[brucephillips]

I don't agree with it, be the counter-argument would be that state-sponsored coverage involves taking money from people without their consent (taxes), whereas charity doesn't. You should always address the strongest version of the argument you're refuting.

[simonh]

All laws are coercive. Why are you picking out specific ones, what are the criteria?

For example public parks have bipartisan support and are funded by taxes. So why will the US tax people to care for wildlife, but not its own citizens?

At one time the US instituted a military draft, requiring citizens to carry out military service. Citizens are required to obey the law, pay taxes and serve the interests of society, as determined by the government. I believe that this places a responsibility on that government to care for and protect citizens. It must offer them the protection of the law, defend them in times of war and, I believe, provide basic health care. It should do so not just for the benefit of the individual, but for the benefit of society.

There's no point drafting people into the military if the health of the population isnt up to it. This was a major issue for the UK in WWI and a key factor in getting cross-party support for a national health service, because a shocking number of young men were unfit for duty. Currently not being in a time of war doesn't change the relationship though. The duties and responsibilities are still there.

[mempko]

At the federal level, taxes don't fund anything. Federal government spends first and the collects taxes. This is a common misconception about how government financing works. You don't to raise taxes to fund any program. Taxes one serve to bring legitimacy and demand for US dollar. They don't pay for anything.

[simonh]

If they don't pay for anything where does the money go? Where does the money the US Govt does pay to it's employees, contractors, suppliers and in benefits come from? This really is nonsense on stilts.

I know governments are in a unique position to be able to print money, but that is not how the US government routinely funds it's budget, and certainly not how it mainly or exclusively does so or inflation would skyrocket.

[mempko]

When federal government wants to pay for something, it tells the federal reserve to credit a bank account. The federal reserve then goes through the banking system and credits the account. The money comes from a key stroke. When the government collects taxes, the money is destroyed. It's just accounting. Inflation happens when government prints money beyond capacity of economy to produce. Too many dollars to too few resources.

The government can increase deficit to put more money into private sector, which boosts profits and savings, it can choose to take money out by taxing more or spending less. Which creates fewer savings and smaller profits, and more private debt.

[simonh]

You could just as well say that when I pay a bill the money is 'destroyed' in my bank account and 'created' in theirs, it's just accounting.

[mempko]

It IS just accounting! Difference is you need an income or debt to deposit. Gov can get money from thin air.

[bduerst]

>All laws are coercive

Locke would disagree with your premise. You're an individual with the freedom to move to any society that you agree with the most. Unless your freedom has been alienated, you are tacitly consenting to a government's laws by remaining where you are.

[soVeryTired]

So why does the typical American live within 18 miles of home? [0]

Do they just happen to agree with the society they're born into, or is it possible there are stronger forces than political preference that constrain their movement?

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f...

[bduerst]

Choosing to live close to family isn't alienation of freedom. Those are economic choices, not coercive constraints.

[soVeryTired]

Sure, but I don't think that amounts to a tacit agreement with a government's laws. Sometimes people are just stuck where they are.

[bduerst]

That's definitively what tacit agreement is, especially when someone claims that all laws are coercive.

[simonh]

It depends what you mean by constrain. What constraints are they under that are not voluntary?

[soVeryTired]

Family ties? Caring obligations?

These are extremely powerful forces, despite the fact that they don't fit into the economics-101 thinking that libertarians are so fond of.

[arcbyte]

Those forces fit exactly into economics 101. The first day is always "What is economics" and the answer is always that is the study of human behavior and choice. The supply/demand curve that makes up most of the class beings with the introduction that choice is variable, but assuming for the sake of argument that we consider them equal, what interesting effects do we observe?

Have you ever taken that class?

[raesene6]

I'd suggest that the reality for most people is that they're not "free to move to any society that you agree with most".

Many countries have strict immigration and citizenship requirements, many of which revolved around wealth.

So whilst it may be true that very rich people have complete freedom to choose their favourite society, that's not the reality for the majority of people.

[simonh]

That's entirely fair enough, but that's not the point we're arguing on. Objecting to a specific law on the basis that you are being coerced into following it is not a basis for picking and choosing which laws you're prepared to accept, because that is a general feature of laws.

[objclxt]

But I don't think that is the strongest version of the argument: it's based on the rather weak premise that taxes are inherently unconscionable. Imagine we were talking about the army, instead of healthcare. The argument would start with the question "is the state obliged to protect its citizens?", not "my taxes shouldn't pay for it".

The counter-argument here is not one around taxes, but around the obligations of the state. If you don't believe in universal healthcare then you ipso facto believe the state has no obligation to provide it, and that's where the counter-argument needs to come from.

