Subject:
|
Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:06:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1447 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, we *all* require that someone else pay for things that we consider
> > > routine, present company included.
> >
> > How so? Can you elaborate? What routine things do I expect others to pay for on
> > my behalf? I buy my own stuff.
>
> Sure! Here's one example, but there are many:
>
> The computer you're using is descended from publicly funded technology for which
> you have not paid but from which you are reaping the benefit; this is income
> redistribution that favors you.
I could argue the point that in fact I (and my parents) paid more into the
system than we have benefited from it, and I could do so for every example you
cite, I think, if I chose to do so. (as a sketch, for the first one, the
computer's technology is only part of the cost of the computer, not the entire
cost, and the share of the technology that was directly publicly funded is
rather small. Most of the value of the computer is due to MS and Intel and other
corporate scientists)
But I see what you're getting at so I choose not to do so in detail. I note that
you haven't proven that I get more benefit than I paid in, though.
The quibble turns on the meaning of "require". You say that because I use goods
for which a completely private alternative does not exist, I am "require"-ing
others to pay for them on my behalf.
I make no such "requirement". Instead I freely choose from those goods that are
provided to me. It's not my fault that your ilk have rentseeked the private
alternatives out of existance.
(snipped the other examples)
> You might argue that these uses of public funds are inappropriate, but you still
> enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) the benefits of them. Therefore you are
> benefiting from income redistribution.
No. I am not benefitting, I am paying.
Only if I have paid less into the system, actuarially, and from a net present
value perspective, than the goods are worth have I so benefitted, except as a
negative benefit. (so for example, even if I live to be 95 and collect
everything currently projected to come to me from Social Security, my payments
into Social Security are a net negative benefit using present value calculations
and market rate of interest)
I think the onus would be on you to show that I, specifically, haven't paid less
in than I get out. I pay much more in taxes than the average citizen does. In
any income redistribution scheme, someone's income is being redistributed, and
in this case, it's me.
To your specific examples that I snipped, I typically pay a 30% or more tax on
the rental when I drive on non Michigan roads, which more than covers the wear
and tear I place on them, and I pay whatever the restaurant charges when
presented the bill, so that covers the cost of inspections, and then some.
I'm perfectly willing to posit that *you've* benefitted from income
redistribution, but not that *I* have. Hence your rentseeking behaviour. As a
beneficiary, you want the largesse to continue. As a payer, I don't.
> > > In my view, everyone in a society should pay into the healthcare system of that
> > > society, unless someone forfeits his right to receive any direct or indirect
> > > benefit from that system. This includes, for example, unexpected medical costs
> > > that exceed his ability to pay.
> >
> > Or the ability of his insurance to pay?
>
> If he can afford to have it. Do you accept that some people, through no fault
> of their own, truly and literally cannot afford health insurance?
Yes. Some few people. Most made bad choices earlier on though.
> > > It also includes any costs resulting from
> > > injury he inflicts upon another person in that society.
> >
> > You wouldn't hold that person responsible for those costs to the maximum extent
> > possible?
>
> If he himself is destitute and can't pay, then sure. But if the costs of the
> victim's care greatly exceed the aggressor's ability to reimburse, then what?
Why would you not want to hold the aggressor responsible? I don't think you
answered that yet.
> > Wouldn't that encourage people to go around beating others up?
>
> Maybe, if the requirement of financial restitution were the only deterrent. It
> seems to me that other preventative measures exist, though.
It would either (absent of other incentives/deterrents) encourage or discourage
or have exactly no effect. I say encourage. Do you say discourage?
> > > It also includes the
> > > cost of medical care received by his employees and incidental service providers,
> > > such as mechanics, delivery persons, etc.
> >
> > He should pay for the health care (explicitly) of the UPS driver that delivered
> > his package? I am not following you very clearly here (through this entire
> > section)
>
> Yeah, that was a bit muddled. Let me try again.
>
> If a person declares himself "off" of a society's public healthcare system, then
> he forfeits the right to benefit directly or indirectly from that system. That
> means that if Person X receives a beneficial service from someone who in turn
> has benefited from public healthcare, then Person X has benefited from public
> healthcare. Person X is therefore beholden to the public healthcare system.
If I can opt out, I will. As long as it's feasible to set up enough of a society
that I can get by without the public system. But that's hard. Why not just
stipulate that there needs to be a contribution to the UPS driver's health care
costs (assuming he's in and I am not) by me commensurate with the value that the
UPS driver gave me in delivering the package, and the time that I interacted
with him(1). Something like a fee or tax on the package delivery charge, for
example. Once that's paid, my further obligation to him is discharged.
> One can argue that this is an infinite regress, but that's how it goes. Members
> of a society are bound into that society as long as they receive benefits from
> it. As long as you continue to use your computer, for instance, you are part of
> the society of beneficiaries of US public funding.
While technically a beneficiary, it seems that you want to require me to pay
whatever you specify, forever, for some putative small dollar amount benefit I
received long in the past. Why would I want that deal?
> > > Naturally, the system itself should be structured to provide care in the most
> > > efficient means possible.
> >
> > How do you do that?
>
> Do you mean in practical terms? I'm afraid that I'm not equal to the task of
> time/resource management on that scale.
Who is? In a single payer system, someone needs to be. Someone specifically
needs to determine how to allocate goods most efficiently. And they don't have
market data to work with either.
I suggest NO ONE is equal to the task of time/resource management on that scale.
But then we already had this discussion... search back for Hayek.
> > > By the way, I do not subscribe to the notion that we are "healthcare consumers,"
> >
> > What are we, then? We are users of the service aren't we?
>
> Are all users of any system automatically "consumers?"
> I suggest instead that we are beneficiaries of the system. In your view, is the
> beneficiary of a trust fund a consumer of that trust fund?
No.
I see your point. If the system is not a market system the users are not
consumers, they are beneficiaries.
> > > I think it *is* a gamble, in the same way that companies gamble that the
> > > government will bail them out when the companies cheney their pension plans, for
> > > example. They gamble that, even though they've mismanaged their finances, a
> > > collective benefactor will aid them when pay-out time comes.
> >
> > That's a gamble in that these corps are counting on successful rent seeking to
> > bail them out from their bogus decisions, but it's still rent seeking.
> >
> > Your example is that you'd rather shift costs to someone else in the hope that
> > your taxes aren't as much as the costs you shift, right?
>
> I'd rather require that people more readily able to pay are required to do so.
> In reaping a greater financial benefit from a society, IMO a person is more
> financially beholden to that society.
Why? That was tried already and failed.
> > Two wrongs don't make a right but three rights make a left (except in Boston
> > where it may take either 2, 3, 4, or 5 depending) ??
>
> Holy moley. I was in Boston on business back in June. I think I might still be
> stuck in traffic outside of Logan Airport.
>
> > More seriously, why? Why not address the corporate lawbreakers directly instead
> > of enabling other slackers?
>
> Hey, one windmill at a time, please!
But you seem to want to build *another* windmill here rather than tear down that
one... that seems wrong.
1 - let's use a hypothetical UPS driver OK? My UPS driver would be a flawed
example, since we interact more than would be typical. He's a bow hunter and I
choose to let him hunt on our property in order to try to control the deer
somewhat. realising that has liability insurance impliciations that would
typically not be present in a typical UPS/customer relationship.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) But underlying technology is only one aspect. If any of the designers (at MS, Intel, or wherever) went to a public school or received a government grant for college or for subsequent research, then you are benefitting from public money. I (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Sure! Here's one example, but there are many: The computer you're using is descended from publicly funded technology for which you have not paid but from which you are reaping the benefit; this is income redistribution that favors you. The (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
