Now, for the record, Hume noted the errors in both of these guys, but that's another story. Suffice to say that Hobbes has the force of history and science on his side. Evolution does not promote Locke's ideas very well, etc.

And David, since you're not a complete coward like Ray, maybe you'll tell us if you think that an Iraq war opponent should have been compelled to pay taxes for that war, when he had no interest at all in its outcome, or thought that Bush's policies were only going to make things much worse. Why shouldn't the Pentagon have relied on voluntary contributions from hawks and defense contractors to finance their adventure?

24. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4171551)
And since you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're afraid to answer that perfectly legitimate question about voluntary funding of the Iraq war, I wonder if there are any less reticent libertarians out there who will give it a shot.

To repeat the question: If the solution to the health care / health insurance issue is to rely on voluntary contributions to pay for those who can't afford it, then why shouldn't those who opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq be equally able to have refused to pay taxes to subsidize the war? I have yet to see a coherent answer to this----or from Ray, any answer at all.

I don't see why you think this question is a "gotcha." For you and many of your fellow high-fivers here, it wasn't merely a matter of "supporting" the ACA. We were told we were selfish and lacking in compassion to not want to be forced to pay for health insurance for the have-nots. And all the while, y'all had the opportunity to reach into your own wallets and volunteer to pay for it even though us heartless bastards did not want to. Instead of doing that, you went the route of forcing us to pay. Your people were ultimately successful in doing that (I reiterate that I don't think there's a snowball's chance in formerly dp's house that efforts to repeal the law will be successful), but you didn't win any "compassion" game because you didn't group together to pay for anything yourselves.

I suppose it could have been part of a nefarious plot to trick us into paying for something we didn't need to pay

I don't think it's a plot; I think it's SOP. Lots of providers bill patients for whatever, figuring that even if a very small percentage of the saps write them a check, that's literally money in the bank. As others have noted, ACA tries to reform some of these abuses.

The mandate does not force anyone to buy insurance. It offers a choice, it incentivizes one behavior by penalizing you for not engaging in it.

And it can only penalize you if you are already engaging in economic activity (ie, not for just "sitting on your couch"). The state incentivizes having children and home ownership through the tax code as well. I fail to see how doing so equates to state tyranny and the death of freedom.

These cries of state oppression coming from society's most privileged class always seem to ring a bit hollow.

But there are lots of little bullies in everyone's life. Obamacare trades freedom to not purchase insurance for freedom to have it available,

Andy, I don't mind if you disagree with me, or insult me, or even if you call me names. I do mind when you tell lies about me, as you've been doing over and over again. I answered this question hundreds of posts ago.

What BS. The only time you even acknowledged my question about the Iraq war was in this exchange:

24. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4171551)

...

Which was a complete non-answer. Neither "Iraq" nor "war" were even mentioned anywhere in that post above.

Everyone already had "freedom" to have insurance. Just like everyone has the "freedom" to buy their own jet. They may not have had the means. That is a separate issue, having nothing to do with "freedom."

there is the issue of whether the IRS can collect the tax if someone refuses to either buy insurance or pay the fine. The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty—but then effectively blocks the agency from using most of the tools it normally uses to go after tax scofflaws.

The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a criminal enforcement case against someone who refuses to pay the non-insurance penalty. And it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien. Law professors Jordan Barry and Bryan Camp have a nice piece in Tax Notes explaining it all.

That leaves only one tool—the IRS can subtract the penalty from any refund it owes a taxpayer. But that applies only if the IRS happens to owe somebody a refund. These days, two-thirds of taxpayers get one, but it is usually their choice.

Only low-income households who receive refundable credits, such as the Earned Income Credit, always get refunds. But the ACA specifically exempts most of them from the tax because their income is so low.

Like the woman who is raped is offered a choice? The man does not force her to sleep with him. He offers a choice! He incentivizes her to sleep with him by penalizing her for not sleeping with him.

This is the absurdity of the Libertarian position-- they compare a small fine for noncompliance to rape.

Ray, you suck at analogies.

I do object to the government mandating people to purchase a product, and then fining people for not purchasing the product, in order to gain revenue that was gotten improperly.

There was a really fascinating discussion of freedom and private coercion / private governance at Crooked Timber, recently, in dialogue with the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog.

Bertram, Robin, and Gourevitch, "Let it Bleed: Libertarianism and the Workplace"

The Algorithm (or Android) Formerly Known as Ray? Swiftian satire it's not.

I didn't come up with the name, simply the abbreviation.

