Patriotism vs nationalism

[Shwa]

The most obvious example is in our method of taxation.

Don't get me wrong, I believe a 17% flat tax is the way to go. However, I must invoke the philosophical 'no man is an island' rule and test your contention:

The government owns and demands almost half of my production.

By the same token, you (i.e. "the citizen') own (i.e. as a shareholder) and demand services, which is what the government produces.

So in that light, it is a fair exchange (i.e. taxes for services) wouldn't you agree? The only thing to quibble about is the levels and methods of taxation, but I don't see that in itself as an erosion of private property rights.

[Pliny]

Don't get me wrong, I believe a 17% flat tax is the way to go. However, I must invoke the philosophical 'no man is an island' rule and test your contention:

Income tax is not a way to go at all.

If I have some special disaster or anything happen to me and I need all my resources to

pay for it. The government is there taking it's share before and the more I try and make the more it takes. If I move to a different tax bracket I lose pretty much everything I worked to rise above it. A flat tax would eliminate that from happening and be an improvement. It is also a fair and just application of law applied equally to all citizens which is necessary for any law to be valid. Once government has shown prejudice or bias or favour toward one group over another in it's laws it loses it's ability to deliver justice. This is how the Marxist principle of "from each according to his ability and to each according to their need" taints governments ability to deliver justice. It instead becomes the arbiter of who shall pay and who shall receive.

I posted an article on taxation in the other thread and it can be found:Here

It is an interesting article. And discusses how it is also an erosion of property rights and how they are important.

By the same token, you (i.e. "the citizen') own (i.e. as a shareholder) and demand services, which is what the government produces.

So in that light, it is a fair exchange (i.e. taxes for services) wouldn't you agree? The only thing to quibble about is the levels and methods of taxation, but I don't see that in itself as an erosion of private property rights.

If I am paying for something you would think I would have the right to demand services.

What services am I demanding from the federal government. Justice? I have already stated why it can't deliver justice. It has now in the business of making all things equal so it doesn't have to deliver justice -only ensure that equality is achieved.

I, an advocate of small and limited government, do not demand a lot of services from the federal government. I demand it shrink itself to a limited mandate of national security, foreign affairs, immigration, and that is about it. I am wary of any offers it makes to provide me with more services and expand itself. We can totally do away with the department of multiculturalism and a few others, in my view.

It is then an affordable agency and taxation can be in forms that are not as coercive as an income tax.

Yes, I agree, "No man is an island" and through economic activity that is mutually and cooperatively agreed to we all benefit. Governments skimming as much of the surplus out of the economy as the public will allow without revolting is not about cooperation or contracts to provide services. I have no option to opt out of payment nor can I determine the level of service I wish. Americans do not wish to have healthcare with a government option. This is totally not understandable to most Canadians and serves to illustrate a citizenry dependent upon the State and one that isn't and doesn't want to be. Americans would rather keep what they have. I think they realize changes are necessary but a wholesale takeover by government is not an option.

[Michael Hardner]

Income tax is not a way to go at all.

If I have some special disaster or anything happen to me and I need all my resources to

pay for it. The government is there taking it's share before and the more I try and make the more it takes. If I move to a different tax bracket I lose pretty much everything I worked to rise above it. A flat tax would eliminate that from happening and be an improvement. It is also a fair and just application of law applied equally to all citizens which is necessary for any law to be valid. Once government has shown prejudice or bias or favour toward one group over another in it's laws it loses it's ability to deliver justice. This is how the Marxist principle of "from each according to his ability and to each according to their need" taints governments ability to deliver justice. It instead becomes the arbiter of who shall pay and who shall receive.

The desire for a tax that is the same for all people may be mathematically consistent, but it doesn't server to create a better society. A higher tax rate for those who are fortunate enough to have "won" is a form of social insurance to insure that those at the bottom of society don't fall into a state where they will be a burden on those around them. What works is what's fair.

The extra few percentage points of income for those at the higher end are not as useful to them as they would be to those at the bottom. It's a tithe, and is consistent with the idea of "noblesse oblige". They benefit from a stable and prosperous society, the very system that contributed to where they are today, so they benefit from making sure it stays stable and prosperous.

