I see you as a disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish, young tough guy ... — James Riley

This is projection, I suspect.

Page-long personal attacks don't impress me, so I would spare myself the effort in the future.

That you were in the Marine Corps doesn't surprise me one bit. I liked the people I met there, but their worldviews were simplistic. Perhaps a simplistic worldview is required to commit acts of violence with the approval of one's own conscience - until that simple worldview comes back to haunt them.


To bring it back to the subject matter, your essential argument seems to be "If you don't like it get out."

My response is twofold:

- My liking or disliking does not change the nature of things. That individuals do not choose to be born or the society they live in, is a fact. That taxation is to force people to part with what they perceive to be theirs by threat of violence is a fact.

I guess by saying "If you don't like that, go away" you are agreeing with those points.


- Your stance is akin to asking a slave that if they don't like their slaveowners, why don't they swim back across the ocean to where they came from.

I think I need not explain to you why this doesn't make the slightest sense from a moral standpoint. If that is your standard, it is your standard, but then you'll have to apply it consistently.

Great post, thank you. I'm swayed to some extent but want to look at some points you raise further.

When the US was debating universal public healthcare, one of the things that derailed it was the Republican argument that there would be "death committees" that would be charged with determining who was provided care and who wasn't. The Democrats responded that was hyperbolic and inaccurate. As you've stated it though, you seem to accept that some government accounting committee would in fact intervene in the decision of who gets what health care and who does not. That is, you seem to be generally agreeing there will be and should be such death committees. That seems to me a hard strike against public health care ever coming to exist in the US if it were to move forward in the way you've suggested. — Hanover

It is obviously hyperbolic. Care is, at all times, rationed. There's decisions on how many beds, how many doctors, how many nurses, how many vents, CAT-scans, etc. etc. made all the time. Should we spend 2 million EUR per dose of Zolgensma?

And let's not pretend the private insurance companies treat this any differently. How many US insurance companies cover Zolgensma? And if they do, how much does the premium go up making it unavailable for most? (I'd say there is another issue here where a lot of public research and development goes into what is eventually privately patented so we should be wondering about the whole pharmaceutical setup to begin with, but totally different discussion).

The important difference with universal healthcare and private healthcare insurance is that the decisions on what to cover isn't a cost-benefit analysis with respect to profit for private companies but instead about an efficient distribution of cost and effective care.

So if we must use the hyperbole, I'd rather have a death committee I can vote about and politically influence than one that will randomly change my coverage as its shareholders require to make a profit that I cannot influence.

What we should be forbidden to consider are factors surrounding the ethical worth of the two individuals, where the good hearted humanitarian gets the heart but Ebenezer Scrooge is left to die or where the prostitute is overlooked, but the community leader gets the nod, or, more pointedly, where the vaccinated gets care and the unvaccinated gets denied. — Hanover

This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I'm not arguing about the moral worth of a person, I'm arguing about taking into account culpable behaviour that contributes to the hospitalization. In a car accident where there's a victim and a speedster and only one operating room available and operating one means the other dies, I'd save the victim first. Why? Because the perpetrator has culpably contributed to his own hospitalisation. That lowers the responsibility on others to save him. I don't find this an ethically difficult position to hold.

You can frame it any way you like - it doesn't change what taxation is. — Tzeentch

Yawn.

For taxation to be theft, there must be a right to pre-tax income. Legally, this is clearly not the case.

A moral right to pre-tax income can only be said to exist if earned income results in a fair and equitable payment for labour rendered. This too is false. Market circumstances are not concerned with the moral worth of labour or who needs the job the most or who is most deserving of fulfilling the assignment. So a moral right to pre-tax income is incoherent.

Since no rights are infringed, there's no theft.

In other words, your statement is laden with so many unspoken assumptions it can be dismissed as the opinion of an uneducated layman who simply doesn't like paying taxes.

For taxation to be theft, there must be a right to pre-tax income. Legally, this is clearly not the case. — Benkei

Approaching the matter from a legal standpoint holds no moral significance. The state deciding it has rights to things just like a feudal ruler decides it deserves a share of the farmer's grain.


