Should we have single-payer healthcare?

[ZedsDed]

I feel like a false dichotomy is being forcibly set up here...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[efle]

yes.....nature/fate running it's course is superior to you assuming the power to kill/steal at will

Glad we finally worked out the fundamental difference between our philosophies (again...). I'll never think the group dying is the better outcome, and you'll never care about the outcome in making the choice.

 

[efle]

I feel like a false dichotomy is being forcibly set up here...

It's not really, there are other available answers like "it doesn't matter" or "nothing because this is what God intends" etc. It's just that the only two answers you hear with any frequency are yes, save the group, and no, you can't pull the lever because it's wrong to do it to the individual.

 

[efle]

yes.....nature/fate running it's course is superior to you assuming the power to kill/steal at will

At will? Do you assume the power to kill at will when it's self-defense? Such power would only be granted when morally appropriate, like to save many others. Both theories set conditions around certain acts.

Are you totally comfortable with the idea of natural evils being neutral to allow? Say a third world nation is experiencing terrible disease outbreaks, while a wealthier neighboring nation has stores of vaccines and cures for that disease. The wealthy nation chooses to let the vaccines expire in storage instead of donating them to fight the disease. Nothing wrong with that? Sure seems wrong to me.

I'm sure you'd say something like "their disease outbreak doesn't make it alright for them to break into my facilities and take the vaccines at gunpoint" or some variation. Maybe this one is tougher to spin: A man is out hiking and comes across another hiker bleeding to death from accidental injury/animal attack. Rather than get help, the first man leaves, and the injured man dies. Nobody has had any rights violated. Has any morally wrong action occurred? Sure seems so to me. Unless you really, truly don't think the man was wrong to leave, you're stuck with right and wrong being defined by something else than respecting/violating rights.

 

[deleted480308]

At will? Do you assume the power to kill at will when it's self-defense? Such power would only be granted when morally appropriate, like to save many others. Both theories set conditions around certain acts.

Are you totally comfortable with the idea of natural evils being neutral to allow? Say a third world nation is experiencing terrible disease outbreaks, while a wealthier neighboring nation has stores of vaccines and cures for that disease. The wealthy nation chooses to let the vaccines expire in storage instead of donating them to fight the disease. Nothing wrong with that? Sure seems wrong to me.

I'm sure you'd say something like "their disease outbreak doesn't make it alright for them to break into my facilities and take the vaccines at gunpoint" or some variation. Maybe this one is tougher to spin: A man is out hiking and comes across another hiker bleeding to death from accidental injury/animal attack. Rather than get help, the first man leaves, and the injured man dies. Nobody has had any rights violated. Has any morally wrong action occurred? Sure seems so to me. Unless you really, truly don't think the man was wrong to leave, you're stuck with right and wrong being defined by something else than respecting/violating rights.

You are correct in that a hiker has no natural right to demand assistance....and a nation has no natural rights to the property of another nation's citizens

 

[efle]

You are correct in that a hiker has no natural right to demand assistance....and a nation has no natural rights to the property of another nation's citizens

And yet the hiker walking away, and the nation wasting the cures, feels wrong

 

[deleted480308]

And yet the hiker walking away, and the nation wasting the cures, feels wrong

it also FEELS wrong if a classmate walks in with a dozen donuts and doesn't give me one........I don't however have any claim to their donuts and IT ACTUALLY IS WRONG to simply outnumber the student and pay men with guns to take their donuts because of how I feel

 

[efle]

it also FEELS wrong if a classmate walks in with a dozen donuts and doesn't give me one........I don't however have any claim to their donuts and IT ACTUALLY IS WRONG to simply outnumber the student and pay men with guns to take their donuts because of how I feel

My mistake with the wording: it is wrong to leave the hiker to die. Was it you earlier talking about straw men?

 

[deleted480308]

My mistake with the wording: it is wrong to leave the hiker to die. Was it you earlier talking about straw men?

nope....it might be an extra nice thing for you to stop and help me but you don't owe me anything just because I'm in a pinch....and more importantly, I don't get to send men with guns to imprison you just because you don't help

 

[efle]

it might be an extra nice thing for you to stop and help me but you don't owe me anything just because I'm in a pinch

Forgive me, I have a hard time thinking anyone would actually operate this way. "Oh you left my brother to die when you had a cell phone? That's fair, there's no moral imperative for you to have called for help." Please.

 

[Mad Jack]

And yet the hiker walking away, and the nation wasting the cures, feels wrong

Regardless of how it feels, it's a personal matter and not one for society to decide.

 

[Mad Jack]

I feel like a false dichotomy is being forcibly set up here...

