First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Why do people have a problem with healthcare being a right?
48108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17

srlan23 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


srlan23 wrote:

No because a TV isn't as much worth as a life and he didn't ask you to give him your TV.
You live in a country in which you have to pay taxes. You agree to do it by living and making money in that country. You can't do whatever you want just because you feel like it. You can't choose which taxes you pay and which not.


He didn't ask me to give him my TV? I mean, you can argue that taxpayers are asked whether they want to pay for healthcare, but if someone's answer is "no," and everyone else's is yes, then that person is paying for something which they do not consent to. You say I agree to do it by living and making money in the country, but when the alternative to living and making money is dying, it hardly seems like a free choice. The fact that governments are too powerful to oppose does not seem to me to give them any more or less of a claim to the products of my labor.


Well that's called democracy. You can't always do what you want. You can't pick which taxes you pay for a very good reason(= because the country would collapse otherwise). Btw. the alternative to living and and making money in the USA isn't necessarily dying, you could also move.


Oh? And where can I live and make money without paying taxes? And, your argument still doesn't apply to North Korea. Is their right to extract money justified?
13422 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17

theYchromosome wrote:


srlan23 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


srlan23 wrote:

No because a TV isn't as much worth as a life and he didn't ask you to give him your TV.
You live in a country in which you have to pay taxes. You agree to do it by living and making money in that country. You can't do whatever you want just because you feel like it. You can't choose which taxes you pay and which not.


He didn't ask me to give him my TV? I mean, you can argue that taxpayers are asked whether they want to pay for healthcare, but if someone's answer is "no," and everyone else's is yes, then that person is paying for something which they do not consent to. You say I agree to do it by living and making money in the country, but when the alternative to living and making money is dying, it hardly seems like a free choice. The fact that governments are too powerful to oppose does not seem to me to give them any more or less of a claim to the products of my labor.


Well that's called democracy. You can't always do what you want. You can't pick which taxes you pay for a very good reason(= because the country would collapse otherwise). Btw. the alternative to living and and making money in the USA isn't necessarily dying, you could also move.


Oh? And where can I live and make money without paying taxes? And, your argument still doesn't apply to North Korea. Is their right to extract money justified?


You could move to Dubai.
I never talked about North Korea and no, it's not justified. It's a dictatorship not a democracy. Nothing the government in NK does is because the people agreed with it.
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17

theYchromosome wrote:

You mean, just like how it's no longer "your television" the moment someone breaks into your house and takes it?


Not quite. It's an implied agreement. In other words, the best analogy (in referencing a television, at least) would be:

I gave my friend my 55" Samsung 4K Television but he's watching pornography on it and I disagree with it! I don't want him to be using my television for that kind of nonsense!

Well, you agreed that you were going to give the television (income tax) to your friend. Your friend (the government) decides what to do with it based on his decisions or desires (voting on it within Congress, or local government determines based on perceived needs locally). It's no longer your television because you gave it away and the intention of that television is to better your friend's life in some way or another (let's say he had a lesser/older television).

It's not "your money" the moment it becomes the "country's money". You're an individual taxpayer, not the mass of people altogether. In the United States, we don't get to vote on each, individual, topic like we do for the position of POTUS. I cannot vote for representatives or congressmen in states that I do not live in. The money that comes out of my paycheck for income tax goes to the federal government and likely gets given to states or programs that I do not agree with. It's implied that the government knows what is best for the country ("supposedly", at least) and that I'm giving them money because it's required as a citizen of this country if you're legally working.
17117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17
Since when does someone have a 'right' to another persons hard earn labor?

This is the damn problem right here. People don't want to work for their own things. They want to leech off others because it's far easier to tax those who are doing well and using it to pay for some lazy ass collecting welfare checks. No, this crap needs to end and people need to start taking responsibly for their own problems.
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17

descloud wrote:

Since when does someone have a 'right' to another persons hard earn labor?

This is the damn problem right here. People don't want to work for their own things. They want to leech off others because it's far easier to tax those who are doing well and using it to pay for some lazy ass collecting welfare checks. No, this crap needs to end and people need to start taking responsibly for their own problems.


Like I said, it's not "another person's hard earned labor".
Healthcare is basically keeping people alive, no? So if someone has free healthcare and continue to stay healthy, they can work longer and continue to provide more to the federal government.

