"an underclass who get paid just enough to survive and nothing more."
And that is not the case now? People work for more money but everything costs more because the producers of those goods also have to pay their labor more.
I would argue that it is actually worse now, because there are a huge number of people in the US who earn less than minimum wage, but they still have to pay the inflated costs for food/shelter that minimum wage creates.
"How about this, give me an example, any example at all of a country with no minimum wage where it hasn't lead to horrible living conditions for a large chunk of the population."
The problem is that government interference in the economy exists everywhere, so you're not going to find such an example. Is the lack of an example a refutation of what I have said? A rational person would say no.
It is also much easier to pollute when you are sending that pollution into government-owned property, and the government does not care what happens to that property. If all property were privately-owned, it would be much more difficult for you to pollute without facing consequences from your neighbors.
"Let me guess, you've never really been in poverty."
Bad guess.
"If you follow your logic forcing employers to minimum safety standards also makes it more profitable to set up somewhere without such standards."
"Outsourcing in general is not caused by the minimum wage."
You're going to have to provide some evidence to support this. If the whole purpose of business is to make money, and companies can make more money by paying less to workers, then it is obvious that the minimum wage is going to drive jobs away.
If it is simply that you're afraid of people in the US being paid pennies an hour, don't be. If the minimum wage were removed, people in the US who suddenly make pennies an hour still need food/shelter to survive, and the producers of that food and shelter will want their business, and so will lower costs to get that business - luckily for them they are able to lower those costs, because now they don't have to pay their labor minimum wage. So the people wanting food/shelter and the people producing food/shelter are both making less money. As for the unemployed - suddenly there are a lot more job opportunities. More work is done in the US, and the benefits of that work stay in the US.
Best of all, less government manipulation of the economy.
Outsourcing in general is caused by the minimum wage. Companies are able to get cheaper labor outside the country, and we end up paying more through transport costs than we would if there was no minimum wage.
But the real question is: can a thousand evil monkeys at a thousand typewriters type out Dante's Divine Comedy in less time than a thousand good monkeys?
"Normally, I don't care what people do to their own bodies. But when they start doing things that cost me money as a taxpayer and possibly harming me or others, that's when I want to government to step in."
But the government "stepping in" is the whole reason it costs you money in the first place. That is what I am in favor of eliminating.
1. Define "better care"
2. Provide some evidence to support your claim
3. Justify the rights violations that come with UHC. (NOTE: The ends do not justify the means)
"The point is that anarchists who whine about the very ideas of government"
Who is supporting anarchy? The government must exist to support and uphold the rights of the citizenry. What it must not do is extend its force to manipulate the economy. Not only does it violate everyone's rights in doing so, it also leads to horrible consequences - corporatism, communism, etc.
And what does that show, other than that even the Constitution has its contradictions? Rights are fundamental and inalienable - even the Constitution says that.
"and they along with government services are the difference between stable prosperity and being a third world country."
A pithy, frightening assertion backed up by no evidence or rationale whatsoever should be disregarded no matter how pithy or frightening.
"You have far more rights, freedom, security, and yes money with taxes and services than you would without."
Everyone has rights. The difference is in the frequency of rights violations between different nations. Again, you have made another unsupported assertion, and I am choosing not to accept it on faith. Please provide some supporting evidence or rationale, or withdraw your assertion.
"I was just responding to the argument that taxing cigarettes somehow reduces productivity."
You're responding to a statement I didn't make. I said that taxation reduces a person's productivity, because their earnings are going to some other goal than their own goal.
"if the product is harmful (especially to people who aren't even using it)"
If the product is harmful enough, people won't use it. Why does there need to be regulations? Anything is harmful in the right dose - even water.
"The idea of natural 'law' is a shadowy way of avoiding the idea of a natural law giver."
I never mentioned a "law". It's simply that there is no rational justification for restricting individuals who have their own personal wills and who are affecting only themselves and their property.
"I very much believe in the existence of the natural law giver so I have no argument with you."
Actually you do because I do not believe in the existence of a "law giver".
"The only scientifically provable laws of nature are those of physics"
First, science does not prove anything. It only provides evidence for or against an assertion. Second, scientific laws are not the same as political laws. Scientific "laws" are simply the overarching interpretation of the evidence.
