Libertarianism and Morality

[muon2]

When I say 'initiate' force, I mean that the person forcing is the first person to commit force, i.e. is commiting agression. You cannot 'initiate' force against a criminal, since they were the ones to do the initiation.

Not necessarily. Many crimes involve no force. A person stealing money or property may well have legal access, but no right to take without permission. It is moral initiate force in the form of an arrest of a suspect of that crime. Another example would be to arrest a drunk driver due to the hazard that person creates on the road. The arrest is a moral use of force, even though no force was used when the drunk created the hazard.

The criminal is commiting force because he is forcing the victim to part from his well-earned property.

I find this to be a very broad use of the concept of force or aggression. A reasonable group of citizens would probably not deem this type of crime one of force. You would like a term that simultaneously includes the traditional sense of aggression as well as violation of one's personal property rights, even when no aggression is needed.

Well, regardless of the semantics, I think we both agree that theft is a crime.

Yes, but I don't agree that all crime involves force or aggression, and use of force is the subject of your question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Check writing is a poor analogy to drunk driving. One the one hand it is more akin to driving in general, not specifically drunk driving. And secondly check writing is a private privilege given by a bank, not a license issued by a unit of government.

Drunk driving is a hazard that cannot be reasonably anticipated by other users of the road. If there was a mechanism by which all other drivers could be alerted to the hazard, then you could make some of your case. Even so, the license to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads is not a right, but a privilege given to individuals by the whole citizenry in the form of the state. In creating and maintaining the public roads, the public has a reasonable expectation that they can share those roads without putting themselves in jeopardy.

Your argument that the arrest is not moral seems to hinge that once the public as a whole has created a benefit, anyone can use it without regard to the other members of the public. I disagree, since it a shared resource by the nature of its creation. An arrest to stop an abuse of the public road that infringes on others remains moral.

[/quote]

I admit that writing a check was a poor analogy, but I couldn't really think of anything better that late at night. Also, what right does an organization have to bar people from using the roads their tax dollars paid for? Drivers' licenses imply that the people who paid for the roads do not own them. The notion behind barring drunk drivers from the road has led to the ridiculous law in my state that bars people from using cell phones as well. Should someone be barred from the road even if they are most alert when they are drunk or talking? If a drunk driver harms another driver in an accident, he should have to provide monetary restitution to pay for a new car and any medical procedures necessary. If that were in place, rather than simply arresting people before they commit a crime, drunk driving would still be discouraged.
[/quote]

We all pay for the roads as a group. If a group of individuals goes together to buy a vacation home, a single member does not generally have the right to use that property in a way that hurts the other co-owners. To create an extreme example, one person would not have the right to knowingly booby-trap the vacation home (leave the gas on for instance) putting the next user at personal risk having no knowledge of the unexpected hazard. A drunk driver creates an unexpected hazard for other users of the road, and JohnFKennedy has done a good job citing the factual basis for that claim.

You raise an interesting point about cell phone use and driving. There is strong evidence to support that driver distractions increase hazardous driving. The evidence is less clear as to the severity of cell phone use as a hazard among the many types of distractions. Some studies rank hands-free as no better than hand-held phones in terms of risk. Other studies find that conversations with passengers and activities like eating as generate hazards equal to cell phone use. The ban on cell phones alone among driver distractions may be as much a reaction to a new technology as to the actual risk.

[John Dibble]

JFK, if we are to assume that roads are publicly owned, than that implies that everyone owns them, and to expel a person from the road would mean that they cannot access their own property.

By that logic, if I want to take a jackhammer to the middle of a public road just to make it unusable I can because I own it. Or if I owned stock in a corporation, I could go down to their headquarters and bust into the CEO's office unannounced and take a leak on his desk without penalty - after all, the company is owned in part by me, and I can go wherever I want on company property. Of course, such actions screw over the other owners.

If anyone who jointly owns something with others can just do whatever the hell he wants with it, then it might as well be like the others don't own it at all. When it comes to joint ownership, all parties must come to an agreement on acceptable use of the property so that all the owners can get fair use out of it. In small companies the owners just get together and come to agreements. In larger companies the stockholders vote for a board of directors. For public property in a democratic state the voters (the public) vote on representatives to make rules in regards to the fair use of that property. Will everyone be perfectly happy with the rules that are decided upon in these situations? No, but it's better/more moral than allowing one jackass to screw everyone else who owns the property.

[SPC]

Again, this thread is speaking purely about morality. Does it really make a difference how the thief spends money if it is not rightfully his?

Ok, if you want to play it that way. Admittedly taxation is to a degree an initiation of force. When that tax money is spent on military and police protection for the citizens whom are paying that money, it prevents greater initiation of force that would otherwise occur against them by warlords and criminals who care nothing for the rights of others. Given the people at large could not possibly live with their rights intact without these protections, and one views the maintaining of the rights of the people as moral, then the slight initiation of force required to fund these protections is moral at best or the least of all possible evils at worst.

Now with OTHER services that might be provided at the cost of taxation, there are other pros and cons to consider, and the merits of each should be considered individually.

If people value military and police protection so much, I don't see why the money to fund it couldn't come voluntarily. I just don't think it makes sense to punish people who neither pay taxes nor are free-riding.

[SPC]

JFK, if we are to assume that roads are publicly owned, than that implies that everyone owns them, and to expel a person from the road would mean that they cannot access their own property. The drunk driver has not harmed anyone, he merely poses the threat of harming someone. Should Muslims be banned from flying on planes because they pose the threat of terrorism? If a drunk driver kills somebody in an accident, then they would likely receive the death penalty, if the victim's family thinks that if sufficient restitution.

Regarding society, you seem to ignore that society predates government, government was formed by the members of society to protect their life, liberty, and property. To imply that government created society as you do ignores naturals rights. If I do not want to participate in the tax system, that should be my right, so long as a do not reap the benefits of police protection.

It doesn't mean they cannot access their property as they can still walk or use public transportation where provided. I find your comparison with Muslims and planes to not only be ridiculous but also heavily insulting; the likelihood of someone drink-driving causing harm to others is far higher than the likelihood that a Muslim on board a plane is going to fly it into a building or blow it up. I think the family would rather that there were laws preventing someone drink-driving in the first place. Financial compensation is in no way equivalent to still having a loved one. Personally I oppose the death penalty so I couldn't support that part of your argument either, but the fact that you believe in it seems to run counter to your belief in natural rights; surely the greatest of all rights is the right to life?

