nevermind, i was wrong the whole time. sorry everyone!
nevermind, i was wrong the whole time. sorry everyone!
Superiority Complex wrote:
Dr. Donothing... you are trying WAY too hard to sound like an intelligent and educated thinker. You lost all credibility when you decided that the Oxford dictionary definition of "altruism" was wrong, and you have only gone downhill from then.
"Civilization is an establishment in which men are legally protected protected from physical force"???
What kind of rubbish is that? What physical force are we being protected from? And, how is the "forceful expropriation" (do you really type this with a straight face??) of taxes to pay for health care less civilized than the forceful expropriation of wealth to pay for bombing other countries, building roads, or paying a police force?
Don't worry... I am not expecting an answer.
The definition of altruism that was provided ("concern for the welfare of others") is wrong. Whether it really came from the Oxford dictionary, I don't know. If it did, then the Oxford dictionary is wrong. Dictionaries are not always correct, after all.
Confiscation of private property by the state (taxes as such) is always wrong regardless of what the money is used for. National defense and police are legitimate functions of government; roads and healthcare should be private industries.
haha i love trolling!! got you!
the sayer of so wrote:
Confiscation of private property by the state (taxes as such) is always wrong regardless of what the money is used for. National defense and police are legitimate functions of government;
How could you even believe i was serious with such obvious contradictions of myself. You can't have government without taxes, that's ridiculous!!!
Oxford dictionary is wrong? I may see SOME credibility in that nonsense if Oxford was contradicted by Merriam-Webster, but I am going to hazard a guess (without wasting my time and looking it up) that it is not. Dictionaries define words. That is what they do. The biggest irony here is that the person pretending to be you sounds like LESS of a troll than you do.
Private roads? Seriously? Explain to me how that works. I need a laugh.
UncleB wrote:
I ask you, if there were a God, would He (She) make so many fools?
He made you!
clever, never wrote:
Private roads? Seriously? Explain to me how that works. I need a laugh.
Private parties buy lengths of land, build roads on them, charge user fees. Various payment mechanisms would evolve so that people wouldn't have to stop at a toll booth or buy a unique pass for every different road in the country. It would be a lot like using debit/ credit cards.
Superiority Complex wrote:
Oxford dictionary is wrong? I may see SOME credibility in that nonsense if Oxford was contradicted by Merriam-Webster, but I am going to hazard a guess (without wasting my time and looking it up) that it is not. Dictionaries define words. That is what they do. The biggest irony here is that the person pretending to be you sounds like LESS of a troll than you do.
The definition supposedly provided by the Oxford dictionary is the the one used is casual discourse, not the true philosophical definition. Correctly states, altruism is a MORAL CODE, not a mental state, which prescribes an OBLIGATION, not a desire, to serve others regardless of whether one wants to or not. Don't lileva particular individual and don't want to serve him? Too bad, altruism demands that you serve him anyway. Why? Because altruism says so.
caveman wrote:
No one is expecting an MRI for any paper cuts. However, 45,000 people die every year due to the lack of health care, 15 times the number who were killed in the 9/11 attacks for which we have been at war since 2003 and spent $3 trillion.
And far less than have ever died for lack of health care in the history of the country
Health care is provided as a public good in every other civilized country in the world, usually at a much lower cost and at a much higher quality level.
And still we have the longest life expectancy in our nation's history.
A powerful insurance lobby has managed to bribe our politicians sufficiently so that that kind of thing wont happen here. The rest of the world is laughing at us.
I could not possibly care less what the rest of the world thinks about our health care. That is not a reason to further tax people merely to force a universal system upon them.
Its time to wake up to the game however given the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, I doubt anything substantive will happen.
Thank God.
the sayer of so wrote:
The definition of altruism that was provided ("concern for the welfare of others") is wrong.
It is the universally (except for you) accepted definition.
Whether it really came from the Oxford dictionary, I don't know. If it did, then the Oxford dictionary is wrong. Dictionaries are not always correct, after all.
If it comes down to a choice between the Oxford English Dictionary and anonymous internet poster "Sayer of So", I am going to take a chance and go with Oxford.
Call me crazy
Confiscation of private property by the state (taxes as such) is always wrong regardless of what the money is used for. National defense and police are legitimate functions of government; roads and healthcare should be private industries.
National defense and police must be paid for. That cannot happen without taxes. Therefore they cannot happen without what you just told us is wrong. You need to make up your mind.
yes....its true.....I have no dick....
Sorry Bro... either your head is so far up your own ass that you cannot hear reason OR you are a master troll.
Neither one is worth debating with.
clever, never wrote:
You'll have to explain your argument to me. You might have a point, but I don't think I get it.
If you pay a company for the garbage to be, then that's a different case.
But why don't you have the right to use a park to which you contribute maintenance costs?
Right now, health care is like a big backyard, or a country club. Only the owners and those who can afford it are allowed to use it. If we make health care like a park or public library, how are you prohibited from using it?
Nice!
You have captured this argument succinctly!
Perhaps the poster should tell us whether we have the right to use teh highways, public libraries, public school, public parks, police/fire department services e.t.c.
Government revenue should be collected in voluntarily provided contributions and certain fee-for-service arrangements. For example, the government could charge a small fee on contracts protected by the judicial system. In times of war, people who agreed with the would make contributions, so military activity could only be proportionate to public approval. A scaled down government could operate efficiently on $100 billion per year. In a robust economy, this could easily be met by voluntary means with no need for taxes.
Regarding the existing public institutions, you have a right to access what you were forced to pay for; this is recompensation. However, the government did not have the right to establish these institutions (with the exception of law enforcement) and does not have the right to maintain them. In other words, you do have every right to use what you paid for, but most of those institutions should still be abolished.
Please cite the Supreme Court case that is on point on the facts above to which you refer.
the sayer of so wrote:
Regarding the existing public institutions, you have a right to access what you were forced to pay for; this is recompensation. However, the government did not have the right to establish these institutions (with the exception of law enforcement) and does not have the right to maintain them. In other words, you do have every right to use what you paid for, but most of those institutions should still be abolished.
You should move to Liberia. All institutions have been destroyed. No government at all. Plenty of cheap labor. Guns for hire to protect your property. Nobody will ever know you are there.
...check it out...
the sayer of so wrote:
Government revenue should be collected in voluntarily provided contributions and certain fee-for-service arrangements. For example, the government could charge a small fee on contracts protected by the judicial system. In times of war, people who agreed with the would make contributions, so military activity could only be proportionate to public approval. A scaled down government could operate efficiently on $100 billion per year. In a robust economy, this could easily be met by voluntary means with no need for taxes.
Fail.
All contracts must be protected, period. That's one of the basic functions of government. Like police. Fail to do so and society quite simply falls apart. It won't matter if you government can operate efficiently on $100,000,000,000 or $100. It will be thrown out of office (either by election or by insurrection faster than you can write the zeroes.
This debate is stupid. Neither side (Almost Everyone vs. The Sayer of So) will reach a solution because of two differing beliefs which are mutually exclusive. The OP's belief makes the most sense financially for him, but anyone with an inkling compassion or ALTRUISTIC beliefs would not be able to agree with him fully. For the majority of the country, socialized health care would be a good thing.
Neither belief is "wrong"...although I assume the OP must favour privatized security companies that you pay premiums for (as opposed to a public police).