The Instigator
Dr_Harvey
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Health care should not be free for Children or Adults

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,118 times Debate No: 4824
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (15)

 

Dr_Harvey

Pro

Topic: State Childrens Health Insurance Program (AKA S-CHIP)

What is it?
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a national program in the United States that provides health insurance for children whose families earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, yet cannot afford to buy private insurance. The program was created to address the growing number of children in the United States without health insurance. At its creation in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of health insurance coverage for children in the United States since Medicaid began in the 1960s.

The opposing views:
Conservatives say: It costs way to much money and insures families whose annual household income exceeds 80,000. The program covers to many people and even some adults. We should reform this program to cover only those children really in need.
Liberals say: It is a necessary step to socialize health care. The Health care industry has become too greedy and therefore the Govt. should provide it to families who can't afford to take their child to the doctor. Every child should have access to a doctor no matter what.

Dr. H says: The Gov't should not be providing health care to any child whose parents are capable of getting a job

-First let me say this, gov't spending is already out of control. I am a 21 year old college student who makes a salary barely above the poverty level and my income is taxed at almost 26%! That's ridiculous. Maybe Al Gore could make some correlation between gov't spending and the erosion of the polar ice caps!
-Second, I remember a time when parents took it upon themselves to take care of their children. "I didn't mean to have children...:" Here's an idea, don't have sex. Last time I checked, the virgin birth occurred 2000 years ago and hasn't happened since. But no, let's just absolve people of total personal responsibility that way they can use all my money to pay for people's mistakes.
-Thirdly, Imagine with me a hospital or doctors office that was run like the DMV. Wow, I hope no one has anything serious because you might die before they call your number. Imagine a business that had an endless flow of resources and no incentive to make any profit. This is the federal gov't. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want that business handling my health care.
- Finally, before you hate me for not caring about children let me say I do care about kids, I even care about their nitwit parents. The problem in question here isn't does a child have the right to see a doctor? The question is should the gov't pay for it? The answer is no. With all this talk of social justice floating around the church you'd think someone would figure out a way to stop spending peoples tithe money on that $100,000 sound system or that 2.5 million dollar building and use it to take care of people. It is vital, in order for the US to survive as a democracy for faith based intiatives and humanitarian groups to take up majority of the social relief spending. This is not the job of the government.

Your thoughts please...
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Con

Thanks for offering this debate Dr. Harvey.

The S-CHIP program was developed, not to help children of unworking parents as you suggested with the comment "The Gov't should not be providing health care to any child whose parents are capable of getting a job"

S-CHIP provides health care to children of parents who do have a job, but cannot afford the high cost of providing health care for their children, due to the nature of the work that they qualify for. Many US employers are now offering part time or 1099 positions in low to entry level portions of their business, precisely because they are not required to provide health benefits to those employees.

As a result there are millions of American parents who are not educated but that work 3-4 part time jobs for low wages, who are not covered by company health care plans.

S-CHIP addresses this problem.

Government spending IS out of control, on that we are agreed, however, there should be other areas in which we can reduce spending other than cutting health insurance for the children of the poor. Defense is a holy grail for conservatives, but perhaps it is time that we seek ways to avoid paying exorbitant fees for military contracts and require spending oversight for defense.

"Here's an idea, don't have sex"

While that sounds great on talk radio, it doesn't reflect reality. People enjoy sex and each other, children result. Your attempts to cut spending for the wellbeing of the children of these irresponsible people is punitive towards the children, not the sexual partners. Either way, the parent's will not be paying for the health insurance. It is the children who will benefit from S-Chip or be left without health care under your plan.

"Imagine with me a hospital or doctors office that was run like the DMV"

Doctor's offices for the poor ARE run like DMVs. In health care facilities where medicaid and welfare cases are the norm, you consistently find a lower standard of customer service and increased wait times. Even Veterans Administration hospitals are shoddy for people receiving care there. So its not reality to pretend that health care for the existing poor is a utopia of cleanliness and no wait time. That is simply not the case.

