Forcing people to buy health insurance

You think no one should be forced to pay taxes but that a government should remain intact to protect so called god given rights?  Because anarcho-capitalism works where?

If government is so great, and so good, why is it only now, after thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years, is healthcare becoming a function of government?  You do know they had health care in 1787, right?  If it was even remotely constitutional, this issue would have been had out a long, long, time ago.  Alas, it's taken years of twisting and distorting words to get our constitution where it is today.  A shell of what it once was.

The only place where Free Market Capitalism fails is it's inability to stop the government from growing.
The United States road capitalism to the top, and it's being dragged down the economic ladder to socialism.

I think you are being a bit dramatic Mizzle. America not being dragged into socialism....nothing like it. All it's doing is centralising a couple of areas in an effort to create a more level playing field. I agree that the helathcare thing isn't worked out well enough and might backfire. I think you are deluded to think a tax free system will work, esp in a country with the numbers of citizens America has. Self government or community based government can work for small populations but not for 350 million people. Most people are too busy with day to day living to have to start organising schooling and road repairs and so on for themselves - it takes a lot of planning to run a city. After all, government evolved out of necessity for leadership. So ok, the political system has many flaws but it's not a bad thing in itself. America unfortunately is a nation in decline and has been since the 70s - Europe since the 30s. China and the far east are the new Empires. That's how it goes. Swings and roundabouts.

I think you are being a bit dramatic Mizzle. America not being dragged into socialism....nothing like it. All it's doing is centralising a couple of areas in an effort to create a more level playing field. I agree that the helathcare thing isn't worked out well enough and might backfire. I think you are deluded to think a tax free system will work, esp in a country with the numbers of citizens America has. Self government or community based government can work for small populations but not for 350 million people. Most people are too busy with day to day living to have to start organising schooling and road repairs and so on for themselves - it takes a lot of planning to run a city. After all, government evolved out of necessity for leadership. So ok, the political system has many flaws but it's not a bad thing in itself. America unfortunately is a nation in decline and has been since the 70s - Europe since the 30s. China and the far east are the new Empires. That's how it goes. Swings and roundabouts.

By centralizing a couple areas, who is it leveling the playing field for, and in what way?  I also think that America is more fascist than socialist, which is why people like socialism so much here:  Out with the Fascists!  The reason nobody believes in FREE Market is because that's what the fascists claim their system is.  It's really perverse.
Again, I'm not saying there should be no tax, I'm just saying it shouldn't be forced.  I think taxes are grossly misappropriated, and there's not shit I can do about it.  Why is this?  I was born into this system, and I can't leave it freely.  I feel like I'm a slave in the literal sense of the word.  For every single dollar I make, the government gets a share.  I can never be free of this, not legally anyway.
Most people are too busy to deal with the schooling of their own children?  I agree, most people misprioritize.
I don't think government evolved out of a necessity for leadership.  I think it evolved over one group of people desiring to have authority over another.
I think cause for the East's rise and the west decline is this:  They are de-socializing while we are socializing. 

I understand the sentiment of being trapped by the system. We pay far too much tax too and it's getting worse thanks to the banks. What were they thinking with their insurance and dirivatives scams.

On the east west thing, China isn't desocializing at all. It's just operating with free market economics but it's as communist as it's ever been. That's why Google's getting out of there. A web based business can't do business with that level of government censorship. Taiwan, Japan are not socialist either. The west is declining because it can't compete with cheap labour whilst on the other hand having a massive consumer base to import to. We've had our industrial revolutions.....China are now having theirs. We don't make anything they can afford to buy. It's straightforward economics. We all moved to high skilled financial sector services instead...until we bust.

The ironic thing is that such a thing could only happen because of deregulation of the very regulations put in place after the 1930's Wall Street crash (to prevent another crash on that scale happening again). There's a perfect example of where the free market has been disastrous. Banking needs regulation.

...the congress can lay and collect the taxes on income.

So we can agree that the payroll taxes are not unconstitutional.

After they get you to the dealership with the base-model's price, they charge hundreds of dollars for features that are standard in many other in-class models.  CD Player?  $300.  Keyless entry?  $500.

My car(a GM) came standard with both and XM radio and Onstar.

The founders of this (US) country.  This is a key concept to American law.
Please read the Declaration of Independence for clarification on this subject.
Don't take my word for it;  read it:  http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

A)Sounds to me like my parents granted me the rights when I was born.
B)Nowhere in there does it restrict who or what can grant rights.

You don't?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Imprisonment
That's the most famous case I can think of off the top of my head.
Second paragraph, about half way down from that link.

Already covered to death.

