Here is a much more pragmatic argument against Obamacare.
___________________
These last few posts on force versus choice have reminded me of a common political philosophy argument that one of the skills of government is to legitimately control a monopoly of the use of force in a certain geographical district.
But, if you look back at the history of man, it was never serial killers who have struck any real fear into any large group of people.
Here are the top 3 serial killers (and the number of proven victims):
Harold Shipman (218)
Luis Alfredo Garavito (138)
Pedro Alonso Lopez (110)
While here are the top 3 governmental killing groups (and number of victims):
Soviet Russia (61,911,000)
Communist China (35,236,000)
Nazi Germany (20,946,000)
*Note: These numbers are talking about people killed by their own government, not on a battlefield.
Parsing the numbers, it would take 283,995 Harold Shipman copycats to accomplish what Soviet Russia did.
As Sheppard Book quoted from Captain Malcolm Reynolds and I would add to, "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned" in their ability to kill large numbers of people.
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
On Force (2)
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Obamacare was constitutional. Republicans are justifiably angry about it. How can the federal government force us to buy a service that we may or may not want to buy?
But, have my Republican friends looked at their payroll statements lately? Here's a few of the major deductions you'll find there:
1) Social Security:
When did I decide I wanted to receive this "service" provided by the federal government? Never. Now, you may argue that:
a) But, Matt, it is a good idea for people to save for retirement. This is, of course, true. But, I have still been forced to join this "service" which makes it immoral. And, I will never in a million years receive the same value when I am old that I put in when I was young, which makes it an impractical choice for me to choose even if I were inclined to.
b) But, Matt, Social Security was a system designed and implemented by Democrats. Don't blame us. That is true. It was started by Democrats, but show me any Republican who is committed to demolishing Social Security. I don't mean just "putting Social Security on a sound fiscal basis" like it says in the GOP platform. So, if you are unwilling to demolish it then what is the difference between you and the Democrats? They started it and you just keep going along with it?
2) Medicare Taxes:
Again, why would I agree to the services provided by these taxes? I will stand by basically the same arguments I made for the two objections to Social Security. With one additional point:
In 2003, President George W. Bush and a willing Congress (Republican majority in the House and the Senate) passed the Medicare Modernization Act which implemented Medicare Part D (the prescription drug program). If I remember correctly, George W. Bush was a Republican.
3) Federal & State Taxes:
Now, this one is a bigger one. Because we pay for a whole lot of "services" with just one payment. It is kind of like when you buy your TV, phone, and internet service all from the same provider. Without the possibility of naked people...which is a good thing...can you imagine Nancy Pelosi...naked:
Anyways, here is the breakdown of the budget by departments, according to wikipedia:
Department of Health and Human Services--$940,900,000,000
Social Security Administration--$882,700,000,000
Department of Defense--$672,900,000,000
Here is a Republican favorite. But, why would I pay for this "service"? When was the last time the United States was actually attacked by those countries where the United States is engaged? North Korea never actually attacked the United States (except when the United States got itself in the middle of a fight), but the U.S. is still here after 60 years. Japan attacked the United States about 70 years ago, but the military is still there. How long do I have to wait before the occupation of another country becomes oppressive of the other country and a worthless "service" for me to pay for?
Net Interest--$246,000,000,000
One of the most popular Republican proposals for balancing the budget, the Ryan Plan, would not balance the budget until 2035. And, from what I can see, he doesn't plan to end federal deficits for at least a few more years. So, how are you going to balance the whole budget after 23 years, if you don't even plan on balancing the yearly budget this year?
Department of Agriculture--$154,500,000,000
Why the hell do I have to pay farmers for soybeans, wheat, rice (Really? Who is growing rice in the U.S.?), cotton, peanuts, dairy before I pay them at the grocery store? And, considering I try to avoid eating soybeans, wheat, rice, peanuts and dairy in my diet. Why am I forced to pay for them?
Department of Veterans Affairs--$139,700,000,000
I feel a little sympathetic for veterans who were forced to join the military. They should be compensated for their slavery. However, those people who willingly joined to go kill people in Somolia, Iraq, Kosovo, and any other U.S. military conflict that involved attacking a country that never threatened the U.S.'s actual borders should have considered more carefully who they were fighting for. The decision making process about the morality of an invasion should not just be undertaken by the commanders on top, but by each an every soldier participating in the conflict. If this happened, there would be far less conflicts in the world.
Department of the Treasury--$110,300,000,000
Why does a department that is basically about balancing the books have such a large budget? I don't know. But, I have 3 little letters that should make everyone hate this department. IRS.
Department of Labor--$101,700,000,000
1) Unemployment Benefits--Why should I be forced to pay for unemployment benefits? They may be a good idea. But, if I choose not to pay for the "service" because of any number of reasons, I should have every right to say...go away.
2) Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA)--If I want to work in a job where I have to balance a pot of molten iron on my head while driving a forklift lifting a rickety tower with a chicken on top, who is the government to tell me I can't. It is my life, I will do with it whatever the hell I please.
And, those are just the parts of the budget that are over $100,000,000,000. Within the federal budget, there are tons of "services" that I am forced to pay for. Which one of them did Republicans cut when they were in power?
Until they show some moral backbone, I wouldn't be throwing stones at Obamacare from within your glass house.