Economics and reality dictate that the well off in society get a better experience when they receive services, whether those services are at Nordstrom's verses the dollar store, or at Cedar Sinai verses Samaritan. The wealthy pay for that with premiums in cost.

Finally the question of the Governments responsibility is one that the populous answers in the united states. I believe that it is my responsibility as a productive part of society to share a portion of my income with those who provide services to me that I am unwilling to do for myself. I understand that the person who washes my car, or stocks the shelves in my department stores or delivers my paper or patches up my street or cleans out my city sewer has the right to have a family. I understand that part of my responsibility as a comfortably well to do part of this great country is to help those people provide a healthy environment to their children, because they do jobs, that cannot support that expenditure. It is a price I am willing to pay, for the services I receive every day as a person living in the USA.

I would much prefer that my Government facilitate that expenditure then faith based organizations, based purely on the consistently failure of those organizations to provide true, tangible benefit to those truly in need. I believe by the end of your statement that we are in agreement in that? I would prefer to funnel money through the bureaucracy that I do know, than funnel it to churches and faithful organizations to see what happens. When they are consistently shown to provide member services and little else.

your round...
Debate Round No. 1
Dr_Harvey

Pro

Perhaps you read too much into my suggestion that the Gov't should not be providing health care to any child whose parents are capable of getting a job. What was meant by that comment was that unless a child's parents are disabled and incapable of earning an income then I believe the child should not qualify for S-chip. I can speak to this issue very clearly because I personally do not have health insurance, I am not well off, my income is actually below poverty level, However, I am still taxed at 26% and any health care I get I pay out of my own pocket. If I was to have children, it is my responsibility to take care of them, not the government. Some have said thats not a lot compared to other countries. But if I wanted to be taxed at 45% I would have lived in france or Norway, not the land of the free and the home of the brave.

"As a result there are millions of American parents who are not educated but that work 3-4 part time jobs for low wages, who are not covered by company health care plans." Living in Los Angeles and working with the Urban poor I can tell you that this is the situation for many people is true. But you have not answered the question as to why this means they should be offered free health care. I encourage you to drive through the projects in Watts or Compton and you will see many of the people who would take advantage of the free health care. But you will not find people who are impoverished, this I can tell you from experience. You will see nice cars parked in the driveway, satellite TV in the home, and people who are really capable of working a job and earning good money and some do, but they really don't want to work. They really don't want to parent their kids. I spent four years working in inner city impoverished Los Angeles and in the Los Angeles county jail and I can tell you this issue is not as simple as give them free health care and they will be okay. You are addressing years of a poverty mindset and even if they were capable of working a job, they most likely would not. Did you know that in the projects the average work week for a male is 26 hours and a little above 30 for a female. Blame is the name of the game my friend. Go to the poor and watch so many collect the welfare check or take their kid to the emergency room and not pay for it. If you want to talk about what drives up health insurance premiums look at the loss of profit each emergency takes every month from non-paying patients.

"Defense is a holy grail for conservatives, but perhaps it is time that we seek ways to avoid paying exorbitant fees for military contracts and require spending oversight for defense"

I don't understand the relevance of defense spending to health care but I suppose it is great straw man for why we shouldn't cut the ridiculous expenditures of Schip. While you have made a good point about defense spending you totally dodged the issue of health care. I suppose if we were debating defense spending or whether or not conservative or liberals were better then this would be a great point. Defense spending is not what causes the issue of a poverty mindset nor is it a reason to spend more money in other areas. On top of it, these "children of the poor" are in some cases families who make a combined household income over 60,000 dollars according to the most recent SCHIP legislation. Maybe we ought to free up people to pay for health care by cutting their taxes. There is the school of thought that says the government can spend your money better than you can but I just don't see that as the case when it comes to matters of health care.

"In health care facilities where medicaid and welfare cases are the norm, you consistently find a lower standard of customer service and increased wait times."