But these so called socialized nations of the world (Norway, Denmark, Italy, Australia, etc.) have the best health care in the world.  Also, America has never been a completely free market economy, instead, it has always been a mixed economy. 

Quote from: Mizzle on March 29, 2010, 08:19:14 PM

...the congress can lay and collect the taxes on income.

So we can agree that the payroll taxes are not unconstitutional.

Quote

After they get you to the dealership with the base-model's price, they charge hundreds of dollars for features that are standard in many other in-class models.  CD Player?  $300.  Keyless entry?  $500.

My car(a GM) came standard with both and XM radio and Onstar.

Quote

The founders of this (US) country.  This is a key concept to American law.
Please read the Declaration of Independence for clarification on this subject.
Don't take my word for it;  read it:  http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

A)Sounds to me like my parents granted me the rights when I was born.
B)Nowhere in there does it restrict who or what can grant rights.

Quote

You don't?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Imprisonment
That's the most famous case I can think of off the top of my head.
Second paragraph, about half way down from that link.

Already covered to death.

I can't force you to educate yourself on these topics, nor apparently can I try to teach you.  You are locked into your belief system.
But no, I don't agree payroll taxes are constitutional.

"Rights" are a social construct.  Just because it says our rights come from a "creator" in the Declaration of Independence doesn't make it so.  The Declaration of Independence also refers to Native Americans as "merciless Indian Savages" but we all know who the real merciless savages were. 

"Rights" are a social construct.  Just because it says our rights come from a "creator" in the Declaration of Independence doesn't make it so.  The Declaration of Independence also refers to Native Americans as "merciless Indian Savages" but we all know who the real merciless savages were. 

Not to mention that it excluded all non-white, non-protestants females.  Our founding Father's were some great people eh?

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 31, 2010, 04:19:13 PM

"Rights" are a social construct.  Just because it says our rights come from a "creator" in the Declaration of Independence doesn't make it so.  The Declaration of Independence also refers to Native Americans as "merciless Indian Savages" but we all know who the real merciless savages were. 

Not to mention that it excluded all non-white, non-protestants females.  Our founding Father's were some great people eh?

I think it's hilarious that the defenders of society at large making the rules say this kind of stuff.  This was all the norm in their time.

I do agree with the savage indian comment though.  I think the genocide of the native american people was an unforgivable tragedy.
Again, this was all due to the fact that society demanded it.
Rights are not a social construct.  You cannot give or take rights.  They are part of being human.

Are all those thousands of people in US prisons enjoying liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don't think they are. The government stripped them of their rights. 

Are all those thousands of people in US prisons enjoying liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don't think they are. The government stripped them of their rights. 

No, the government is denying them access to exercise their rights.  This is the only function of government.  To interfere with individuals.

Either you are free and can pursue happiness, or you aren't free and can't. Governments strip people of their rights all the time.  Also, rights change.  You no longer have the right to own a slave. 

People decide what "rights" are based on the needs of the society.  There is no "right" that someone can't take from you. 

Either you are free and can pursue happiness, or you aren't free and can't. Governments strip people of their rights all the time.  Also, rights change.  You no longer have the right to own a slave. 

People decide what "rights" are based on the needs of the society.  There is no "right" that someone can't take from you. 

You wouldn't be saying these things if the government threw you in a hole somewhere and forgot about you.
You have a right to own property.  At that time in history, slaves were considered property.  Society determined that slaves were property, not God.  However, it wasn't valid that slaves can be property, because they are also people.  You have no right to have control over another person, and neither does the government.
Again, the government can't take rights.  It can only infringe on them.

So when the government puts someone in the electric chair they aren't taking away someone's right to life, they're just infringing on it?

So when the government puts someone in the electric chair they aren't taking away someone's right to life, they're just infringing on it?

Yes, they are killing that person, violating his or her right to life.  If you're alive, you have the right to be alive.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 31, 2010, 05:46:44 PM

So when the government puts someone in the electric chair they aren't taking away someone's right to life, they're just infringing on it?

Yes, they are killing that person, violating his or her right to life.  If you're alive, you have the right to be alive.

i.e taking away that persons right to life.  

If you believe that people (slaves) are property, does that make it right to own them?  Wasn't that a gross infringement on the rights of the slaves?

Do you find horizontal monopolies an infringement on the rights to own property?

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 31, 2010, 05:46:44 PM

So when the government puts someone in the electric chair they aren't taking away someone's right to life, they're just infringing on it?

Yes, they are killing that person, violating his or her right to life.  If you're alive, you have the right to be alive.