"the only 'rights' which can be explicitly derived from them is the 'right' to fight for ones survival with as much power as can accumulate through ones own abilities."
That is only the case so long as the creature's only wills are to survive and reproduce. Rational beings, however, can choose their own wills and create new purposes and goals, which may run contrary to survival and reproduction. Rational beings have free will, and in the context of a society they must withhold actions that violate the personal wills and goals of others.
"The idea of a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as granted in the American constitution..."
The Constitution does not grant those rights. It simply states them as given - inalienable rights. As I said, the Constitution is not my source - that same Constitution grants the government the ability to forcibly take away others productivity through taxation, so even though it was a step in the right direction, it was not perfect.
"The abandonment of strong belief in deity significantly endangers even the idea that such things as a right exist."
Only if you also abandon what little rational thought you had left at that point. Neither government nor deity grant rights, for they are not things to be granted.
"Which universal rights do you expect people to have and how do you justify such an assumption."
The rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights of rational beings - that includes humans. Life itself has natural rights that are the direct result of the will to survive and procreate. As rational beings, with widely varying wills that may run counter to survival and procreation, we have the same rights for our own wills and pursuits, with the limitation that we should not violate the rights of others in their own wills and pursuits.
"Who or what power or entity grants such a 'right'."
Nothing grants rights. With the existence of will-driven, reproducing life comes the existence of rights.
"There is no human right to eat whatever you want."
Yes, there is. You can disregard it - to your own ultimate detriment - but you can't will it out of existence.
"Their inability to regulate their calorie content costs me since they raise my insurance rates with all of their health problems."
If you're talking about private insurance, then you have the choice not to go with a company that insures/provides for the obese. If you're talking about government-funded insurance, then I am in agreement with you there. There should be no government-run insurance - people should pay for their own costs.
"those costs need to be passed on to you. Not me."
Who is advocating otherwise? I agree with you completely. I should pay for my costs, you should pay for yours.
"Also, totally technical note: the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document in any sense."
The rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness did not pop into existence with the creation of the Declaration of Independence. They are fundamental rights of rational beings.
"IE, fewer and fewer people are getting what they desire because other anonymous people are forcing higher health care costs on them by eating too much."
Yes, that is correct, and equally unjust. Under the current system, that is the case, because the government provides that insurance and funds it through forced taxation. But I am not advocating the current system. I am advocating complete privatization of health insurance and care.
Who said anything about a right to happiness? If someone wants to pursue happiness by eating or smoking, that is their right, and we have no right to stop them.
"But there are costs associated with the unhealthy lifestyle, and you should be the one paying those costs, not the rest of society."
Exactly. That is the whole point of all of my posts. We are in complete agreement on this issue, assuming that you accept your above statement as a universal truth.
"What I am saying is "Piss off if you want me to pay for your health problems after, cause you really did this to yourself... so you pre-pay for it, k? k.". This really isn't that complicated."
Yes, it is your right not to pay for such individuals health problems. That is my whole point here. If you don't want to be part of the same health insurance/care provider that insures/provides for the obese, you can freely choose not to be. If for some reason there is something stopping you from freely choosing not to support them, you need look no further than the government as the culprit for this restriction.
"We do have universal health-care here (or... at least we call it that) so there isn't really a choice to be part of or apart from the system"
Agreed. Ideally we should have that choice.
"I like it that way"
You have just contradicted the rest of your post.
"if I break an arm, I can actually get it taken care of."
Are you suggesting that would not be the case under a totally-private system? If so, you'll have to back that up with evidence. If not, why say it?
"This is what health care is for in the first place."
What you're going to have to show, though, is that private companies couldn't provide this service.
Slashdot Mirror
"history it's how things used to be when it was legal to put kids down a mine for pitiful pay."
But advancements in technology eliminate such a scenario in the present-day US. Like I said, no evidence.
"and still you give no evidence at all yourself."
I have been providing my rationale. Either refute it or accept it.
"an underclass who get paid just enough to survive and nothing more." And that is not the case now? People work for more money but everything costs more because the producers of those goods also have to pay their labor more.
I would argue that it is actually worse now, because there are a huge number of people in the US who earn less than minimum wage, but they still have to pay the inflated costs for food/shelter that minimum wage creates.