I posted an article on taxation in the other thread and it can be found:Here

It is an interesting article. And discusses how it is also an erosion of property rights and how they are important.

If I am paying for something you would think I would have the right to demand services.

What services am I demanding from the federal government. Justice? I have already stated why it can't deliver justice. It has now in the business of making all things equal so it doesn't have to deliver justice -only ensure that equality is achieved.

So because we have graduated income tax, then the entire system of justice is useless to you as a service ?

I, an advocate of small and limited government, do not demand a lot of services from the federal government. I demand it shrink itself to a limited mandate of national security, foreign affairs, immigration, and that is about it. I am wary of any offers it makes to provide me with more services and expand itself. We can totally do away with the department of multiculturalism and a few others, in my view.

A major function of those three departments is to advance the economic interests of Canada, though. I guess you could shrink them even more if you took out the lobbying they do for Canadian products and so on.

It is then an affordable agency and taxation can be in forms that are not as coercive as an income tax.

Yes, I agree, "No man is an island" and through economic activity that is mutually and cooperatively agreed to we all benefit. Governments skimming as much of the surplus out of the economy as the public will allow without revolting is not about cooperation or contracts to provide services. I have no option to opt out of payment nor can I determine the level of service I wish. Americans do not wish to have healthcare with a government option. This is totally not understandable to most Canadians and serves to illustrate a citizenry dependent upon the State and one that isn't and doesn't want to be. Americans would rather keep what they have. I think they realize changes are necessary but a wholesale takeover by government is not an option.

What is economic "surplus" ? The wealthiest would likely opt for little to no taxation, which is why taxes aren't voluntary.

US Healthcare is an example of what happens with a free market system. The cost of doctors, the middlemen, the overhead all contribute to the system being more expensive for all, and prohibitively so for some.

[bush_cheney2004]

US Healthcare is an example of what happens with a free market system. The cost of doctors, the middlemen, the overhead all contribute to the system being more expensive for all, and prohibitively so for some.

....and the resulting "US Healthcare" excess capacity provided by that free market is utilized by Canada's provinces to fill in serious gaps.

[Shwa]

First, a hilarious quote from Roland Barthes on Jules Verne, "...his work proclaims that nothing can escape man, that the world, even its most distant part, is like an object in his hand, and that, all told, property is but a dialectical moment in the general enslavement of Nature." - Mythologies, 1957

The extra few percentage points of income for those at the higher end are not as useful to them as they would be to those at the bottom. It's a tithe, and is consistent with the idea of "noblesse oblige". They benefit from a stable and prosperous society, the very system that contributed to where they are today, so they benefit from making sure it stays stable and prosperous.

I don't want to tackle the fuzzy social mathematics that justifies the modern gradual tax system we have, but I can say that "noblesse oblige" also includes tax shelters and loopholes that help the higher income earners reduce their tax levels to below the burden as experienced by the average middle class ratepayer. I see the flat tax system as insurance and assurance.

If I am paying for something you would think I would have the right to demand services.

And you do have the right, same as everyone else. It is written in your social contract. I think we need to mind the fact that money collected through federal tax also goes to fund the administration agencies at the provincial, municipal and city levels which includes those justice agancies you may interact with. I am betting that you have far more interaction with your muncipal or city government than the federal and thus your wish for a 'small and limited government' is what you already experience. These are the levels of service you wish.

As for 'opting out' well, it is cliched, but anyone can move away and try their luck in a nation that is more suitable towards their needs.

[Shwa]

....and the resulting "US Healthcare" excess capacity provided by that free market is utilized by Canada's provinces to fill in serious gaps.

Really? That is very interesting. Do you have a link that shows provincial agreements with "US Healthcare" to utilize this excess capacity for "serious gaps?" Thanks.

[bush_cheney2004]

Really? That is very interesting. Do you have a link that shows provincial agreements with "US Healthcare" to utilize this excess capacity for "serious gaps?" Thanks.

We've already been over this:

Ontario has become a major contractor — a bulk buyer — of American health services this year.

Since spring, the ministry has entered into funding contracts with U.S. hospitals, imaging clinics and residential treatment centres.

It has these “preferred provider” contracts in place with about 40 American medical providers now — and is accepting solicitations from others.