I am not ignoring the fact that society predates the government. Government is created both to protect the rights of the members of society but also to enforce responsibilities on society's behalf; it's what is known as the social contract. In no way did I imply that government creates society, in fact I believe I made it perfectly clear that I see government as the elected agent of society.

The person who has taken the life of another has lost his right to life. His right to life now belongs to the family of the victim, who are free to punish him as they please. Also, it should be pointed out the despite the ban on drunk driving, people still get killed in car accidents due to drunk driving. Therefore, feel free to ban it all you want, it will still happen. Regarding driver's licensing, do you think that it would have been necessary for people in the 19th century to license their horses and buggies? Of course, many roads back then were privately owned, so that leads to a different story.

And what happens of the government violates the social contract? Society cannot do anything about it short of revolution so long as the government is the sole interpreter of a social contract. Also, if government is the elected agent of society, who are they to prohibit the members of society from doing as they please so long as they don't harm anyone else?

[JohnFKennedy]

Again, this thread is speaking purely about morality. Does it really make a difference how the thief spends money if it is not rightfully his?

Ok, if you want to play it that way. Admittedly taxation is to a degree an initiation of force. When that tax money is spent on military and police protection for the citizens whom are paying that money, it prevents greater initiation of force that would otherwise occur against them by warlords and criminals who care nothing for the rights of others. Given the people at large could not possibly live with their rights intact without these protections, and one views the maintaining of the rights of the people as moral, then the slight initiation of force required to fund these protections is moral at best or the least of all possible evils at worst.

Now with OTHER services that might be provided at the cost of taxation, there are other pros and cons to consider, and the merits of each should be considered individually.

If people value military and police protection so much, I don't see why the money to fund it couldn't come voluntarily. I just don't think it makes sense to punish people who neither pay taxes nor are free-riding.

Except they are effectively free-riding. By virtue of living in the United States you enjoy the protection of the US military and similarly the protection of the police.

[John Dibble]

If people value military and police protection so much, I don't see why the money to fund it couldn't come voluntarily. I just don't think it makes sense to punish people who neither pay taxes nor are free-riding.

I don't see how you can have such a system where people who don't pay aren't free-riders at the same time. The only exception I could see is having volunteer soldiers or police not pay in cash for it, but they would simply paying with service rather than currency.

[JohnFKennedy]

The person who has taken the life of another has lost his right to life. His right to life now belongs to the family of the victim, who are free to punish him as they please. Also, it should be pointed out the despite the ban on drunk driving, people still get killed in car accidents due to drunk driving. Therefore, feel free to ban it all you want, it will still happen. Regarding driver's licensing, do you think that it would have been necessary for people in the 19th century to license their horses and buggies? Of course, many roads back then were privately owned, so that leads to a different story.

And what happens of the government violates the social contract? Society cannot do anything about it short of revolution so long as the government is the sole interpreter of a social contract. Also, if government is the elected agent of society, who are they to prohibit the members of society from doing as they please so long as they don't harm anyone else?

So then these natural rights are not absolute rights? Are you not effectively conceding that society can take people's rights away? I find your point that even though drink-driving is illegal it still happens to be somewhat flippant the least; murder is illegal but that still happens. It's no shock that people break the law, but by virtue of having it there it becomes easier to prevent.

Personally, I don't see the nineteenth-century as a paradigm of good living so I'd prefer the existence we have now. Further to that I'd say that cars are probably a lot more dangerous than horses and buggies would have been as they can travel at far higher speeds and are also much more numerous.

If a government breaches the social contract in a democracy then the people can vote them out if that is what they wish to do. Equally there is the court system through which people can seek regress of grievances.

As to prohibiting members of society from doing what they please, I'm afraid you'll have to give an example of what you are speaking of for me to answer that. Of course there are cases when the government should not regulate what they are doing but I have a feeling your view of what harms others differs greatly from mine given your support for drunk-driving.

[Хahar 🤔]

Taxation is not theft.  You choose to live in this society.  This society chooses to elect politicians that enact taxes.  Taxation is voluntary, as much as we hate it.  If you don't want to pay taxes, there are plenty of disorganized societies in Africa that are much easier to avoid being taxed by.

Society existed before government did. Government was formed to protect individuals' life, liberty, and property, not the other way around. If the government prevents me from paying taxes or paying someone else to protect my life, liberty, and property, then it cannot be said to be a voluntary agreement.

Nope. Government is society.

[John Dibble]

Taxation is not theft.  You choose to live in this society.  This society chooses to elect politicians that enact taxes.  Taxation is voluntary, as much as we hate it.  If you don't want to pay taxes, there are plenty of disorganized societies in Africa that are much easier to avoid being taxed by.

Society existed before government did. Government was formed to protect individuals' life, liberty, and property, not the other way around. If the government prevents me from paying taxes or paying someone else to protect my life, liberty, and property, then it cannot be said to be a voluntary agreement.

Nope. Government is society.

While government isn't necessarily the same thing as society, they are interlinked. Society didn't come before government - they've existed hand in hand. Just look at animals, their societies have governments of sorts. Of course, their government tends to be the alpha male and/or female of their group. Early human societies were the same way. The biggest, strongest, and/or smartest guy would manage to get himself in charge of everyone else in the group, all the while being in a power struggle with the shaman because the shaman was the only one who knew how to appeal to the fire spirits whenever more was needed. Meanwhile, both of them would be getting the best stuff from the tribe - that really nice pelt you got hunting would make a great offering to fire spirits, and your attractive young daughter would make a great new wife for the chief. Of course as groups got bigger and technology advanced government changed as well.

[SPC]

To reply about JFK's and Dibble's complaints about free-riding, any non-taxpayers would not be subject to police and military protection. They would either have to defend their property themselves or hire a private security agency to do it for them.

So then these natural rights are not absolute rights? Are you not effectively conceding that society can take people's rights away?