But, that's just a theory. If we lower a number of social programs, sort out proper healthcare, and a means of getting people back into the workforce ... I'm pretty sure it would work out in the long run.
48108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/26/17

srlan23 wrote:

You could move to Dubai.
I never talked about North Korea and no, it's not justified. It's a dictatorship not a democracy. Nothing the government in NK does is because the people agreed with it.


Well, the argument you gave is that "living and making money" in a country gives it the rightful claim to its citizen's labor, which is the case in NK.

You've now revised your claim, as far as I know. You have now added, as I understand it, the requirement that "the people" agree to it. But, "the people" can't agree to anything. Only individuals have minds. There is no 'collective mind,' so to speak. Agreement is only physically given on an individual basis (only a person can agree to something. We can't say, for example, that a gang-rape is legitimate because 3/4 assented to it), and by that metric, we have one group of people that agree on something using the labor of a group of people that don't agree to it, to further their goals. Your metric is either impossible, or doesn't apply to a large number of people.
13422 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17

theYchromosome wrote:


Well, the argument you gave is that "living and making money" in a country gives it the rightful claim to its citizen's labor, which is the case in NK.

You've now revised your claim, as far as I know. You have now added, as I understand it, the requirement that "the people" agree to it. But, "the people" can't agree to anything. Only individuals have minds. There is no 'collective mind,' so to speak. Agreement is only physically given on an individual basis (only a person can agree to something. We can't say, for example, that a gang-rape is legitimate because 3/4 assented to it), and by that metric, we have one group of people that agree on something using the labor of a group of people that don't agree to it, to further their goals. Your metric is either impossible, or doesn't apply to a large number of people.


I thought it was obvious that I'm talking about democracies, not dictatorships, especially because it isn't always easy to leave a country which is ruled by a dictator.
Rape is illegal because the people, the majority of the citizens in your country want it to be illegal. Only because a few people (in this case the culprits) want to do it doesn't mean they're allowed to do it. If the majority of citizens had never wanted rape to be illegal it wouldn't be today.
You tell the government what you want when you vote.
48108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:

You mean, just like how it's no longer "your television" the moment someone breaks into your house and takes it?


Not quite. It's an implied agreement. In other words, the best analogy (in referencing a television, at least) would be:

I gave my friend my 55" Samsung 4K Television but he's watching pornography on it and I disagree with it! I don't want him to be using my television for that kind of nonsense!

Well, you agreed that you were going to give the television (income tax) to your friend. Your friend (the government) decides what to do with it based on his decisions or desires (voting on it within Congress, or local government determines based on perceived needs locally). It's no longer your television because you gave it away and the intention of that television is to better your friend's life in some way or another (let's say he had a lesser/older television).

It's not "your money" the moment it becomes the "country's money". You're an individual taxpayer, not the mass of people altogether. In the United States, we don't get to vote on each, individual, topic like we do for the position of POTUS. I cannot vote for representatives or congressmen in states that I do not live in. The money that comes out of my paycheck for income tax goes to the federal government and likely gets given to states or programs that I do not agree with. It's implied that the government knows what is best for the country ("supposedly", at least) and that I'm giving them money because it's required as a citizen of this country if you're legally working.


I have two problems with this.

1) I don't see how your example illustrates an implied agreement.

2) Implied agreements are prone to not actually represent the state of affairs. I'd say an example with this in mind would look like: "my friend took my TV, 'cause he thought it'd be cool--he thought there was an implied agreement that we shared everything 'cause we're so close." Perhaps it would go something like this: "If he had asked me for the TV ahead of time, I'd have said 'as long as you don't watch porn,' but because he never actually asked me, my property was used in a way I did not consent to." Here's the thing. Suppose I said, "let's not do an implied agreement. Let's have everyone decide only for themselves whether to enter into an agreement, what the terms are etc." My question is, if the terms of the contract were exactly what the government does right now, do you think everyone would sign? If not, then the 'implied agreement' is a false representation of affairs. Secondly, if someone does not agree to the terms, will they be forced to accept them anyway? If so, then it does not represent an agreement at all. The very word "agreement" would be a misnomer. What do you think of this?
48108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/3/17

srlan23 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


Well, the argument you gave is that "living and making money" in a country gives it the rightful claim to its citizen's labor, which is the case in NK.