Contracts cover diagnostics, cancer care, bariatrics and adolescent behavioural disorders. The ministry says the agreements ensure “more immediate services for patients whose health is at risk.” It has declined to release details of any of the agreements.

http://www.thebramptonguardian.com/news/article/81673 < gone!

Google cache to the rescue:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:AZyiAemYBMkJ:www.thebramptonguardian.com/news/article/81673+brampton+US+health+care+part&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article684047.ece

Edited February 4, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

....and the resulting "US Healthcare" excess capacity provided by that free market is utilized by Canada's provinces to fill in serious gaps.

Sure thing. I'm the last person to say the Canadian system is great, btw.

[Pliny]

The desire for a tax that is the same for all people may be mathematically consistent, but it doesn't server to create a better society. A higher tax rate for those who are fortunate enough to have "won" is a form of social insurance to insure that those at the bottom of society don't fall into a state where they will be a burden on those around them. What works is what's fair.

The extra few percentage points of income for those at the higher end are not as useful to them as they would be to those at the bottom. It's a tithe, and is consistent with the idea of "noblesse oblige". They benefit from a stable and prosperous society, the very system that contributed to where they are today, so they benefit from making sure it stays stable and prosperous.

What is a better society in your view? It sounds like one that is economically managed regardless of the quality of life or moral standards we live with. You seem overly concerned with economic equity and give little credit to the achievement of such in human behavioral standards set by society as opposed to coercive law and a centrally planned economy.

So everyone receiving a piece of the economic pie is the utmost important point.

You would probably have agreed with Alexander Hamilton in his perspective of government and it's role in society. He was very conservative and wished to establish a government more similar to the English model of Parliament with a central bank and indeed was instrumental in the creation of the First National Bank of America.

I wish it were clear to you that individual concepts of private property are what make a society safe and prosperous. It isn't government standing over people's heads with a whip. Government can only remove elements that make society insecure and unstable. You should not fear your government if you are not one of those elements. If you wish to imagine fear then conceive of not paying your income tax for one year and you will get the concept. No one should have to live with that over their heads, and we didn't prior to the first world war which was not so long ago. The income tax today is so complicated that the government won't even stand behind it's own advices. What kind of system is that? It creates uncertainty and insecurity. You never know if your tax calculations are right. If you merely get a paycheck and someone remits your taxes for you you are somewhat removed from the process but the economy is about business and that is where the instability and insecurity is experienced.

Just to note that when a disaster occurs then looting and thievery are real problems as we witnessed in New Orleans and now in Haiti. The police were not watching everyone's house before disaster occurred so why is that after a disaster there is looting and thievery? It isn't because the police are not there, they are there. It is because the people are not there and the criminal element, mostly held in abeyance by the people's presence and simply backed by police, is given a free hand. No one is watching! The government cannot watch everybody except at great economic cost and loss of freedom and liberty.

The majority of people in a disaster are supplying aid and respecting the sanctity of person and property in times of disaster.

Now Haiti has a history of instability and economic insecurity. The people have little and it suits them to have little because roving bands of guerillas or thieves or even the government will relieve them of their property. Who wants more than two dollars a day to live on and become a target for the criminal element and even theri own government?

Economic stability can only be achieved when private property is recognized as valid.

So because we have graduated income tax, then the entire system of justice is useless to you as a service ?

It is an indicator that the concept of justice has been adulterated.

A major function of those three departments is to advance the economic interests of Canada, though. I guess you could shrink them even more if you took out the lobbying they do for Canadian products and so on.

It sounds as though you have great faith in their lobbying. How do they persuade foreigners to buy Canadian? Mostly by distorting the market, perhaps keeping the dollar low in comparison to other currencies or placing tariffs on competitive foreing products. At the expense of consumers, of course. But it is business that pays the taxes and not consumers. So, although consumers are important to the economy, business takes precedence. If it can't be competitive it needs protection.

What is economic "surplus" ? The wealthiest would likely opt for little to no taxation, which is why taxes aren't voluntary.

I am not wealthy but I opt for no income tax, or capital gains taxes for that matter.

Economic "surplus" is mostly a governments measure of what it feels it can safely extract from the economy without destroying it. Eventually, it miscalculates because of it's own bloated needs and destroys the economy anyway.