This is followed up by an opinion of what belongs to who - it is a perception. As I said, taxation is to force individuals to part with what they perceive to be theirs under threat of violence.

If you accept that opinions can justify violence, then there is no moral framework, only might makes right.

Of course, some are completely fine with that, but only for as long as they agree with those opinions. That is hypocrisy.

Excellent. You totally didn't understand the argument as expected. I dismissed the legal argument for a right to pre-tax income in one sentence. Obviously, I don't find it important.

What's the moral basis for claiming you have a moral right to pre-tax income if moral considerations are entirely absent from market functioning? There isn't one. When's the last time a discount on bread was given for the hungry? That the best and most capable, and therefore most deserving, person gets paid the most is the exception to the rule. There's so many reasons why this is the case and why the market mechanism doesn't result in moral outcomes that this should be obvious. Please let me know if your imagination is so stunted that this needs an exposition for your educational benefit.

The right to income arises within the framework and context of existing social systems as embedded in society which cannot be separated from its legal framework because that supports and upholds the socio-economic framework through various laws such as enforcing the terms and conditions of agreements through courts, policing frauds, setting standards etc. etc. That same system requires you to pay taxes; you cannot claim a right provided by society on the one hand and deny the obligations that come with it.

Do you believe you are describing an opinion or a cosmic truth?

I believe I actually have an argument where you dodge questions and just like to repeat yourself.

I am not interested in your argumentation as to why you believe what you believe. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to live in accordance with them.

The issue arises when one uses that opinion as a justification for violence. Because if one permits themselves to use violence based on their opinion, then one permits others to do the same. Who gets to impose their opinion on others? The person with the largest capacity for violence - might makes right.

As I said, many people are fine with this, but only for as long as they agree with the opinions that are being imposed. That is hypocrisy.

First of all, if you're not interested in argumentation, get the fuck out of here. My "beliefs" are at least well-founded. I've not read arguments from you on this thread just repetitive inane talking point or "oooh you're a bad person".

Second, you're so stuck in wanting to disagree with me it creates a spontaneous inability to read on your part. I've not argued might makes right anywhere nor does it logically follow from my arguments. I've merely demonstrated that there can be no theft because the right to pre-tax income is morally and legally incoherent.

In other words, your statement doesn't logically hold and therefore is a false belief.

First of all, if you're not interested in argumentation, get the fuck out of here. — Benkei

You are responding to me, not the other way around.

I've not argued might makes right anywhere nor does it logically follow from my arguments. — Benkei

Yes, it does.

You have an opinion about what belongs to who and use it to justify taxation. Taxation relies on threats of violence.

Now lets say someone else disagrees with you. What should stop them from using their opinions to justify violence against you?

You have an opinion about what belongs to who and use it to justify taxation. Taxation relies on threats of violence. — Tzeentch

So you're not opposed to taxation by PAYE-type systems, only invoiced ones? The solution seems simple, have the government take the tax portion of the wage packet before it's given to you.

Alternatively, they could just take it directly from your bank account, or break into your house when you're out and take cash.

No threat of violence is necessary.

Does the individual still face reprisal when the government decides the individual has taken more than they should have? If the answer is yes, then it still relies on violence to force compliance - it just made it harder to not comply.

Does the individual still face reprisal when the government decides the individual has taken more than they should have? — Tzeentch

No, no need. The government can just take it back.

The important difference with universal healthcare and private healthcare insurance is that the decisions on what to cover isn't a cost-benefit analysis with respect to profit for private companies but instead about an efficient distribution of cost and effective care. — Benkei

This will take us maybe too far afield because I don't want to turn this into a debate over the virtues of capitalism versus socialism, but, suffice it to say that even in a purely profit driven environment, a business entity must remain focused upon supplying services based upon the demand if it wants to realize profit. That is, an insurer can't expect to have subscribers if it excludes benefits for expected illnesses.

