As long as you don't think I should pay for things I do not want to, then we have no real disagreement. ;)
Taxation and mandated health insurance payments (under threat of violence/punishment/force) are immoral. If you don't think force or the threat thereof should be used against individuals that don't pay, then we have no disagreement.
Immorality is hard to determine.
it might be immoral to force you to pay into a mandatory health insurance.
However, if the free market can't provide the necessaries for everybody is this morally? Survival of the fittest?
So, do you support force and/or the threat of force being used against me to get me to pay for state-sanctioned healthcare?
There are some moral gray areas. Stealing and robbery is not one of them. It is wrong for me to come to your house with a gun to demand you pay for something. The end.
didn't I say it might be immoral?
and nowhere I said somebody should force you to pay anything by gun point, so I don't want anybody to come to your house either.
However, as I stated at the beginning I was wondering what will be the fairest way for everybody to get the needed necessaries.
I think we should talk about this (and happier things) over a drink, easier to do it when I see you
Right. So if you do not support that (folks coming to my door) then you don't support the government collecting funds by force. That's great! You are a voluntaryist, at least in that sense.
I had posted a response earlier, but because Steemit is so jacked right now it didn't post.
The state is trying to get us to focus on the macro:
What can I do about world hunger??? I am only one person. I NEED a government.
What can I do about healthcare for the disabled, sick, and needy????I am only one person!
The media and state attempt to get us to focuse on macro problems we cannot solve, as opposed to those in our immediate surroundings, that we can.
If I can help my neighbor. If I can use my resources, my knowledge, and my skills to help the individual next door, and others in their communities do the same, pretty soon the "macro problem" is on the way to being solved as well.
As I said, I know of plenty of professionals and experts with this view. The state and big gov. programs have already proven themselves massive, murderous failures. The burden of proof is on their side, not ours.
I'd love to talk more about this in person.
Scientifically, pragmatically, logically, and morally, they can, by design, only make things worse, as violence does not bring about peace. We can, however. The individual can. And does!
If you or the people/professionals you know would not help those in their community in need then I truly feel sorry for you. The individuals and professionals I know, doctors and scientists included, would, and want to.
All the same, as I said, stealing is always wrong. Ends do not justify immoral means.
I do have some great helpful people around me and I'm glad you too!
But as I was wondering at the beginning, if there are enough of us. Of course I hope so, but sometimes I do have my doubts.
And to sum it up, voluntary agreement is always best, no matter what!
As long as you don't think I should pay for things I do not want to, then we have no real disagreement. ;)
Taxation and mandated health insurance payments (under threat of violence/punishment/force) are immoral. If you don't think force or the threat thereof should be used against individuals that don't pay, then we have no disagreement.
Immorality is hard to determine.
it might be immoral to force you to pay into a mandatory health insurance.
However, if the free market can't provide the necessaries for everybody is this morally? Survival of the fittest?
So, do you support force and/or the threat of force being used against me to get me to pay for state-sanctioned healthcare?
There are some moral gray areas. Stealing and robbery is not one of them. It is wrong for me to come to your house with a gun to demand you pay for something. The end.
didn't I say it might be immoral?
and nowhere I said somebody should force you to pay anything by gun point, so I don't want anybody to come to your house either.
However, as I stated at the beginning I was wondering what will be the fairest way for everybody to get the needed necessaries.
I think we should talk about this (and happier things) over a drink, easier to do it when I see you
Right. So if you do not support that (folks coming to my door) then you don't support the government collecting funds by force. That's great! You are a voluntaryist, at least in that sense.
I had posted a response earlier, but because Steemit is so jacked right now it didn't post.
I'd love to talk more about this in person.
Responding last night was a pain.
Some of my responses didn't get through several times, so I kinda lost my patience replying.
However, lots of your points are totally valid..
Let's enjoy a sunny day...time for work ;)
If you or the people/professionals you know would not help those in their community in need then I truly feel sorry for you. The individuals and professionals I know, doctors and scientists included, would, and want to.
All the same, as I said, stealing is always wrong. Ends do not justify immoral means.
I do have some great helpful people around me and I'm glad you too!
But as I was wondering at the beginning, if there are enough of us. Of course I hope so, but sometimes I do have my doubts.
And to sum it up, voluntary agreement is always best, no matter what!
Have a good night!