US Healthcare is an example of what happens with a free market system. The cost of doctors, the middlemen, the overhead all contribute to the system being more expensive for all, and prohibitively so for some.

US healthcare is not a free market system. It is run by the private sector under the management and regulation government. It is a far better system than ours. Although it is rated quite low among socialist government run programs it deserves a far better grade. there is no other system like it in the world and the comparisons to government run systems I don't consider entirely valid. Does it have problems? Of course. The thing is that it is far more maleable than a government run single payer system and can thus institute changes that benefit the consumer and not just the industry.

Most of the problems with the American system are due to government regulation in my view.

[Pliny]

Really? That is very interesting. Do you have a link that shows provincial agreements with "US Healthcare" to utilize this excess capacity for "serious gaps?" Thanks.

I'm glad BC has the links on this. There have been a few scams associated with this.

[Pliny]

And you do have the right, same as everyone else. It is written in your social contract. I think we need to mind the fact that money collected through federal tax also goes to fund the administration agencies at the provincial, municipal and city levels which includes those justice agancies you may interact with. I am betting that you have far more interaction with your muncipal or city government than the federal and thus your wish for a 'small and limited government' is what you already experience. These are the levels of service you wish.

As for 'opting out' well, it is cliched, but anyone can move away and try their luck in a nation that is more suitable towards their needs.

My claim to services falls on deaf ears. I get what everyone else gets. Nothing tailored to my needs.

Opting out may be cliched but leaving family, friends and associates usually overrides trying your luck in another nation. When the oppression gets bad, as in Venezuela, the whole family will uproot. Venezuela is another topic. It needed change but not a dictatorship.

[Michael Hardner]

What is a better society in your view? It sounds like one that is economically managed regardless of the quality of life or moral standards we live with. You seem overly concerned with economic equity and give little credit to the achievement of such in human behavioral standards set by society as opposed to coercive law and a centrally planned economy.

'Better society' is a nebulous idea but quality of life is a good measure, including for the large number of people at the bottom. I'm not so concerned with overall equality as for the trend on how quickly the gap is growing.

If you wish to imagine fear then conceive of not paying your income tax for one year and you will get the concept.

How about the wealthy residents of 2nd and 3rd world countries who live surrounded by guards and barbed wire ? They're not doing that from fear ?

You never know if your tax calculations are right. If you merely get a paycheck and someone remits your taxes for you you are somewhat removed from the process but the economy is about business and that is where the instability and insecurity is experienced.

The scenario you're talking about is extreme. You're not going to be tortured for making a tax error.

Economic stability can only be achieved when private property is recognized as valid.

To say that tax paying doesn't recognize private property is a statement of pure philosophy.

Economic "surplus" is mostly a governments measure of what it feels it can safely extract from the economy without destroying it. Eventually, it miscalculates because of it's own bloated needs and destroys the economy anyway.

That's pretty cynical.

US healthcare is not a free market system. It is run by the private sector under the management and regulation government. It is a far better system than ours. Although it is rated quite low among socialist government run programs it deserves a far better grade. there is no other system like it in the world and the comparisons to government run systems I don't consider entirely valid. Does it have problems? Of course. The thing is that it is far more maleable than a government run single payer system and can thus institute changes that benefit the consumer and not just the industry.

Most of the problems with the American system are due to government regulation in my view.

The system costs twice as much by some measures and provides gold plated service to a few, and no service to many. But I'll grant you that it's philosophically purer as far as being market driven, so better in your mind.

[Shwa]

We've already been over this:

Hey that is cool - thanks for the links! Kind of like the best of both worlds now and OHIP pays for it where it can. Beauty eh? Kind of like how Ontario pumps surplus electrical power back on the grid for US consumption.

One sad part though: I wonder how many Americans are turned away for the same treatments because of little or no health insurance, or go broke getting those same services, while these state health care Canadians come free and clear. Would be an interesting stat.

[Shwa]

My claim to services falls on deaf ears. I get what everyone else gets. Nothing tailored to my needs.

Are you talking about government services or marriage?

[Pliny]

'Better society' is a nebulous idea but quality of life is a good measure, including for the large number of people at the bottom. I'm not so concerned with overall equality as for the trend on how quickly the gap is growing.

