The Healthcare Bill

[knapplc]

Again, without evidence to support your claim that the sole purpose of government is to enslave, rob, coerce and/or anything else you accuse it of, we cannot have a rational conversation. Please cite real-world examples of these things, and be sure that these examples are not isolated, but so pervasive that it's clear for the common man to see that what you're alleging is all that government is.

 

What most folks here are going to tell you is that they don't feel coerced into paying taxes. We're all going to say we don't want to pay taxes, but the majority of us pay them because we like having a military to protect us from enemies, and we like having representatives who advocate for us in business dealings with other nations, and we like having roads and police and other amenities that disorganized communities don't have. It's voluntary, not coerced.

What happens when you don't pay taxes? Or is going to jail, having your property confiscated, or being shot in the head because you refuse or defend yourself what you would consider voluntary also? How much of a real-world and pervasive example is that?

 

Is to be against that what you consider irrational? Or is the person who ignores, supports, and advocates for the aggression against innocent, non-right's violating individuals irrational?

Please stop with the hysteria. It doesn't make your argument any better to claim that someone has been shot in the head because they didn't pay taxes. If you want to have a rational conversation let's talk about the normal, non-fringe things that happen in taxation and governance.

 

Now, the problem with people who don't pay taxes is that they continue to use services like roads and Fire and Police and Military that are paid for by taxes. You seem to be advocating in favor of not paying for services that you use. That makes you a criminal, and you should face prosecution, end of story. If you support criminal activity like that, then yes, you're being irrational.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Please stop with the hysteria. It doesn't make your argument any better to claim that someone has been shot in the head because they didn't pay taxes. If you want to have a rational conversation let's talk about the normal, non-fringe things that happen in taxation and governance.

 

Now, the problem with people who don't pay taxes is that they continue to use services like roads and Fire and Police and Military that are paid for by taxes. You seem to be advocating in favor of not paying for services that you use. That makes you a criminal, and you should face prosecution, end of story. If you support criminal activity like that, then yes, you're being irrational.

Stop the hysteria? Maybe the hysteria, which also happens to be the reality you seek to ignore, would stop if you quit supporting a criminal gang that forces individuals to do things they don't want to do, steals from them to provide so-called "services," and initiates violence against them if they refuse. Are you really going to sit behind your desk, no doubt paid for with stolen money, and state that it doesn't happen? Is it really normal, non-fringe or rational to advocate for and allow that type of behavior to occur? If it is, why is it that if theft and violence are done by you, I or any other individual that we end up locked in a cage or worse? Is it not illogical, contradictory and hypocritical to allow some individuals to steal and kill just because they have a uniform, title or badge but when done by anyone else said individual must suffer the consequences? And this is not to suggest that right's violating and irrational behavior are ok, but rather to show that in order to be logical, consistent and non-contradictory everyone should be held to the same standard.

 

And as for your charges of criminal activity, when have I ever advocated against paying for services? In fact, isn't it you who supports criminal activity? Is theft a crime? Is extortion a crime? Is initiating violence against someone a crime? I have made it abundantly clear in numerous posts that if someone wishes to have or use a good or service, they absolutely must pay for it. The difference is that whether or not they choose to have or use the service should be a voluntary choice.

 

You seem like a very intelligent guy, so why is it that you can't seem to wrap your head around the difference between me voluntarily paying for a good or service, which most everybody does daily, and me being forced at gunpoint to pay for a good or service, whether I want it or not, and then having it shoved down my throat? Can you not comprehend the meaning of voluntary and involuntary transactions? One is a legitimate and mutually beneficial means of exchange and the other is an illegitimate, violent and destructive form of slavery. Which of these means seems rational to you?

[knapplc]

You seem like a very intelligent guy, so why is it that you can't seem to wrap your head around the difference between me voluntarily paying for a good or service, which most everybody does daily, and me being forced at gunpoint to pay for a good or service, whether I want it or not, and then having it shoved down my throat? Can you not comprehend the meaning of voluntary and involuntary transactions? One is a legitimate and mutually beneficial means of exchange and the other is an illegitimate, violent and destructive form of slavery. Which of these means seems rational to you?

 

I'm glad you asked why I'm calling you a criminal. It's very simple. By the same logic which you call me a criminal (my association with government), you support the Huskers, a team which has had criminals on the roster. If I'm a criminal, you're a criminal. It's a ridiculous argument, but that's where you're going.

