Posted on 11/24/2004 8:34:45 AM PST by quidnunc
"My German and French friends tell me that the poor receive much better health care there than they do in our country."
Ahh, now you finally got down to the crux of it.
The poor may fare better in Germany or France (I'm not sure this is is accurate) but you forget to count the cost of this as well.
The poor fare better but it is at the expense of everyone else who can afford better care. There are trade-offs here and you are ignoring those.
Is it right for one person to another person's money and give it to someone else? Is it right for gov't to take one person's money and give it to someone else? This is the essence of socialism and is exactly what happens in healthcare, welfare, etc. That you see this as a morally right thing to do when done by gov't means you have a blind side when it comes to knowing right from wrong.
No, I didn't...as you will see if you read the rest of my posts on this thread.
Is it right for gov't to take one person's money and give it to someone else?
I conclude that socialized medicine is the wrong way to go...but not for moral reasons. I think basic care has to be degraded too much to provide "unlimited" service to all.
As to the moral issue you raise. As usual there are arguments on all sides. Is it right for some to be exempted from military service while others give their lives to protect them? (Just an example of the kinds of difficult questions that any society must face).
"Is it right for some to be exempted from military service while others give their lives to protect them?"
That's not the policy in place right now, although it has been in the past. It's right only if the exemptions are equitable, since some will obviously have to be exempted due to age and physical disabilities, plus a few other categories. What amounts to equitability is open for discussion. However, it's not morally unacceptable to exempt certain individuals in the military as a matter of policy.
I find it interesting that you gave no answer to my question:
"Is it right for gov't to take one person's money and give it to someone else?"
Therefore I must conclude that you see this type of theft as a gray area. If you have children you will no doubt teach them that it's not right to take something from someone by force and give it to another person -- no matter how noble their goal may seem, yet you think that's acceptable when the gov't does it.
It's done all the time. It always has been. By every government that ever existed. It's the price of civilization and society. People just argue over who gives the money and who gets it.
they never are
"Is it right for gov't to take one person's money and give it to someone else?"
It's done all the time. It always has been. By every government that ever existed. It's the price of civilization and society. People just argue over who gives the money and who gets it.
"they never are"
As I said before, it's not a question of whether it's equitable or not, it's a question of whether there should be any exemptions.
" It's done all the time. It always has been. By every government that ever existed."
Wrong. Study some American history. It wasn't originally done when the country was founded. And even when the income tax was started in 1913 it was still illegal for the Federal gov't to make payments to individuals. It didn't become legal for the gov't to give money (or benefits) to individuals until FDR was able to appoint enough Supreme Court Justices so that he could get the law (and 150+ years of precedent) overturned.
There are numerous examples throughout this country's history (at least up until the 20th Century) where well-intentioned souls attempted to get some seemingly appropriate charitable endeavor voted on in Congress, but it was refused because the leaders believed that it was not right to give public largesse from to individuals from the treasury.
Here's another bit of historical perspective for you from Alexander Tyler:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."
What planet do you live on? Did your mother overprotect you?
You think you're arguing morality when all you're arguing about is who should get the tax money.
That aside there are legitimate questions about how society should be organized and what are the functions of government.
Shocking, almost too shocking to be true. Does anyone know if it is?
Duh. I realize that. BTW, I'm only referring to Federal income tax here and Federal programs. States can do whatever they want.
If you are so sharp why don't you tell me how they initially financed the Federal gov't after the country was formed, up until 1913? Do you know? I do.
"What planet do you live on? Did your mother overprotect you?
Uhm, let me see . . . no, I don't think so. I've traveled extensively in this country, in Europe, and spent some time in parts of Asia. Your mis-applied sense of superiority aside, I have not been overprotected, nor have I been sheltered.
You think you're arguing morality when all you're arguing about is who should get the tax money.
Wrong once again. I am arguing morality. It is a moral question whether gov't should be taking money from certain individuals and using that money to enrich other people's lives. It was considered wrong, immoral -- whatever you want to call it -- for gov't to do so until 150+ years of precedent were overturned in the 1930's.
That aside there are legitimate questions about how society should be organized and what are the functions of government.
Of course there are. We are discussing what those should be and how they should be funded. Your assumption is that the functions of healthcare, welfare, etc., are ones that gov't should provide to certain of the citizens at a cost to other citizens and you act as if that is a fait accompli, which it is not. It may be the status quo now but it hasn't always been such.
BTW, I have asked you in post 80 and post 81 whether it is morally right for gov't to forcibly collect from one person or group of people and enrich other person(s) with the proceeds. All you have said is basically that this is the way it is and gov't need money to function. That has nothing to do with this argument since there are other ways for gov'ts to raise revenue. Now I'm asking you again to answer this question although I doubt whether you will.
Why? Doesn't morality apply to them?
If you are so sharp why don't you tell me how they initially financed the Federal gov't after the country was formed, up until 1913?
Excise taxes, tariffs, land sales, etc.
Wrong once again. I am arguing morality. It is a moral question whether gov't should be taking money from certain individuals and using that money to enrich other people's lives.
Back to this again so soon after arguing that States could do whatever they want.
Your assumption is that the functions of healthcare, welfare, etc., are ones that gov't should provide to certain of the citizens at a cost to other citizens and you act as if that is a fait accompli, which it is not.
Where do you get this stuff? The functions of the State are whatever the citizens decide they should be...assuming that they are within the realm of the possible. Each citizen, of course, has different ideas. In my case I believe the State should assume a certain responsibility for health care but that they've currently assumed too large a responsibility.
BTW, I have asked you in post 80 and post 81 whether it is morally right for gov't to forcibly collect from one person or group of people and enrich other person(s) with the proceeds.
"Enrich" other people implies theft - so of course it's wrong. But if you phrase it differently - Do I believe that wealth transfer is appropriate under certain circumstances? - My answer is yes.
" Where do you get this stuff? The functions of the State are whatever the citizens decide they should be..."
Exactly. That we agree on. I was disagreeing with your earlier post that "It's done all the time. It always has been. By every government that ever existed." That's not true.
""Enrich" other people implies theft - so of course it's wrong. But if you phrase it differently - Do I believe that wealth transfer is appropriate under certain circumstances? - My answer is yes."
You can change the wording however you want, but you can't get around the fact that if you take something from someone against their will then it's theft. It's the taking part that makes it theft, not the "enriching" others part.
I answered you directly. I think you should reciprocate. I'd like answers to my questions before we continue.
"States can do whatever they want.
Why? Doesn't morality apply to them? "
I made a specific point and you assumed it was very general. The context of the specific point I made was not about morality; it was about how money is collected at the Federal level versus state level. I meant that in the US form of gov't the states have the leeway to levy income taxes but the federal gov't couldn't without a constitutional amendment. If you want to direct a question about morality here then ask something specific.
" Back to this again so soon after arguing that States could do whatever they want."
The previous response covers this one.
I'll say it again; people participate in society voluntarily for the most part...and that implies a willingness to be taxed to pay for a government.
No government is possible if unanimous consent is required for all serious actions. Therefore something less is agreed upon...or imposed. Taxing those who don't agree with specific conditions but wish to continue to participate is not theft...in my view (even this must be qualified but you get the idea).
If you wish to apply your reasoning only to the Federal government then it fails in an obvious way; we have a constitutional amendment which makes income tax legal (and moral).
One can make a case for the proposition that participation in society is not voluntary...but then out goes civilization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.