Do you see some injustice there? I believe justice is one of the legitimate mandates of government but it seems a growing failure.

I do not believe the free market is widening the gap since it hasn't existed for at least a century.

In previous posts you have expressed concern about this gap and individual accumulation of wealth to the detriment of society.

Why does the current structure seem to be fostering a widening of this gap?

How about the wealthy residents of 2nd and 3rd world countries who live surrounded by guards and barbed wire ? They're not doing that from fear ?

....as we become ourselves on an ever increasing measure surrounded by guards and barbed wire!!!!

The scenario you're talking about is extreme. You're not going to be tortured for making a tax error.

Not a tax error, silly. Tax evasion will get you incarcerated and your assets seized.

To say that tax paying doesn't recognize private property is a statement of pure philosophy.

Did you read the article I posted?

Certainly we can all agree to pay taxes and that would be the end of any claim of extortion. That is a valid contract. However, the contract is continually updated without my approval and I am forced to agree to it even with a dissenting vote.

It therefore falls outside the parameters of a valid contract between consenting parties.

I guess I need only change my mind and agree that I should be subject to this contract and all will be well.

The system costs twice as much by some measures and provides gold plated service to a few, and no service to many. But I'll grant you that it's philosophically purer as far as being market driven, so better in your mind.

It doesn't provide no service to many. There is medicaid. That is the American way of having the poor access medical services. I don't even agree with that because it has the unfortunate subjection to progressive expansion.

[Pliny]

Are you talking about government services or marriage?

A similar ball and chain, however the latter I can live with as I know the terms of the contract well.

[Pliny]

Hey that is cool - thanks for the links! Kind of like the best of both worlds now and OHIP pays for it where it can. Beauty eh? Kind of like how Ontario pumps surplus electrical power back on the grid for US consumption.

OHIP pays for it? Oh yeah, I forgot, healthcare in Canada is free.

One sad part though: I wonder how many Americans are turned away for the same treatments because of little or no health insurance, or go broke getting those same services, while these state health care Canadians come free and clear. Would be an interesting stat.

Another sad part, I wonder how many Canadians just wait in line and never live long enough to get service? Seems we can't reach a consensus on what's best. I will say we are stuck with what we have and the Americans can always adopt our system if they so choose. Looks to me like the majority want nothing to do with it.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you see some injustice there? I believe justice is one of the legitimate mandates of government but it seems a growing failure.

No, I don't. I don't see the preservation of private property as the highest and loftiest pursuit of a society. I see the general well being as that pursuit.

I do not believe the free market is widening the gap since it hasn't existed for at least a century.

In previous posts you have expressed concern about this gap and individual accumulation of wealth to the detriment of society.

Why does the current structure seem to be fostering a widening of this gap?

Do you believe the gap between rich and poor is getting wider ? That certainly has been reported over the past 30 years or so. Do you believe tax rates for the highest earners and corporations are falling ? The top tax rate in the mid 20th century was near 90%.

....as we become ourselves on an ever increasing measure surrounded by guards and barbed wire!!!!

Who are you talking about ?

Did you read the article I posted?

It couldn't hold my interest one bit. The entire thing is a lament on the morality of taxes and such tripe as "a man is entitled to the products of his labour". Never mind whether his labour is digging a ditch (i.e. the real labourer that the author is trying to convince) or whether its somebody who owns a corporation that employs thousands.

I have no use for simplistic tracts like that, and I don't find them interesting enough to read through them. I don`t buy the moralistic argument that treats all economic activity as the same. If you have a better piece, then submit it and I will read that one.

Certainly we can all agree to pay taxes and that would be the end of any claim of extortion. That is a valid contract. However, the contract is continually updated without my approval and I am forced to agree to it even with a dissenting vote.

It therefore falls outside the parameters of a valid contract between consenting parties.

Laws that affect you are constantly changed without your consultation. That`s the price for living in a mass society.

I guess I need only change my mind and agree that I should be subject to this contract and all will be well.

It doesn't provide no service to many. There is medicaid. That is the American way of having the poor access medical services. I don't even agree with that because it has the unfortunate subjection to progressive expansion.