This statement in of itself demonstrates an utter detachment from reality. 25% of the country pays the majority of the taxes. Essentially, people who are getting Medicaid are getting health care other people have paid for. You get what you pay for. When you force people to provide service at a very low price you get very low quality. In regards to the VA hospitals, my grandfather is a veteran whom I have taken to the doctor many times at the VA hospital and he has always been treated very well. I don't know if you ever actually been to a VA hospital, but my experiences at them in Oregon and California and now Colorado has been very good.

"I would much prefer that my Government facilitate that expenditure then faith based organizations, based purely on the consistently failure of those organizations to provide true, tangible benefit to those truly in need."

Notice that I did not only say faith based organizations but I also included non-religious humanitarian groups. The reason for my saying this has nothig to do with my personal convictions but more to do with the fact that if any organization or company spent money like the federal government they would be bankrupt and their CEO arrested. Show me a company that works with a 400 billion plus deficit. People need care no doubt, and there are those who are authentically in need. The government lacks accountability in their expenditures while NGO's (non government organizations)HAVE TO MEET THEIR BOTTOM LINE EVERY MONTH! If you really want to argue that the federal gov't does a better job then NGO's consider the hurricane Katrina episode. While FEMA twiddled their thumbs churches and NGO's poured out their wallets by the millions on a shoestring budget. The same could be true of health care if we turned to these responsible organizations to take care of people. By the way give me an example of NGO's providing sub standard services to people because my experience has been that Organizations that do not produce results in their humanitarian work don't last.

Finally, NGO's provide a way for people to get on their feet but they require things of them like getting a job, working consistently, not doing drugs. Organizations like Goodwill, or the salvation army provide jobs with health insurance but require that you work. People need to not look to their government to provide for their families but ought to support the good of their country and have honor, dignity, and self respect. I have seen many homeless people through the NGO I work with leave the streets, work hard, get the things they need and succeed. Why should a family who are not citizens of the united states or make 45,000 a year receive health care for free? It is absolutely absurd.

Consider finally, that even though there already is a program available for kids called SCHIP many eligible children are not enrolled simply because their parents did not complete the paperwork. The lazy man will not even lift his hand to feed himself and I won't force feed him.

your round
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Con

Interesting points all....

Lets begin with your contention that children should not qualify for S-Chip unless their parents are incapable of working.(thats Medicaid, not SChip) The result of that position of course is children will not receive adequate health care. Doctor's visits, immunity shots, yearly checkups etc, would be avoided by the parents, because they were not in a position to pay for them, whether self imposed or not.

We are in complete agreement that there are lazy people in the world who shirk their duties and are irresponsible and make horrifically stupid decisions in life. I would venture to guess that each of us can think of such examples in our own families. However, your position is punitive towards the children of these 'lazy', 'irresponsible' people, and propagates a cycle of bad health.

I argue that punishing the children of irresponsible parents with bad health, is not a good policy. If this were an argument about welfare or workman's compensation, I would acquiesce to your points of not wanting to reward laziness, however, this is an argument about S-Chip which provides health care for the children of parents who make too much money to enroll in Medicaid.

In most states S-Chip only applies to families that make up to $36,200 per year. In California, there are certain areas where that number can reach $63,000 per year. Having lived in California, I understand how incredibly expensive living expenses are as do you, which explains the disparity.

Simple math shows how impossible funding health care for 2 children would be for a family making $63,000 per year and paying over $20,000 in rent alone. After taxes, food, utilities, car expenses and clothing, how could they afford the fees it takes to take a child to the doctor? Most parents faced with the option of feeding the family one month or having the child immunized from Small Pox is forced to feed the family, leaving the child open to disease and death.
S-Chip confronts that reality and attempts to correct it.

You said "I can tell you this issue is not as simple as give them free health care and they will be okay. You are addressing years of a poverty mindset and even if they were capable of working a job, they most likely would not."