No, people take their own natural rights away when they violate the natural rights of others and are not able to produce sufficient restitution. Unlike with a theft, where the money/property can be returned to the victim, there is no way to resurrect a murder victim. Thus, the natural rights of the murderer become the property of the victim's family, who are free to punish him as they see fit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Murder takes away someone else's right to life. Drunk driving in and of itself does not take away anybody else's rights, so the fact that it is illegal solely as a preventive measure, as you say, is dubious given that it happens anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correlation does not mean causation. The 20th and 21st centuries provide a better way of life in spite of increased government, not because of it. The quality of life has improved due to increased capital.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are several problems with this. First, in a democracy, the majority can plunder the minority to no punishment. Second, with democratic government, votes are really ineffective, as can be seen by George W. Bush's "humble foreign policy" and Bill Clinton's "the era of big government is over", both of which they immediately violated when they took office, to name some recent examples.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not supporting drunk driving; I merely oppose prohibition. By letting people live their lives as they please, I mean letting people exercise their natural rights so long as they do not violate anybody else's.

[SPC]

Taxation is not theft.  You choose to live in this society.  This society chooses to elect politicians that enact taxes.  Taxation is voluntary, as much as we hate it.  If you don't want to pay taxes, there are plenty of disorganized societies in Africa that are much easier to avoid being taxed by.

Society existed before government did. Government was formed to protect individuals' life, liberty, and property, not the other way around. If the government prevents me from paying taxes or paying someone else to protect my life, liberty, and property, then it cannot be said to be a voluntary agreement.

Nope. Government is society.

Maybe in Marxist societies, but nowhere else. Government is formed to protect the products of society (property) as well as the individuals of society (life and liberty). To say that government is society completely overlooks the works of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, Paine, etc.

[Хahar 🤔]

Taxation is not theft.  You choose to live in this society.  This society chooses to elect politicians that enact taxes.  Taxation is voluntary, as much as we hate it.  If you don't want to pay taxes, there are plenty of disorganized societies in Africa that are much easier to avoid being taxed by.

Society existed before government did. Government was formed to protect individuals' life, liberty, and property, not the other way around. If the government prevents me from paying taxes or paying someone else to protect my life, liberty, and property, then it cannot be said to be a voluntary agreement.

Nope. Government is society.

Maybe in Marxist societies, but nowhere else. Government is formed to protect the products of society (property) as well as the individuals of society (life and liberty). To say that government is society completely overlooks the works of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, Paine, etc.

But since it is impossible to divorce them, they are for all intents and purposes the same. No society has existed without government.

[John Dibble]

To reply about JFK's and Dibble's complaints about free-riding, any non-taxpayers would not be subject to police and military protection. They would either have to defend their property themselves or hire a private security agency to do it for them.

1. With police that's only partially true. Criminals would have no way of knowing who is protected by the police or not. They would be just as deterred as they would otherwise be. Furthermore, any dangerous criminals arrested by the police are removed as a threat to everyone, not just those who pay. There is also the fact that the police won't always know who's protected and who isn't - if a police officer sees a woman about to be raped, do you think he's going to ask if she's paid her taxes before he shoots the scumbag attacking her? So at the very least you'll get partial free-riding, if not full free-riding.

2. With military that's completely untrue. Military protection protects you from foreign invaders, and the military has to act with the notion that they protect certain geographical borders in order to be effective. It's not like they would allow invaders into our borders to take over only the property of people who don't pay taxes - they couldn't do that because the invaders could use those properties as staging posts to build a presence within the nation and take over everything else. Because of that simple logistical snafu in your logic everyone within the country's borders would be protected, and thus anyone who doesn't pay gets the full benefits and thus is free-riding.

[SPC]

Taxation is not theft.  You choose to live in this society.  This society chooses to elect politicians that enact taxes.  Taxation is voluntary, as much as we hate it.  If you don't want to pay taxes, there are plenty of disorganized societies in Africa that are much easier to avoid being taxed by.

Society existed before government did. Government was formed to protect individuals' life, liberty, and property, not the other way around. If the government prevents me from paying taxes or paying someone else to protect my life, liberty, and property, then it cannot be said to be a voluntary agreement.

Nope. Government is society.

Maybe in Marxist societies, but nowhere else. Government is formed to protect the products of society (property) as well as the individuals of society (life and liberty). To say that government is society completely overlooks the works of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, Paine, etc.

But since it is impossible to divorce them, they are for all intents and purposes the same. No society has existed without government.

So medieval Iceland, Ireland, and colonial Pennsylvania weren't societies?

[JohnFKennedy]

To reply about JFK's and Dibble's complaints about free-riding, any non-taxpayers would not be subject to police and military protection. They would either have to defend their property themselves or hire a private security agency to do it for them.

Dibble has pointed out the obvious flaw in that point already and I don't think it's necessary to add anything.

No, people take their own natural rights away when they violate the natural rights of others and are not able to produce sufficient restitution. Unlike with a theft, where the money/property can be returned to the victim, there is no way to resurrect a murder victim. Thus, the natural rights of the murderer become the property of the victim's family, who are free to punish him as they see fit.

I thought a few pages ago you were opposing slavery?

Murder takes away someone else's right to life. Drunk driving in and of itself does not take away anybody else's rights, so the fact that it is illegal solely as a preventive measure, as you say, is dubious given that it happens anyway.

Again I would return to this notion of rights and responsibilities; this law is about enforcing people's responsibilities and protecting against a threat to the rights of others. Again, it's flippant to suggest that its virtue as a preventative measure is dubious because it happens anyway; there will always be people who break laws, but we still have them. Also, the existence of the law gives the police the ability to stop people who they find drink-driving. Personally, I'd rather someone is pulled over for drink-driving and arrested by a police officer than the police leave them driving and in a hundred metres they crash head on into another car and kill someone.

Also, I'm still waiting for an apology for your deeply offensive point about Muslims.

Correlation does not mean causation. The 20th and 21st centuries provide a better way of life in spite of increased government, not because of it. The quality of life has improved due to increased capital.

It seems you've misread my post. At no point did I say that increased standards of living were solely down to increases in government so you're 'correlation does not mean causation' comment is pointless. So following on from your dismissal of the assertion that I never made, you make your own assertion with little to back it up. I'd like you to prove that increased government has had an adverse effect on increasing standards of living. I think you'll have a tough time of it personally and I am sure most historians would agree with me on that. Take for instance Britain at the turn of the twentieth-century; the Boer War showed up the terrible effects that laissez-faire capitalism had had on much of the working population of Britain, a problem that the Liberal welfare reforms that begun following the 1906 General Election did a lot to solve.

There are several problems with this. First, in a democracy, the majority can plunder the minority to no punishment. Second, with democratic government, votes are really ineffective, as can be seen by George W. Bush's "humble foreign policy" and Bill Clinton's "the era of big government is over", both of which they immediately violated when they took office, to name some recent examples.