There are tens of millions with no basic coverage for illness. Of course, you will say that that is their well-informed `choice` and that we can comfort ourselves with that thought as we step over them bleeding in the street.

I happen to think that people make stupid decisions all the time. I should know because I am a person, and I do it myself. As such, people should be prevented from making very bad decisions that someone will have to bail them out of later on. Things like trying crack cocaine once, opting out of health insurance, and the like.

[bush_cheney2004]

double post

Edited February 4, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Pliny]

No, I don't. I don't see the preservation of private property as the highest and loftiest pursuit of a society. I see the general well being as that pursuit.

And who shall decide what the general well-being is? How does it appear to you?

Is it no one on the streets? Is it a chicken in every pot?

Is it the absence of food banks? Is it the absence of a necessity for charity?

Is it no one living in extravagance?

Michael, the individual is not entirely the product of circumstance, circumstance is the product of the individual for the most part. There are degrees to this and one finds himself in circumstance he either takes responsibility for or does not. It may be that he assumes no responsibility for his circumstances. It may be that he feels completely in control of his circumstances. Those extremes are not the most interesting life. Being in complete control offers no surprise to life and is a dull existence. Having no control is a life of misery.

What part does the individual play in his life? Should he have security of person and property or should someone else more intelligent, better educated, more responsible, decide for him how to best govern his meagre possessions. Perhaps that is what he likes.

Do we not all face the possibility of impoverishment? Can we foresee every event? We can definitely plan for a future but why should we when someone else will do the planning for us. We should just enjoy life and let the State or whoever keep us off the street and out of the food banks.

The status quo seems to suit you well enough. The general welfare is being taken care of. Somehow each of us will live off the avails of everyone else. We just need proper management it seems and someone to define for us what the general well-being should be.

Excuse me for sounding facetious.

As you look around and see your fellow man, you see a design for their lives without ever consulting them and it is this intervention that government inflicts upon the general populace based upon it's concept of the general well-being not on individual consultation. Who shall decide what is the general well-being? Are we all in agreement as to what it should be? Isn't it just those who are not in agreement the trouble makers and those on the street. Aren't they just in disagreement with what the general well-being should be? Perhaps it is just some form of mental illness that finds them outside the agreement of what the general welfare should be? Maybe those who live extravagant lives are also outside the general agreement of what the general well being is. It is hard to say since we just observe them to be outside and don't really consult them we just think it better they get instep with the rest of us for the good of all.

Do you believe the gap between rich and poor is getting wider ?

All the unions and advocates of the poor are saying so.

Do you believe tax rates for the highest earners and corporations are falling ? The top tax rate in the mid 20th century was near 90%.

There has been a swing to "cut" taxes recently. But some believe tax cuts are an abomination - it seems to go against what is best for the general well-being.

Who are you talking about ?

I am talking about the gated communities springing up in the suburbs that house the up and coming preppies and the retired elderly class who feel, and I'm sure it is needless, that they are unsafe and that their person and property may be violated.

It couldn't hold my interest one bit. The entire thing is a lament on the morality of taxes and such tripe as "a man is entitled to the products of his labour". Never mind whether his labour is digging a ditch (i.e. the real labourer that the author is trying to convince) or whether its somebody who owns a corporation that employs thousands.

Does it say "products" of his labour or "product" of his labour? I think you misquoted there.

It's a shame it couldn't hold your interest I believe it is in the interests of the general well-being that it be broadly disseminated and you must read it.

I have no use for simplistic tracts like that, and I don't find them interesting enough to read through them. I don`t buy the moralistic argument that treats all economic activity as the same. If you have a better piece, then submit it and I will read that one.

Funny, I didn't read in that article that all economic activity is the same but I think you may be referring to the title which equates taxation with thievery. Neither are economic activities.

Laws that affect you are constantly changed without your consultation. That`s the price for living in a mass society.

It is sad you think so. I am not a lawyer but should I need one to protect myself from government? The two things you need when you are rich is a good accountant and a good lawyer to protect you from the "economic activity" of government..oh, and living in a gated-community to protect you from the "economic activity" of thieves.

Must I also be subject to laws that the governemnt cannot even interpret for me?

There are tens of millions with no basic coverage for illness. Of course, you will say that that is their well-informed `choice` and that we can comfort ourselves with that thought as we step over them bleeding in the street.

