's just stop with those two. So we remove the ability to collect taxes. That means, governments, both federal and local, have no money to run their operations. So you say good-bye to building and maintaining roads. A traffic light blows out, it doesn't get fixed. Bridges break, they stay broken. A natural disaster happens, tough luck for the victims. We can pass the hat around and hopefully folks will donate some money every time things need to be fixed, but with all the things that need maintenance, people will be chipping in on a daily basis- and who's going to go around asking for donations? Who's going to manage that cash? Oh, we can do a lot of the management work online? Who's going to repair the phone lines that keeps the internet going? Wait a minute- there wouldn't even be an internet since the whole thing only came about through government research and development! Seed money collected from taxes that allowed scientists and engineers to tinker with an idea that at the time seemed improbable and useless. In our ideal free market state, silly liberal programs like that one would never occur. So who foots the bills to keep our towns running? People who are independently wealthy and don't need to work? In every neighborhood of every town of every state? When you start to think about all the millions of things we take for granted as being part of our daily life, you realize that, wait a minute, creating an organized body to take care of our many, many needs is a hell of a lot more efficient that starting from scratch every time a new problem arises. But running that organized body costs money, and for it to work, just hoping people will keep sending money to you out of the goodness of their hearts, well, that's a little risky, not to mention unfair if the same few people end up shouldering the cost while everyone else decides they don't want to contribute. So eventually you end up where we are now, just out of a need to survive as a nation- making laws that are followed because you have the muscle (i.e. guns, cops, soldiers) to back you up.

I'm not saying I am a fan of this system or that this is my ideal; I'm saying it exists for a reason, and we all accept it because it has a lot more pros than cons when you get down to it. I hear a lot of libertarians bitch about government this and that, but when it comes down to it, they don't actually want a TRULY free country. They just want the convenient freedom to do the things they want to do, and then they want the police muscle to force people to do the bits they're not willing to leave to chance. I'll respect someone who is willing to put their money where their mouth is, someone who wants the anarchy system I described- true freedom, and let the chips fall where they may. But I'm not hearing any takers in these parts.

Other things you'd be giving up with your form of government- rules and regulations that protect workers from abuse. Work 80 hour weeks at $2 an hour? Sorry, times are tough, take it or leave it. I don't care if you're 12 years old. Quit school and get to work. Now, the feeble-minded liberal mind would say, a country where its youth is being used to work rather than educate themselves is a country that's doomed, because in the long run, we'll have a nation of ignorant people. We should create a society where people can't exploit an economic situation to their benefit and get cheap labor from kids in poor areas. We should create a society that makes sure everyone gets at least a basic education, which can only be paid for by money collected from everyone. The wiser capitalist, of course, sees the moral folly here and says "hey, don't you dare be regulating my life, Uncle Sam. If the laws of supply and demand dictate an underage labor force, so be it. It's immoral for you to get in the way."

How many other examples would you like? How about, if you come up with an idea for an invention, and I hear about it and get my rich friend to sponsor me, I can market the invention before you and you can't do anything about it. I get rich, you stay broke, and tough luck because any law regulating that would be immoral and illegal. I assume you're okay with that scenario, too? Sure would be great to live in a country where innovation is stifled because you have no incentive to invent anything. The minute you invent something, a hundred people will put you out of business. But hey, that's the free market, pal.

Need I go on..? If you respond, please respond to all my points!

Very well said..one of the best i've read...I didn't like the Christian part..but there is some truth to it..Again I enjoyed reading it...thanks

 

[cashmcall]

It's not. But most people on this board love playing the moral card when they bring up policies they don't like. In their minds, anything that isn't part of the extreme libertarian right-wing group = liberal = socialism = immorality. Apparently those last 3 words are all synonyms. So, since a moral argument against universal healthcare is being invoked, I'm playing ball. The minute folks want to admit it's a bullshit argument, the minute I'm happy to stop.