It's not a false dichotomy. Either you want government oppression or you don't, it's pretty simple.

 

[deleted480308]

Forgive me, I have a hard time thinking anyone would actually operate this way. "Oh you left my brother to die when you had a cell phone? That's fair, there's no moral imperative for you to have called for help." Please.

I would never send people to take your property to make you help or imprison you for not helping.....to think otherwise shows a drastic misunderstanding of how central this premise is to my value system

 

[ZedsDed]

I would never send people to take your property to make you help or imprison you for not helping.....to think otherwise shows a drastic misunderstanding of how central this premise is to my value system

How do you justify your moral axiom? I've heard you assert it, many times, but never justify it.

 

[efle]

Regardless of how it feels, it's a personal matter and not one for society to decide.

Already corrected the "feels" above. It is wrong.

I would never send people to take your property to make you help or imprison you for not helping.....to think otherwise shows a drastic misunderstanding of how central this premise is to my value system

Duty to rescue exists as a moral imperative, regardless of whether the nation whose soil you're on has it legally codified. You can make arguments that it is not logistically possible to enforce - it's never going to be possible to perfectly punish people for all wrong things. But to stick with natural law theory not only as a practical means, but as the actual moral truth, is ridiculous - you have to actually believe there is nothing wrong with walking away. Not just that it shouldn't be punished, but that it isn't actually wrong to walk away. I have a hard time believing you feel that way. I can believe you think it's wrong to meet their transgression with force. But to think leaving someone to die without calling help isn't a moral transgression? Not for a second.

 

[deleted480308]

How do you justify your moral axiom? I've heard you assert it, many times, but never justify it.

because I don't get to violate someone's rights...it is it's own justification.

 

[ZedsDed]

because I don't get to violate someone's rights...it is it's own justification.

No, it isn't. Why should your property rights be absolute?

 

[deleted480308]

Already corrected the "feels" above. It is wrong.


Duty to rescue exists as a moral imperative, regardless of whether the nation whose soil you're on has it legally codified. You can make arguments that it is not logistically possible to enforce - it's never going to be possible to perfectly punish people for all wrong things. But to stick with natural law theory not only as a practical means, but as the actual moral truth, is ridiculous - you have to actually believe there is nothing wrong with walking away. Not just that it shouldn't be punished, but that it isn't actually wrong to walk away. I have a hard time believing you feel that way. I can believe you think it's wrong to meet their transgression with force. But to think leaving someone to die without calling help isn't a moral transgression? Not for a second.

Now we're talking two different arguments......what I think is the morally nice thing to do and what I'm willing to kill someone to make them do......large gulf between those things

I think it's wrong for men to not open the door for women, I don't enforce that with violence
I generally buy the homeless guy a meal because I think it's nice, I don't enforce you doing it with violence
I might pick up a hitchhiker in the rain, I won't make you do it at gun point

The central premise of what you are arguing is that what you think is nice is SO nice that you're willing to have violence committed to make it happen.....and I'm saying you're far from moral in that stance as the one violating people's natural inherent rights

 

[efle]

No, it isn't. Why should your property rights be absolute?

Why should aiming for human health or happiness be absolute? Obeying the rule "don't violate anyone's rights unless they are attempting to violate yours" is the greatest good in his system, regardless of what happiness or suffering might come of it.

 

[deleted480308]

No, it isn't. Why should your property rights be absolute?

you are the one advocating violating rights, the need to justify that force is on you

 

[ZedsDed]

Why should aiming for human health or happiness be absolute? Obeying the rule "don't violate anyone's rights unless they are attempting to violate yours" is the greatest good in his system, regardless of what happiness or suffering might come of it.

I get that, but there has to be some internal logic here.

you are the one advocating violating rights, the need to justify that force is on you

Let me take a step back. Just bear with me for a second. How do you define ownership? Specifically, in something as nebulous as a multi-national corporation?

 

[deleted480308]

Let me take a step back. Just bear with me for a second. How do you define ownership? Specifically, in something as nebulous as a multi-national corporation?

Generally, those types of ownership percentages are in stock agreements......but let's be a little more simply here for the true cruz of the argument. I have 10 apples. Explain to me how you justify taking them from me against my will.

 

[efle]

The central premise of what you are arguing is that what you think is nice is SO nice that you're willing to have violence committed to make it happen.....and I'm saying you're far from moral in that stance as the one violating people's natural inherent rights

There are some things which are worth forcing, yes. Stuff like sharing donuts and holding doors, obviously not. Being told I must give some of my income for someone starving? Telling me I must call for help/have a duty to rescue? These I am ok with.

