Jubbergun wrote:
Laelia wrote:
The same principle can be applied to property "rights". When you own private property, I am deprived of the benefits that I could gain from that land. There's nothing inherently right or wrong about ownership of private property, just decisions that societies have made.
I'm not sure what 'principle(s)' you're applying, but by that logic, I'm currently "depriving" you of the four dollars in my pants pocket. There are resources that cannot be private property, like the air we breath, but how do you decide if someone's house is "depriving" someone of the pristine forest they desire? You have to have an objective system in place that outlines who has the right to certain resources, which is why we recognize private property rights, at least here in the US. The other choices range from outright chaos to government ownership, and there are very few choices, if any, in that range that don't come complete with a buttload of down-sides less preferable than any we have with a system of private property rights.
Exactly. Societies decide what basic rights they want to recognize, and sometimes providing those rights mean other people have to give up a bit of freedom.
Jubbergun wrote:
Laelia wrote:
What's wrong with the necessities of life being regarded as basic human rights? Most decent societies consider things like food, shelter, education, and health care as basic human rights alongside intangibles like liberty and equality, and so governments and private organizations put systems into place so that everyone has access to them. If someone can't afford enough food, there are income supplement programs and food banks for that purpose.
You're liberally applying some fairly subjective criteria regarding what constitutes a "decent" society. How can you have liberty when you're made a slave to the needs of your fellows? Are people who end up being held to different standards treated or viewed as equal?
I appreciate that you recognize private organizations in response. Before we adopted the idea that government should be a mechanism to address these concerns, there were charity organizations that provided for the indigent. They weren't perfect, I'm sure, but neither is our current system. I believe that a system where people participate to assist those in need voluntarily is superior to a system that mandates charity (and can you really still call it charity if it's mandated--is fulfilling an obligation thrust upon you in any way charitable?) because...well, there's no single reason. When people make that personal choice to involve their time and/or money, they're invested enough to choose what they feel is the best charity/method to address the issue to which they're contributing aid. I think that leads to more effective/efficient organizations. I have serious doubts about the ethics/morality of forcing people to contribute to what is basically a charity effort against their will, for the benefit of people with whom the contributor has no connection. I am of the opinion that were these charitable efforts were put back in the hands of private charities, and the government no longer needed to generate revenue for them, the tax burden on the average tax-payer would become such that they would have more disposable income and would be more inclined to contribute (something like 60% of our current domestic spending is for entitlements). I'd be interested to see if this had a "Laffer Curve" effect, wherein more resources would be allocated to these efforts, and if those efforts would be more efficient without the several layers of bureaucracy built into our current public system.
My primary concern were we to attempt to return to a system of private charities to address issues is that many of these efforts in the past were led by religious institutions/organizations. Aside from the usual issues involved with the Catholic church and its attitude on subjects like abortion, which would need to be addressed, I fear that not enough people are involved with these types of groups to support them the way they once did. The silver lining to this, though, is that there also used to be many civic organizations not directly affiliated with a particular religion that filled in the gaps. Membership in those organizations, like the Lion's Club and International Order of Odd Fellows, has drastically fallen off. I would like to think that many of these organizations would see a surge in membership when the average person would have more time and/or disposable income because of a drastic reduction in their tax burden.
Maybe that's wishful thinking, but the US is still a nation of incredibly charitable people. I could probably look up stats, but I'm under the impression that we privately still give more per capita than most other nations. My way of thinking could be wrong, but I don't think it could be as wrong as our current system, where we throw more and more money at our problems only to watch them continue to grow.
It's a bit hyperbolic to think that having to pay taxes to benefit your fellow citizens constitutes slavery. Governments are effective at providing certain types of services (education, infrastructure, defense) that are impractical for private organizations to provide. Most developed countries have decided that health care is also best provided by governments, and have systems that are cheaper and more equitable than the private US system. The idea that private activity will magically be more efficient and effective than government activity is just wishful thinking. I believe your last point about Americans' charitable giving is true, but was it ever the case that charity was sufficient to provide high quality health care to everyone, regardless of their age or income?
Rathmoon wrote:
Take a look at the teeth of the general populace of britain, but maybe they just love their dental. Or ask a concerned patient how long it takes them to get an MRI so they can possibly prevent an early death if they can just find out what kind of treatment they need.
Dunno what definition of quality is over there, but I def know what sucks and doesn't.
And as for blaming the government- no one always has all of the answer, but the argument is that the government isn't always the cause of the problems, but it has a natural tendency to make most of them worse.
What exactly do you know about how much the British system "sucks" besides mindless stereotyping? There have been studies comparing the effectiveness of various international health care systems, and the UK system ranks quite highly. There may be wait times for some procedures, but a) they spend less than half as much per capita on health care, and b) everyone has access to those procedures. Spending more or restricting access to procedures would reduce wait times, but that isn't exactly what most people would consider an improvement.
I don't want to help contribute to the advancement of our nation, I'm going to pout and throw a hissyfit'.