 

Now, I've already explained the answer to your question I quoted here several times already, but since you seem to not be getting it, I'll do it one more time. Please pay attention, because nobody else reading this seems to be having trouble grasping this very basic concept.

 

You use the services the government provides: Roads, Police, Fire, Utilities, Military, etc. You pay for those through your taxes. If you don't pay for them you're a criminal, plain and simple. These things do not exist without social structure, which comes in the form of government.

 

As I've explained, this "legitimate and mutually beneficial means of exchange" you're talking about does not exist in real human society without governing structure. We're not talking about Utopia, we're talking about real-world situations, right? Show us real-world examples of your system, and then we can talk. When you can't, you must acknowledge that you're tilting at windmills. If you don't.... well, that's about the end of the conversation, isn't it?

[carlfense]

knapplc . . . you may not have read the Politics and Religion section when it was first opened . . . but SOCAL and I had a multi-page discussion about this very topic. It was heated at times but it was overall a good experience. I know one thing though . . . SOCAL won't budge. I wholeheartedly disagree with him but I admire his conviction.

 

(Edit: Here's the original thread. http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/33731-anarcho-capitalism/ )

[bbeerma2]

Just curious about where everyone is coming up with their info on this bill. I'd ask more questions but I only have three.

 

Bill doesn't really affect me so the nitty gritty is not important to me. However, living in a country with socialized healthcare (state owned hospitals, the whole works) I have a unique perspective on the ramifications. People are too worried

[knapplc]

knapplc . . . you may not have read the Politics and Religion section when it was first opened . . . but SOCAL and I had a multi-page discussion about this very topic. It was heated at times but it was overall a good experience. I know one thing though . . . SOCAL won't budge. I wholeheartedly disagree with him but I admire his conviction.

 

(Edit: Here's the original thread. http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/33731-anarcho-capitalism/ )

I'll read it when I have time. I don't expect to budge him, I suppose, I'm just trying to understand where he's coming from. Overall I think he's a good dude, just with different points of view than me.

 

I'm glad you sent me this via PM. I'd hate to have SOCAL see us talking about him as if he's not reading it.

[carlfense]

knapplc . . . you may not have read the Politics and Religion section when it was first opened . . . but SOCAL and I had a multi-page discussion about this very topic. It was heated at times but it was overall a good experience. I know one thing though . . . SOCAL won't budge. I wholeheartedly disagree with him but I admire his conviction.

 

(Edit: Here's the original thread. http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/33731-anarcho-capitalism/ )

I'll read it when I have time. I don't expect to budge him, I suppose, I'm just trying to understand where he's coming from. Overall I think he's a good dude, just with different points of view than me.

I'm glad you sent me this via PM. I'd hate to have SOCAL see us talking about him as if he's not reading it.

I wanted SOCAL to see it. I wanted him to know that I respect his opinion and conviction even though I don't agree with it. I don't know that I've seen knapplc use that much sarcasm before. Haha.

[holvy83]

I apologize ahead of time since I don't have the link, but I read an article in the online edition of the Sioux City Journal that was about a Dr. in South Dakota that is challenging current House Democrat Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin for her chair because she voted against Health Care reform. It does not dive into any specific details other than that but just thought this was an interesting twist on how this is playing out in other areas and that this guy is a Dr. himself.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

As I've explained, this "legitimate and mutually beneficial means of exchange" you're talking about does not exist in real human society without governing structure.

Are you serious? Without government, you would rob people blind? Well, at least you're honest.

 

Also, what do you mean by a governing structure? Does governing structure prevent illegitimate and destructive means from occuring? How? Could an individual not self govern? If you think legitimate and beneficial trade cannot take place without government then let me break this down for you in a simple and logical manner, which I will preface with the following statement: I will not and do not steal from or initiate violence against other people.

 

In reality exists society. Society consists of human individuals. I am human. Other individuals are also human. I am not government. Other individuals are not government. I own myself and by extension my property. Other individuals also own themselves and their property. Because it is our property we have the right to exchange it. I have values and preferences. Other individuals also have values and preferences. Sometimes I exchange my rightfully gained property, with other human beings, for property (goods and services) that I prefer and value more than the property I give up. Other individuals, do the same because they prefer and value my property more than the property they give up. If we did not prefer or value what we received more than what we give up, we would not make the exchange. Since the property we receive has more value to us then what we give up, the exchange is beneficial. Since both parties prefer and value the property rightfully received, the exchange is deemed legitimate and mutually beneficial. Therefore because our legitimate and mutually beneficial exchange is completed by myself and other individuals without goverment; individuals are human; humans make up society and society exists in reality; Then we can logically deduce that legitimate and mutually beneficial exchange also exists in real human society without government. End of story!!