There are those that need aid. There those that cannot manage their affairs. Must we then conceive that no one is capable of managing their affairs? The idea of universal health care is that it is unfair to everyone if only the poor should be covered by other people's generosity and government can provide everyone with equal opportunity. Sounds wonderful but even now the economic burden on the State is considering punishing lifestyle or charging fees for usage. Implementing such policies is nothing more than reverting to a private system where only the ill must pay.

There are a lot of poor people that smoke and eat poorly, are they then going to be charged or even refused service for their lifestyle "choices"? It seems that is what the direction of universal health care is.

I happen to think that people make stupid decisions all the time. I should know because I am a person, and I do it myself. As such, people should be prevented from making very bad decisions that someone will have to bail them out of later on. Things like trying crack cocaine once, opting out of health insurance, and the like.

Should they be bailed out? Perhaps someone who loves them will do so. The government doesn't really care beyond pointing out that stupid people exist and government intervention is therefore necessary and that is why you must pay your taxes. You know what, why doesn't government just look after the whole thing for us? They will if you just let them.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

And who shall decide what the general well-being is? How does it appear to you?

That's another matter. The best system we have so far, though, is democracy.

Is it no one on the streets? Is it a chicken in every pot?

Is it the absence of food banks? Is it the absence of a necessity for charity?

Is it no one living in extravagance?

We can decide on these things.

Michael, the individual is not entirely the product of circumstance, circumstance is the product of the individual for the most part. There are degrees to this and one finds himself in circumstance he either takes responsibility for or does not. It may be that he assumes no responsibility for his circumstances. It may be that he feels completely in control of his circumstances. Those extremes are not the most interesting life. Being in complete control offers no surprise to life and is a dull existence. Having no control is a life of misery.

Nobody is completely in control of their circumstances, or for that matter completely out of control of their circumstances. Those at the very top tend to be very lucky, and those at the bottom tend to be unlucky.

A dull existence sounds pretty sad, but when you consider how exciting it would be to have a pack of starving dragons chasing you, it starts to sound a little better.

What part does the individual play in his life? Should he have security of person and property or should someone else more intelligent, better educated, more responsible, decide for him how to best govern his meagre possessions. Perhaps that is what he likes.

He should be allowed to reach his potential, but he should contribute to, and have a measure of support given to him from the community.

Do we not all face the possibility of impoverishment? Can we foresee every event? We can definitely plan for a future but why should we when someone else will do the planning for us. We should just enjoy life and let the State or whoever keep us off the street and out of the food banks.

Because the planning that is done for you saves you from being destitute and not much more. No one wants to be a ward of the state, so most of us will plan to not have that happen.

The status quo seems to suit you well enough. The general welfare is being taken care of. Somehow each of us will live off the avails of everyone else. We just need proper management it seems and someone to define for us what the general well-being should be.

You get a way in deciding what that level should be. The result is in effect an average of what we all want.

Excuse me for sounding facetious.

Not at all. Like the Marxists I have known, you're living in a society that to you seems insane so you're entitled to evangelize for change.

As you look around and see your fellow man, you see a design for their lives without ever consulting them

...they vote and participate in democracy...

and it is this intervention that government inflicts upon the general populace based upon it's concept of the general well-being not on individual consultation.

...individual consultation is impossible in the mass age.

Who shall decide what is the general well-being? Are we all in agreement as to what it should be? Isn't it just those who are not in agreement the trouble makers and those on the street. Aren't they just in disagreement with what the general well-being should be? Perhaps it is just some form of mental illness that finds them outside the agreement of what the general welfare should be? Maybe those who live extravagant lives are also outside the general agreement of what the general well being is. It is hard to say since we just observe them to be outside and don't really consult them we just think it better they get instep with the rest of us for the good of all.

Maybe they are. They can vote and voice their opinion, and if they live 'extravagant lives' then they have even more of an opportunity to use their resources to enact political action.

I am talking about the gated communities springing up in the suburbs that house the up and coming preppies and the retired elderly class who feel, and I'm sure it is needless, that they are unsafe and that their person and property may be violated.

Right. And crime is a product of poverty and disparity too, isn't it ?

