what do you identify as politically?

[Deleted]

Still want it to fail and go away, sorry.. Im stubborn

You're against NHS for no reason?

[Revi]

Well Im not paying it now.. must be magic?



Of course you point out one of the few things we actually do get from taxes. What about foreign aid, political campaigns, wars on "terror" and stuff like that?

What about infrastructure, safety services, social security, research, your damn internet cables, public parks and cultural facilities, outdoor lighting, public schools, water/sewage/drainage, and the million and one other things that you need a government backed by taxes to accomplish?

Paying taxes might feel bad, but it's absolutely vital to the living standards developed countries currently enjoy.

[Deleted]

You're against NHS for no reason?

Ok if you keep pushing it, I think social security, healthcare etc. should all be opt out systems. If it's so good and beneficial, why isn't it that way? You have to pay them regardless. Why is that?

It's that way because people who benefit less from it would opt out and would buy their own which would mean that all the poor people would be left out in the rain. And I don't much care for poor people so the less of these safety nets, the better.

[Wells]

A portion Id rather keep, even I could only buy a cone of ice cream a month with it. (It's probably a lot larger though)

Your share amounts to maybe a couple hundredths of a penny.

Still want it to fail and go away, sorry.. Im stubborn

Then you are wrong.

Ok if you keep pushing it, I think social security, healthcare etc. should all be opt out systems. If it's so good and beneficial, why isn't it that way? You have to pay them regardless. Why is that?

How do you think insurance works when only the people who need health care pay for it?

[Deleted]

Ok if you keep pushing it, I think social security, healthcare etc. should all be opt out systems. If it's so good and beneficial, why isn't it that way? You have to pay them regardless. Why is that?

It's that way because people who benefit less from it would opt out and would buy their own which would mean that all the poor people would be left out in the rain. And I don't much care for poor people so the less of these safety nets, the better.

How do you benefit "less" from having a safety net? Even Bill Gates could get his health care treatment for free if he wanted to, so that all those hundreds of thousands could go to his charity fund instead of hospital profits.

[Revi]

Ok if you keep pushing it, I think social security, healthcare etc. should all be opt out systems. If it's so good and beneficial, why isn't it that way? You have to pay them regardless. Why is that?

It's that way because people who benefit less from it would opt out and would buy their own which would mean that all the poor people would be left out in the rain. And I don't much care for poor people so the less of these safety nets, the better.

Because idiots would opt out, then get sick/unemployed with nowhere to turn, and we would end up with an increase in the spread of diseases, homelessness, crime, suicide and despair among a large part of the population. A healthy/safe public is very beneficial to all members of society.

If allowing opt-outs we'd also be faced with a horrible moral dilemma of having to either let people die on the steps of our hospitals if they've opted out and can't afford treatment, or the contributors would have to pay for leeches, giving even more incentive to opt-out, and we'd be back to either making it mandatory or letting people die on the steps of our hospitals.

[Deleted]

What about infrastructure, safety services, social security, research, your damn internet cables, public parks and cultural facilities, outdoor lighting, public schools, water/sewage/drainage, and the million and one other things that you need a government backed by taxes to accomplish?

Paying taxes might feel bad, but it's absolutely vital to the living standards developed countries currently enjoy.

Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that. What's with you all pointing out the useful stuff but leave out where the bulk of the taxes goes? The things you listed are only like 25% tops, where does the rest of the money go to?

- - - Updated - - -

How do you benefit "less" from having a safety net? Even Bill Gates could get his health care treatment for free if he wanted to, so that all those hundreds of thousands could go to his charity fund instead of hospital profits.

Just because Gates is a charitable person doesn't mean everyone else is or has to be I think Gates just lacks vision and has too much money, I admire people like Elon Musk a lot more and I've never heard of him giving money to poor people.

[Revi]

Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that. What's with you all pointing out the useful stuff but leave out where the bulk of the taxes goes? The things you listed are only like 25% tops, where does the rest of the money go to?

25%?

Government Pensions $1.2 trillion
Government Health Care + $1.3 trillion
Government Education + $1.0 trillion
National Defense + $0.8 trillion
Government Welfare + $0.5 trillion
All Other Spending + $1.5 trillion
Total Government Spending $6.3 trillion

Curtesy of http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown

[Wells]

Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.

Thank you for this.

[Deleted]

BIf allowing opt-outs we'd also be faced with a horrible moral dilemma of having to either let people die on the steps of our hospitals if they've opted out and can't afford treatment, or the contributors would have to pay for leeches, giving even more incentive to opt-out, and we'd be back to either making it mandatory or letting people die on the steps of our hospitals.

Why not give them aid but put them in dept if they don't have insurance? We wouldn't have to let them die but it doesn't mean it has to be free either.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for this.

Let me dumb it down for you, I have wireless.. and it's provided by a private company, not by the state so none of my tax money goes towards it or even towards the infrastructure.

- - - Updated - - -

25%?


Curtesy of http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown

Government Pensions $1.2 trillion - don't wanna pay for this
Government Health Care + $1.3 trillion - not needed (people should just keep buying insurance if they want it)
Government Education + $1.0 trillion - needs more funding
National Defense + $0.8 trillion - no comments
Government Welfare + $0.5 trillion -don't need this
All Other Spending + $1.5 trillion - probably a lot of useless stuff here too
Total Government Spending $6.3 trillion

So whats left? Roughly 25%

[Revi]

Why not give them aid but put them in dept if they don't have insurance? We wouldn't have to let them die but it doesn't mean it has to be free either.

