Liberty

Stop whining please, I have no interest in appeasing you. I would very much welcome some tough questions, though.

tommo, either answer any of my questions about the basic moral philosophy (starting with my first response to you which was never resolved, and if you could read the OP this time that'd be appreciated), and explain why you don't accept the paths of inference, or if you can't, be a man and stop chirping in. The idea that I have vested interests in a philosophy I only started seriously reading about a few months ago is a pathetic excuse for a smoke screen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Are you joking? It would be a measly amount compared to the tax on existing things.

Spread it out evenly over the population, or place the burden on a select group of people who choose to gain knowledge for the benefit of everybody. Which one is more logical?

---

This is a great point. Although it is not given that an individual person's knowledge gained through education will be used for the greater good, knowledge in general will invariably help all people by facilitating the creation of the technology that is going to make everyone's lives so much better. This would be similar to saying that you are going to tax people for medical care because everyone will have access to it. Everyone will inevitably have access to the benefits of knowledge and so by the same logic, everyone should pay for it.

And you're okay with imprisoning them if they disagree with you; if, for example, they are anti-technology and believe in returning to a simple rural life? That deserves prison?

If everybody will benefit from it then everyone can donate to scholarships, can't they? Why is it inaccurate to construe your position as saying that you know better than everybody, and that you are going to impose your idea on the entire population by force, rather than letting them opt in if they agree with you?

Organisms evolve not just through competition but cooperation. When one is considering an ideal society the key word is sustainability. Without proper liberty and personal freedom the society does not continue to develop and loses its competitive edge thus making it unsustainable. When there is no regulation on people's liberty this is like the body never developing immunities, like a stomach without lining. Society must evolve to remain powerful and must be powerful to remain sustainable. But in a completely unregulated environment power for the sake of power beats power for the sake of sustainability. Thus greedy capitalists make a fortune and become very powerful at the expense of the society's health.

In short I call for balance. You need enough liberty for new things to keep coming up and giving your society that competitive edge but you need social regulation to ensure it does not collapse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

And you're okay with imprisoning them if they disagree with you; if, for example, they are anti-technology and believe in returning to a simple rural life? That deserves prison?

If everybody will benefit from it then everyone can donate to scholarships, can't they? Why is it inaccurate to construe your position as saying that you know better than everybody, and that you are going to impose your idea on the entire population by force, rather than letting them opt in if they agree with you?

---

How is it any different from forcing those who do not want to participate in the state sponsored health care system to pay taxes for other people's health care?

What if a giant meteor is on course to strike earth and potentially wipe all life from the surface of the planet. If we are able to divert its course with our technology, wouldn't the agrarian people who did not want to be a part of the educated world still benefit?

Another more likely example; If someone is robbing their farm, are the police then required to only ride horses to their property and leave their technologically advanced cars back at the station? (that is, assuming they weren't allowed to opt out of the taxes for the police force)

Sure, let people opt in. I just don't see the rationale of letting them opt in to some benefits but forcing other ones on everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

How is it any different from forcing those who do not want to participate in the state sponsored health care system to pay taxes for other people's health care?

What if a giant meteor is on course to strike earth and potentially wipe all life from the surface of the planet. If we are able to divert its course with our technology, wouldn't the agrarian people who did not want to be a part of the educated world still benefit?

Sure, let people opt in. I just don't see the rationale of letting them opt in to some benefits but forcing other ones on everyone.

---

Doesn't the OP discuss this in detail? ...that's rhetorical really, I know it does.

The argument I made is that the non-aggression principle applies in general, and this is on the basis of it being immoral to threaten somebody with force, incarceration, and seizure of property, for not giving you what you want, or believe in. However, there are some inalienable human rights where it is morally acceptable to force people to take action, using the analogy of a burning building. The issue is determining what these rights are. The right to not be left to die seems like a pretty certain one, hence health care.

If there were a meteor, it seems that would also legitimise forced support; although, from a pragmatic perspective, it seems extremely unlikely that self-interest wouldn't be enough to elicit voluntary action.

Your final comment is actually a contradiction of your position, you having put no cap on where force ends. Health? Education? Public transportation? Private transportation? Lavish parties for children?

I haven't really committed to any position so it would be impossible for me to contradict it.

Your analogy does not really apply to the topic of health care. What I asked is, if an individual does not want health care for themself, say they are a trained doctor and they desire to treat themself in any situation, they don't have any need or want for the state sponsored health care system and yet you are forcing them to pay for others.

Your cellphone call to save the person in the burning building does not work well with taxes. Taxes are a charge for some future possible benefit. Without knowing what need we will have in the future, how can you say that it will be necessary, or conversely, unecessary? What about your agrarian people who do not want education or the benefits of education? Do they want healthcare? What if they say they do not want healthcare and opt out of paying for it but at some point find themself in a life threatening situation and decide to go to the free clinic? What if the only way to get there is to take a bus that came into existence through the power of education and technology?

You say that the meteor should elicit voluntary action but we are talking about taxes here. By the time the meteor is discovered, the technology to divert it must already exist for it not to be too late. At this point there is not voluntary action available to the common man. The only possible way he could have helped was to help pay for the education of the people who would have developed the technology to save the day.

(added so that you don't think I am ignoring you when you say you've addressed the topic of healthcare)
I get that you are saying that we should be legally obligated to save another's life, but I'd say you haven't put a cap on force either. Should someone be forced to perform CPR? Should they be forced to enter the burning building if it can be reasonably assumed that they are capable of saving the person with little harm to themself? If the meteor happens to only be headed for the simple rural people's farm and will utterly destroy it while doing no harm to anyone else, should we be obligated to use the technology that they had no hand in developing to save them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

there needs to be an inviolable set of principles arrived at by logic and deliberation beforehand.

---

The adjustment bureau.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This is a great point. Although it is not given that an individual person's knowledge gained through education will be used for the greater good, knowledge in general will invariably help all people by facilitating the creation of the technology that is going to make everyone's lives so much better. This would be similar to saying that you are going to tax people for medical care because everyone will have access to it. Everyone will inevitably have access to the benefits of knowledge and so by the same logic, everyone should pay for it.

---

EXACTLY! Thankyou!


Xei, this is what is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

And you're okay with imprisoning them if they disagree with you; if, for example, they are anti-technology and believe in returning to a simple rural life? That deserves prison?

---

You are the one that said this. You said you want to force people in to your system.

Why do you keep inferring things that people don't say. This is why people get frustrated as fuck with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't mean to be rude but I have a strong feeling this is because you are American, and the American media has royally fucked your minds. I'm guessing you're calling this left-wing because lefties are supposed the nice guys who want to legalise drugs (and my state would legalise all of them) and the people on the right are the bastards who support capital punishment (which my state abhors) or suppress various 'unorthodox' religious beliefs (again my state doesn't tolerate this).

What left-wing actually means is the state intervening to create 'social equality' (by taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people); it means large government. My government is bare bones.

---

Uh. I know I'm real late, and the argument has moved on. But this caught my eye. As royally fucked as the American news media is, the system you are describing is in fact left-wing. Social welfare systems and provisions of education and health are methods of creating 'social equality'. And your government doesn't sound bare bones at all haha.