On the first point, that is why you have a system of checks and balances whereby judicial review serves as a check on the majority and in the case of the USA, the Constitution is also a limiting factor. I notice you've neglected the role of the judiciary in redressing grievances; do you not see that as an effective means of protection?

I'm not supporting drunk driving; I merely oppose prohibition. By letting people live their lives as they please, I mean letting people exercise their natural rights so long as they do not violate anybody else's.

I'd question your understanding of living in a society; it's not just as simple as 'I can do whatever the hell I want'. Perhaps you should read some Rousseau; nobody has more recognised man's innate individuality but also the inherent need for a collective society.

Also, just out of curiosity, how do you justify these natural rights? Where do they come from?

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought a few pages ago you were opposing slavery?[/quote]

It is not slavery if the criminal harmed someone in a way such that no restitution can be provided. Everyone is born with the right to their life, liberty, and property, and only they can lose those rights by violating someone else's right to life, liberty, and property.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again I would return to this notion of rights and responsibilities; this law is about enforcing people's responsibilities and protecting against a threat to the rights of others. Again, it's flippant to suggest that its virtue as a preventative measure is dubious because it happens anyway; there will always be people who break laws, but we still have them. Also, the existence of the law gives the police the ability to stop people who they find drink-driving. Personally, I'd rather someone is pulled over for drink-driving and arrested by a police officer than the police leave them driving and in a hundred metres they crash head on into another car and kill someone.

Also, I'm still waiting for an apology for your deeply offensive point about Muslims.[/quote]

You seem to act that if the police decriminalized drunk driving, everyone and their mother would be getting drunk and killing people in accidents. In reality, high car insurance rates and the threat of an accident would deter people by themselves. Also, suppose someone drives sober, but they drive worse than a normal person does when they're drunk. Should they be arrested for 'drunk' driving? Also, my point about Muslims was a reductio ad absurdum, so I was pointing out the ridiculousness of criminalizing a threat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems you've misread my post. At no point did I say that increased standards of living were solely down to increases in government so you're 'correlation does not mean causation' comment is pointless. So following on from your dismissal of the assertion that I never made, you make your own assertion with little to back it up. I'd like you to prove that increased government has had an adverse effect on increasing standards of living. I think you'll have a tough time of it personally and I am sure most historians would agree with me on that. Take for instance Britain at the turn of the twentieth-century; the Boer War showed up the terrible effects that laissez-faire capitalism had had on much of the working population of Britain, a problem that the Liberal welfare reforms that begun following the 1906 General Election did a lot to solve.[/quote]

Again, I can use reductio ad absurdum to disprove this. Logically speaking, if more government intervention increases the standard of living, then the country with the highest amount of government intervention shuld have the highest standard of living. According to the Index of Economic Freedom, the country with the most government intervention is North Korea. By your logic, North Korea must also have the highest standard of living, an observation that is laughable at best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the first point, that is why you have a system of checks and balances whereby judicial review serves as a check on the majority and in the case of the USA, the Constitution is also a limiting factor. I notice you've neglected the role of the judiciary in redressing grievances; do you not see that as an effective means of protection?[/quote]

In the words of President Bush, "The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper." I have long past my phase where I actually thought constitutional government was stable; it was foolish idea to begin with to think that a piece of paper protecting your rights could stand guard against all three branches of government wishing to violate it. I do not see the Supreme Court as an effective means of protection because they've been violating the Constitution as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd question your understanding of living in a society; it's not just as simple as 'I can do whatever the hell I want'. Perhaps you should read some Rousseau; nobody has more recognised man's innate individuality but also the inherent need for a collective society.

Also, just out of curiosity, how do you justify these natural rights? Where do they come from?
[/quote]

I'd reccomend you read or listen to Bastiat's The Law. You can listen to it here and you can read it here or here. He says that collective rights only refer to the protection of individual rights. Also, my understanding of a free society is not 'I can do whatever the hell I want'; it is 'I can exercise my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as I don't violate anybody else's right to do the same.'

I would say what other natural rights theorists (Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson, etc.) have said in the past, that your natural rights are given to you by God, but I'm an athiest, so I would have to accept God in the theoretical sense, not necessarily in the literal sense. Either way, the fact that they are given to you by a higher being means that nobody has the right to take them away.

[JohnFKennedy]

It is not slavery if the criminal harmed someone in a way such that no restitution can be provided. Everyone is born with the right to their life, liberty, and property, and only they can lose those rights by violating someone else's right to life, liberty, and property.

So a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so slavery by any other name would feel as hard.  An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is never a good way to organise a justice system.

You seem to act that if the police decriminalized drunk driving, everyone and their mother would be getting drunk and killing people in accidents. In reality, high car insurance rates and the threat of an accident would deter people by themselves. Also, suppose someone drives sober, but they drive worse than a normal person does when they're drunk. Should they be arrested for 'drunk' driving? Also, my point about Muslims was a reductio ad absurdum, so I was pointing out the ridiculousness of criminalizing a threat.

Firstly, I am guessing you have never been drunk as people don't exactly act rationally when drunk. I am not saying that everyone would be drink-driving if it were legal but that it would be a greater problem and also that police would be unable to pull people over and give them a breathalyser test. That is where the bigger problem in legalising it lies; if there were no laws against drink-driving then police could not stop it when they came across it which meant a potential accident could be easily avoided. Drink-driving is not necessarily about the 'quality' of driving but more about reaction times; alcohol slows your reactions which means that your stopping distance is greater. You can't arrest someone for drunk driving if they aren't drunk, but you can for driving recklessley and endangering lives. That's the entire purpose of the points system for drivers licences; if you prove that you are incapable of driving to safe standards then you have your licence taken away.

The problem with reductio ad absurdum is that if you can take any argument and twist it to be ridiculous if you want. The point is that you draw a reasonable line and drink-driving poses a far greater threat than letting a Muslim on a plane. It doesn't disprove the validity of the previous argument, it just states that if we take a vaguely similar but different case then your view is ridiculous and so it must be ridiculous here.  Your argument is effectively a strawman. It's like if I said it was good for you to eat vegetables and you responded with no it isn't because if you only ate vegetables you wouldn't get the necessary fats and proteins for a balanced diet. That's exactly what your argument citing North Korea is an example of.

Again, I can use reductio ad absurdum to disprove this. Logically speaking, if more government intervention increases the standard of living, then the country with the highest amount of government intervention shuld have the highest standard of living. According to the Index of Economic Freedom, the country with the most government intervention is North Korea. By your logic, North Korea must also have the highest standard of living, an observation that is laughable at best.