On this we are in agreement, however S-Chip was not created to address the poverty mindset and lack of education that permeates urban areas of the country. It was created to provide health care for children who's parents would not provide to them otherwise, in the hopes of providing a better, more healthy life for those children.

I understand your unwillingness to pay for the care of the children of the under performing, however I implore you to consider the results of not doing so. We both work very hard for our money, believe me, I don't enjoy paying the 33% tax that I shell out every year, however there are some things, like SChip which are worthwhile simply because they address the needs of the innocent.

You said "Maybe we ought to free up people to pay for health care by cutting their taxes" I find this an interesting position after you spent the paragraph prior explaining how irresponsible and unreliable the recipients of SChip are? You and I both know that if you reduced the taxes paid by S-Chip recipients, the resulting cash would not go towards health care for their children, so this point is not solid.

You said "This statement in of itself demonstrates an utter detachment from reality. 25% of the country pays the majority of the taxes" My statement was "In health care facilities where Medicaid and welfare cases are the norm, you consistently find a lower standard of customer service and increased wait times."

Perhaps you miss read the statement, which was not about tax rates or a claim that Medicaid is paid for by the recipients, but in fact addressed your earlier point of the health care system becoming like the DMV.

Regarding your experiences with VA hospitals, I am glad you have had good experiences, I provide veterans services for my local Elks Lodge and can assure you that the VA hospitals in upstate New York are not the places of wonder and attentiveness that they apparently are in Oregon, California and Colorado.

Onto NGO's: I will let your initial mention of faith based initiative slip away....

While I applaud the efforts of NGOs and humanitarian non for profits, it is ludicrous to contend that they are in a position to handle a program like SChip, or that they could possibly fund services for a majority of the needy as you prescribe.

The Government DOES cost more to facilitate these social programs, because the Government is not supported by volunteers. The belief that it is possible to find enough volunteer workers to run programs to support the children of the poor is unbelievably simple.

People need to be paid for their efforts. NGO's could not possibly support the infrastructure that is required to support the needy and is DEFINITELY not regulated enough to be trusted with huge checks every month.

Who would provide oversight as to how the money was being spent and whether it was being spent correctly and on the right people? The increase in regulatory workers to oversee proper expenditures for thousands of private NGO's would be incredibly huge. Thousands more Government accountants would be required in order to track the money, and it would quickly be reduced to a mess worse than our current, admittedly bulky and bureaucratic system.

We are in agreement that the Government should be streamlined, but not at all that NGO's could possibly do any better.

Finally your contention that the parents of many potential SChip recipients are too lazy to fill out the paperwork is disingenuous and ignors the fact that a high percentage of the poor wave the services out of a sense of pride, not out of sheer laziness.

Onto round Three.
Debate Round No. 2
Dr_Harvey

Pro

Blessed-Cheese-Maker (nice name by the way) I commend your interpretation of the situation as it is a valid position and demonstrates a comprehension of the facts. However, your conclusion still begs the question, should the government pay for people who make 60,000 a year to get health care for their children. One might read this debate and think that I don't care about children of irresponsible adults, or adults who cannot afford full health insurance. That is not the case. I am a healthy young adult and therefore cannot justify the expenditure of full health insurance. I am considered uninsured. However, I have discovered many other options for myself and especially if I were to have children.

First, you can purchase what is called a High deductible health Plan (HDHP). This plan covers any major medical expenses (like if I needed a heart transplant). There is a $1000 deductable but thats better than a 400,000 dollar heart transplant. My monthly cost is about $85

Second, paired with the HDHP you can have what is called an MSA (Medical Savings account) which is a tax sheltered annuity that can be withdrawn from for a medical need without any tax penalty. This can cover your deductible and also any prescription drugs you may need. I contribute about 60 bucks a month (2 dollars a day) I don't make a lot of money but I save every month. I don't any debt and don't live somewhere I can't afford to live. I have made a way to live within my means off of the 1800 a month I have. It is difficult and there are a lot of things that I can't do, but if I get sick I can go to the doctor, if I have an emergency I have savings, not a credit card. That is the option many people in poorer areas pursue.