If you think it is wrong to leave someone to die, your morality is not accurately described by the natural rights argument, whether you see it or not.

Generally, those types of ownership percentages are in stock agreements......but let's be a little more simply here for the true cruz of the argument. I have 10 apples. Explain to me how you justify taking them from me against my will.

Because you also have a thousand oranges and if those ten guys over there don't get an apple, they die.

 

[deleted480308]

There are some things which are worth forcing, yes. Stuff like sharing donuts and holding doors, obviously not. Being told I must give some of my income for someone starving? Telling me I must call for help/have a duty to rescue? These I am ok with.

If you think it is wrong to leave someone to die, your morality is not accurately described by the natural rights argument, whether you see it or not.
.

You don't get it.

You have a natural right to have opinions on my decisions and a natural right to decide yours. I have a natural right to think you may not be nice, I don't have a natural right to violently force you to be nice. It's pretty simple non-aggression principle

 

[deleted480308]

Because you also have a thousand oranges and if those ten guys over there don't get an apple, they die.

No......and once again, I'll repeat.....the number of apples/oranges I have doesn't in any way decrease my property rights. There is no magic number at which property rights change. There is no need that I can have which invalidates your rights to your possessions.

 

[efle]

You don't get it.

You have a natural right to have opinions on my decisions and a natural right to decide yours. I have a natural right to think you may not be nice, I don't have a natural right to violently force you to be nice. It's pretty simple non-aggression principle

Oh, I think I get it. I thought you believed the natural rights logic provided a good moral code. If you believe the natural rights logic is immoral, e.g. allows someone to leave another to die, but you're fine with that, then we have no disagreement.

No......and once again, I'll repeat.....the number of apples/oranges I have doesn't in any way decrease my property rights. There is no magic number at which property rights change. There is no need that I can have which invalidates your rights to your possessions.

If the goal is not to behave properly/morally then sure. But if we care about the system doing what is good/nice, then I do get to take apples/oranges to save people when they are excess to you.

 

[ZedsDed]

Generally, those types of ownership percentages are in stock agreements......but let's be a little more simply here for the true cruz of the argument. I have 10 apples. Explain to me how you justify taking them from me against my will.

No, no. I'll address that in a second. I understand that most of the time ownership is simply intrinsically understood. I'm asking you about the gray areas because you are taking an absolutist position. Your ethical system only makes a modicum of sense if you believe that ownership is always clearly delineated. What I am saying is that it is not. So, philosophically... how does one define ownership?

 

[deleted480308]

No, no. I'll address that in a second. I understand that most of the time ownership is simply intrinsically understood. I'm asking you about the gray areas because you are taking an absolutist position. Your ethical system only makes a modicum of sense if you believe that ownership is always clearly delineated. What I am saying is that it is not. So, philosophically... how does one define ownership?

I have ten apples. I own them, articulate why you get to steal them

 

[ZedsDed]

I have ten apples. I own them, articulate why you get to steal them

I "heard" you the first time. Can you answer my question first?

 

[deleted480308]

I "heard" you the first time. Can you answer my question first?

Let's go with the commonly accepted concept unless you are ready to speed this up and get to the "reveal"

 

[ZedsDed]

Let's go with the commonly accepted concept unless you are ready to speed this up and get to the "reveal"

I have no idea what you are hinting at, so go right ahead.

 

[Mad Jack]

Why should aiming for human health or happiness be absolute? Obeying the rule "don't violate anyone's rights unless they are attempting to violate yours" is the greatest good in his system, regardless of what happiness or suffering might come of it.

Rights aren't about health or happiness, they are about principle.

 

[ZedsDed]

Rights aren't about health or happiness, they are about principle.

Principles are not intrinsically virtuous. Religious terrorists are principled, National Socialists are principled, etc. Your principle should have some basis in morality/virtue (see increasing the wellbeing of humanity.)

 

[Mad Jack]

Principles are not intrinsically virtuous. Religious terrorists are principled, National Socialists are principled, etc. Your principle should have some basis in morality/virtue (see increasing the wellbeing of humanity.)

Liberty is the greatest virtue there is. Without it, there can be no good.

 

[ZedsDed]

Liberty is the greatest virtue there is. Without it, there can be no good.

I largely agree, but property rights as defined by our modern capitalist system are not consistently synonymous with liberty.

 

[Mad Jack]

I largely agree, but property rights as defined by our modern capitalist system are not consistently synonymous with liberty.

Yes, they are.

 

[efle]

Liberty is the greatest virtue there is. Without it, there can be no good.