On the other hand, though, governments reflect the values of that society, so while I don't expect them to be moral, we all do expect them to uphold our values. It's just that values are extremely subjective, hence all the disagreement. If someone wants to say "I don't care about other people and I don't want to pay for their well-being" that's certainly a value you are welcome to have. I don't agree with it, but it's your choice. But to say "I won't support X because it goes against my morals" is pure hypocrisy. As I've noted quite thoroughly.

Is it not true that Morals are our values which we attribute to a system of beliefs ...Values are our fundamental beliefs?

 

[GenSeneca]

Basically, someone initiating force on you does not give you the moral right to use force on them.

You would have to presuppose that some individuals have a moral "right" to initiate force against others, or that no individual has any rights at all, to make such a claim. No individual has a Moral Right to initiate force against others and it's for that reason that the use of force is only moral when done for defensive purposes, and only moral against those who initiated it's use.

The rest of your post ignored the concept of morality and instead tried to make the Utilitarian argument that it's simply more "efficient" to deal with people by means of force rather than reason. Such an argument requires the assumption that individuals have no Rights whatsoever.

 

[Gipper]

You should not be sorry. I do not consider it cold hearted of you to recognize that no man has a Right to the products of your labor, no matter how great that other man's "need" might be. It's the people who believe they have a "right" to confiscate, by force, the products of your labor who are cold hearted.

My used of the word sorry, was in jest...as surely you suspected.

This debate with bobbyjimmy has been very instructive. He and millions like him believe it is IMMORAL that America does not have socialized HC. When, of course, it is IMMORAL FOR America to have socialized HC. Under liberalism, everything is upside down.

Bobbyjimmy and his kind have been told America is evil and heartless. The power elite has stolen their birth right. The statist Left has effectively convinced millions of Americans that HC is a right. These unfortunate dupes accept these lies, forgetting or never admitting that someone has to pay for it and the historical failures of all things socialist. For any American to think socialized anything is beneficial, proves how powerful the elite Left is. It is entirely anti-American and against the tenants that America was founded on and made it great.

In America today, the Founding Fathers are denigrated by many....a another example of the power of the elitist Left. They have taught Americans, in the indoctrination centers, that the Founders were evil, rich, racist, sexist, homophobic, old white dudes that must be ignored. The Great Mr. Franklin warned us, but many of us failed or refused to learn from him...They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.

I believe any American that demands socialized anything, is a weak minded fool....to put it bluntly.

 

[Cruella]

In America today, the Founding Fathers are denigrated by many....a another example of the power of the elitist Left. They have taught Americans, in the indoctrination centers, that the Founders were evil, rich, racist, sexist, homophobic, old white dudes that must be ignored. The Great Mr. Franklin warned us, but many of us failed or refused to learn from him...They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.

It's part of their plan.

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

 

[GenSeneca]

So, since a moral argument against universal healthcare is being invoked, I'm playing ball.

Actually, you're the one who brought up morality... My first post to you was in response of your claim that the policies you support are moral.

The minute folks want to admit it's a bullshit argument, the minute I'm happy to stop.

OK, your claim that it's moral for you to initiate force against others is BS.

If someone wants to say "I don't care about other people and I don't want to pay for their well-being" that's certainly a value you are welcome to have. I don't agree with it, but it's your choice.

I think you're sincere in not caring what other people think but what you will not tolerate is them having the option of saying "No" to your demands. If people do not choose to 'pay for the well being of others' voluntarily, you simply resort to the use of force to make them do it anyway. You have yet to defend violating the Rights of others as being moral and I doubt anyone could.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

You would have to presuppose that some individuals have a moral "right" to initiate force against others, or that no individual has any rights at all, to make such a claim. No individual has a Moral Right to initiate force against others and it's for that reason that the use of force is only moral when done for defensive purposes, and only moral against those who initiated it's use.