Third, there are many need based grants that are available for people who cannot afford to take their kids to the doctor. This is yet another option for those who are in great need.

Obviously, NGO's could not run a program like SCHIP because SCHIP is a gigantic monster of a program, that really does lack accountability. However, NGO's do address many people's medical needs already on the foreign front mostly, but also on the domestic front. I have worked with groups like Northwest Medical teams, reach out to the community and offer free dental care, or treatment of simple problems amongst the urban poor. (see website NWmedicalteams.org) These groups do an excellent job of offering great care to people who cannot afford it. Consider also a place like the Dream Center in Los Angeles and New York that offers a place for people to get medical care if they need it. (dream center.org) These organizations do function with many volunteers, however you are wrong in saying that is all that they have because I work for an NGO and I get paid. There are many doctors who work for at free or discounted Clinic for impoverished people.

You insinuated that I wanted to punish children for their irresponsible parents. I don't even want the laziest person in the world to go without the treatment they need. I care however about the whole person. I would rather that they were educated about the options they have and then given ample opportunity to pursue them. I will give you an example from Africa. Missionary organizations poured millions of dollars of free stuff into Africa during the first hundred years of it's missionary history. In the last 15 years missionary history the people on the ground were realizing that much of what was being given was being taken advantage of. In fact, in Kenya and Zambia people were hiding their nice possessions when they knew the missionaries were coming to the village because then they could get nicer things. Leaders of these villages would literally tell people to put their ratty clothes on before the missionaries came. Now, is this the fault of the locals? No. It wasn't. Before missionaries came, as far as they knew, they had much. But the missionaries had enabled them, by their excessive giving, to continually stick their hand out. This breeded corruption in the village and ultimately did not accomplish the goal of providing fo rthe needs of impoverished Africans. In the US, it is the same.

We need to consider what we are doing by offering so many social programs. Like I said, I am not interested in putting a band-aid on the problem of the poverty mindset. If I believed throwing billions of dollars at the health care crisis would solve the problem I would do it. But what that is doing instead is creating a generation of beggers and victims. WE need to deal with the root of the problem. Why in one of wealthiest nations in the world, can't people afford health care? Is it the man trying to keep poor Joe Shmoe down? No the problem is what you said,

"You and I both know that if you reduced the taxes paid by S-Chip recipients, the resulting cash would not go towards health care for their children..."

Your right I do know that. I know that because if I withhold benefits from someone and expect that they are accountable, as many NGO's do, the government will always come along to save the person. The only thing they care about is the person's pay stub, they don't care whether or not the person could be working more, or could find a job that would give them health insurance. This is much like the picture of a fat person yelling "I am starving to death." You obviously don't expect that people provide for their families or take some responsibility for their stuff and that is the problem. SCHIP (a program the democrats unsuccessfully tried to expand this last year) continues as so many social programs do to enable the poverty mindset and it's time for that stop. It is time for a new day of accountability for people to care for their families and for churches and humanitarian groups to care for people as they say they should.

This is a BIG government vs small government issue. I see that you are a libertarian which makes me surprised that you are so apt to have the government spend your money on something that could be so much more effectively managed at the private sector. I don't want the govt to car for my family, thats my job. I don't want to govt to prevent me from taking care of my family with absurd taxes. I rest my case
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Con

Dr Harvey, thank you for your well positions arguments and for the opportunity to address each, this debate has been informative and engaging.

Let me start off by clearly defining my position to the initial question. YES, the government (you, I and all productive tax payers) have a moral responsibility to ensure that the children born in this free nation are provided health care.

The SChip program does exactly that. We are in agreement that there are abuses of the system and that there are parent's who clearly should do more to to provide for the children they create, however we must address the reality that S-CHIP IS about children's health. If we were arguing about welfare or workman's comp or entitlement programs for capable adults, we would likely find each other on the same side of the fence cheering each other on, however, this is a debate about S-Chip.

