Subject:
|
Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:41:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1367 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> At what point do you put your libertarian ideals aside?
>
> I mean you do pay taxes, and those taxes are used for infrastructure and for
> protection. Some of your tax money goes to roads, most of which you will never
> use, but that's okay, 'cause that all balances out with people who will never
> use your roads but are paying into the same tax system.
>
> What about parks? Your taxes go towards maintaining local/state/federal parks,
> again, most of which you will never use.
>
> Other infrastructures not listed here are maintained by your tax dollars, most
> of which you will probably never use, or use very infrequently.
>
> So where's the issue with health care? If we consider ourselves to be a
> civilized society, then 'what happens to the least of us affects all of us', in
> my opionon. To deny people access to proper health care due to personal lack of
> finances is deplorable, and is not a sign of a truly civilized culture, in my
> opinion. Sure we can bring Darwinesque idealism into the mix--those that can't
> survive are not worthy to survive, but again, imo, that's not truly civilized
> either--bringing the rationale down to the lowest common natural denominator.
>
> There is a 'flip-side' to be sure--why should I pay for health expenses for
> those that smoke or who are otherwise partaking in activities that are
> detrimental to their personal health? Then again, why am I paying into the road
> infrastructure when I use it far less than most (seeing as how I live <10 min
> from work, don't drive when I don't have to, etc.) I still pay the gov'ts idea
> of a proper share into the system, but don't get as much out of it. Is that
> fair? Life, inherently, isn't fair.
>
> People getting cancer after trying to live a healthy lifestyle isn't fair,
> either, but I would not deny them access to health care because I was selfish
> enought to state "'cause I don't use it, I don't have to pay into it"
>
> Sometimes that's what I'm led to believe about libertarians--selfish idealists
> who don't like outside forces interfering with their money. Life's not like
> that. Society, by nature, means that we are beholden to one another. We must
> look after one another or society crumbles. It's something that history has
> shown again and again--if we don't look after our fellow man, and 'we're all in
> it for wourselves', then the situation deteriorates. Pooling resources and
> knowledge has, again and again, led to the betterment of not only those around
> us, but ourselves as well.
>
> We can debate the line of where gov't should stop interfering--like market
> economies and such--communism doesn't work, imho--but I beleive the line
> shouldn't be drawn to preclude health care.
What follows is all plowed ground...
The above presents a false dichotomy in my view. It suggests that either those
that are unlucky suffer, or else government has to transfer income
(fundamentally, at the point of a gun, since taxation is not voluntary) in order
to provide for them and that there are *no* other choices.
There is a third way, which is charity. The power of voluntary charity is an
amazing thing to behold, in my view, because people are basically good. I
*embrace* being selfish the way I mean it, that is, to act in my own self
interest after careful consideration of what that self interest is, and reject
*your* definition of selfish, which is to act in a mean spirited way without any
regard for others or one's place in one's community.
The above also does not address the fundamental issue that rent seeking
behaviours ultimately are not good for either the rent seekers or society as a
whole. That's a whole other topic but we've seen the damage that rent seeking
*cough* Halliburton *cough* can do.
The transport example you cite is an excellent example of rent seeking. Highways
benefit specific people or communities and are paid for by all, at some
considerable subsidy to auto drivers, while railroads (a more efficient and
therefore greener, but less politically powerful, mode of transport) pay
property taxes on right of way as WELL as fuel tax AND corporate income tax...
and airlines get the best subsidy of all, they don't pay for anything except
their craft, the FAA provides ATC free and airports are all taxpayer funded
(landing fees come nowhere near cost recovery). Talk about skewed!
Finally, while your statements above sounds good from a "feel good about
yourself by forcing others to take care of the needy" perspective, they doesn't
address the question I was asking Dave, to wit, what question is HE asking? Is
he asking about efficiency of care delivery or about how to pay for it? They're
different questions. I'm not convinced that single payer is more efficient from
a cost and service provision perspective than a pure market system. (which the
US doesn't have, BTW, it has the worst of every system all cobbled together).
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) At what point do you put your libertarian ideals aside? I mean you do pay taxes, and those taxes are used for infrastructure and for protection. Some of your tax money goes to roads, most of which you will never use, but that's okay, 'cause (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