The rest of your post ignored the concept of morality and instead tried to make the Utilitarian argument that it's simply more "efficient" to deal with people by means of force rather than reason. Such an argument requires the assumption that individuals have no Rights whatsoever.

OK, your claim that it's moral for you to initiate force against others is BS.

I think you're sincere in not caring what other people think but what you will not tolerate is them having the option of saying "No" to your demands. If people do not choose to 'pay for the well being of others' voluntarily, you simply resort to the use of force to make them do it anyway. You have yet to defend violating the Rights of others as being moral and I doubt anyone could.

Wow, and I thought we were making progress in having an actual logical discussion. Either you read my post too fast and misunderstood most of it, or you didn't read it at all and just made a bunch of assumptions. So first, I didn't say it's moral for me to initiate force against others. Second, I logically showed you that "no one has the right to initiate force" does not lead into "you have the moral right to use force against someone who hits you." I don't need to presuppose anything- in fact, I don't even understand what you're talking about when you say one has to presupposed that some individuals have a right... etc. etc. etc. It's really quite simple. You made one statement, then another, but provided no reason why B should follow A. And I actually provided a Christian doctrine that contradicts it, just an example of how B does not follow A. So please respond to that logically before accusing me of strange positions.

Second, I did not ignore morality and switch into utilitarian arguments - that's ridiculous. I followed the logical conclusion of your very own words and showed you where they led to. Read it again because I really can't say it any better than I did then. IF we are to go by your very rules of morality, THEN we can not have the capitalist system you are saying we should have. Both Capitalism AND Socialism are impossible to carry out morally, according to your concept of morality. That's all I'm saying.

Finally:
"He and millions like him believe it is IMMORAL that America does not have socialized HC. When, of course, it is IMMORAL FOR America to have socialized HC. Under liberalism, everything is upside down."

I don't think it's immoral to not have socialized health care. I never said that. I said that the present system is not working... not just "not working" but it is actually incredibly corrupt and destructive. It has resulted in millions of people not having basic medical care and billions of dollars funneled into the bank accounts of insurance companies with huge wasteful departments of people who exist just to process the infinite amount of paperwork generated by this ridiculous system. For a bunch of libertarians who claim our government is too bloated and bureaucratic, it's amazing you don't see how much worse the insurance industry is. Talk about obese.

If the present system worked well, I would be fine with it. I am not morally opposed to it being private, I am morally opposed to it being a corrupt industry. Health is not like buying a tv set or new sneakers. It's something you NEED, and that makes all of us captive consumers of the health care industry. There is no free market going on here- it is a conglomerated oligarchy protected by the government. A trip to the emergency room begins at 500 bucks- and that's just to walk in. An average half hour visit where the doctor checks you and prescribes something ends up in a bill of $3000 or so. Where's the free market principle at work here that should be driving these prices down? It doesn't exist. Medical and medicinal prices are insanely bloated and do not reflect the actual cost or R&D or production- they're high merely because the industry wants them to be high and there's no competition allowed. I would think a right-wing libertarian would look at that mess and be furious that it violates the very principles he believes in... yet you guys do nothing but defend it. There is plenty of evidence to show that a single-payer system would result in a huge chunk of savings, merely by cutting out the fat, fat middle man and making it a PUBLIC SERVICE instead of a CONSUMER GOOD. Since we're talking about your health, that makes a hell of a lot of MORAL, ETHICAL and LOGISTICAL sense to me. But hey, if you want to design a better system based on free market principles, I am all for it, as long as the end result is a system that provides heath care for every person in this country. I'm not sure how you can tell someone with a straight face "you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when they are economically forced into being sick, or, sadly in some cases, dead.

But again, this is all beside the "main point" which is that I am showing GenSeneca in very clear black-and-white terms how it is impossible to live under capitalism if one is to follow the moral code he/she has prescribed.