Freedom is only good if it brings happiness/fulfillment. Being diseased, starving and depressed in an anarchic warzone is not a good life just from virtue of freedom to do whatever you want. I'll take the cushy life paying taxes any day.

 

[Mad Jack]

Freedom is only good if it brings happiness/fulfillment. Being diseased, starving and depressed in an anarchic warzone is not a good life just from virtue of freedom to do whatever you want. I'll take the cushy life paying taxes any day.

Without freedom, you cannot do "good," you merely do as you are told, much as man without free will would be incapable of both good and evil- they would merely be puppets. Truly, I mean it when I say give me liberty or give me death, for a life without liberty is no life at all.

 

[efle]

Without freedom, you cannot do "good," you merely do as you are told, much as man without free will would be incapable of both good and evil- they would merely be puppets. Truly, I mean it when I say give me liberty or give me death, for a life without liberty is no life at all.

We disagree yet again! My ideas of good and evil are based on the effects, not the intentions of a causal agent. A natural evil can exist - say a disease giving a child a torturous death - without any free will being attributed to the cause. Alternatively, a person could do something good by accident. Whether we have free will or only the illusion of it, does not give or take intrinsic value from human happiness.

 

[deleted480308]

We disagree yet again! My ideas of good and evil are based on the effects, not the intentions of a causal agent. A natural evil can exist - say a disease giving a child a torturous death - without any free will being attributed to the cause. Alternatively, a person could do something good by accident. Whether we have free will or only the illusion of it, does not give or take intrinsic value from human happiness.

Yes it does.....which is why slavery was wrong. Slavery wouldn't magically be ok if they were well treated. It was wrong because they weren't free.

 

[efle]

Yes it does.....which is why slavery was wrong. Slavery wouldn't magically be ok if they were well treated. It was wrong because they weren't free.

Do slaves have the illusion that they are free?

 

[Mad Jack]

We disagree yet again! My ideas of good and evil are based on the effects, not the intentions of a causal agent. A natural evil can exist - say a disease giving a child a torturous death - without any free will being attributed to the cause. Alternatively, a person could do something good by accident. Whether we have free will or only the illusion of it, does not give or take intrinsic value from human happiness.

Good and evil cannot exist without intent. Disease is not malevolent, therefore it cannot do evil. Harm can exist without intent. A beneficial thing can occur without intent. But good and evil, in the moral sense, do not exist without it- to imply otherwise is foolish.

 

[efle]

Good and evil cannot exist without intent. Disease is not malevolent, therefore it cannot do evil. Harm can exist without intent. A beneficial thing can occur without intent. But good and evil, in the moral sense, do not exist without it- top imply otherwise is foolish.

And yet, in ethics, the concept of "natural evil" is a thing. The view that goodness/badness depends on intent puts you in a pretty small minority, since most people think goodness/badness comes from either the effects or accordance to a universal law.

 

[deleted480308]

Do slaves have the illusion that they are free?

no, and nor should anyone if you think you can simply take their stuff or kill them if you think it suits your fancy

 

[Mad Jack]

And yet, in ethics, the concept of "natural evil" is a thing. The view that goodness/badness depends on intent puts you in a pretty small minority, since most people think goodness/badness comes from either the effects or accordance to a universal law.

I've got ACLS in the morning, so I really don't have much time to go about this, but the universe is neither good nor evil, it simply is. Ascribing "evil" to the natural order is anthropomorphizing something that simply isn't there, and such philosophies were borne into existence when men viewed the world as a living, breathing thing that had a conscious creator that filled it with intent. This leaves many ancient treatises on "evil" lacking, as they were written with the presumption that there was a God or some other supernatural force that made things that way for a reason, thus giving things that were meaningless a sense of intent.

 

[Mad Jack]

Do slaves have the illusion that they are free?

Are you under the illusion that you are free? Must be nice.

 

[ZedsDed]

Yes, they are.

No, they aren't. What is liberating about living in abject poverty making 50 cents an hour working for some transnational corporation that has used their power and influence to dismantle local protection of workers? If anything, deregulation has severely limited the autonomy of said individual. To label such functional serfdom as "liberty" is a bad joke.

 

[Mad Jack]

No, they aren't. What is liberating about living in abject poverty making 50 cents an hour working for some transnational corporation that has used their power and influence to dismantle local protection of workers? If anything, deregulation has severely limited the autonomy of said individual. To label such functional serfdom as "liberty" is a bad joke.

I thiught we were talking about America here. Those goalposts are practically on fire they're moving so fast.

 

[johnfree7]

Generally, those types of ownership percentages are in stock agreements......but let's be a little more simply here for the true cruz of the argument. I have 10 apples. Explain to me how you justify taking them from me against my will.