But, have my Republican friends looked at their payroll statements lately? Here's a few of the major deductions you'll find there:
1) Social Security:
When did I decide I wanted to receive this "service" provided by the federal government? Never. Now, you may argue that:
a) But, Matt, it is a good idea for people to save for retirement. This is, of course, true. But, I have still been forced to join this "service" which makes it immoral. And, I will never in a million years receive the same value when I am old that I put in when I was young, which makes it an impractical choice for me to choose even if I were inclined to.
b) But, Matt, Social Security was a system designed and implemented by Democrats. Don't blame us. That is true. It was started by Democrats, but show me any Republican who is committed to demolishing Social Security. I don't mean just "putting Social Security on a sound fiscal basis" like it says in the GOP platform. So, if you are unwilling to demolish it then what is the difference between you and the Democrats? They started it and you just keep going along with it?
2) Medicare Taxes:
Again, why would I agree to the services provided by these taxes? I will stand by basically the same arguments I made for the two objections to Social Security. With one additional point:
In 2003, President George W. Bush and a willing Congress (Republican majority in the House and the Senate) passed the Medicare Modernization Act which implemented Medicare Part D (the prescription drug program). If I remember correctly, George W. Bush was a Republican.
3) Federal & State Taxes:
Now, this one is a bigger one. Because we pay for a whole lot of "services" with just one payment. It is kind of like when you buy your TV, phone, and internet service all from the same provider. Without the possibility of naked people...which is a good thing...can you imagine Nancy Pelosi...naked:
Anyways, here is the breakdown of the budget by departments, according to wikipedia:
Department of Health and Human Services--$940,900,000,000
Social Security Administration--$882,700,000,000
Department of Defense--$672,900,000,000
Here is a Republican favorite. But, why would I pay for this "service"? When was the last time the United States was actually attacked by those countries where the United States is engaged? North Korea never actually attacked the United States (except when the United States got itself in the middle of a fight), but the U.S. is still here after 60 years. Japan attacked the United States about 70 years ago, but the military is still there. How long do I have to wait before the occupation of another country becomes oppressive of the other country and a worthless "service" for me to pay for?
Net Interest--$246,000,000,000
One of the most popular Republican proposals for balancing the budget, the Ryan Plan, would not balance the budget until 2035. And, from what I can see, he doesn't plan to end federal deficits for at least a few more years. So, how are you going to balance the whole budget after 23 years, if you don't even plan on balancing the yearly budget this year?
Department of Agriculture--$154,500,000,000
Why the hell do I have to pay farmers for soybeans, wheat, rice (Really? Who is growing rice in the U.S.?), cotton, peanuts, dairy before I pay them at the grocery store? And, considering I try to avoid eating soybeans, wheat, rice, peanuts and dairy in my diet. Why am I forced to pay for them?
Department of Veterans Affairs--$139,700,000,000
I feel a little sympathetic for veterans who were forced to join the military. They should be compensated for their slavery. However, those people who willingly joined to go kill people in Somolia, Iraq, Kosovo, and any other U.S. military conflict that involved attacking a country that never threatened the U.S.'s actual borders should have considered more carefully who they were fighting for. The decision making process about the morality of an invasion should not just be undertaken by the commanders on top, but by each an every soldier participating in the conflict. If this happened, there would be far less conflicts in the world.
Department of the Treasury--$110,300,000,000
Why does a department that is basically about balancing the books have such a large budget? I don't know. But, I have 3 little letters that should make everyone hate this department. IRS.
Department of Labor--$101,700,000,000
1) Unemployment Benefits--Why should I be forced to pay for unemployment benefits? They may be a good idea. But, if I choose not to pay for the "service" because of any number of reasons, I should have every right to say...go away.
2) Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA)--If I want to work in a job where I have to balance a pot of molten iron on my head while driving a forklift lifting a rickety tower with a chicken on top, who is the government to tell me I can't. It is my life, I will do with it whatever the hell I please.
And, those are just the parts of the budget that are over $100,000,000,000. Within the federal budget, there are tons of "services" that I am forced to pay for. Which one of them did Republicans cut when they were in power?
Until they show some moral backbone, I wouldn't be throwing stones at Obamacare from within your glass house.
Monday, July 9, 2012
On Force (1)
What is the difference between these situations?
1) A man takes medicine.
A man is held down by psychologists and "given" medicine.
2) A man receives a TV as a gift from his neighbor.
A man steals a TV from his neighbor's house.
3) A man engages in a boxing match.
A man starts a fight with someone else.
4) A man receives help from a doctor to end his life.
A man randomly receives a hollow point bullet to the head.
5) A man has sex with a woman.
A man rapes a woman.
The difference is force.
Is anyone willing to stand up and argue that the second example from each pair is justifiable?
Here is a simple and relatively entertaining video about the nature of liberty, ethics, and the failure of almost every government mandate that exists:
1) A man takes medicine.
A man is held down by psychologists and "given" medicine.
2) A man receives a TV as a gift from his neighbor.
A man steals a TV from his neighbor's house.
3) A man engages in a boxing match.
A man starts a fight with someone else.
4) A man receives help from a doctor to end his life.
A man randomly receives a hollow point bullet to the head.
5) A man has sex with a woman.
A man rapes a woman.
The difference is force.
Is anyone willing to stand up and argue that the second example from each pair is justifiable?
Here is a simple and relatively entertaining video about the nature of liberty, ethics, and the failure of almost every government mandate that exists:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)