 

[cashmcall]

Do you think our mrdical system is a product of capitalism? Capitalism hasn't failed us..
What has failed in the U.S. is government micromanagement of the health care system. Over the past 40 years government's role in the health care system has continually expanded, from programs like Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, to regulations like HIPPA and COBRA. Like most government interventions, it has only made the problem worse. The fact is we do not have a free market in health care in the U.S. Ask yourself: How many markets in the U.S. do you get a tax break for buying a product, but only if you buy it through your employer, as we do with health insurance? In how many markets are you prohibited from purchasing a product out of state, as we are with health insurance? In how many markets are employers prohibited from providing bonuses to employees for improving quality and productivity, as hospitals are prevented from doing with doctors? If government policy inhibited other markets that way, those markets would be dysfunctional too.The solution to our health care problems is to reduce the role of government, not increase it by switching to a single-payer system

David Hogbird said...While the government in a single-payer system will pay for everyone's health care, it limits the access to health care. In a single-payer system, citizens often believe that "the government" is paying for their health care. When people perceive that someone else is paying for something, they tend to over-use it. In a single-payer health care system, people over-use health care. This puts strain on government health care budgets, and to contain costs governments must ration care. Governments in a single-payer system ration care using waiting lists for surgery and diagnostic procedures and by canceling surgeries. As the Canadian Supreme Court said upon ruling unconstitutional a Quebec law that banned private health care, "access to a waiting list is not access to health care...

 

[Cruella]

Has anyone ever read Ludwig Von Mises? Socialism does not work mathematically. The best thing for society is capitalism. (Not today's version of our out of control Federal Reserve, over regulation and crony capitalism.)




Mises
Hayek
Skousen

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Do you think our mrdical system is a product of capitalism? Capitalism hasn't failed us.. What has failed in the U.S. is government micromanagement of the health care system... The solution to our health care problems is to reduce the role of government, not increase it by switching to a single-payer system...

Well this is now going beyond the argument at hand, but what I find interesting is that you are now admitting that our current system is a bad one after pages and pages of defending it. The two points I want to respond to are that simply removing the government right now from the current system would solve nothing; in fact, it would only give the insurance companies less barriers to keep their monopoly going. Who do you think is going to "break into" the medical world that can topple a system they have in place just by sheer "supply and demand" economics? You'd need your own doctors, hospitals, insurance system... it's naive to think those bastards aren't going to stay 5 steps ahead of the game. There's too much hardware, software and R&D connected and dependent on these guys. Perhaps in a new planet where we were starting from scratch, one could attempt what you're talking about but right now it's a ridiculously simplistic notion to consider.

Second, it is true that with single-payer, some people would abuse the system and over-use it. But, hello, that's happening right now with a private system- if you've got insurance through work and have a $10 co-pay, that's basically free health care as far as you're concerned. Lots of people take advantage of their "cheap" coverage and over-use prescriptions, emergency room visits, you name it. Regardless of what system you have, that's only going to change with lots and lots of education, making it clear to people over and over that it's not free, that they are paying for this care every year when taxes are collected (if we're talking single-payer) or whathaveyou. The issues you are referring to have more to do with human nature and education than any specific system. And while we're at it, there's LOTS of factors that would help alleviate the strain of health care, #1 being the terrible way people live their lives, eating fatty, unhealthy processed foods all day long, sitting on their asses rarely exercising... I mean, the numbers are pretty clear on how overweight and unhealthy Americans are. Not to mention, just look around you. If people lived healthily, they wouldn't require so much medicine and doctor attention, leaving the system in a better position to help those who have genuine needs. So let's be honest about the problems facing our health care system. Voting for or against "single-payer" is not going to single-handedly solve anything.