Again, your attacking a position that I don't hold. I never said that the more the government intervenes the higher the standard of living. I believe there is a balance to it; you don't have to go to one extreme or the other shockingly. You still haven't proved that government intervention necessarily decreases the standards of living of its citizens. All you have said is that if the government runs everything then it is bad which I would agree with but I would also argue that if it is all left to the free market then you would have problems.  Again I return to that notion of a mixed economy which I mentioned before.

EDIT: Just looked at that index of economic freedom; would you really say that Hong Kong has the best standard of living?

In the words of President Bush, "The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper." I have long past my phase where I actually thought constitutional government was stable; it was foolish idea to begin with to think that a piece of paper protecting your rights could stand guard against all three branches of government wishing to violate it. I do not see the Supreme Court as an effective means of protection because they've been violating the Constitution as well.

You don't think constitutional government is stable? What exactly do you mean by 'stability'? How exactly are your rights to be protected otherwise? I would probably disagree with you on your Supreme Court point - although I am not immensely well versed in the court records of the Supreme Court - simply because it rests on interpretation. Your interpretation of the Supreme Court may differ from theirs, but I have a feeling if they struck down an important aspect of the Constitution that people viewed as inalienable there would be such public outrage that it would have to be changed. Convention and tradition play an important role in establishing stability and granting legitimacy.

I'd reccomend you read or listen to Bastiat's The Law. You can listen to it here and you can read it here or here. He says that collective rights only refer to the protection of individual rights. Also, my understanding of a free society is not 'I can do whatever the hell I want'; it is 'I can exercise my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as I don't violate anybody else's right to do the same.'

I will have a look at the Bastiat later if you will read some Rousseau. Personally I would tend to disagree with collective rights merely representing individual rights; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The problem is that often in the exercising of your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness you will come across another person and often come breach their rights, particularly on the latter. Yet, the greatest problem with the society that you envision is that there is really no ultimate arbiter to decide upon these issues or to protect against the breach of others rights. Your previously discussed theories on courts and security services were hardly the foundations of a stable society.

I would say what other natural rights theorists (Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson, etc.) have said in the past, that your natural rights are given to you by God, but I'm an athiest, so I would have to accept God in the theoretical sense, not necessarily in the literal sense. Either way, the fact that they are given to you by a higher being means that nobody has the right to take them away.

So then your view is effectively that natural rights are abitrary; you don't believe in a higher authority but you believe that your rights were given to you by a higher authority...but that authority doesn't exist in your view.

[Albus Dumbledore]

This thread makes my head spin.

[SPC]

It is not slavery if the criminal harmed someone in a way such that no restitution can be provided. Everyone is born with the right to their life, liberty, and property, and only they can lose those rights by violating someone else's right to life, liberty, and property.

So a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so slavery by any other name would feel as hard.  An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is never a good way to organise a justice system.

Okay, then what would you propose to be the punishment for murder? Keep in mind that my system doesn't necessarily mean the death penalty would be the punishment for murder. If the family of the victim opposed the death penalty, they could think of an alternative way to get justice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If people got charged an obscene amount on their insurance for drunk driving, they would be more likely to have a designated driver before they got intoxicted to avoid paying high rates or get in an accident.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, your attacking a position that I don't hold. I never said that the more the government intervenes the higher the standard of living. I believe there is a balance to it; you don't have to go to one extreme or the other shockingly. You still haven't proved that government intervention necessarily decreases the standards of living of its citizens. All you have said is that if the government runs everything then it is bad which I would agree with but I would also argue that if it is all left to the free market then you would have problems.  Again I return to that notion of a mixed economy which I mentioned before.[/quote]

I realize that you do not hold that position. However, that is the logical conclusion of your position. If government intervention in 40% of the economy is good, than government intervention in 100% of the economy must be great. I have shown a correlation between government intervention and low standards of living, as you can see than nearly all the countries at the bottom have a low standard of living. This makes sense, given that the more government intervenes in the economy, the less room there is for the private sector, and thus less competition and a lower standard of living. Also, could you please explain the logic behind your 'mixed economy', and don't just say 'its a combination of capitalism and socialism, so it just be good'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't think constitutional government is stable? What exactly do you mean by 'stability'? How exactly are your rights to be protected otherwise? I would probably disagree with you on your Supreme Court point - although I am not immensely well versed in the court records of the Supreme Court - simply because it rests on interpretation. Your interpretation of the Supreme Court may differ from theirs, but I have a feeling if they struck down an important aspect of the Constitution that people viewed as inalienable there would be such public outrage that it would have to be changed. Convention and tradition play an important role in establishing stability and granting legitimacy.[/quote]

By stability, I mean the government hasn't violated the Constitution. From the PATRIOT Act, to the Military Commisions Act, to Waco, to warrentless wiretapping, to LBJ's Great Society, to FDR's New Deal, I think it is safe to say that the U.S. federal government doesn't abide by the Constitution. When all three branches of government are power-hungry, and all that stands in their way is a piece of paper that they have the power to interpret, the government will grow at the expense of individual liberty. The Court hadn't overturned a single federal law for over 60 years between the late 30s and the late 90s, which shows you how reliable the Supreme Court is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will have a look at the Bastiat later if you will read some Rousseau. Personally I would tend to disagree with collective rights merely representing individual rights; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The problem is that often in the exercising of your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness you will come across another person and often come breach their rights, particularly on the latter. Yet, the greatest problem with the society that you envision is that there is really no ultimate arbiter to decide upon these issues or to protect against the breach of others rights. Your previously discussed theories on courts and security services were hardly the foundations of a stable society.[/quote]

The problem with an ultimate single arbiter is that if they look at their own self-interests, they can twist the law to their favor. If competition is good for everything else, why wouldn't it be good for enforcing the law? My ideal system would still have the security and courts we have today, it would just have competition in those sectors.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So then your view is effectively that natural rights are abitrary; you don't believe in a higher authority but you believe that your rights were given to you by a higher authority...but that authority doesn't exist in your view.
[/quote]

I believe in God in the theoretical sense. The natural rights theorists meant whe they said rights were given to you by God that they were not given to you by anybody mortal, and thus cannot be taken away by anyone mortal.