You've now revised your claim, as far as I know. You have now added, as I understand it, the requirement that "the people" agree to it. But, "the people" can't agree to anything. Only individuals have minds. There is no 'collective mind,' so to speak. Agreement is only physically given on an individual basis (only a person can agree to something. We can't say, for example, that a gang-rape is legitimate because 3/4 assented to it), and by that metric, we have one group of people that agree on something using the labor of a group of people that don't agree to it, to further their goals. Your metric is either impossible, or doesn't apply to a large number of people.


I thought it was obvious that I'm talking about democracies, not dictatorships, especially because it isn't always easy to leave a country which is ruled by a dictator.
Rape is illegal because the people, the majority of the citizens in your country want it to be illegal. Only because a few people (in this case the culprits) want to do it doesn't mean they're allowed to do it. If the majority of citizens had never wanted rape to be illegal it wouldn't be today.
You tell the government what you want when you vote.


I'm aware of what democracy is. My argument is that democracy is inherently flawed. That is, that the majority of the citizens ought not decide how the minority lives. You've done nothing to address my criticism that assent is a feature of the individual mind. It is not a quality of groups of people. What happens when a minority does not assent?
13422 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17

theYchromosome wrote:


srlan23 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


Well, the argument you gave is that "living and making money" in a country gives it the rightful claim to its citizen's labor, which is the case in NK.

You've now revised your claim, as far as I know. You have now added, as I understand it, the requirement that "the people" agree to it. But, "the people" can't agree to anything. Only individuals have minds. There is no 'collective mind,' so to speak. Agreement is only physically given on an individual basis (only a person can agree to something. We can't say, for example, that a gang-rape is legitimate because 3/4 assented to it), and by that metric, we have one group of people that agree on something using the labor of a group of people that don't agree to it, to further their goals. Your metric is either impossible, or doesn't apply to a large number of people.


I thought it was obvious that I'm talking about democracies, not dictatorships, especially because it isn't always easy to leave a country which is ruled by a dictator.
Rape is illegal because the people, the majority of the citizens in your country want it to be illegal. Only because a few people (in this case the culprits) want to do it doesn't mean they're allowed to do it. If the majority of citizens had never wanted rape to be illegal it wouldn't be today.
You tell the government what you want when you vote.


I'm aware of what democracy is. My argument is that democracy is inherently flawed. That is, that the majority of the citizens ought not decide how the minority lives. You've done nothing to address my criticism that assent is a feature of the individual mind. It is not a quality of groups of people. What happens when a minority does not assent?


Well, that's the problem with democracy. You'll always have people who aren't happy with the way it is. There'll be always a minority who doesn't agree but I still think democracy is the best option we have.
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/2/17

Ryulightorb wrote:


ninjitsuko wrote:

To paraphrase most arguments against it:

"I work and I don't want my money going to someone who doesn't."


Which i think is a poor argument myself.


Agreeed.
83698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17
You can't have a "natural right" that requires the conscription of others to fulfill it. Also, what you are talking about is not a "right" to healthcare in the first place, but a "right" to healthcare insurance. If all doctors in the nation quit tomorrow, would the government force them into continuing their practice because healthcare is a "right"? Wouldn't that be akin to slavery?
48108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/3/17

srlan23 wrote:

Well, that's the problem with democracy. You'll always have people who aren't happy with the way it is. There'll be always a minority who doesn't agree but I still think democracy is the best option we have.


Well, I'd say a system of individual property and contract rights would be best. Anarcho-Capitalism, in short. If a minority disagrees, then they don't sign the contract. Simple as that. We allow people the option to "opt-out" of government if they want. It's far too broad a topic to cover here, but either way, I must still persist that who owns what should not be decided by whatever the majority feels might be best.
Posted 2/2/17

theYchromosome wrote:
Content Removed to Keep Quotes Shorter <Snip>


The "implied agreement" was simply that the friend who now "owns" the television is free to do as they wish. There weren't any stipulations on it at the time of giving him said television. It was implied as there weren't any known stipulations to avoid when taking the television home.

When income tax (federal and state) comes out of your paycheck when you get it, this money is being given to their respective departments (the state government in which you live and the federal government). It's implied that the state will use the income tax taken from your check to improve the quality of life within your state and assist social programs (perhaps); while the federal government will utilize the income tax funds that were taken out of your paycheck to increase the overall quality and security of the country.