However, I support single-payer because, given the options we have now, it makes the most sense. It is not, as so many would love you to believe, going to create long lines and crappy service. This is not 1934 Communist Russia. There are plenty of countries that have shown how well it can work. You bring up Canada, well, not only did I live there but I know many people from Canada, not one who would ever trade what they have for what we have. They all think we are insane to accept the shitty system we have, and even more insane are those who defend it / praise it. I can tell you first hand the medical attention my family received in Canada was top notch; my mother, who isn't anything resembling a socialist or a liberal, nevertheless will tell you her best medical experiences, especially giving birth, happened in Toronto, with a doctor who didn't charge her anything. And not just Canada- I know many people personally who live all over Europe- England, France, and Germany just to name 3 big examples- who all prefer where they are to coming back here (most of them are not Europeans. They have experienced both systems and are quite aware of the differences.) No one is saying there is a PERFECT system or that it doesn't have problems. But they are ALL saying that it is by far a better-working system than the farce we have here. Now, you can find some pundit to back up your opinions if you'd like, but I'm talking about actual, real people with real firsthand experiences, all which fly in the face of the myth you've chosen to believe about "socialized medicine."

Now, to give you an example of what you're talking about, I will say that I spent some time in India, which has more-or-less a free market system (moreso than what we have, at any rate) and it's not a bad one when it works. That is to say, for those who can get access to doctors and hospitals, the prices are much more reasonable and affordable... IF you happen to be one of the lucky Indians who don't live in poverty or far out in rural areas. This is a complex subject because India is so different than we are for many different reasons I'm not going to bother to describe, but I thought I'd bring it up to illustrate that I'm not against a free-market system, in theory, if it could be done correctly. Except that the very things that make it work in India are unique to India's situation and not applicable to the U.S.... and also, it doesn't really work for everyone, just for a lucky section of the country, so it still has a long ways to go before it could be called successful. But their economic breakdown is so different it's impossible to compare it with the U.S... I just want to let you know I recognize it is theoretically possible for a free-market system to exist.

However, given all the issues, factors and players in our system, a single-payer system is our best bet, and the only one that has a chance of actually caring for its citizens. That's why I support it. It doesn't really matter, because, like I told you, we are not headed there anyway. Obama isn't interested, our congress isn't interested, and the insurance companies sure as hell aren't interested. If it ever comes to pass, it will only be because our current system collapses under its own weight and we don't have a choice anymore... but I'm guessing if we ever got to that point, our government will probably also be so broke that it will have bigger problems than getting us medical coverage. But I digress.

I'll be away for a few days so you've got the weekend to ponder all this....!

 

[GenSeneca]

So first, I didn't say it's moral for me to initiate force against others.

Here is the exact quote from you that I first replied to:

Not to mention, on a basic moral principle, the idea that being healthy should be a privilege of those who can afford it is simply fucked up and wrong.​

To which I replied:

It's immoral to initiate the use of force against others.

The basic "moral" principle you cite is in direct contradiction to the moral principle I just stated. Perhaps, if you are bored with the others, you could address this contradiction and/or explain your perception of the moral principle behind initiating force against others. Clearly it is on this moral point that our divergence on the topic begins and that would seem to be a rational place to start a civilized conversation.​

So no, you did not claim that it's moral for you to initiate force against others... But you also have not admitted that it's immoral for you to initiate force against others. What I've pointed out is the fact that initiating force against others is the means by which you propose to achieve the ends. You are claiming the ends to be moral while totally ignoring the immorality of the means by which you seek to achieve it.

Second, I logically showed you that "no one has the right to initiate force" does not lead into "you have the moral right to use force against someone who hits you."

Actually, you didn't... You took my statement "no one has the right to initiate force against others" and twisted it into a strawman by dropping the word initiate and equating it to pacifism. The moral principle you then claimed I was advocating became, "no one has the right to use force against anyone, ever, for any reason", which is the "moral" principle of pacifism, something I've never advocated.

I don't need to presuppose anything- in fact, I don't even understand what you're talking about when you say one has to presupposed that some individuals have a right... etc. etc. etc.

Do you think some people should be forced to pay for the health care of others, yes or no?

If your answer is yes, then you must believe you have some "right" to initiate the use of force against others. If you don't believe you have such a "right", you should explain how it's possible that you can still answer yes to the question.