[lancewiggs]

>Imagine we were talking about the army

Police yes, army no.

In Costa Rica the answer to whether government have an army is no. In many other countries the answer is "not really" or "not required"

The USA stands alone when it comes to the amount of money spent on military. It is somewhat absurd.

[negamax]

US pretty much guarantee current world order and international treaties. I know there had been many scandalous allegations against overspending. And conspiracy theories for overreach. But with weak US, world will pretty much go on a war the next day

[enraged_camel]

>>But with weak US, world will pretty much go on a war the next day

What makes you say that?

You might see more territorial wars, such as with Russia invading former USSR states and China making stronger claims over the islands in the South China Sea, but there is no indication that other countries would not pick up the slack and fill in the gaps created by reduced American military presence.

[ux-app]

pax americana. like it or not the Team America World Police is a real thing. For all their many faults, I'll take American Imperialism over something else like the Ruskies calling the shots, and yes if(when) the US stops providing world security some other state will step in. We might miss the days of USA calling the shots then.

[travmatt]

Just wait till China steps up and the world can get a taste of their style of economic warfare.

[briandear]

Actually on US military spending by percentage of GDP, the US spends less than Singapore and as much as Morocco.

The amount the US spends isn’t absurd on a percentage of GDP or even a per capita basis. It could be “absurd” when looking at it in raw dollar amounts, but you could say that American expenditures for movie tickets are absurd — Americans spend more money on movie tickets than the entire GDP of 65 different countries.

The US stands alone on the amount spent on the military, but it also stands alone for the amounts spent on everything: it’s the world’s largest economy and it would seem rather prudent to be able to defend that economy — and it does, at a reasonable level of military spending as a percentage of that economy.

A bank that protects $50 might not need a guard. A bank that protects $50,000 might need one guard. A bank that protects $5 trillion might need a few more guards.

Comparing Costa Rica to the United States is pretty ridiculous in terms of national defense. It’s rather naïve to suggest that militaries are not required. It’s never required, until it is.

If someone were to invade Costa Rica, who do you think would come to the rescue when asked? Costa Rican security is benefiting from the military of the United States. The Rio treaty gives Costa Rica the luxury of not having to worry about invasion since the US military is standing by to help.

Denmark doesn’t need much of a military because it’s part of NATO.. a risk to Danish national security wouldn’t last very long when you have the most advanced military in the world as your ally and treaty-bound to protect you.

These treaties and arrangements make it easier for countries to reduce their military since they are allied with the United States.

My point is that making comparisons isn’t very accurate without considering defense treaties that might exist and thus incentivize smaller military expenditures.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?year_...

[jeswin]

Not an American. But truth be told, more authoritarian countries and their armies will have a field day if the US military is weaker than it is. Europe is not going to stand up to Putin. And forget about Taiwan, South Korea, Syria etc.

The only thing holding them back is massive American firepower. In its absence every midsize Asian country is going to acquire nuclear weapons.

[brucephillips]

It's not based on that premise, no. A person can think that the country should tax its citizens to protect them, while simultaneously think that the country should not tax its citizens to redistribute wealth.

[pgeorgi]

> the country should not tax its citizens to redistribute wealth.

The army is also a huge wealth distribution machine: Raytheon or Boeing are businesses, and army personnel presumably is paid, too.

> tax its citizens to protect them

For example, from life threatening conditions.

Same statements, different cherry picking -> entirely different results.

[pjc50]

> A person can think that the country should tax its citizens to protect them

Ah, so you are in favour of universal socialised health care!

(/joking, mostly. But I feel that protecting citizens only from other humans but not from the far more deadly problems of disease and ill-health is a very limited view. If the US really believed in the inherent superiority of the private model, it would use it for its troops. No medevac if you've not paid your premiums!)

[AsyncAwait]

So protecting its citizens using military force is fine, not wealth redistribution, but taking care of its sick citizens, (arguably the ones needing the most protection), is somehow questionable?

[pnathan]

> involves taking money from people without their consent (taxes), whereas charity doesn't

This argument seems to be novel from the late 1800s. Before then, it seems to have been understood that the political system ran on taxes. It beggars the imagination that modern Americans seem to believe the old anarchist saw that cooperation and working with society via the ancient tradition of taxation is theft.

[brucephillips]

I'm not sure what you mean by "understood". Everyone has always understood that the government works on taxes. But if you mean "agreed with", that's certainly not the case. The line between taxes and theft in the middle ages, for instance, was extremely blurry.