So someone born with a heart arrhythmia had the freedom to purchase insurance?

The Iraq thing is different, for a number of reasons. President Bush had the power and the right to go to war, authorized by Congress and supported by the Constitution, while Congress did not have the right to pass the ACA and President Obama did not have the right to sign it - because the mandate is unconstitutional. And the mandate is not a tax.

Never mind that the Supreme Court upheld the law---tell me how you knew anything about the constitutionality of the mandate, or whether it qualified as a tax, prior to the Supreme Court decision, considering that the mandate's constitutionality had been upheld by several lower courts.

And if you were "compassionate" you would have gotten your closest 50 million compassionate liberal friends together and paid for the health care for everyone who couldn't pay yourself. All you needed to do was to organize and write checks and give away your money. It's not hard; charities do this all the time. In the Iraq situation, before Bush went to war, right wingers could have collected all the donations they wanted.

But we're not talking about "before Bush went to war", we're talking about the funding for the war after the decision was made.

Why should war opponents then have been forced to contribute their taxes to the war effort?

But they couldn't have forced Bush into war, and they couldn't have gone to war themselves.

Nothing other than inconvenience was stopping them from going over there and joining the local opposition parties.

"And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the older world, the first observers of mutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to inquire, what has America done for the benefit of mankind? let our answer be this--America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, equal justice, and equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the inde-pendence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

So someone born with a heart arrhythmia had the freedom to purchase insurance?

Certainly. Of course, they're not going to be offered it at price comparable to people born healthy, because, well, that would be irrational.

And if you were "compassionate" you would have gotten your closest 50 million compassionate liberal friends together and paid for the health care for everyone who couldn't pay yourself.

And again we did. We got together and got ACA passed. It was our hard work and money that helped it happen. Mission accomplished. We saw a problem and we (partly) solved it. I am sorry you don't like how we did it, but we did it according to the rules, it is constitutional and it was a much more effective and efficient use of our time and money than your way. It is like teaching the guy to fish instead of feeding them once.

Go us.

No, I have both pity and concern. And I helped do something about the misfortunes of others. I forfeit nothing, sorry.

Your sympathetic pity and concern for those who are unable to afford or purchase health insurance is far outweighed by your lack of sympathetic pity and concern for Ray's wallet, and let's face it, that's the real victim here.

And again we did. We got together and got ACA passed. It was our hard work and money that helped it happen. Mission accomplished. We saw a problem and we (partly) solved it. I am sorry you don't like how we did it, but we did it according to the rules, it is constitutional and it was a much more effective and efficient use of our time and money than your way. It is like teaching the guy to fish instead of feeding them once.

If Ray did not keep telling us we should have pooled our money I would not have to respond that we did in fact pool our money.

I am more than willing to argue on the merits. When Ray brings up process though I answer with process. He keeps telling me the process should be voluntary money pooling. If he brings up process then I get to also.

? No, you pooled other peoples' money.

Silly boy we pooled our money (and other things like votes) and used the system to enact legislation. That legislation had the effect of pooling everyone's money.

No, it's not as legitimate because you're undermining the will of people who don't want to participate. If I force you to do something in order to enact my personal desired outcome, whether through legislation or a gun, that's not as good respecting each person's will and leaving it to their own conscience whether to participate.

Elections have consequences, #######.

If subverting the will of people is cool simply because it's in accordance with the rules of the particular government in place, well, you've got an uphill battle here.

The nation's government is doing that. If you don't like the rules the nation is governed under happily there is a way to amend the rules.

So every law is illegitimate? Because every law has force at the bottom. Or is it only laws you don't like?

And it is not me that is forcing anyone. The nation's government is doing that.

Yes. And, with any luck, you'll see what they are in November.

Again with the weak "them's the rules" argument. When someone uses that to justify a policy, it indicates they have no intellectual argument to support it.

He's arguing the intellectual and moral merits of the process, right or wrong.

Saying "but we won" contributes nothing.

His point is that if we want to effect certain changes in the health care system, those of us who want these changes should accomplish it voluntarily, rather than forcing others to participate.

The will of the people is not being subverted though. Not any more than any other law. We have a fine process of democracy linked with the constitution to protect from the tyranny of the majority. The law made it through (sorry talking about success again).

DOMA also made it. I hate DOMA. I think it is a terrible law and will one day (hopefully soon) be gone. Gay marriage will be allowed and quickly become normal. However as much as I hate it and the fact that it is impinging on the freedom of gays it is still a legitimate law. Just because I don't like it does not magically make it illegitimate.

