Topic: GOP Tea Party Debate: Audience Cheers, Says Society Should Let Uninsured Die - page 3. (Read 6988 times)

So in your dream society, mentally ill people will be incarcerated for life and charged for it.  You think that someone who is so ill that they are a danger to themselves or society is going to be able to pay for 24/7 medical care.

That's delusional.  Really even for a person who doesn't like to deal with the real world such as yourself, that is daft.

If taxes are used to redistribute wealth, then I'm having nothing of it. What you're suggesting is that when certain individuals (or groups thereof) of society acquire wealth of "greater value" than what "value" you think you have, you try to "even the score" by stealing from them and giving it to those who have less. There sure are a lot of people in this forum who have a "robbin(g)hood" complex.

So stealing is legally acceptable? That's not even considering the fact that banks, if they're permitted to issue "legal tender" laws, are also stealing from the mostly unsuspecting public when their currency gets debased by willy-nilly fiat inflated paper.


Why wouldn't health care be about making money? Why couldn't it be charity-run too? You have a job only because somebody else values your skills and are willing to give you something in exchange for it. I suppose it would be nice to have free medical care, but you shouldn't force me to give it to you. I like free as much as the next person, but if it's not, we shouldn't be stealing to get it.


Walmart could be defined as a trader. It buys products from suppliers, ships them to a store where they inventory and shelve them, and then they trade them for a profit, hence trader. You should be more specific.

There is nothing wrong with derivatives specifically. The only 'derivative' I don't like are fiat currencies. If you think about it, most fiat currencies are derivatives of some sort, so in a way it depends on who wants to play what game and based on what rules. Are the participants in said market willing, able, and knowledgeable? If you can't make heads or tails of a contract, is it a contract?

Anybody should be able to hold a share of ownership in a company for as long as s/he wishes. Again, it all depends on the specific contract covenants.

Talking about gravity: money has keplerian caracteristics. More money goes where there is a mass of money.
Banks create money through lending: they prefer to lend to wealthy, solvable individuals and corporations.
Taxes are just one measure to maintain the balance by redistribution.

Talking about medical insurance: health care is not about making money.
To be a medical doctor or a nurse is a to have a job that makes sense.
Everyone in need should have access to free medical care.

A trader may make a ton of money but he or she is wasting is time on this planet.
Derivates are toxic instruments that should be outlawed because incompatible with sustainabable development.
By the same token, shares in any corporation should have a minimum holding period of one quarter.
Etc...

I'm not sure what you mean by private "club". And you make "round up" sound like a cattle drive. I certainly don't do things for free either, unless I'm so inclined.

Abolish all prisons and stop treating "mentally ill" people like anything less than superheroes.

"Necessary"? rofl

Is this really your proposal Fred?

legal:
   1. Of, relating to, or concerned with law.
   2. One that is in accord with certain rules or laws.

law:
   1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
   2. (Law) a rule or set of rules, enforceable by the courts, regulating the government of a state, the relationship between the organs of government and the subjects of the state, and the relationship or conduct of subjects towards each other.
   
conduct:
   1. The way a person acts, especially from the standpoint of morality and ethics.
   
morality:
   1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
   2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
   3. Virtuous conduct.
   4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
   
See how I got from legal to moral? You can't say morality has no role in law making when that is exactly the reason laws exist. Laws concern themselves with morality. Laws and morals are 'is-ought' issues.

Dumb example:

The force due to gravity keeps me from leaving earths orbit...
                  vs.
I hate the force due to gravity so we should outlaw it...

The first statement 'is', the second statement is 'ought'. Different animals altogether.

I don't see how 'I', 'we', 'me', or 'you' changes anything with regards to lawfulness. I've written a few laws of my own, but I certainly don't expect to be paid. If on the other hand you'd like to contribute, I've got a bitcoin address you can send me donations to.

Consistency is important no doubt. Taxes are unnecessary in my mind.

You see bro if violence, forcing against one's will is illegal then all those examples are covered regardless of the morality/amorality .

Morality should have no role in law making.

Great use of the word we. If we decide that we're going to make laws, and enforce them, then we have to pay to have those laws written and enforced.

