Government Deregulation

[bobbyjimmy]

Man, you really love to avoid answering questions by muddling up arguments with choppy logic. I feel like we need a remedial logic 101 class here. Let's look at your first statement:

Your claim that initiating force was moral:

So, since a moral argument against universal healthcare is being invoked, I'm playing ball.​

​

Your admission that ALL regulation requires the initiation of force:

The idea of universal health care is not a claim that initiating force on other people is moral, unless, as I've said a billion times, you want to accept the fact that ANY kind of rule about ANYTHING is immoral. "Playing ball" means I'm willing to go along with a premise for the time being- it does not mean that I am hard-and-fast stubbornly married to an ideology and will defend it to my last breath, even as it becomes clear how wrong I am. You might not understand that distinction as you clearly have no interest in questioning yourself or examining your beliefs- however, I am providing you with some logic that might enlighten you into a different point of view. Namely, that there is nothing "moral" about capitalism any more than there is anything "immoral" about health care.

If you want to be really black-and-white about things, like I said, I am willing to go along with your original statement "it is wrong to initiate force against anyone" if you admit that the only logical, correct system of rule one can have with such a premise is total anarchy- no rules, no regulations, no one telling anyone what to do. That is the only "moral" stance I can take because it's the only thing that's consistent.

If you don't want anarchy, then you're in the fuzzy grey area of everything else. So you come up with a system of government- take your pick- and deal with the pros and cons of each- but you don't fool yourself into thinking you've somehow achieved a moral utopia. Because if you think that, you are a *****. Creating a government that reflects it's citizen's wishes and carries out policies paid for by the taxes it collects is not "socialist" or "immoral"- it's simply doing what a government is SUPPOSED to be doing, finding ways of serving its membership, which is NOT what our current government has done in a long, long time.

Out of peoples' taxes you create departments to build and fix roads, to protect people from emergencies (either natural disasters or local fires) and to take care of / maintain their health. These are all basic self-evident needs that people have, and the reason why governments are created- to take care of our collective needs. HOW the government goes about doing that is a matter of logistics and one can argue pros and cons till dawn, but if you're so into morals, then one moral imperative a government should have is to fulfill the basic contract it has entered with its people. Currently, we are getting an F on Health in the U.S.A. for a variety of reasons, but the sad crime of the whole thing is that lots of people can not afford the idiotic, inflated costs we have for the most basic care. That is a crime, in the most literal sense, from our government onto its people- and that's why universal healthcare makes a hell of a lot of sense. Like I already said, I don't think it is the ONLY way to do it, but it is currently the most LOGICAL one and it is no less moral than any other law, rule or regulation that exists.

Now, since you are stuck in a loop of avoiding answering questions about capitalism, I will ask no longer because it's clear you have no answers. You're married to capitalism for better or for worse and good luck to you. Other civilizations were married to their own systems far past the point where those systems worked, and that's why those civilizations are long gone. Reading history might key you into some of those stories. In the meantime, those of us who would like to see humanity survive will continue to think about systems that improve upon the ones we currently have.

 

[GenSeneca]

I feel like we need a remedial logic 101 class here.

Then I'll make your first lesson in the use of logic as simple as possible... Please answer each one of the following:

You believe government should provide everyone with Health Care regardless of their ability to pay - True or False

You believe government should regulate the economy - True or False

You believe individuals have a Right to initiate force against one another - True or False

If you want to be really black-and-white about things, like I said, I am willing to go along with your original statement "it is wrong to initiate force against anyone" if you admit that the only logical, correct system of rule one can have with such a premise is total anarchy- no rules, no regulations, no one telling anyone what to do.

Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.​

​

A Capitalist government would make it illegal for anyone to initiate the use of force against others. Banning the initiation of force would require a government to write that law, a court to uphold that law, and a police and military force to enforce that law. Anarchy has no government, no laws, no police, no military.... This means your above statement is a straw man - a logical fallacy which renders your statement logically invalid.

These are all basic self-evident needs that people have, and the reason why governments are created- to take care of our collective needs.

​

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."​

On what basis are you claiming that government was created to fulfill our every basic need... And at whose expense are those needs to be provided?

Now, since you are stuck in a loop of avoiding answering questions about capitalism, I will ask no longer because it's clear you have no answers.

Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument.​

​

This is your thread, you chose the topic, and what you wanted to argue was that we had too much DE-regulation and actually need more government regulation of the economy. I'm not avoiding your questions about Capitalism because I don't have answers, I'm avoiding your questions because they are Red Herrings. You're the one who's refusing to defend your own position, in your own thread, on your own topic.

