frd writes:
“All you do over and over is claim that you have the right to determine what the role of government is. And it is to help you achieve the protection of your property. No matter what else you say … your arguments, including the ones that go on and on and on, revolve around greed and selfishness. That’s it. I assume that you would agree that the government has the right to tax to raise an army for mutual defense i.e. protect your life and property. Disease poses just as significant threat to your life as does an outside force. What’s the difference? Or are you suggesting that the government does not have the right to tax you in order to defend American citizens and interests around the world. It seems that you are willing to take the advantages and protections that our country provides but you refuse to admit that you should pay for them, or to extend those rights to others. I agree that I do not have the right to seize your property. But we both have an obligation to each other to contribute to our mutual protection. It is the legitimate role of government to require each of us, even you, to contribute appropriately to preserve our society. You have stated that goverrnment exists to preserve our right to life. I say that extends to basic health care because disease will kill you just as effectively as a terrorist will. Oh, and I don’t have to twist your logic – you hang yourself on your own petard.”
—-
There is a personal story I’m sure, behind frd’s anger, antipathy and covetousness toward the wealth and property of others.
The rest I let stand as a rather graphic illustration of my point regarding the somewhat spectacular leaps of logic needed to arrive at a desired conclusion.
Other points call for their own thread, or the repetition of concepts and distinctions already explained in other posts here.
The thrust of frd’s argument seems to boil down to “your property is yours, until I or someone else decide that we have a better use for it”, which in this case is the provision of healthcare, albeit at the point of a gun.
The point regarding the use of taxes in order to raise and maintain a common defensive military force is one certainly worthy of continued debate in it’s own thread. Such debate is not new. The libertarian ideal is that neither the use of taxes for a military nor for individual healthcare is moral or justified.
One small difference, however, is that a military is one of the charter functions of the government we have established. It is not however the sole means for our individual or even collective defense.
The building of a hospital or the hiring of a doctor to treat my ailments does not call for a government to intercede, unless someone is acting to burn down the hospital or shoot the doctor.
I have an obligation to contribute? Who obligated me? Who obligated you? You cannot be rightfully obligated to give or do anything by anyone else, that you did not knowingly and willingly agree to.
Which is the point. Tax-financed solutions are attractive to many people because they do not require the voluntary and positive agreement of those from whom the taxes are collected – they only require an acquiescence to the threatened use of force against them if they do not pay.
That you “go along” and pay the taxes assessed against you iby others n order to avoid trouble does not change the coercive dynamic. In fact it only proves the point.
In the non-government world, this is known as extortion and racketeering.
If people were willingly and voluntarily engaging in exchanges of wealth for services with which they agreed, obtained a desired result, and were of mutual benefit with the other party to the transaction, it would not be a tax – it would be a transaction.
Tolerance of a small amount of something (such as taxes) does not itself justify more of the same.
It is clear from this discussion that the old adage is undeniably true: “When your favorite tool is a hammer … every problem becomes a nail.”
In this case taxes, and a government to collect and distribute them, in response to any and all needs we can point to or imagine.