[JohnFKennedy]

Okay, then what would you propose to be the punishment for murder? Keep in mind that my system doesn't necessarily mean the death penalty would be the punishment for murder. If the family of the victim opposed the death penalty, they could think of an alternative way to get justice.

That is why I support the existence of an impartial justice system; I don't believe that punishment should solely be retributive which is what you are essentially advocating. Personally I prefer the UK penal system on the matter of murder because I do not support the death penalty. Also, how is rape punished under your eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth system?

If people got charged an obscene amount on their insurance for drunk driving, they would be more likely to have a designated driver before they got intoxicted to avoid paying high rates or get in an accident.

Firstly, I would imagine that a potential criminal sentence would be a better deterrence than a higher insurance premium. Secondly I would imagine that without a government to require that people have insurance while driving, if somebody's insurance premiums went up that badly they would simply stop buying insurance which would be worse. Thirdly, by making it illegal it means that police can stop drink drivers in the act before they cause an accident whereas under your system there would be no mechanism for that.

I realize that you do not hold that position. However, that is the logical conclusion of your position. If government intervention in 40% of the economy is good, than government intervention in 100% of the economy must be great. I have shown a correlation between government intervention and low standards of living, as you can see than nearly all the countries at the bottom have a low standard of living. This makes sense, given that the more government intervenes in the economy, the less room there is for the private sector, and thus less competition and a lower standard of living. Also, could you please explain the logic behind your 'mixed economy', and don't just say 'its a combination of capitalism and socialism, so it just be good'

That's simply not true that it is the logical conclusion unless you believe that the logical conclusion of people should eat more vegetables is that people should eat only vegetables. The point is that variety and a mixture is what tends to work best. I think you're little index of economic freedom demonstrates that as the places that have the highest standard of living are not necessarily those with the most economic freedom. Your views are ridiculously manichaean; it is not an either/or choice between no government or massive government but a sliding scale. Arguing that the government should intervene sometimes is not logically the same as the government should always intervene. How old are you?

Just because your argument tactics involve stating that 'it's capitalism so it must be good' doesn't mean that mine do. My point is that the free market has its part to play in society but I also believe that governments should intervene to protect the public interest. I believe that in the context of your belief in man's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is important that people are afforded a modicum of support for that. For instance I support my own country's National Health Service because it provides healthcare to those who otherwise would miss out which I think is a major flaw in the American system where the rich are afforded the best healthcare because they can afford it. In my eyes that is not granting equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because it is contingent upon one's economic situation which is particularly problematic in the case of children as it is not something that they can choose, it is something that they are born into. In that respect I take a Rawlsian view of justice and fairness.

By stability, I mean the government hasn't violated the Constitution. From the PATRIOT Act, to the Military Commisions Act, to Waco, to warrentless wiretapping, to LBJ's Great Society, to FDR's New Deal, I think it is safe to say that the U.S. federal government doesn't abide by the Constitution. When all three branches of government are power-hungry, and all that stands in their way is a piece of paper that they have the power to interpret, the government will grow at the expense of individual liberty. The Court hadn't overturned a single federal law for over 60 years between the late 30s and the late 90s, which shows you how reliable the Supreme Court is.

Again, I would say it shows more that you and the Supreme Court differ over your interpretations. While I would never go so far as to say that the system the United States has at the moment is perfect - in fact I think in many ways it is greatly flawed - I would value it far more than your interpretation of society which is both unworkable and would essentially result in the dominance of the wealthy to a greater extent than already exists.

The problem with an ultimate single arbiter is that if they look at their own self-interests, they can twist the law to their favor. If competition is good for everything else, why wouldn't it be good for enforcing the law? My ideal system would still have the security and courts we have today, it would just have competition in those sectors.

A system such as that would ultimately result in complete gridlock and the breakdown of society. First of all, how do you decide which court a case is tried before? Do both parties have to agree on it? Because I see that as being a major stumbling block. Who funds these court systems? I believe you've already said it would be run by private donations but that gives an economic interest to a court in their dealings with one party; why would a court find in favour of a poor man when on the opposite side they have one of their greatest donors. Which then returns to the problem of who decides which court it is brought before. Having a privately funded court system such as the one you proposes simply removes the stakehold that the majority have in the system because they cannot afford to match the financial contribution of a small and wealthy elite. What you get, then, is either a system that favours the wealthy, or complete and total gridlock as neither party can agree which court will try the case.

Equally, justice will be vastly more difficult for the poor to achieve than the rich. If prosecutions are private then those who can afford it will have a far easier time of obtaining justice than those who cannot and would otherwise be reliant upon institutions such as the Britsh CPS or the legal-aid system. How exactly do you ensure everyone's right to a defence or right to preserve their own rights when they cannot bring a case or defend themselves against a case because they cannot afford to. This is a problem that is clear if you look at the history of the criminal law; prior to the introduction of both an ordered police service in Britain and also a fully functioning prosecution service, as little as one-tenth of all crimes committed went punished.

Similarly with these private security companies, how, pray tell, are people supposed to conduct an investigation into a crime. If I kill a poor person and his family cannot afford to hire an investigator to look into the crime then I can effectively get away with it because they will have no way of constructing a case, even if they can just about scrape together the money to employ a lawyer to argue it. The whole system you propose results in the protection of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for those who can afford it, but not the rest of the population. It's there that government involvement is most important.

Then again, the way you utilise logic, it seems you'd see the need for a state court system or a state police system as being equivalent to the need for the state to regulate toothpaste usage.

I believe in God in the theoretical sense. The natural rights theorists meant whe they said rights were given to you by God that they were not given to you by anybody mortal, and thus cannot be taken away by anyone mortal.

What do you mean 'in the theoretical sense'? If this God is purely theoretical then the basis for these rights is purely theoretical and practice seldom follows theory. I find it amusing that you take such a dichotomous view of everything except metaphysical questions which are generally regarded by philosophers to be some of the few areas where there must be a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question ultimately. Either there is a God and these natural rights are God-given, or there isn't a God and thus these natural rights are arbitrary. I do believe in natural rights but I don't believe in God; the difference is that I recognise that these rights are, in a sense, arbitrary but that it is my belief that they have to be inalienable in order for society to function.

[SPC]

That is why I support the existence of an impartial justice system; I don't believe that punishment should solely be retributive which is what you are essentially advocating. Personally I prefer the UK penal system on the matter of murder because I do not support the death penalty. Also, how is rape punished under your eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth system?

