|
Would You Agree?? I feel like stirring the economy debate. ;) (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Capitalizt |
I was thinking some more, and the problem with making healthcare a "right", is that it demands a sacrifice on the part of someone else.
If I have a "right" to healthcare, the "right" to a job, etc..then I immediately have a claim on your life. In order to satisfy my "right", the government must use coercion and force. You must sacrifice some of your liberty...some of your time...your energy..your property to satisfy my right. The freedom of others must be sacrificed for rights like these..
This is completely different from the concept of natural rights...the rights that were the basis of the declaration of independence, the Constitution, etc. Natural rights include the right to privacy, the right to be left alone, etc. These do not infringe upon the freedom of anyone else. No sacrifice is demanded from anyone.
Still, I recognize this is just theoretical philosophy talk, and natural rights are being violated every day in the real world...so I'm willing to compromise and live with a little socialism in certain areas..as long as we don't let it get too carried away. :) |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I was thinking some more, and the problem with making healthcare a "right", is that it demands a sacrifice on the part of someone else.
If I have a "right" to healthcare, the "right" to a job, etc..then I immediately have a claim on your life. In order to satisfy my "right", the government must use coercion and force. You must sacrifice some of your liberty...some of your time...your energy..your property to satisfy my right. The freedom of others must be sacrificed for rights like these..
This is completely different from the concept of natural rights...the rights that were the basis of the declaration of independence, the Constitution, etc. Natural rights include the right to privacy, the right to be left alone, etc. These do not infringe upon the freedom of anyone else. No sacrifice is demanded from anyone.
Still, I recognize this is just theoretical philosophy talk, and natural rights are being violated every day in the real world...so I'm willing to compromise and live with a little socialism in certain areas..as long as we don't let it get too carried away. :) |
Think about a national health insurance program. Many countries throughout the world successfully have such policy, such as Japan. Nobodies right are being infringed upon. Why? Because the taxes used to subsidize such programs are justified because the people have representation in the government. No taxes without representation right? What if the people demanded universal health coverage? Not in the form of nationalizing the health care sector, but insuring all citizens seems like a good start, doesn't it? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| libertarians are the new socialists, with just as much reality injected into their fanciful nonsense. |
|
|
| Lilith |
All economies run on peaks and lows, its how people make money out of things- buying low, selling high. Just that with a certain amount of neglect from all parties involved that the lows can be painful, if the US had regulated earlier to stop fly-by-night loans being given to janitors so they could by a $750k McMansion in the suburbs... and then continued to ignore the warning signs of them being rolled into securities.
Some things wouldn't be as savage as they are now in terms of inflation when you go in to do battle with your loan manager to get a mortgage.
Same with the War on Oil, I'm quite sure that people had figured out that running around high production areas full of flammable petrochemicals that's already a political wreck was a bad idea. But they did it anyway to the point where one or two sentences from someone can cause a $10 increase in the price of oil which in turn forces prices up at the pump... in turn this is also driving up the price of food as it is more expensive to deliver and produce, its also had a run on effect that more farmland is being diverted into producing ethanol and the natural surplus from normal production that keeps food prices low is affected by a lack of supply.
The US has no one else but to blame but itself.
The government only cares about waging wars in countries with oil and its citizens completely neglected to elect people that are capable of doing the right things economically.
Personally, I'm just waiting for PRC to halt the artificial depression of the Yuan and all the trillions of dollars the US owes them is going to make it very... very painful to pay back. |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
There are some sectors which should be heavily regulated and other which shouldn't. Like education. The public school system should be deregulated to allow competition between schools. |
+1 on the first sentance.
No way the schools should be deregulated completely though. The whole reason schools have regulations is to ensure that there is standardization across the country. It would be really difficult if every different school used different terminology, no one would be able to understand each other. Even consistency in language is important when the population is so big and spread out.
"Deregulation" is something that should be done on a case by case basis.
(I'll probably have more to say on this as I struggle through Keynes "General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money") |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I was thinking some more, and the problem with making healthcare a "right", is that it demands a sacrifice on the part of someone else. |
But all rights demand an element of sacrifice. Your so-called "natural right" to privacy necessitates that I sacrifice my "natural right" to walk over any piece of god-given land that I feel like. Your "natural right" to economic prosperity may necessitate that I sacrifice my "natural right" to preserve my health and well-being, by consenting not to rob you of the wealth that you have accumulated in order to pay for the medicine (or even just food!) that I could not otherwise afford. Do you therefore recognise that even in this hypothetical, libertarian utopia that there must a balance of rights (and therefore an element of personal sacrifice, undertaken by all) for the society to remain functional?