I believe it may be helpful to fully explain the added expenditures that result from having children. As a 21 year old, without children, you seem to be having trouble fully perceiving the struggles experienced by uneducated parents, who work hard like you but also have children they are responsible for.

Before having children, I had no clue of exactly how expensive they can be. Most of the parents of SChip children, were completely unaware of those expenses prior to having them.

Here is link to an example of the expense needs of a single child:

http://www.bankrate.com...

If you calculate the cost for a single year for 1 child, not including health insurance or education, you will note that it costs just over $11,000 per child per year. Now apply that number to parents who make $60,000 per year in California, who qualify for SChip. In order to qualify for SChip, making $60K the family must consist of 4 children taking the 300% of poverty level into account.
Parents making $60K in California who qualify for Schip, are clearly not able to spend $44K on child expenses, after taxes, their take home is a little over $47K, and with rent costs that we discussed in round 2, they are only left with $27K to feed, clothe, provide transportation and pay for the expenses that come along with living in a home and owning a car for 6 people.

At this point it should be getting clear to you that $60K, while being a comfortable living for a 21 year old living in a studio apartment, doesn't really afford parents with 4 children the ability to pay $200+ per month for family HDHP, let alone save money in a Medical Savings Account.

Money is spent on food, shelter and transportation, there is little left for much else.

At this point, most proponents of the abolishment of SChip make a statement that you brought up in round 1; "Don't have Sex" or more accurately, if you can't afford them, don't have children.

This is a very good point. People who cannot afford to provide for the well being of children, should think before creating them. Unfortunately, they don't, and part of the cost of living in 'the home of the brave and free' is dealing with the unfortunate results created by people who abuse that freedom, or who are not smart enough to behave themselves sexually.

The only alternative is an incredible reduction in freedom, to the point of forcing stupid people to absolve from sex, which is not what either of us are willing to do.

I will reintroduce the concept viewing SChip as a form of payment for services that, you and I and all productive taxpayers receive for living in a very comfortable, free, empathetic society. We support the rights of uneducated people to have freedom and reproduce, because we realize that freedom of EVERY citizen is what ensures freedom for us as individuals.

As a result of this, I will be called on to help the children of the people who fix my car, wait my tables, clean the public toilets I use, vacuum the office I work in and provide all the entry level service positions that I utilize to ensure my standard of living. I understand that the people who provide those services for me, cannot afford to provide health care for their children, but have just as much right to enjoy life as I do. I understand that my unwillingness to pay them enough money in salary to provide health care for their children, will result in either unhealthy children, or my requirement of an SChip program to meet that need.

You said: "We need to consider what we are doing by offering so many social programs."
I fully agree with you, but contend that SChip is not one of the social programs that should be abolished, based completely on the recipients of the program. Children.

In conclusion, as a libertarian, I am all for personal accountability, however that belief is countered with empathy for the human race and with an eye for the reality that some people will never be personally accountable. That reality forces me to either allow them to flounder and suffer, or to support them. In the case of capable adults, I am all for tough love and tough entitlement rules, but in the case of their children, I argue that we have a responsibility to care for the innocent.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 9 years ago
left_wing_mormon
The fact that a fight breaks out while Jesus himself is talking to them is so symbolic of todays conflicting sects. Monty Python really thought that one out, as where the meaning of life was just crap. Had it's moments though.
Posted by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 9 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Thank you Dr. Harvey,

Your argument has just as much merit as mine as we are approaching the issue from two competing ideologies. It was fun arguing from a perspective of entitlements that I typically don't side with. I think my experiences, working and living with the poor, and my adoption of Secular Humanism is effecting my traditionally conservative perspective. It is wonderful and fun to work it out in debate format. Thanks for your perspective.
Posted by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 9 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Thanks Xera,

Love Moral Orel and am sad that it isn't moving forward with a third season. WayToGo picking up on the combination of the references.

I am starting to think that debate.org, may become more addictive than Yahoo Answers, which is a scary thought...