But back to what's interesting here:

This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I'm not arguing about the moral worth of a person, I'm arguing about taking into account culpable behaviour that contributes to the hospitalization. In a car accident where there's a victim and a speedster and only one operating room available and operating one means the other dies, I'd save the victim first. Why? Because the perpetrator has culpably contributed to his own hospitalisation. That lowers the responsibility on others to save him. I don't find this an ethically difficult position to hold. — Benkei

Let's start with the recognition that you are advocating for a radical departure from the current standard. You are asking that when intake nurses and doctors take patient histories that their purpose go beyond arriving at the best means of medical care, but you're asking that they perform some sort of inquiry into culpability for the patient's current condition. How far you wish to take that is the question for the slippery slope, as in, do we limit it to detecting perpetrators versus victims for the specific illness that has brought that patient in that day or do we do full assessments of the person to determine their general worthiness for this limited resource? If you wish to limit the inquiry as described, recognize that limitation is policy based, but not principle based, and is therefore arbitrary.

There are obvious pragmatic issues here, as in how are we to make such determinations in a medical care setting, clearly not wishing to have investigators, witnesses, advocates, and judges considering who is culpable and who is not in a room adjacent to the ER, and it's fairly obvious doctors would not have the skill, time, or inclination to engage in the justice administration process.

But pragmatic issues aside, the ethical issues are more pressing. Since this is all hypothetical thought experiment sort of stuff, we can simply erase the pragmatic concerns by inserting King Solomon in every ER, filled with the divine wisdom to immediately and accurately identify who the good are from the bad, the right from the wrong, and the culpable from the victimized. Even under that scenario, I would still object that it is an unethical enterprise.

To bring this point home more clearly I think, I'll remove this from the hypothetical world and take it outside the setting of emergency care, where there are in fact patients who have had full investigations, jury trials, and rounds of appeals and who now sit in prison cells. Ought we afford them less care than others?

So in your hypothetical it is not just harder not to comply, but it is made impossible, essentially.

A situation in which states have absolute supervision and control of their citizens' wealth reeks of totalitarianism, and I have plenty of objections to that, but even in such a state there need to be laws against avoiding taxation through things like undeclared work and citizens bartering among themselves.

This will take us maybe too far afield because I don't want to turn this into a debate over the virtues of capitalism versus socialism, but, suffice it to say that even in a purely profit driven environment, a business entity must remain focused upon supplying services based upon the demand if it wants to realize profit. That is, an insurer can't expect to have subscribers if it excludes benefits for expected illnesses. — Hanover

It's not a debate about the virtues of capitalism or socialism but a debate between privatised and universal healthcare. Under the first, you're definitely screwed if you have a rare disease. At least universal healthcare is subject to public debate, instead of board room decisions. Moreover, due to the fact universal healthcare includes more people, the risk mutualisation is spread over a greater number of people. In theory it should be more affordable to also cover rarer diseases. In practice this is proved time and again by the fact both coverage is greater and costs are lower in countries with universal healthcare as opposed to the US, while quality of care is, on average, better too.

Of course, the US has extreme outliers in both directions and the best care available in the world most likely would be in the US. That's the only upside of the profit driven mechanism in the US I can think of.

As I said, universal healthcare makes economic sense.

Ought we afford them less care than others? — Hanover

Are you asking whether prisoners should be afforded less care than others? Then no.

It's only relevant if other triage considerations have already been exhausted (such as, acuteness of the care needed, beneficence and maleficence) and if the information is available whether such a person has contributed to the hospitalisation themselves, then I would use that information and I think it would be ethical to do so.

You are responding to me, not the other way around. — Tzeentch

You've repeatedly initiated discussions towards me. So this is another stupid remark.

The rest of your post, as usual, doesn't contain an argument. I'll ignore you from now on.

The rest of your post, as usual, doesn't contain an argument. — Benkei

It sure does.

And I am also sure that you see it, but don't want to see it.

@Isaac, scouring back over comments, I see you want to make a comparative argument — Harley Davidson, obesity, ... That's all fine, I suppose.

Meanwhile, we still have to deal with the damn pandemic.