It's a shame it couldn't hold your interest I believe it is in the interests of the general well-being that it be broadly disseminated and you must read it.

It takes an inflexible philosophical stand that all taxes are theft, and just elaborates on that. I don't accept the premise, so there's nowhere to go with that theme.

I think all murder is wrong too, but I accept the necessity to take military action sometimes. Pure philosophy doesn't apply itself well to real life.

Funny, I didn't read in that article that all economic activity is the same but I think you may be referring to the title which equates taxation with thievery. Neither are economic activities.

It's implied in the idea that taking any part of someone's labour is theft. If there are excerpts that differentiate, then let me know and I'll have another look.

It is sad you think so. I am not a lawyer but should I need one to protect myself from government? The two things you need when you are rich is a good accountant and a good lawyer to protect you from the "economic activity" of government..oh, and living in a gated-community to protect you from the "economic activity" of thieves.

Must I also be subject to laws that the governemnt cannot even interpret for me?

Yes, you must. My wife looked out the window last year to find the city was putting up "no parking during the day" signs on our street - right beside our car. Beside the workers erecting the sign was a parking cop writing tickets. This actually happened.

The mass age includes things like specialization, and the attendant problem of allienation, redundancy, waste and so on... The mass age, though, provides the best standard of living we have - so take the bad with the good.

Interestingly, society is already starting to adjust to the mass age... but that's for another thread.

There are those that need aid. There those that cannot manage their affairs. Must we then conceive that no one is capable of managing their affairs? The idea of universal health care is that it is unfair to everyone if only the poor should be covered by other people's generosity and government can provide everyone with equal opportunity. Sounds wonderful but even now the economic burden on the State is considering punishing lifestyle or charging fees for usage. Implementing such policies is nothing more than reverting to a private system where only the ill must pay.

You're talking about 1-tier. I have a problem with the way it's managed now, and I think the mismanagement is the reason why people don't trust 2-tier.

There are a lot of poor people that smoke and eat poorly, are they then going to be charged or even refused service for their lifestyle "choices"? It seems that is what the direction of universal health care is.

Smokers are taxed - and they would say excessively - to pay for their freight.

Should they be bailed out? Perhaps someone who loves them will do so. The government doesn't really care beyond pointing out that stupid people exist and government intervention is therefore necessary and that is why you must pay your taxes. You know what, why doesn't government just look after the whole thing for us? They will if you just let them.

That's Communism, and that model is as failed as the (effectively) no-government model you're proposing.

[Pliny]

That's Communism, and that model is as failed as the (effectively) no-government model you're proposing.

I am not proposing no government.

[Pliny]

Here's the bottom line, Michael.

You propose a necessity for a centrally managed economy for the benefit of the general well-being. That is a socialist concept in that it is progressive and and has no boundary to what can be determined as the general well-being.

The fact of the matter is that no economy can thrive without a reasonable respect for the sanctity of person and property. Government, on the whole, is becoming a greater threat to that concept than the criminal element in society and there lies the danger.

I heard Obama say he was not an ideologue the other day....

[bloodyminded]

Americans do not wish to have healthcare with a government option. This is totally not understandable to most Canadians and serves to illustrate a citizenry dependent upon the State and one that isn't and doesn't want to be. Americans would rather keep what they have. I think they realize changes are necessary but a wholesale takeover by government is not an option.

Whether the rest of your post is right or wrong, this example serves to undermine it. A great many Americans DO wish to have healthcare with a government option. Half of them, or more, according to virtually every single poll done by multiple sources on the subject.

You're either confusing the Representatives with majority American opinion, or you're confusing the current proposed plans with what Americans want. They can oppose the Obama plan without opposing a government option.

[Oleg Bach]

Country signifys physical real estate. Nation or nationalism signifys family..extended tribalizm! A nationalist is a person who helps his countrymen...who assists in the protection of real property. Our buisness elite and politicals along with our law makers have all gone international - as if being part of a nation is not quiet high or good enough for them. They impliment multi-culturalism because they disrespect their own place of origin and disrespect their own family. YOU must have a base - to sell off our population - or original culture to China for a bit of gold is obscene.. A patriot is a delluded fool who actually trusts the leaders who betray them.