;-) Have a wonderful weekend.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
And that's all assuming the masses benefit from living as slaves, which is doubtful. Education, transportation, protection, all of that, mean NOTHING if the lives that receive these values mean nothing, and a life that someone doesn't get to live, but has lived for them by government mandate, means nothing.

"
The argument that you don't want those things doesn't matter either, because it is for the benifit of the nation as a whole"

"What is detrimental to the masses is therefor harmful to the whole of society. "
Absolutely false, your disgusting, enslaving, thieving, masses are not the whole of society. As you just stated, myself, and those like me, are also stuck here.

". What is harmful to society is the job of the government to remove. This is because the primary purpose of the government is to provide a system of laws for the protection of the members of society"
Protection, again, means nothing, if they aren't protected from the entity which declares their lives are no longer theirs (your government). If my life is not mine, it is not being protected, it is gone, and it is the same with your life, whether you are conscious of this or not. Human life requires the use of a mind applied to action, which can only occur if you are free to do so. When men are instead treated as animals, not allowed to apply their own minds to their actions, not allowed to enjoy the fruits thereof, they will only last as long as the loot from the former men who did enjoy some degree of freedom do. When that runs out, life such as is left is at the level and longevity of a shaved monkey in a jungle.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
You get something back for what they take right?"
That would be an argument for trying to convince me to pay voluntary fees. It is not an argument for involuntary fees. Say I steal your wallet, and buy a fan with the proceeds, to cool off the room we are in. The fact that you get a breeze from it too doesn't make it right that I stole it, doesn't constitute your consent. The language of trade, speaking of getting something in exchange, is only valid when one recognizes the foundation of trade as consent. Trade without consent is a contradiction in terms, because whoever does the forcing gets to decide what is a fair exchange. Say for example, I steal your bike, and give you a piece of candy. Fair, right? :P

"Things like schools and roads and police protetions and a military strength that keeps us somewhat safer. So it really is more like being forced to pay for what you benifit from rather than allowing YOU to steal those goods.:"
Steal? How can I steal something that I don't have a choice about? If I shove a wallet down your pocket, did you steal it? Can I take both it and your wallet out to prevent you from stealing it? Same with the education and military shoved down my pocket. (police have never protected me, although they have threatened me a few times, though they wouldn't phrase it as such).

Also, it's not as though those all, schools especially, couldn't be paid for by voluntary funding.

"
The argument that you don't want those things doesn't matter either, because it is for the benifit of the nation as a whole"
It can't be for the nation as a whole if not for me, only for the majority. Say there are 9 men in a house and one woman. She gets raped, and when she protests she doesn't want to, you are arguing that the "household as a whole" (the majority that is) benefits, so she doesn't matter. If the individual doesn't matter, nothing matters, because the "nation as a whole" is nothing but individuals, and zero plus zero equals zero.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
And even those aren't really valid, since the failure to recognize valid rights invalidates one's own (thus the government's use of taxation invalidates any claims to property).

"You only own property because the government came in and stole it for you from the natives."
First, you are arguing a special case in an abstract debate. Second, if I accepted such things, and they truly were stolen (meaning there truly was a valid property claim on them before, which is doubtful, since the natives, at least most in the United States, had no concept of property rights), I would have no claim to such property, but that would not validate the government's claim either. Third, most land, even in the United States, was wholly unused and unowned prior to the creation of the United States. Even assuming the natives had an adequate conception of property rights (and respected such rights, remember, first one to disrespect valid ones loses validity of their own), the amount of land and other materials they actually put to any sort of use, created any sort of property from, is minuscule in proportion to the actual landmass availavle).