It's really quite simple. You made one statement, then another, but provided no reason why B should follow A.

I did, perhaps you should look again. Self Defense is a Right of all individuals and it's the Right which grants us the moral authority to protect all the others. If you acknowledge that individuals have any rights at all, but deny that defending those rights is among them, then all the other rights become meaningless as every individual would be left to the mercy of any thug or gang that would initiate force against them.

Any "morality", such as pacifism, that doesn't allow individuals to protect themselves from those who initiate the use of force against them is not moral, it's evil. People following such a "moral" code would be nothing more than sheep waiting to be led to slaughter by the first immoral brute to come along.

So yes, it does logically follow that if we have ANY Rights at all, we would also have a Right to defend them.

And I actually provided a Christian doctrine that contradicts it, just an example of how B does not follow A. So please respond to that logically before accusing me of strange positions.

I'm an Atheist and I've never cited Christianity as something I believe in, much less as the moral foundation of anything I advocate. That being the case, I suggest you ask a Christian who advocates pacifism if you want a response on that particular topic.

Second, I did not ignore morality and switch into utilitarian arguments - that's ridiculous. I followed the logical conclusion of your very own words and showed you where they led to. Read it again because I really can't say it any better than I did then. IF we are to go by your very rules of morality, THEN we can not have the capitalist system you are saying we should have. Both Capitalism AND Socialism are impossible to carry out morally, according to your concept of morality. That's all I'm saying.

Again, your entire "conclusion" was based on the strawman argument that I'm advocating for pacifism...

Make it illegal for any individual, group, and even government itself, to initiate force against others and the system we would have is Capitalism.

Allow anyone and everyone to legally initiate force against others and what you have is Anarchy.

Allow it to be legal only for government to initiate force against others and what you get is Collectivism (in one form or another), which is the system we have now.

Health is not like buying a tv set or new sneakers. It's something you NEED, and that makes all of us captive consumers of the health care industry.

The question must be asked... Do you believe individuals have a "right" to be provided with products and services they "NEED"? If so... At the expense of whom?

There is no free market going on here

On this one point we can agree 100%.

I would think a right-wing libertarian would look at that mess and be furious that it violates the very principles he believes in... yet you guys do nothing but defend it.

Then you're not listening to what it is that I'm actually saying. If anyone is defending the status quo, government intervention in the HC industry, it's you for wanting more of the same.

There is plenty of evidence to show that a single-payer system would result in a huge chunk of savings, merely by cutting out the fat, fat middle man and making it a PUBLIC SERVICE instead of a CONSUMER GOOD.

The "fat, fat middle man" accounts for roughly 3.4% of the cost of HC, that's their average profit margin. However, Utilitarian arguments are red herrings that seek to change the subject from that of morality to that of "efficiency". For example, it would be incredibly "efficient" to simply murder anyone who got sick and the reduction in HC costs would be astronomical, a mere percentage of what's currently spent on HC, but nobody could defend such a system as being moral.

Since we're talking about your health, that makes a hell of a lot of MORAL, ETHICAL and LOGISTICAL sense to me.

There is nothing moral or ethical about forcing some people to pay for the HC of others.

But hey, if you want to design a better system based on free market principles, I am all for it, as long as the end result is a system that provides heath care for every person in this country.

...And if you want to design a system that provides HC for every person in the country I'm all for it, just so long as you do not initiate force against anyone as the means by which you attempt to achieve your end.

I'm not sure how you can tell someone with a straight face "you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when they are economically forced into being sick, or, sadly in some cases, dead.

Rights are freedoms of action, not a guarantee of results. For example, the Right to life is not a guarantee that you will be provided with everything you need to live, only that your life belongs to you and you have a Right to live it.

But again, this is all beside the "main point" which is that I am showing GenSeneca in very clear black-and-white terms how it is impossible to live under capitalism if one is to follow the moral code he/she has prescribed.