Going further, I really don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the brunt of the sacrifice needed to maintain a stable society (which, I would argue, includes the provision of healthcare) should be shouldered by those who can most easily make that sacrifice. Even the quintessential rational-actor of laissez-faire economics should be willing to support this line of reasoning: after all, it is those who wield the greatest wealth and power in a society who would have the most to lose in the event of its decline. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But all rights demand an element of sacrifice. Your so-called "natural right" to privacy necessitates that I sacrifice my "natural right" to walk over any piece of god-given land that I feel like. Your "natural right" to economic prosperity may necessitate that I sacrifice my "natural right" to preserve my health and well-being, by consenting not to rob you of the wealth that you have accumulated |
meh, this is what we went through before...You just phrased the lefty mindset differently.;) Look, I am not the best orator but will try to explain the idea of natural law the best I can..
If you accept the basic premise that every man has property on his own body....that is, he OWNS his body and has the right to dispose of it and his labor as he sees fit...If you accept the idea that you are an end to yourself...that you were not born a sacrificial animal to be forcibly manipulated for any "higher purpose" or "greater good" against your will...If you accept these ideas, then you accept the idea of NATURAL RIGHTS. You have these rights from birth, and they do NOT require any element of sacrifice. They are the freedom from force...the freedom FROM compulsion and physical violence. A government based on natural law would exist to protect you from these external threats, and also to ensure you do not violate the rights of others. If you accept natural law, you must find a way to live and trade peacefully without resorting to violence. I believe this is the most moral system.
The so-called rights being invented however today are the rights TO material goods...they are the right TO something, rather than the freedom from something. The problem is that we live in a world of finite resources, and in any system of limited resources, you can not make material goods a "right" because doing so demands the VIOLATION of natural rights. It flaunts the idea that you were born master of your own body...and that you are not to be sacrificed for the will of others (because your time/energy/property are no longer your own - they must be sacrificed and confiscated to satisfy the material 'rights' of others.) In reality, socialist rights are simply claims on the lives of the minority in favor of the majority. They require coercion and violence to implement, and the governments in such instances are based on little more than institutionalized gang violence...mob rule. This is a big step backward for humanity..not forward. We should be working to banish violence from human relationships, and this means respecting natural law and greatly reducing the power of government. I know it will never happen, but it's an ideal worth aiming for. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by atbell
+1 on the first sentance.
No way the schools should be deregulated completely though. The whole reason schools have regulations is to ensure that there is standardization across the country. It would be really difficult if every different school used different terminology, no one would be able to understand each other. Even consistency in language is important when the population is so big and spread out.
"Deregulation" is something that should be done on a case by case basis.
(I'll probably have more to say on this as I struggle through Keynes "General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money") |
That's where accreditation comes in. If the school is not teaching according to a minimal standard, they don't get accredited. Each student should have an educational allowance that can only be spent by the school of their choice. The student can elect to go to a private or public school. But no longer would public school's be entitled to government funds. If the school does not produce a quality education, students will elect to go somewhere else.
| quote: | | libertarians are the new socialists, with just as much reality injected into their fanciful nonsense. |
Huh? Libertarianism and socialism are two completely different things. So you find the advocacy of individual rights as socialist and "fanciful nonsense"? :p |
|
|
| robstar |
| quote: | | How about that and abolition of all forms of taxes except sales taxes. |
There's a compromise I'd be willing to make, depending on how high the sales tax is obv. Set the roof at 10%ish, that's "fair" imo. And no tax on food/rent/housing etc btw. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by robstar
There's a compromise I'd be willing to make, depending on how high the sales tax is obv. Set the roof at 10%ish, that's "fair" imo. And no tax on food/rent/housing etc btw. |
I don't know about Swedish taxes, which I suspect are pretty high, but here is what we've got so far in America. The Fair Tax is a proposal to eliminate all taxes except sales taxes here in the US. Maybe you could tell your representative in Sweden that you want lower taxes?