This doesn't mean that you get to pick and choose what is considered "better quality" or "more secure". Instead, you have a Representative (or two) and a member of Senate to speak on the behalf of those who voted for said persons in their respective state. Even if you disagree with said representative, politically speaking, you're free to contact them and voice concerns regarding active decisions that are pending in the House of Representation or the Senate. They don't have to agree with your opinion, nor does it mean that they have to vote in favor of your opinion. It just means that they can hear your call and decide whether it would be better or worse for the country (based on their own opinion).


My question is if the terms of the contract were exactly what the government does right now, do you think everyone would sign? If not, then the 'implied agreement' is a false representation of affairs. Secondly, if someone does not agree to the terms, will they be forced to accept them anyway? If so, then it does not represent an agreement at all. The very word "agreement" would be a misnomer. What do you think of this?


The contract/agreement was made the moment you were born into this country or became a citizen. The "implied" aspect is simply the implied actions/inactions of those that represent their constituents in our federal, state, and local governments. I've met quite a few people who disagree with the terms, past, and present but accept that it's something they must do in order to continue working in the United States. "Agreement" isn't a misnomer in this situation because it's a known expectation. You can simply refuse to live in the United States and don't abide by their rules. The "agreement" was made long before any of us were born, on behalf of the country that we live in. It's implied because you know about it, that you expect a certain outcome, that you have specific social freedoms, and that you're given the right to vote.

To disagree would simply mean you leave the country and work elsewhere. Though, as someone who has lived overseas (in England) and worked there - the United States still expects you to pay income tax on any income over $30,000 overseas or else you lose your citizenship. So if you wholeheartedly agree, that's a route you can take to show disagreement with the implied agreement. It doesn't change the fact that the moment that income tax is collected on both state and federal levels that you no longer have authority over it nor do you own it. That's not "your money" nor is it "your hard labor" ... it's the United States of America's money at that point.
83698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:
Content Removed to Keep Quotes Shorter <Snip>


The "implied agreement" was simply that the friend who now "owns" the television is free to do as they wish. There weren't any stipulations on it at the time of giving him said television. It was implied as there weren't any known stipulations to avoid when taking the television home.

When income tax (federal and state) comes out of your paycheck when you get it, this money is being given to their respective departments (the state government in which you live and the federal government). It's implied that the state will use the income tax taken from your check to improve the quality of life within your state and assist social programs (perhaps); while the federal government will utilize the income tax funds that were taken out of your paycheck to increase the overall quality and security of the country.

This doesn't mean that you get to pick and choose what is considered "better quality" or "more secure". Instead, you have a Representative (or two) and a member of Senate to speak on the behalf of those who voted for said persons in their respective state. Even if you disagree with said representative, politically speaking, you're free to contact them and voice concerns regarding active decisions that are pending in the House of Representation or the Senate. They don't have to agree with your opinion, nor does it mean that they have to vote in favor of your opinion. It just means that they can hear your call and decide whether it would be better or worse for the country (based on their own opinion).


My question is if the terms of the contract were exactly what the government does right now, do you think everyone would sign? If not, then the 'implied agreement' is a false representation of affairs. Secondly, if someone does not agree to the terms, will they be forced to accept them anyway? If so, then it does not represent an agreement at all. The very word "agreement" would be a misnomer. What do you think of this?


The contract/agreement was made the moment you were born into this country or became a citizen. The "implied" aspect is simply the implied actions/inactions of those that represent their constituents in our federal, state, and local governments. I've met quite a few people who disagree with the terms, past, and present but accept that it's something they must do in order to continue working in the United States. "Agreement" isn't a misnomer in this situation because it's a known expectation. You can simply refuse to live in the United States and don't abide by their rules. The "agreement" was made long before any of us were born, on behalf of the country that we live in. It's implied because you know about it, that you expect a certain outcome, that you have specific social freedoms, and that you're given the right to vote.

To disagree would simply mean you leave the country and work elsewhere. Though, as someone who has lived overseas (in England) and worked there - the United States still expects you to pay income tax on any income over $30,000 overseas or else you lose your citizenship. So if you wholeheartedly agree, that's a route you can take to show disagreement with the implied agreement. It doesn't change the fact that the moment that income tax is collected on both state and federal levels that you no longer have authority over it nor do you own it. That's not "your money" nor is it "your hard labor" ... it's the United States of America's money at that point.


Social contract is BS. You can't have an agreement at the point of a gun. You can't have an implied agreement with your government. Because anything you would considered as an "implied agreement" is at the point of a gun (the government's power).
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.