"In this case the word stole fits, because the land was gotten by the dishonest means of violating every treaty entered into with said natives."
Those treaties don't hold any water unless they were recognizing actual property rights, rather than pretended ones, which again is doubtful considering the vast amounts of uninhabited territory that was considered part of the "Indian claims" in most of those treaties. If I tell Fred he owns the Moon, that doesn't mean anyone would violate his rights when they made use of the Moon, because he did not in fact own it, it was simply a lie, he neither created anything there nor received anything there from those who did. Now if he had a mine on the Moon, for say, I dunno, Moonstone, a mine that he built, he'd own the mine, and perhaps a few roads he built to it, etc.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Wrongful is the only one of those that applies in all cases (though there are such things as "hidden" taxes, and people who don't know about the taxes, and George Bush Sr. saying "Read my lips, no new taxes," so dishonest isn't as easily dismissible as you claim :d.) Still though, I wonder where you've been looking for definitions, cause this here:
http://www.answers.com...
directs us to stealing, which states, right there as the first definition:

"To take (the property of another) without right or permission."
http://www.answers.com...

Nowhere does that include "unlawful," which by the way is an obvious linguistic trick for etatist lexographers, they don't want to ADMIT taxes are theft after all. Because, you see, at some point theft had to have been first defined as illegal, which means the concept of "theft" had to predate the illegality of theft.

"
You only get taxed if you work or own property."
That is, if you live, since there is no way to live with absolutely zero possessions, zero production of goods, etc.

"You only work because the government allows the companies that employ you to operate inside it's borders "

"allows?" Say I have a knife and am near you. In that case, by the same reasoning, you only breathe because I "allow" you to, I could instead have my knife rip your lungs out. Does the fact that I don't entitle me to collect taxes? And the notion of "it's" borders presumes that the government owns everything within those, whcih presumption is false, property can only be created from non-property by transforming non-property (i.e. nature) into something new, a value. For example, taking land, and creating a farm from it, and can only be transferred voluntarily if it is to retain status as "property." The government has not turned the entire territory into a farm, or any other sort of value, nor received it as a gift or in willing trade from those who did. It might own a few buildings, a few military bases, that's it.
Posted by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
BCM- I love the Moral Oral avatar. :D. Combined with the name, it's /really/ funny.
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
Ragnar Rahl, what is your deal with saying 'eh' have you turned canadian?

(lol, no offence anyone)
Posted by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
"Taxes: The government taking something which belongs to you, without your permission"

All definitons of theft I found included words such as "illegal" "unlawful" "dishonest" and "wrongful" Since the entitity taking the money is the one making the laws, probably not going to be classified as illegal-unlawful. Since we all know about taxes before having to pay them it's not dishonest. Wrongful is a matter that could be debated and might even be intersting, if all parties bothered to show up.

You only get taxed if you work or own property. You only work because the government allows the companies that employ you to operate inside it's borders -because it benifits the government and the rest of society to do so. You only own property because the government came in and stole it for you from the natives. In this case the word stole fits, because the land was gotten by the dishonest means of violating every treaty entered into with said natives.

You get something back for what they take right? Things like schools and roads and police protetions and a military strength that keeps us somewhat safer. So it really is more like being forced to pay for what you benifit from rather than allowing YOU to steal those goods.

The argument that you don't want those things doesn't matter either, because it is for the benifit of the nation as a whole that we be able to transport goods over long distances, have educated masses, capable of making informed choices in the voting booth, and watching over the murderers and rapists in prisons (not to mention getting them there). So if it is for the benifit of the masses to have these things, then opposition to providing them is to the detriment of the masses. What is detrimental to the masses is therefor harmful to the whole of society. What is harmful to society is the job of the government to remove. This is because the primary purpose of the government is to provide a system of laws for the protection of the members of society
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Dr_HarveyBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Dr_HarveyBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Greendonut 9 years ago
Greendonut
Dr_HarveyBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by DPerrone99 9 years ago
DPerrone99
Dr_HarveyBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by liberty 9 years ago
liberty
Dr_HarveyBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
Dr_HarveyBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 9 years ago
Rezzealaux
Dr_HarveyBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 9 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Dr_HarveyBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tormik 9 years ago
tormik
Dr_HarveyBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by LadyLovely 9 years ago
LadyLovely
Dr_HarveyBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30