As consistently as possible, otherwise they don't qualify as laws or enforcement. Consistency means everyone. And that means everyone pays.

Taxes.

...It's immoral to rape another person.
...It's immoral to enslave another person.
...It's immoral to murder another person.
...It's immoral to steal from another person.

It's still a moral question regardless of how you phrase it. The only real issue is what is both illegal and immoral. Which is to say, there can be an infinite number of immoral or moral things that can be done. The ones that we can make laws for are much more limited in nature. That's all I was trying to convey. Every question of 'ought' is more or less a moral, or at the very least, a preferential one. There are a lot of things going on in the world around us, the question is which of them ought we to concern ourselves with in relation to our fellow man?

Which ought we to make laws for, and which should we ought not to make laws for?

You make it sound as if that doesn't already happen now. I've got a pair of glasses you could look thru, but they're not rose colored.

No. Legal means allowed to be done more exactly tolerated. Moral from exactly the term you pointed out : Mores, in sociology, are any given society's particular norms, virtues, or values. but they are not enforced and it would be stupid for many to be put in to laws.

And the main difference is HOW they work. LAW works by making you risk a very physical action being taken against you (imprisonment , fine , )  , Morality on the other hand works extremely different it only works inside your mind (you Conscience) and you can accept or not the mores that are thrown your way by society.

It's immoral to have extramarital sex. But it would be stupid to be illegal. (I don't value this, it's mine and my partner's business only)
It's immoral not to help someone in need . But it would be stupid to have a law demanding you do so.
it's immoral to prostitute yourself . And yes many countries have stupid laws that enforce this . IMO all trades are full of prostitutes , not sexual , but prostitutes , so the law should be abandoned. (I don't value this)
It's immoral to be selfish ....
It's immoral to let someone die. But you can't have a law demanding that someone should save someone.
It's immoral to kill yourself . But a law demanding that you don't would be useless. (also don't value)
It's immoral to harm yourself . And yes many countries have laws against drugs , but no laws against cutting yourself for example, wonder why. (not valuable.)

Morality is used by those in power to pass stupid laws that never should exist.
  

What ?  You and your friends make a private club, round up people who you deem a danger to themselves or society and lock them up for life at your own expense?

Are you serious?

In the event you just give 50 gp to your neighbor, that's just a gift, and we're in agreement. I can't think of an ethical justification for gift taxes.

In the event you wish to engage in a deal, you have to pay a transaction cost:
A) pay in the form of % chance you will be cheated/robbed
B) pay a third party to meditate in the event of a dispute/fight
If you guys can actually build a society where people can easily make this choice for everyday business, I'm in. I'm willing to help achieve it with peaceful means like cryptocurrency. Heck, I'd even be willing to try private courts if someone proposed it where I live. But until I see proof that it actually works, making people pay for the courts necessitated by their commerce seems legit.

The mentally ill aren't violent are they? If they are, then there are a number of options available to the victims. Again, taxing isn't necessary here. You could join an association of jail service providers, and pay membership fees, etc.

I know it sounds unusual, perhaps even a bit unorthodox, but you never know, it might just work. Just because there isn't anybody trying it, doesn't mean it won't.

That would be trespass if I don't have permission. If I must pay a toll or some other fee for the use of some property that isn't mine, then I must decide if it is in my best interests to do so. It's not so unlike me wanting access to your house and you deny me unless I provide something in exchange.

In the context you use the word 'taxpayer', I could substitute the word shareholder, affiliate, member or associate.

But you do agree that mental institutions and jails are needed.  Unless you want to have the mentally ill "contract" to pay for their care and the victims of crime forced to pay again for the jail, you need tax. 

If the state only acts on behalf of those who voted for the last government, on what authority does it lock up the violently mentally ill?  Does a fireman check if you voted correctly before attending to a fire in your area?  What if you changed your mind and now want the fireman to save your family - can you announce you renounce your vote?

A tax may be one way to defend against violent individuals whether they be mentally ill or robbers. It however isn't the only way, and it certainly isn't the way I would suggest. I'm arguing that there is a better more just and apropos way of handling such issues.

I've got a very short list of compromises I'd remotely consider. Taxing isn't one of them.