We don't have capital punishment in the uk anymore but it comes up in debate from time to time, usually when some gotesque murder happens, esp if it involves killing children. I tend to agree with Mizzle but in the opposite way that if you treat murder as a crime....because it's the taking of a life then it's morally hypocritical to then take the criminal's life. But I wouldn't like to be the one explaining to the family of a victim why the killer of their loved one gets to live while they are left with their loss forever either.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 06:04:19 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 31, 2010, 05:46:44 PM

So when the government puts someone in the electric chair they aren't taking away someone's right to life, they're just infringing on it?

Yes, they are killing that person, violating his or her right to life.  If you're alive, you have the right to be alive.

We don't have capital punishment in the uk anymore but it comes up in debate from time to time, usually when some gotesque murder happens, esp if it involves killing children. I tend to agree with Mizzle but in the opposite way that if you treat murder as a crime....because it's the taking of a life then it's morally hypocritical to then take the criminal's life. But I wouldn't like to be the one explaining to the family of a victim why the killer of their loved one gets to live while they are left with their loss forever either.

I'm very anti-government but in the other direction of Mizzle I suppose.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 06:04:19 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 31, 2010, 05:46:44 PM

So when the government puts someone in the electric chair they aren't taking away someone's right to life, they're just infringing on it?

Yes, they are killing that person, violating his or her right to life.  If you're alive, you have the right to be alive.

i.e taking away that persons right to life.  

If you believe that people (slaves) are property, does that make it right to own them?  Wasn't that a gross infringement on the rights of the slaves?

Do you find horizontal monopolies an infringement on the rights to own property?

I don't believe slaves can be property, because I recognize them as people, and you can't own people.
It was a gross infringement on the rights of slaves.
I don't know what you mean about horizontal monopolies...

@EarthIS
I don't believe in capital punishment or life in prison.  Don't believe in giving the government the authority to punish.  I haven't come up with a necessary solution to the whole murderer problem, but government sponsored murder isn't any better either.

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on March 31, 2010, 09:13:13 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 06:04:19 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 31, 2010, 05:46:44 PM

So when the government puts someone in the electric chair they aren't taking away someone's right to life, they're just infringing on it?

Yes, they are killing that person, violating his or her right to life.  If you're alive, you have the right to be alive.

i.e taking away that persons right to life.  

If you believe that people (slaves) are property, does that make it right to own them?  Wasn't that a gross infringement on the rights of the slaves?

Do you find horizontal monopolies an infringement on the rights to own property?

I don't believe slaves can be property, because I recognize them as people, and you can't own people.
It was a gross infringement on the rights of slaves.
I don't know what you mean about horizontal monopolies...

@EarthIS
I don't believe in capital punishment or life in prison.  Don't believe in giving the government the authority to punish.  I haven't come up with a necessary solution to the whole murderer problem, but government sponsored murder isn't any better either.

Resources are monopolized so there can be only a single producer of a certain good.

Quote from: Mizzle on April 01, 2010, 01:23:14 AM

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on March 31, 2010, 09:13:13 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 06:04:19 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 31, 2010, 05:46:44 PM

So when the government puts someone in the electric chair they aren't taking away someone's right to life, they're just infringing on it?

Yes, they are killing that person, violating his or her right to life.  If you're alive, you have the right to be alive.

i.e taking away that persons right to life.  

If you believe that people (slaves) are property, does that make it right to own them?  Wasn't that a gross infringement on the rights of the slaves?

Do you find horizontal monopolies an infringement on the rights to own property?

I don't believe slaves can be property, because I recognize them as people, and you can't own people.
It was a gross infringement on the rights of slaves.
I don't know what you mean about horizontal monopolies...

@EarthIS
I don't believe in capital punishment or life in prison.  Don't believe in giving the government the authority to punish.  I haven't come up with a necessary solution to the whole murderer problem, but government sponsored murder isn't any better either.

Resources are monopolized so there can be only a single producer of a certain good.

I don't have a problem with this.  It's up to the consumer to choose weather or not he or she wants that good in the first place.  Additionally, it's unlikely there would be a complete monopoly of any natural resource.  The world is just too big.

So much for a knockout punch to special interests.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/angela-braly-wellpoint-ce_n_523824.html

You think no one should be forced to pay taxes but that a government should remain intact to protect so called god given rights?  Because anarcho-capitalism works where?

The envisioned political system of anarcho-capitalists is not of one government per geographic area as the sole provider of protection; it is of various competing organizations providing protection as a product: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good/Law_as_a_private_good.html

"Rights" are a social construct.  Just because it says our rights come from a "creator" in the Declaration of Independence doesn't make it so.

The natural rights as used in the DoI are anything but a construct. They are necessary existing rights which can't ethically be taken away and derive from ownership and control of property and self.