whitetrshsoldier wrote:Unrealist42 wrote:
So, I can kill and murder indiscriminately as long as I do not violate the right of others to do the same?
Really? Let's break my statement down;
Premise: We are all free to do what we wish
Requirement: We must not violate other men's ability to do the same.
Does that help clarify your purported "contradiction"?
We've had many discussions, and I'm fairly certain that you're a bright enough guy to know what I meant [especially if you read it thoroughly].
Please try to avoid posting one-line red-herrings in the future, if you could, as I think you know where I stand on the concept of individual liberty.
I was only posing that question to begin an exploration of the limits and extents of individual freedom as you propose. I will ask more "relevant" questions from now on, I promise.
As we are all well aware conceptions of words like individual freedom vary widely. Where conceptions of individual freedom conflict is there a mechanism for peaceful resolution, is it just might makes right or is some other mechanism involved?
Meleagar wrote:
When corporations and wealthy individuals can compete against any particular ideology in the administration of government, and compete against each other via free speech and a free marketplace, then such power is broken up over the political and economic landscape. While some might see this as imperfect, it's still, IMO, better than providing tyrannical forces the engine (socialism) by which they can accumulate and employ absolute power over a society.
That is all well and good but requires a real free market.
Scott wrote:
That's a valid concern. But I think that the scientific method can be used with a fair amount of certainty to discern which activities are unhealthy. For example, I do not see much risk that future studies will show that cigarettes are actually not unhealthy. I can name things which most of us are convinced have been scientifically shown to be unhealthy, like cigarettes, but I wouldn't leave it up to me but rather up to scientists performing the scientific method which is necessarily reproducible meaning we do not have to take any one scientist or group of scientists words.
Science of this sort often takes a long time and is fraught with competing political and commercial agendas. For example I recently read of some long term very large longitudinal studies of diet and health that point to processed carbohydrates such as those found in bread as a factor in obesity and poor health that far outweighed fat and sugar. Even the researchers were surprised at the result. One of them said "The healthiest part of your morning toast is the butter."
This overturns contemporary conventional wisdom which was based on more limited and less comprehensive studies and then conflated by a relentless and ubiquitous media campaign by commercial interests seeking to cash in by creating fear and new products to assuage that fear. The people and then the government were just sucked into the vortex.
Fifty years ago oleomargarine was touted as better than butter. It is taking decades to get over that false information campaign.
I think all taxes constitute theft by definition. But, particularly if the revenue is being used to pay for government spending on health care, I would much rather, create or increase taxes on something I think has been scientifically shown to be unhealthy like cigarettes or soda than on trading income for labor or owning a modest sized home.
If taxes are theft then it is a strange sort of theft since people get to participate. It may be very indirect participation but that is just part of living with a lot of other people.
Why you particularly object to government paying for health care is a strange position since government is already paying for over 40% of the health care in the US.