"How about this, give me an example, any example at all of a country with no minimum wage where it hasn't lead to horrible living conditions for a large chunk of the population."
The problem is that government interference in the economy exists everywhere, so you're not going to find such an example. Is the lack of an example a refutation of what I have said? A rational person would say no.
I'll take evidence or rationale. I await either from him. I provided my rationale. Refute it or accept it. Or just walk away.
It is also much easier to pollute when you are sending that pollution into government-owned property, and the government does not care what happens to that property. If all property were privately-owned, it would be much more difficult for you to pollute without facing consequences from your neighbors.
"If it takes our kids working in coal mines 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, so be it."
Pithy, frightening scenarios backed up by no evidence or rationale whatsoever should be disregarded no matter how frightening.
"The first goal of American government is to protect the profitability of domestic and foreign businesses"
Actually the first and only goal of the government should be to uphold the rights of its citizenry, but feel free to continue to mischaracterize.
"Let me guess, you've never really been in poverty."
Bad guess.
"If you follow your logic forcing employers to minimum safety standards also makes it more profitable to set up somewhere without such standards."
"Outsourcing in general is not caused by the minimum wage."
You're going to have to provide some evidence to support this. If the whole purpose of business is to make money, and companies can make more money by paying less to workers, then it is obvious that the minimum wage is going to drive jobs away.
If it is simply that you're afraid of people in the US being paid pennies an hour, don't be. If the minimum wage were removed, people in the US who suddenly make pennies an hour still need food/shelter to survive, and the producers of that food and shelter will want their business, and so will lower costs to get that business - luckily for them they are able to lower those costs, because now they don't have to pay their labor minimum wage. So the people wanting food/shelter and the people producing food/shelter are both making less money. As for the unemployed - suddenly there are a lot more job opportunities. More work is done in the US, and the benefits of that work stay in the US.
Best of all, less government manipulation of the economy.
I know ettiz was talking about a desert, but I was making sure nobody thought that it was a joke based on a misspelling by the OP.
Outsourcing in general is caused by the minimum wage. Companies are able to get cheaper labor outside the country, and we end up paying more through transport costs than we would if there was no minimum wage.
Not really. I got the joke. Just making sure nobody thinks it's bad grammar.
The phrase is in fact "just deserts", not "just desserts". They're getting just what they deserve.
They should've paid more attention in typing class instead of picking on all the other monkeys.
But the real question is: can a thousand evil monkeys at a thousand typewriters type out Dante's Divine Comedy in less time than a thousand good monkeys?
"Normally, I don't care what people do to their own bodies. But when they start doing things that cost me money as a taxpayer and possibly harming me or others, that's when I want to government to step in."
But the government "stepping in" is the whole reason it costs you money in the first place. That is what I am in favor of eliminating.
"UHC provides better care for less money"
Again, you'll have to do the following:
1. Define "better care"
2. Provide some evidence to support your claim
3. Justify the rights violations that come with UHC. (NOTE: The ends do not justify the means)
"The point is that anarchists who whine about the very ideas of government"
Who is supporting anarchy? The government must exist to support and uphold the rights of the citizenry. What it must not do is extend its force to manipulate the economy. Not only does it violate everyone's rights in doing so, it also leads to horrible consequences - corporatism, communism, etc.
"Taxes are constitutional"
And what does that show, other than that even the Constitution has its contradictions? Rights are fundamental and inalienable - even the Constitution says that.
"and they along with government services are the difference between stable prosperity and being a third world country."
A pithy, frightening assertion backed up by no evidence or rationale whatsoever should be disregarded no matter how pithy or frightening.
"You have far more rights, freedom, security, and yes money with taxes and services than you would without."
Everyone has rights. The difference is in the frequency of rights violations between different nations. Again, you have made another unsupported assertion, and I am choosing not to accept it on faith. Please provide some supporting evidence or rationale, or withdraw your assertion.
"I was just responding to the argument that taxing cigarettes somehow reduces productivity."
You're responding to a statement I didn't make. I said that taxation reduces a person's productivity, because their earnings are going to some other goal than their own goal.
"if the product is harmful (especially to people who aren't even using it)"
If the product is harmful enough, people won't use it. Why does there need to be regulations? Anything is harmful in the right dose - even water.
"The idea of natural 'law' is a shadowy way of avoiding the idea of a natural law giver."