All that you've shown is your inability to address what I've actually said. You have done a fine job of beating up on a defenseless strawman, by arguing against pacifism, but, and this may come as a surprise to you, nobody here has argued in favor of a pacifist morality.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

This is getting muddled. You are taking two separate arguments and mixing them together, and it's not making much sense. The first, that you have the right to defend yourself against aggression, I simply don't see what makes that a "right" any more than saying "I have the right to do anything I want simply by virtue of existing". But none of this matters because I said quite clearly that I was willing to go with you on this point- yet you keep arguing it. Get over it- I'm accepting it, I don't care. That's not really the issue I have. I'm fine if you want to defend yourself against aggression. I would probably defend myself against aggression. Hooray for us.

The main point, which you haven't responded to, is that, by your own definition, capitalism cannot exist any more than any system of government can. I gave you a ton of examples proving this. You just said "
Make it illegal for any individual, group, and even government itself, to initiate force against others and the system we would have is Capitalism." Which is just a stupid statement to make. Capitalism only works if you set up a bunch of rules that people must follow, and the only way to make sure they follow them is to use force. This is true of every single system of rule, by nature, other than "anarchy" because it is, by definition, the negation of law. Capitalism MUST initiate force against those who refuse to abide by its principles, and, in fact, every capitalist government in the world has used such force, the U.S. being the most obvious example of that. If you forgot all my examples, go back and read them, and then explain to me what flavor of capitalism you are envisioning that somehow fits within your moral law- because the only one I can imagine sounds a hell of a lot like anarchy.

The rest of my arguments and comments were not in response to you but to someone else and is all about things which clearly you're not interested in because they discuss the nitty-gritty logistics of how things work. You and I are sticking to moral and philosophical questions, and that's what I responded to.

 

[cashmcall]

This is getting muddled. You are taking two separate arguments and mixing them together, and it's not making much sense. The first, that you have the right to defend yourself against aggression, I simply don't see what makes that a "right" any more than saying "I have the right to do anything I want simply by virtue of existing". But none of this matters because I said quite clearly that I was willing to go with you on this point- yet you keep arguing it. Get over it- I'm accepting it, I don't care. That's not really the issue I have. I'm fine if you want to defend yourself against aggression. I would probably defend myself against aggression. Hooray for us.

The main point, which you haven't responded to, is that, by your own definition, capitalism cannot exist any more than any system of government can. I gave you a ton of examples proving this. You just said "
Make it illegal for any individual, group, and even government itself, to initiate force against others and the system we would have is Capitalism." Which is just a stupid statement to make. Capitalism only works if you set up a bunch of rules that people must follow, and the only way to make sure they follow them is to use force. This is true of every single system of rule, by nature, other than "anarchy" because it is, by definition, the negation of law. Capitalism MUST initiate force against those who refuse to abide by its principles, and, in fact, every capitalist government in the world has used such force, the U.S. being the most obvious example of that. If you forgot all my examples, go back and read them, and then explain to me what flavor of capitalism you are envisioning that somehow fits within your moral law- because the only one I can imagine sounds a hell of a lot like anarchy.

The rest of my arguments and comments were not in response to you but to someone else and is all about things which clearly you're not interested in because they discuss the nitty-gritty logistics of how things work. You and I are sticking to moral and philosophical questions, and that's what I responded to.

You said.."The first, that you have the right to defend yourself against aggression, I simply don't see what makes that a "right" any more than saying "I have the right to do anything I want simply by virtue of existing"....everyone has the right to defend themself but to say you have a right to do what you please just because you exist...Well thats nuts...Well I guess not as long as it doesn't effect anyone else...IMO of course

 

[GenSeneca]

Capitalism only works if you set up a bunch of rules that people must follow...

Just one rule for people to follow - It is illegal to initiate the use of force against others.

What additional "rules" are you claiming would be necessary for Capitalism to exist?