​

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Then I'll make your first lesson in the use of logic as simple as possible... Please answer each one of the following:

You believe government should provide everyone with Health Care regardless of their ability to pay - True or False

That's a little bit of a loaded question, but I guess I'll answer "yes" for now. I think the government should provide everyone with medical assistance if they need it. Of course, I also believe people should keep up their end of the bargain as well. I'm not in favor of people leeching of a system any more than I am of a system screwing over people. So if you ignore the second part of my statement and want to paint me as some socialist who wants the government to do all the work and keep the people lazy and dependent, then, no, I don't agree with that. But should your economic position necessarily prevent you from getting medical attention? No- that's not acceptable to me in a civilized society.

You believe government should regulate the economy - True or False

Again a loaded question. I believe, if we're going to have governments with rules and laws and muscle behind those laws to make sure they are followed, then yes, making sure people don't abuse our economic system is a perfectly acceptable governmental action. On a more fundamental philosophical level, my ideal world would be one without any rules, one where people are free to make their own decisions about everything, and are, in fact, forced to be active participants in decision making processes because no one is giving them a set of rules to follow. So in my ideal world, governments would not regulate the economy- but they wouldn't regulate anything. However, I fully realize how far away we are from ever having my little dream, so I accept that I live in THIS world, which necessitates some form of government, which necessitates some rules and regulations. Given that, I don't see why economic regulations should fall in a different category than other regulations- at least not from a "moral" point of view. If you can give a practical argument why it works better when governments step away from the economy, go ahead- but old and new history has show and continues to show why some government intervention is sadly necessary- mainly, because people are greedy and short-sighted and will abuse the public trust if they stand to make a lot of money doing so.

You believe individuals have a Right to initiate force against one another - True or False

I already answered this multiple times. I am willing to go along with a "no" in the sense that I think it's stupid to live that way, I don't want to live that way, and I hope no one else wants to live that way. It is self-evident that if you use force against someone, they will use force against you. This leads us nowhere. I don't really know how you define "right" because people have the right to do anything the universe allows them to do, but there are consequences to all actions, and initiating force has negative consequences, so I don't support it.

A Capitalist government would make it illegal for anyone to initiate the use of force against others. Banning the initiation of force would require a government to write that law, a court to uphold that law, and a police and military force to enforce that law. Anarchy has no government, no laws, no police, no military.... This means your above statement is a straw man - a logical fallacy which renders your statement logically invalid.

All civilized countries already ban the initiation of force when it comes to individuals. And they all also hypocritically have no problem initiating force when it comes to enforcing their own interests- whether that force is against individuals or other countries, they all do it. So again, I don't understand your bizarre version of capitalism, because, as I have repeatedly explained to you, your capitalist government is so far in no visible way different from any other. You would ban the initiation of force among its people (just like every country already does) and you would, by practical necessity, break your own "moral code" by initiating force on people who don't follow the laws you set up. I've sent you a ton of real-life examples in areas of capitalism where you would need rules and the enforcement of said rules in order to function. There is no straw man present here, just a very strange and still undefined concept of capitalism that can't exist in the real world. If you want to try explaining how your imaginary capitalist government would work, go ahead- but all you've provided is a link to a poorly-thought-out website who's solutions are so silly I thought it was a joke. And I already showed you quite clearly how they don't make any sense.

​

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."​

On what basis are you claiming that government was created to fulfill our every basic need... And at whose expense are those needs to be provided?

I said governments are created to fulfill the needs of a collective. Before there were governments, or anything, there were just people living all over the place. Eventually, enough of them lived close enough to each other to realize they had some interests that they all shared. It became clear that, for practical survival, you can't spend all day long individually tending to all these basic needs. One way or another, governments are formed (either peacefully or by force.) If the governments take care of the peoples' basic needs of that time, things move forward, and if they don't, eventually enough people are sick of it that they revolt... or another group of people attack and take over (which means one of the basic needs, protection, was not adequately met.)

What those basic needs are change, obviously, across time and geography. There is no objective universal book where you can go look them up. In America, the guys that established its constitution tried to sum them up as you just said- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And they establish their government to help people attain those rights. Perhaps you don't define "being healthy" as something that falls inside these three words, but I do- and thankfully, most people do. So in a democratic society, which is supposedly what we have (more or less) our government is expected to help us achieve "life, liberty, and happiness" by providing us with a way to quite literally have LIFE- and having a healthy one allows us the LIBERTY to PURSUE our HAPPINESS.

Now, if most Americans did not agree with that, I would have to accept that my government had greater priorities, but, again, by a huge majority, people do expect the ability to see doctors, have operations, and take medicines as needed to help them remain healthy (life and happiness.) Which is why the government is completely within its right to take our tax money, which is given to our government precisely for purposes like this one, and use it to provide medical services, the same way it provides a host of other basic services. Will some individuals disagree with the choices of their government? Sure, of course, just like I disagree immensely with a lot of my government's choices. I can either leave, or try to change things for the better (or do neither and just bitch about it on the internet.) So if you want to complain that a single-payer system would help others at your "tax dollar expense" then go ahead- but the government is not stepping outside of its legal bounds in doing so. It has the legal right to do so, it has the actual will of the majority of people behind it to do so, and it falls within its constitutional mandate to do so (as you pointed out- helping us achieve L, L, and PoH.)