No, it's not as legitimate because you're undermining the will of people who don't want to participate.

If I force you to do something in order to enact my personal desired outcome, whether through legislation or a gun, that's not as good respecting each person's will and leaving it to their own conscience whether to participate.

The fact that "it's the rules" and "this is how democracy works" have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of using legislation rather than charity to effect a particular end.

If subverting the will of people is cool simply because it's in accordance with the rules of the particular government in place, well, you've got an uphill battle here.

What do you use to justify a law?

Of course it does. That's why there are elections (even the Supreme Court has elections--they vote on cases), and that's why their are votes in Congress and legislatures. We cannot revert to policy or "right and wrong" at every instance on every measure. That's the way of political chaos.

That may be his point, but it's not the system we have--and he is under that system. If he isn't going to play by the rules, he can't whine when if he's treated like scofflaw he is.

See, Ray, just what I said. "Your money" is defined as what they've relented to leave you.

Yes. And, with any luck, you'll see what they are in November.

But a law is the wrong way to achieve a particular outcome if that outcome can be obtained through voluntary action of the people.

The will of some people is being subverted. That's the point. If you can achieve a result through voluntary action, it's better than imposing your individual desires on the entire populace.

How does a political process work without some people's will being "subverted"?

Yes. As the Supreme Court showed us.

No, not every law is illegitimate. But a law is the wrong way to achieve a particular outcome if that outcome can be obtained through voluntary action of the people.

I don't object to subverting the will of people. I object to justifying subverting the will of people on the basis that the "rules" allow it. You need a better reason.

The US has a terrible health care system relative to other similar nations. Voluntary action wasn't getting the job done. It was ineffective and inefficient. We tried voluntary* and it was not working.

Well, then, maybe we're not all that interested in helping the underprivileged, and one might argue that the law should reflect who we are as a society.

Saying "them's the rules" contributes nothing to a discussion on the merits of the law. The rules makes the law politically and legally legitimate; it doesn't make it morally or philosophically so.

What law accomplishes something that CAN'T be accompolished through voluntary action? By your logic, if everyone would just volunteer to pay for roads and the military, we wouldn't need the government to include those items in the budget. If everyone would just drive safely all the time, we wouldn't need speed limits. If nobody ever killed anyone, we wouldn't need laws making murder illegal.

I object to justifying subverting the will of people on the basis that the "rules" allow it. You need a better reason

I don't object to subverting the will of people. I object to justifying subverting the will of people on the basis that the "rules" allow it. You need a better reason.

Some things can't be accomplished without government regulation.

Who says? There is no authority for this in the entire history of law.

And everyone gets to do this? How does anything become law if process is to have no effect?

Yes, it does. At some point, talk stops, and the amateurs need to clear the floor. Everyone has their version of merits--it can't end there.

Yes, it does. At some point, talk stops, and the amateurs need to clear the floor. Everyone has their version of merits--it can't end there.

No, the mere legislation of something speaks nothing to its merits morally or philosophically.

Mayor Bloomberg laid into an appeals court Wednesday for overturning two stop-and-frisk gun busts, saying the decisions were “wrong on what’s good for America.”

The Appellate Division on Tuesday threw out a weapons case against a 14-year-old identified as Jaquan M., caught with a gun and ammo in his backpack two years ago.

The ruling came a week after the same court sided with another 14-year-old, Darryl C., who was caught with a gun during a stop-and-frisk.

The judges said the stop- and-frisks were illegal — which Bloomberg called mind-boggling.

I didn't say it has no effect. I said it's not a basis for evaluating the merits.

Hmm. Someone should tell Mayor Bloomberg that court decisions can't be wrong.

You guys are too much.

No, the mere legislation of something speaks nothing to its merits morally or philosophically.

Hmm. Someone should tell Mayor Bloomberg that court decisions can't be wrong.

And this proves what exactly?

It is very understandable. It sucks to lose. To really believe something and then have your belief rebuked.

That Bloomberg doesn't understand the new religion that the liberals found here after the ACA was upheld by the supreme court: that court decisions can be wrong.

That Bloomberg doesn't understand the new religion that the liberals found here after the ACA was upheld by the supreme court: that court decisions can be wrong.

That Bloomberg doesn't understand the new religion that the liberals found here after the ACA was upheld by the supreme court: that court decisions can be wrong.

I didn't say it helped my argument.

Then why bring it up?

Are you being serious with this?

Are you being serious with this?