Please explain how you would specifically punish a murderer of your family. Also, for rape, if I were the judge, I would make the rapist pay for any medical procedures on the victims genitalia, and/or vaccinations from venereal diseases.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If somebody had the choice to not buy insurance, they would be more cautious with their driving, since they know that any repair from an accident would have to come from their wallet. Because the government mandates that everyone have car insurance, people have less incentive to drive carefully, since any repair will be coming from a third-party payer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a difference between eating vegatables and government intervention in the economy. If you had read the article I linked to, you would realize that compromise I only a good thing when you are compromising two evils to a good end. For example, if I make a compromise between not eating any vegetables and eating only vegetables, then it is a good thing. However, compromising between socialism (evil) and capitalism (good) is incoherent, because where do you draw the line between which sectors of the economy are socialized and which sectors are a free-market? Also, where do you gain the evidence that a compromise works, or do you just like the idea because the idea of compromise sounds cool?

I happen to have an uncle who lives in Britain who 'loves' the British Healthcare system so much that they've delayed a hip replacement for him for over two years! A free-market would have none of that unless they wanted to lose customers. Why do you think foreign leaders go to the U.S. to have their surgeries? A belief in man's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not mean he is entitled to those things. It just means that nobody can infringe on those rights. It is as simple as the difference between the right to own a home and the 'right' to move into someone's home without their permission. BTW, our health care system is expensive in America because of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, HMOs, and the Food and Druf Administration, which artificially inflate prices by mandating insurance companies give 'insurance' for non-emergency procedures. Can you imagine how high the price of a gallon of gas would be if insurance companies offered 'gas insurance', where for a monthly fee, you could have all the gas you want?

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I would say it shows more that you and the Supreme Court differ over your interpretations. While I would never go so far as to say that the system the United States has at the moment is perfect - in fact I think in many ways it is greatly flawed - I would value it far more than your interpretation of society which is both unworkable and would essentially result in the dominance of the wealthy to a greater extent than already exists. [/quote]

You seem to believe the economy is a zero-sum game. The truth is, because capital is always growing, a free-economy allows everyone to become richer. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the Amrican lower-class is still wealthier than the 17th century monarchs. My interpretation of society would make all transactions be voluntary, and you say that is somehow 'unworkable'? Are people are too dumb to make choices for themselves?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mutual consent between the defendant and the plantiff on which court to use would have to be reached. Thus, the most neutral and law-abiding court is most likely to be chosen, and courts will try to be neutral and law-abiding to win donations. I do not oppose having a government, I merely oppose having that government forced upon the members of society. If the poor decide that they cannot afford to live in a pure-free market economy, they can choose to have the government take care of their security and legal needs, though they would likely still have to pay taxes to keep the government running. Your basis seems to be, "In a free-market, the rich would be able to afford better police and legal protection, so therefore everyone must have the government take care of that, whether they like it or not." If someone wishes to have their security needs taken care of by a private agency, then why do they need to pay taxes for the government's police protection? The poor person's security agency would take care of any crime investigation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you mean 'in the theoretical sense'? If this God is purely theoretical then the basis for these rights is purely theoretical and practice seldom follows theory. I find it amusing that you take such a dichotomous view of everything except metaphysical questions which are generally regarded by philosophers to be some of the few areas where there must be a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question ultimately. Either there is a God and these natural rights are God-given, or there isn't a God and thus these natural rights are arbitrary. I do believe in natural rights but I don't believe in God; the difference is that I recognise that these rights are, in a sense, arbitrary but that it is my belief that they have to be inalienable in order for society to function.
[/quote]

I believe that nobody can infringe on anyone else's natural rights, because of morality, not because of arbitrarity. Your definition implies that natural rights can be taken away if it is deem necessary for society to function by some third-party. 

[JohnFKennedy]

You seem to believe the economy is a zero-sum game. The truth is, because capital is always growing, a free-economy allows everyone to become richer. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the Amrican lower-class is still wealthier than the 17th century monarchs.

Of course the economy is not a zero-sum game and nothing I said in the quoted section would even suggest that; I simply stated that the wealthy have more power than the poor which few would doubt.

I find your suggestion that the American lower-class is wealthier than seeventeenth-century monarchs is completely laughable and really exposes a lack of historical knowledge. Let's take a few examples:

In 1662 Louis XIV's revenues were at 75,568,750 livres, a surplus of 742,294 livres and a figure which does not even factor in the vast wealth that Louis had in the form of land and palaces. In the year 1680 his income from ownership of woods and forests alone amounted to 865,736 livres. Measure the King's wealth in purchasing power and it is clear that few Americans, let alone members of the 'lower-class', had anything like the fiscal strength of Louis; I can hardly see any of them having a palace as stunning as Versailles built.

Alternatively, you have James I of England whose annual income from the royal estates was somewhere just under the £125,000 mark. Adjust for inflation and it is ludicrous to suggest that any of the American 'lower-class' could in any way match the income or purchasing power of either of these monarchs.

My interpretation of society would make all transactions be voluntary, and you say that is somehow 'unworkable'? Are people are too dumb to make choices for themselves?

I do think that sometimes people make bad decisions but that isn't my objection to your system. The problem is that it is one where mutual obligations to one another would seldom be fulfilled. By making the entire system voluntary you end up with a system whereby people will inevitably take decisions that benefit themselves at the expense of many of those around them. I think it is important to recognise that rights come with responsibilities; in that respect your proposed system is inherently selfish because it fails to recognise our responsibilities.

Mutual consent between the defendant and the plantiff on which court to use would have to be reached. Thus, the most neutral and law-abiding court is most likely to be chosen, and courts will try to be neutral and law-abiding to win donations.

The only thing that would lead to is gridlock; if I have clearly committed a crime then I can simply prevent justice by refusing to agree on which court will try the case. I'm hardly going to agree to go before a court - however neutral and law-abiding - if it is going to convict me.

Your proposal essentially turns justice into a profit-driven industry; why would a judge  find in favour of someone who has no money to donate when it could find in favour of a multi-millionaire who will make a sizeable donation? Similarly, who regulates the appointment of judges?

Do you believe in the right to trial by jury? That right would be incredibly problematic under such a system because a court cannot force people to serve in the way the state can which means you end up with an inherently flawed justice system; if jury service is voluntary then who do you think will step forward to serve on a jury?

I also notice you have conveniently ignored the problem of how the prison service runs.