My beef isn't between the doctor who has 5 apples compared to the janitor who has 1. It's the means in which the janitor and doctor earn their apples, and pay their respective taxes compared to the billionaire who accumulates 2,000 apples.





According to the government there are 3 ways to make money.

1. Inherit it when someone dies
   
   
2. Make “ordinary income” by working. This is how the janitor and doctor earn their respective apples

Dependent on income, a married couple who makes

• 10k a year
  • pays 10% tax
• 50k moves into second tax bracket
  • (17k-70k) is taxed in the second at 15%.
• 100k goes into 3rd tax bracket
  • (with 70k-142k) taxed at 25%
• 500k
  • Goes to 35% and includes many tax brackets. But they still pay into all of the lower tax brackets before they get to their higher up one

3. Capital gains. Money made in the stock market, real estate etc. that you get when you buy something and then you wait, and then you sell it for more later on

1. Capital gains tax is a flat 15% if you make more than 30k or so.
   
   
2. Capital gains is how really rich people like Warren Buffet make most of their money, they invest in stuff, then it gets more valuable then they sell it.
   
   
3. My problem is, money in the stock market isn’t actually doing anything, it’s not being used for space travel, making cars, video games, or anything whatsoever. Investment is important for our economy, but so is income
   1. I argue that income is worth more to our economy than capital gains
      
      
   2. So why do we tax, almost invariably more on the money people earn providing actual value proportionate to the amount of money they make?
      
      
   3. The idea is investments are important to our economy and you want to encourage people to invest so, presumably tax it less; but there isn’t much data to support this claim
   • The problem is the people who advise the government on tax policy decisions are people who make their money this way; and they, like you or me probably overvalue their particular impact on american society, or are super-greedy or maybe they’re right, they need low taxes which trickles down to all of us- but this means that a waitress at Applebees pays a proportionally higher tax rate than a billionare like Donald Trump or Warren Buffet. That is ethically wrong.
   • This system tremendously favors people like Donald Trump, who start out with millions of dollars and sit on their ass making ludicrous amounts on capital gains while the rest of us are taxed proportionally higher for our ordinary working incomes as a result of our own labor.

 

[deleted480308]

My beef isn't between the doctor who has 5 apples compared to the janitor who has 1. It's the means in which the janitor and doctor earn their apples, and pay their respective taxes compared to the billionaire who accumulates 2,000 apples.





According to the government there are 3 ways to make money.

1. Inherit it when someone dies
   
   
2. Make “ordinary income” by working. This is how the janitor and doctor earn their respective apples

Dependent on income, a married couple who makes

• 10k a year
  • pays 10% tax
• 50k moves into second tax bracket
  • (17k-70k) is taxed in the second at 15%.
• 100k goes into 3rd tax bracket
  • (with 70k-142k) taxed at 25%
• 500k
  • Goes to 35% and includes many tax brackets. But they still pay into all of the lower tax brackets before they get to their higher up one

3. Capital gains. Money made in the stock market, real estate etc. that you get when you buy something and then you wait, and then you sell it for more later on

1. Capital gains tax is a flat 15% if you make more than 30k or so.
   
   
2. Capital gains is how really rich people like Warren Buffet make most of their money, they invest in stuff, then it gets more valuable then they sell it.
   
   
3. My problem is, money in the stock market isn’t actually doing anything, it’s not being used for space travel, making cars, video games, or anything whatsoever. Investment is important for our economy, but so is income
   1. I argue that income is worth more to our economy than capital gains
      
      
   2. So why do we tax, almost invariably more on the money people earn providing actual value proportionate to the amount of money they make?
      
      
   3. The idea is investments are important to our economy and you want to encourage people to invest so, presumably tax it less; but there isn’t much data to support this claim
   • The problem is the people who advise the government on tax policy decisions are people who make their money this way; and they, like you or me probably overvalue their particular impact on american society, or are super-greedy or maybe they’re right, they need low taxes which trickles down to all of us- but this means that a waitress at Applebees pays a proportionally higher tax rate than a billionare like Donald Trump or Warren Buffet. That is ethically wrong.
   • This system tremendously favors people like Donald Trump, who start out with millions of dollars and sit on their ass making ludicrous amounts on capital gains while the rest of us are taxed proportionally higher for our ordinary working incomes as a result of our own labor.

Holy crap dude....less line spacing....please

To your main point (#3)....you don't know anything about taxes if you literally believe the waitress at applebees ends the year with a federal income tax liability at all. They don't. And they definitely don't pay a total 15% of their income. There is a large difference between stated rates and effective rates by the time we account for the litany of deductions available.