[knapplc]

I'm going to bring down some points I'd like you to respond to that you're skipping over, because without responses (and refutations), you're inevitably conceding several points that make your position untenable. Here they are:

Now, the problem with people who don't pay taxes is that they continue to use services like roads and Fire and Police and Military that are paid for by taxes. You seem to be advocating in favor of not paying for services that you use. That makes you a criminal, and you should face prosecution, end of story. If you support criminal activity like that, then yes, you're being irrational.

Still unanswered. Do the Police protect you? Does the Fire Department come to your house if it's on fire? Does the military provide for a common defense, including you? Please respond to this or acknowledge the point. Thank you. If you believe this is possible in the modern world without taxes, cite real-world examples where this happens.

 

As I've explained, this "legitimate and mutually beneficial means of exchange" you're talking about does not exist in real human society without governing structure. We're not talking about Utopia, we're talking about real-world situations, right? Show us real-world examples of your system, and then we can talk. When you can't, you must acknowledge that you're tilting at windmills. If you don't.... well, that's about the end of the conversation, isn't it?

 

To answer your most recent post:

 

 

As I've explained, this "legitimate and mutually beneficial means of exchange" you're talking about does not exist in real human society without governing structure.

Are you serious? Without government, you would rob people blind? Well, at least you're honest.

 

Also, what do you mean by a governing structure? Does governing structure prevent illegitimate and destructive means from occuring? How? Could an individual not self govern? If you think legitimate and beneficial trade cannot take place without government then let me break this down for you in a simple and logical manner, which I will preface with the following statement: I will not and do not steal from or initiate violence against other people.

 

In reality exists society. Society consists of human individuals. I am human. Other individuals are also human. I am not government. Other individuals are not government. I own myself and by extension my property. Other individuals also own themselves and their property. Because it is our property we have the right to exchange it. I have values and preferences. Other individuals also have values and preferences. Sometimes I exchange my rightfully gained property, with other human beings, for property (goods and services) that I prefer and value more than the property I give up. Other individuals, do the same because they prefer and value my property more than the property they give up. If we did not prefer or value what we received more than what we give up, we would not make the exchange. Since the property we receive has more value to us then what we give up, the exchange is beneficial. Since both parties prefer and value the property rightfully received, the exchange is deemed legitimate and mutually beneficial. Therefore because our legitimate and mutually beneficial exchange is completed by myself and other individuals without goverment; individuals are human; humans make up society and society exists in reality; Then we can logically deduce that legitimate and mutually beneficial exchange also exists in real human society without government. End of story!!

 

There are two problems with your response. First, you are not responding to the point I made, only part of it. What I said was:

 

As I've explained, this "legitimate and mutually beneficial means of exchange" you're talking about does not exist in real human society without governing structure. We're not talking about Utopia, we're talking about real-world situations, right? Show us real-world examples of your system, and then we can talk. When you can't, you must acknowledge that you're tilting at windmills. If you don't.... well, that's about the end of the conversation, isn't it?

 

In total, I'm saying that a whole society cannot exist without some kind of governance. We're not talking about you and me, which you used as an example. You and I can engage in transactions, but you and I do not comprise a nation. How does your system propose to interact with other nations without some form of representation? And without that representation, who will take you seriously?

 

You're going to need some form of cohesive group that has authority to make trade agreements with other nations, and negotiate terms. That will, necessarily, be a representative body, and someone will have to oversee them. This is the nucleus of a "governing structure."

 

Further, your nation will have to provide for the common defense, since as we know without a competent military you will be overrun. A real-world, modern example of this is Kuwait circa 1992. With that common defense comes a need for a structure, a hierarchy. That's another facet of the nucleus of a "governing structure."

 

Now, if you're proposing a society akin to the stone age, where we trade locally with our neighbors and there is no interstate or international commerce, again you're talking fantasy, not reality.

 

Again, this is basic stuff you learn in the first month of high school sociology. I get that you don't want these things to be true so your Utopia can exist, but they are true, and sadly, your Utopia cannot exist today. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.