The simple part is that more or less everyone wants the damn pandemic to be gone, to a reasonable extent, and so sensible people follow protocols to do theirs in whatever ways (mask, sanitize, distance, etc). Vaccinations are a great step forward. — jorndoe

The mutative nature of SARS-CoV-2 doesn't help. Rhetoric and influential celebrities dishing out poor/irresponsible/unqualified (pseudo)advice doesn't help. Inciting fear/panic doesn't help.
...
Vaccinations (and commonsensical precautions) do.


^{• Number of COVID-19 cases not as concerning as hospital admissions, says Dr. Nathanson (Sep 2, 2021)}

So in your hypothetical it is not just harder not to comply, but it is made impossible, essentially. — Tzeentch

Yes, that's right.

A situation in which states have absolute supervision and control of their citizens' wealth reeks of totalitarianism — Tzeentch

Yes, I'd prefer there was some agreement over who owned what, but you seem vehemently opposed to the idea of us coming to such an agreement, so I was proposing a non-violent alternative. We all just take what we think is ours. There'll be an awful lot of back-and-forth, but there needn't be any violence.

even in such a state there need to be laws against avoiding taxation through things like undeclared work and citizens bartering among themselves. — Tzeentch

No, not really, the government could simply spy on people, and if it thinks they've not declared work or income in kind, it just takes what it thinks it's owed.

Why do you think I am opposed to agreements?

No, not really, the government could simply spy on people, and if it thinks they've not declared work or income in kind, it just takes what it thinks it's owed. — Isaac

If there is no law against circumventing the system the government puts in place, you do not think people would try their best at doing just that?

Rhetoric and influential celebrities dishing out poor/irresponsible/unqualified (pseudo)advice doesn't help. Inciting fear/panic doesn't help.
...
Vaccinations (and commonsensical precautions) do. — jorndoe

Absolutely.

Why do you think I am opposed to agreements? — Tzeentch

Because an agreement is what we currently have. The result of our agreement, about who owns what, (for which we used the democratic system) is that the government owns 20% of the pay you take home. You seem to think that, rather than by agreement, you get to decide whatever you think is your property.

If there is no law against circumventing the system the government puts in place, you do not think people would try their best at doing just that? — Tzeentch

I'm sure they would, and if the government discover them doing so they could take whatever they think they're owed for such transgressions.

The result of our agreement, about who owns what, (for which we used the democratic system) is that the government owns 20% of the pay you take home. — Isaac

I never agreed to that.

You seem to think that, rather than by agreement, you get to decide whatever you think is your property. — Isaac

No, I don't think I do.

I haven't shared any opinions about what I believe belongs to who. What I have shared are opinions on the nature of taxation and using opinions to justify violence.

What COVID-19 revealed about preventing pandemic influenza

That's some anyway.

In all, whilst I think vaccination has a few merits as a choice of preventative measure to bolster a flagging health system, it's knocked out of the water by a half dozen other far more suitable candidates, all of which are being ignored solely for ideological reasons — Isaac

For us laymen, could you provide an example of some of those alternative measures?

A large minority of this country are so distrustful of everything except their favored media, that they're willing to fight on the side of Covid, climate change, and insurrection. All in the name of "freedom," of course.

It's a large death cult which will probably bring everyone down with it.

I never agreed to that. — Tzeentch

Oh, so which method of reaching agreement on who owns what do you want? Democracy's no good for you it seems. Consensus perhaps? Would you have us consult each and every person and conclude nothing until all agreed? What should we do about property in the meantime? Back to taking whatever we think is ours?

I haven't shared any opinions about what I believe belongs to who. — Tzeentch

That's not the opinion which would counter the claim. The means by which we, as a society, decide what belongs to whom, is. If not decided simply by what you think you own, not decided by democratic systems either, then by what means?

A large minority of this country are so distrustful of everything except their favored media — Xtrix

You think that's a minority group?

It's the philosopher's job to contemplate the nature of things, not necessarily to offer alternatives.

When a philosopher explains that killing is immoral, one doesn't ask how one can still cause death without killing.

You ask me how one can forcefully redistribute wealth according to their liking and make people part with what they believe to be theirs without having to resort to violence and my answer is simple: one shouldn't want to.