| quote: | The Fair Tax Act (HR 25/S 1025) is a bill in the United States Congress for changing tax laws to replace the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and all federal income taxes (including corporate taxes and capital gains taxes), as well as payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a national retail sales tax. The FairTax would be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all households of citizens and legal resident aliens (based on family size) as an advance rebate of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.[1][2] The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23% of net prices which includes the tax (23¢ out of every $1 spent— calculated like income taxes), which is comparable to a 30% traditional sales tax (23¢ on top of every 77¢ spent).[3] Because the U.S. income tax system has a hidden effect on prices,[4] it is expected that moving to the FairTax would decrease associated production costs due to the removal of business taxes and compliance costs, which is predicted to offset a portion of the FairTax effect on prices (degree based on monetary policy).[5][6]
With the rebate taken into consideration, the effective tax rate would be progressive on consumption and could result in a federal tax burden of zero or less.[2] However, opponents of the tax argue that while progressive on consumption, the tax would be regressive on income,[7][8] and would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase the tax burden on the middle class.[3][9] The plan's supporters in turn claim that it would increase purchasing power,[10] and decrease tax burdens by broadening the tax base and effectively taxing wealth.[11][2] Many mainstream economists and tax experts like the idea of a consumption tax; however, many consider the FairTax proposal to have serious problems.[3] Many economists also argue that a consumption tax, such as the FairTax, would have a positive impact on savings and investment (not taxed), ease of tax compliance, increased economic growth, incentives for international business to locate in the U.S., and increased U.S. international competitiveness (border tax adjustment in global trade).[5][12][13] Others argue that a consumption tax of this kind could be difficult to collect, having challenges with tax evasion,[7][3] and that it may not yield enough money for the government, resulting in cutbacks in spending, a larger deficit, or a higher sales tax rate.[3]
The FairTax has generated a large grassroots tax reform movement in recent years, led by the non-partisan group Americans For Fair Taxation.[14] Increased support was created after talk radio personality Neal Boortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder published The FairTax Book in 2005 and additional visibility was gained in the 2008 presidential campaign, with candidates Mike Huckabee and Mike Gravel being the most vocal supporters. While the proposed bill has yet to have a major effect on the tax system, the Fair Tax Act has the highest number of cosponsors among tax reform proposals (attracting 76 in the 110th United States Congress), gathering much stronger support than popular flat tax legislation. A number of congressional committees have heard testimony on the FairTax; however, it has not been voted on in either Chamber. The plan is expected to increase cost transparency for funding the federal government and supporters believe it would have positive effects on civil liberties, the environment, and advantages with taxing illegal activity and illegal immigrants.[5][15] Because the FairTax plan would remove taxes on income, tax deductions would have no meaning or value, which concerns some law makers about losing this method of social incentive. There are also concerns regarding the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, transition effects on after-tax savings, impact to the income tax industry, incentives on credit use, and the loss of tax advantages to state and local bonds. |
|
|
|
| robstar |
Ah thanks for the info! If I had to choose I'd def pick the Fair Tax.
Maybe because everything is better then the swedish tax system. We already have a "fair tax" (25%) plus 30-45% incometax. :eek:
As for getting our politicans to lower our taxes, don't think that will have much effect. They don't listen.
They just voted yes to this yesterday, http://www.thelocal.se/12534.html
When even the most libertarian leaning politicans votes yes to this Big Brother surveillance law something is clearly wrong. Polls about this law shows that ~90% of the people are opposed to it.
Anyways, back on track.
I think the 23% is a little high, I would bet alot of money that it wouldn't stay at that number for long but who knows maybe there's a way to keep the government efficient and not get carried away. :whip: |
|
|
| spdandpwr |
This thread reminds me of Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. I am going to edit this post to include some findings and observations, when I find time. In the meantime, this quote, extracted from wikipedia, will have to suffice.
| quote: | | Hayek’s central thesis is that all forms of collectivism lead logically and inevitably to tyranny, and he used the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as examples of countries which had gone down “the road to serfdom” and reached tyranny. Hayek argued that within a centrally planned economic system, the distribution and allocation of all resources and goods would devolve onto a small group, which would be incapable of processing all the information pertinent to the appropriate distribution of the resources and goods at the central planners’ disposal. |
|
|
|
|
|