I never mentioned a "law". It's simply that there is no rational justification for restricting individuals who have their own personal wills and who are affecting only themselves and their property.
"I very much believe in the existence of the natural law giver so I have no argument with you."
Actually you do because I do not believe in the existence of a "law giver".
"The only scientifically provable laws of nature are those of physics"
First, science does not prove anything. It only provides evidence for or against an assertion. Second, scientific laws are not the same as political laws. Scientific "laws" are simply the overarching interpretation of the evidence.
"the only 'rights' which can be explicitly derived from them is the 'right' to fight for ones survival with as much power as can accumulate through ones own abilities."
That is only the case so long as the creature's only wills are to survive and reproduce. Rational beings, however, can choose their own wills and create new purposes and goals, which may run contrary to survival and reproduction. Rational beings have free will, and in the context of a society they must withhold actions that violate the personal wills and goals of others.
"The idea of a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as granted in the American constitution..."
The Constitution does not grant those rights. It simply states them as given - inalienable rights. As I said, the Constitution is not my source - that same Constitution grants the government the ability to forcibly take away others productivity through taxation, so even though it was a step in the right direction, it was not perfect.
"The abandonment of strong belief in deity significantly endangers even the idea that such things as a right exist."
Only if you also abandon what little rational thought you had left at that point. Neither government nor deity grant rights, for they are not things to be granted.
"Which universal rights do you expect people to have and how do you justify such an assumption."
The rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights of rational beings - that includes humans. Life itself has natural rights that are the direct result of the will to survive and procreate. As rational beings, with widely varying wills that may run counter to survival and procreation, we have the same rights for our own wills and pursuits, with the limitation that we should not violate the rights of others in their own wills and pursuits.
"Who or what power or entity grants such a 'right'."
Nothing grants rights. With the existence of will-driven, reproducing life comes the existence of rights.
"There is no human right to eat whatever you want."
Yes, there is. You can disregard it - to your own ultimate detriment - but you can't will it out of existence.
"Their inability to regulate their calorie content costs me since they raise my insurance rates with all of their health problems."
If you're talking about private insurance, then you have the choice not to go with a company that insures/provides for the obese. If you're talking about government-funded insurance, then I am in agreement with you there. There should be no government-run insurance - people should pay for their own costs.
"those costs need to be passed on to you. Not me."
Who is advocating otherwise? I agree with you completely. I should pay for my costs, you should pay for yours.
"Also, totally technical note: the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document in any sense."
The rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness did not pop into existence with the creation of the Declaration of Independence. They are fundamental rights of rational beings.
"IE, fewer and fewer people are getting what they desire because other anonymous people are forcing higher health care costs on them by eating too much."
Yes, that is correct, and equally unjust. Under the current system, that is the case, because the government provides that insurance and funds it through forced taxation. But I am not advocating the current system. I am advocating complete privatization of health insurance and care.
Who said anything about a right to happiness? If someone wants to pursue happiness by eating or smoking, that is their right, and we have no right to stop them.
"But there are costs associated with the unhealthy lifestyle, and you should be the one paying those costs, not the rest of society."
Exactly. That is the whole point of all of my posts. We are in complete agreement on this issue, assuming that you accept your above statement as a universal truth.
Are you sure you replied to the right post?
Everyone in a place of political power seems to be willing to support our rights unless it is politically profitable not to.
"What I am saying is "Piss off if you want me to pay for your health problems after, cause you really did this to yourself... so you pre-pay for it, k? k.". This really isn't that complicated."
Yes, it is your right not to pay for such individuals health problems. That is my whole point here. If you don't want to be part of the same health insurance/care provider that insures/provides for the obese, you can freely choose not to be. If for some reason there is something stopping you from freely choosing not to support them, you need look no further than the government as the culprit for this restriction.
"We do have universal health-care here (or... at least we call it that) so there isn't really a choice to be part of or apart from the system"
Agreed. Ideally we should have that choice.
"I like it that way"
You have just contradicted the rest of your post.
"if I break an arm, I can actually get it taken care of."
Are you suggesting that would not be the case under a totally-private system? If so, you'll have to back that up with evidence. If not, why say it?
"This is what health care is for in the first place."
What you're going to have to show, though, is that private companies couldn't provide this service.