I do not oppose having a government, I merely oppose having that government forced upon the members of society. If the poor decide that they cannot afford to live in a pure-free market economy, they can choose to have the government take care of their security and legal needs, though they would likely still have to pay taxes to keep the government running. Your basis seems to be, "In a free-market, the rich would be able to afford better police and legal protection, so therefore everyone must have the government take care of that, whether they like it or not." If someone wishes to have their security needs taken care of by a private agency, then why do they need to pay taxes for the government's police protection?

That isn't government, that is simply another private security firm and such an organization would never be able to provide a similar standard of justice or protection as the private security firms of the wealthy would be because it would simply lack the revenue. In other words, even with your so-called 'government' you have a situation whereby the rich enjoy a far greater degree of safety and protection.

Well done on spotting the basis of my argument; I don't think it is fair that the rich should be afforded better protection because they have the financial clout. As I said before, it is hardly fair if one person receives preferential legal treatment because they were born into a wealthier family while another person receives no protection whatsoever because their parents are both struggling to put food on the table. Even with your supposed compromise - which is hardly a compromise - the wealthy end up receiving preferential treatment.

The poor person's security agency would take care of any crime investigation.

Again, that means a higher standard of justice for the wealthy than for the poor. How is someone who lives on the margins supposed to fund a lengthy criminal investigation to establish who murdered their son or who raped their daughter? Once again we would end up with a legal system whereby the rich receive a far better standard of justice, a point that is only reinforced by the absence of a state prosecution service.

I see you've not answered my question on the prison service. How exactly would this be run? Also, how would the planning system function? Is it simply a case of 'It's my land and I can do what I want with it'?

I believe that nobody can infringe on anyone else's natural rights, because of morality, not because of arbitrarity. Your definition implies that natural rights can be taken away if it is deem necessary for society to function by some third-party. 

Of course your beliefs rest on your own morality but that is just as arbitrary as my own beliefs which are based on my own morals in the wider context of society. I believe that there are some inalienable rights which should not be breached because it is in the best interest of society that they be inalienable. Given that both of our views are based on strong inner convictions they are, in a sense, arbitrary. What you were saying a second ago was completely illogical; you stated that these natural rights were given to us by a higher power but that you didn't believe this higher power existed.

So why should society be run according to your dictums? Given that the vast majority of the populace seemingly agrees on the necessity of a government which taxes and spends, why should they be forced to accept your interpretation? As I said before, if you don't want to fulfil your obligations to society and thus enjoy the rights it protects then feel free to go and live in isolation somewhere. Then you would have a society that was run according to your own beliefs.

[JohnFKennedy]

Just thought I'd add that those figures are not inflation adjusted and if they were I would imagine that they would be rivalled only by a minute portion of the population.

[JohnFKennedy]

Sorry, only just noticed this post.

Please explain how you would specifically punish a murderer of your family. Also, for rape, if I were the judge, I would make the rapist pay for any medical procedures on the victims genitalia, and/or vaccinations from venereal diseases.

I don't believe it is my place to punish that person. I believe it is the place of a judge and jury to reach a decision that the state should follow because their judgment is less likely to be clouded and is more likely to be dispassionate. I oppose the death penalty in all cases. Also, that proposed punishment for rape completely ignores the psychological and mental effects it has and allows a rapist to walk free to commit the crime again.

If somebody had the choice to not buy insurance, they would be more cautious with their driving, since they know that any repair from an accident would have to come from their wallet. Because the government mandates that everyone have car insurance, people have less incentive to drive carefully, since any repair will be coming from a third-party payer.

Except that poor driving will normally result in a higher insurance premium anyway. The fact is that bad driving already results in an increased financial burden. Why would the absence of a prison sentence or a criminal record make people less likely to drink-drive?

There's a difference between eating vegatables and government intervention in the economy. If you had read the article I linked to, you would realize that compromise I only a good thing when you are compromising two evils to a good end. For example, if I make a compromise between not eating any vegetables and eating only vegetables, then it is a good thing. However, compromising between socialism (evil) and capitalism (good) is incoherent, because where do you draw the line between which sectors of the economy are socialized and which sectors are a free-market? Also, where do you gain the evidence that a compromise works, or do you just like the idea because the idea of compromise sounds cool?

This point is ridiculous; decrying socialism as 'evil' and capitalism as 'good' is entirely based on your own moral preferences and thus is in no way an argument against compromise except in your own eyes. In practice I see both capitalism and extreme socialism as being misguided and so in my eyes a compromise is the best available option. Your point is entirely based on value judgments that the rest of us do not share and thus is hardly conclusive.

Shockingly I don't base my beliefs on compromise sounding 'cool' because I am not fourteen years old. I believe that compromise works because I look at the world around me; I see a US health system where many people are excluded from treatment altogether because they cannot afford it compared with a national health system in Britain that is by no means perfect, but at least accords similar standards of treatment to people from all backgrounds. I believe in a right to healthcare and education and so I believe that the government should intervene in order that its citizens are accorded these rights. Furthermore I believe that the government should intervene in order to punish businesses that mislead the public.

I happen to have an uncle who lives in Britain who 'loves' the British Healthcare system so much that they've delayed a hip replacement for him for over two years! A free-market would have none of that unless they wanted to lose customers. Why do you think foreign leaders go to the U.S. to have their surgeries?

I would never claim that the British system was perfect, but I do think that it is fairer than the American because it does not give preference to the rich.

A belief in man's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not mean he is entitled to those things. It just means that nobody can infringe on those rights. It is as simple as the difference between the right to own a home and the 'right' to move into someone's home without their permission.

That is where we differ. I do believe that people are entitled to at least a basic lifestyle irrespective of birth; it's not about equality of outcome but equality of opportunity which is something that could not exist under your system which would result in far less social mobility.

BTW, our health care system is expensive in America because of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, HMOs, and the Food and Druf Administration, which artificially inflate prices by mandating insurance companies give 'insurance' for non-emergency procedures. Can you imagine how high the price of a gallon of gas would be if insurance companies offered 'gas insurance', where for a monthly fee, you could have all the gas you want?

To my knowledge those hardly provide all the healthcare you want for a monthly fee, particularly HMOs. In fact they are incredibly restrictive in what they offer. Even without those do you honestly believe that everyone would be able to afford even the most basic healthcare? You also have to understand that the quality of healthcare that poorer people would get under a pure free market system would never be as good as that which the rich would enjoy which I find to be incredibly unfair, particularly when it comes to children.