And if they couldn't afford it?

[Deleted]

And if they couldn't afford it?

Well then they get a free ride.. but should they find a job, they will be able to pay back at least some of it.

[Revi]

Well then they get a free ride.. but should they find a job, they will be able to pay back at least some of it.

But money has to come from somewhere. If you could get a free ride while not contributing, why shouldn't everyone opt-out?

[Deleted]

But money has to come from somewhere. If you could get a free ride while not contributing, why shouldn't everyone opt-out?

You're talking about a few exceptions though? What if someone steals a cake and eats it and can't afford to pay for it? Even if we kill them for it, the cake isn't going to come back. It's just one of the things you really can't do anything about so yes, someone has to pay for it, but it's peanuts compared to just giving everyone free medical care regardless.

[satimy]

If the fetus is a person the NAP says its using the woman's body without her permission and she can remove it.

- - - Updated - - -



In what way is it failing?

Unless the baby is jesus, and just appeared in her womb her having sex is consent to having a child.

[Deleted]

Unless the baby is jesus, and just appeared in her womb her having sex is consent to having a child.

No it's not and it's also pretty sexist. Actually if you think that way, are you ok with men having to support accidental children till they're 18, spend time with them, provide them with a place to live..?

[Sekhmet]

Member of your friendly neighborhood Anarcho-syndicalisitc commune (members 1)

[Revi]

You're talking about a few exceptions though? What if someone steals a cake and eats it and can't afford to pay for it? Even if we kill them for it, the cake isn't going to come back. It's just one of the things you really can't do anything about so yes, someone has to pay for it, but it's peanuts compared to just giving everyone free medical care regardless.

But it's not free :P you pay taxes, and get medical care in return. Difference is, if everyone pays taxes, it's in expected and regular monthly/yearly payments, instead of a huge and unexpected bill that most people couldn't afford. For better or worse, the current system works. The Scandinavian countries all have very high tax-rates, and have the some of the best living standards on the planet, and a large part of that is that our governments can(and do) afford to give all members of society an excellent safety net.

[Adhemar]

That's not even vaguely circular. Murder is illegal premeditated homicide. Abortion is legal.

It's completely circular: Why is abortion different than murder? Because abortion is different than murder! Why is abortion legal when murder is not? Because abortion is legal and murder is not! I don't care what side of the issue you take on this, that's not an objective position, it's avoiding the fundamental argument.

Unless you build a distinction between a baby and a fetus, abortion is murder. If you believe that all lives are of equal value, and that a human life begins at conception, then any form of abortion is homicide and any elective abortion with premeditation is murder. To invalidate that, you must move the definition of personhood to something other than the point of conception, and that's a subjective opinion. Any logical proof depends on the initial assumptions. If your assumption is absurd, your proof may be logically consistent but still equally absurd. In this case, the absurdity is dependent on a SUBJECTIVE definition (of exactly where personhood begins). To disprove the "abortion is murder" claim, you have to demonstrate either a failure in the logical conclusions that lead there (and there isn't one) or that the premise (that an embryo or fetus is a person) is false. There's simply no evidence of that, just a very wide variety of opinions. And that's why this debate will rage for eternity.

In early Christian teachings, ensoulment was presumed to occur when the baby took its first breath but the pregnancy was viewed as a potential human life from the time of quickening. The earliest Hindu position was that ensoulment occurred 7 months after the baby was born (if this is your definition, then what we call murder or infanticide would not be). Buddhists believe in personhood at conception. EEG patterns are recognizable in fetuses at 24 to 27 weeks (and lack of brain activity is frequently defined as death and therefore the end of personhood). The genome exists from the moment of fertilization, but genomes are not as intractable as some assume. Metabolism also begins at conception. But only about 30% of embryos are actually even viable at this stage. A fetus may be viable outside the womb as early as the 22nd week of gestation. Which part of the above leads you to an "objective" conclusion regarding the exact moment that personhood begins? And why is your opinion on the subject better than that of embryologists, monks, neurologists, priests or anyone else?

This isn't what the axis is at all. Its equality vs stratification. If you see that as pitting one side as the bad guy you aren't thinking it through.

No, that's your (skewed) perspective of the axis. No one on the right would say that stratification is their goal (okay, well, maybe some would, as there was large amounts of support for slavery and caste systems, historically, but that's not the point). They would say equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcomes, and that unequal outcomes are less of a problem than using violence (or the threat thereof) to force equal outcomes.

[Wells]

It's completely circular: Why is abortion different than murder? Because abortion is different than murder!

No one said this. I'm not going to bother with your wall of text when you fail this badly right off the bat.

No, that's your (skewed) perspective of the axis. No one on the right would say that stratification is their goal (okay, well, maybe some would, as there was large amounts of support for slavery and caste systems, historically, but that's not the point). They would say equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcomes, and that unequal outcomes are less of a problem than using violence (or the threat thereof) to force equal outcomes.

Meritocracy is a form of stratification.