So there you go. I answered every part of your redundant post, clearly, logically, and patiently. You still have given me no alternative argument worth considering, you've proposed no other logical solution to any of this, and I'm still not exactly sure what the point is you're trying to make, other than the fact that you believe your illogical version of capitalism is our only morally-correct solution, which has been thoroughly debunked in the 8 pages of responses I've given you.

But thanks for a fun exercise in civics!

 

[GenSeneca]

I answered every part of your redundant post, clearly, logically, and patiently.

Clearly and patiently perhaps... But not logically. You're still rationalizing (making excuses) for initiating force against people.

You think government should provide HC to people who cannot afford it - but HC is not free, so someone else has to cover the shortfalls in the costs. Your solution is to simply take money from whoever you can, by force, to cover the cost of those other people.

You think government should regulate the economy - and you've admitted that government regulations require the government to initiate force against people.

You say individuals do not have a Right to initiate force, yet in both the above examples the initiation of force is required and you applaud it's use. How are individuals able to do something they have no Right to do? You haven't explained that.

...the government is not stepping outside of its legal bounds in doing so. It has the legal right to do so, it has the actual will of the majority of people behind it to do so...

Government is nothing more than a group of individuals - Individuals you say have no Right to initiate force against one another. A majority of voters is nothing more than a number of individuals - Individuals you say have no Right to initiate force against one another. Yet when a majority of individual voters elect some other individuals to public office, somehow they grant themselves a legal "right" to initiate force against others. How is it possible that a group of individuals can acquire a Right that none of them have as individuals? Is it magic?

...it falls within its constitutional mandate to do so (as you pointed out- helping us achieve L, L, and PoH.)

Our Rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness are supposed to be protected by government, not provided by government. What you believe is insidious - you think government has a Constitutional mandate to VIOLATE the Rights of some individuals in order to provide for the needs of others - Taking the fruits of one individuals labor, by force and without compensation or the consent of your victim, and redistributing the fruits of that man's labor to some other individual who did not earn it and, therefore, does not deserve it. How is that not advocating for slavery?

...you believe your illogical version of capitalism is our only morally-correct solution...

Initiating the use of force against other people is always immoral and no individual has a Right to do it. Whether it's done by a single individual (a criminal), a group of individuals (a majority), or an individual holding public office (government) makes no difference, it's still immoral and no individual has a Right to do so.

Sure, you can make it legal for certain individuals to engage in immoral behavior - like granting government officials the legal authority to initiate force against other individuals - but making an immoral action legal does not change the morality of the action. An immoral action doesn't magically become moral just because you make it legal.

In order for any system to be moral, it must respect and protect our Rights as individuals - that means a society based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange, where no individual, group, or public official has the legal authority to initiate force against anyone, no legal authority to violate the Rights of any individual, at all, ever, for any reason. What you advocate is the exact opposite... An immoral system based on the forced sacrifice of the individual, and his Rights, to the whims of the State, to the "needs" of the Collective, to the will of the Majority.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Man, how blindly stubborn can you get? What part of this are you not understanding? Do you purposely skim what I write until you find the 3 words you want to focus on?

Clearly and patiently perhaps... But not logically. You're still rationalizing (making excuses) for initiating force against people.
In order for any system to be moral, it must respect and protect our Rights as individuals - that means a society based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange, where no individual, group, or public official has the legal authority to initiate force against anyone, no legal authority to violate the Rights of any individual, at all, ever, for any reason. What you advocate is the exact opposite... An immoral system based on the forced sacrifice of the individual, and his Rights, to the whims of the State, to the "needs" of the Collective, to the will of the Majority.

This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you. Starting with your premise that no one has the right to initiate force on another person, we are left with TWO (count them- TWO) options.

1) A "morally-correct" system that follows this mandate. The only system that does so is anarchy, because it's the only "system" that does not impose its force on anyone else, because it is TOTAL FREEDOM. Do you understand this? Please answer yes or no and then explain why you don't agree, if you don't agree.

2) A "morally-compromised" system that does not follow this mandate because, logistically speaking, it is impossible to do so in our current state of human evolution. Morally-compromised systems include, but are not limited to, capitalism as most people define it, capitalism as you define it, socialism, feudalism, communism.

That's it. Pretty simple. If you pick #1, then your imaginary idealized capitalistic government is out of the running. If you pick #2, then all of our proposed systems are in the running.

If you can't grasp this, then don't bother responding. Your rudimentary grasp of logic is just getting old. Feel free to rant and rave and maybe someone who can't really think clearly about things will like what you have to say. But don't fool yourself- you don't make any sense.