[lmm]

> This argument seems to be novel from the late 1800s. Before then, it seems to have been understood that the political system ran on taxes.

Before then the political system openly ran on violent coercion.

[microcolonel]

It was also "understood" not long ago that the women of the villages you ransacked would become your property, that the king could do approximately whatever he wanted, that approximately all your kids would die seemingly out of nowhere before the age of five.

That tyranny has been "understood" is not a justification for the deliberate resurgence of tyranny. That you could take even more money from the public to fund your pet project is of no importance to the question of whether it is right or wrong to do so.

> This argument seems to be novel from the late 1800s.

Have you heard of the USA? It's been constituted since 1788, and it was more or less understood that the government wouldn't be getting involved in this sort of thing. If I'm not mistaken, 1788 is before the late 1800s.

[fsloth]

"it was more or less understood that the government wouldn't be getting involved in this sort of thing."

I propose you use some other rethorical device to back your argument. it was also understood back then that government would not ban slavery and that only people with property and penises could vote.

[angersock]

> involves taking money from people without their consent (taxes)

And yet you enjoy GPS, roads, running water, bridges, numerous standards, air quality and pollution reduction by regulators, defense of property, fire departments...

This particular line of argument is tiresome unless you're willing to forgo all of the amenities others have paid (and sometimes died) for.

If you're not willing to give them up, adding healthcare to the tab is hardly a step too far.

[brucephillips]

Most libertarians would give those up, in favor of private solutions.

Again, I don't believe this argument, but this is the argument.

[angersock]

I mean, that's the thing, right? You can't just give them up, short of moving away to the Libertarian paradise of Mogadishu or whatever.

Like, it's easy to say "well if somehow all of the public goods I enjoy were taken over by private companies then I'd be happy to pay them instead of taxes", but such a changeover doesn't really happen--you end up "freeloading" on the public dole until this future comes to pass.

And again, I know you aren't making this argument. It's just really annoying to have to hear it from otherwise intelligent friends when it comes up.

(Also, why the heck anybody would want to live in a world without a guarantee of basic services and rights is beyond me.)

[briandear]

Most libertarians aren’t opposed to government. For expample, most libertarians would agree that government is necessary as a means to enforce contracts. Somalia has no civil justice system of note, so Mogadishu is hardly a libertarian paradise.

Libertarianism is about the rights of an individual to engage in transactions they find beneficial. However, libertarianism is not about the right to infringe on others’ rights to do the same.

Libertarians support individual rights at a vastly greater level than anyone else. In collectivism, there are no individual rights or at least they are secondary to collective rights.

[tacomonstrous]

I really don't understand how libertarianism doesn't collapse at first contact with actual human beings.

>Libertarianism is about the rights of an individual to engage in transactions they find beneficial.

>Libertarians support individual rights at a vastly greater level than anyone else

And who protects these rights? Who defines them? Is it really possible for everybody's rights to be protected simultaneously (whatever those rights may be)? Who decides ownership? Who guarantees the avenues for beneficial trade?

The rule of law cannot be enforced without an element of coercion. The best we can hope to do is to make it as enlightened as we can.

[jahaja]

It's basically a modern version of the divine right of kings.

[vidarh]

Most right libertarians would. Left wing libertarianism (what libertarianism started out as in the 1850's) started from the socialist and anarchist premise that de jure rights without the access to resources to enjoy them are not real rights - for rights to have meaning, people need to be able to take advantage of them.

Specifically, Joseph Dejacques polemic against Proudhon [1] where the term libertarian was coined focused on the latter's willingness to talk loftily of liberty on one hand, but the next moment limiting to liberty related to capital rather than the emancipation of all, specifically throwing women under the bus because Proudhon did not see them as equals:

> Moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian, you want free exchange of cotton and candles and you seek to protect man against woman in the exchange of affectional human passion. You cry against the great barons of capital, and you would rebuild a proud barony of man on vassal-woman.

Dejacques makes an impassioned (and poetic -- the letter is well worth a read even if you disagree with every word) argument both for anarchy, and against the monopoly on resources, and the turns Proudhon's own word against him in arguing that for men to monopolise power is the same thing - talk of liberty becomes meaningless when we allow there to be arbitrary limits on who are afforded said liberty based on ideas of who are worthy:

> Attribute not to him a stock of intelligence which belongs to him only by right of conquest, by the commerce of love, by usury on the capital that comes entirely from woman and is the product of the soul within her. Dare not to attribute to him that which he has derived from another or I will answer you in your own words: “Property is robbery!”

> Raise your voice, on the contrary, against the exploitation of woman by man.

Dejacques set the term "libertarian" up as a step beyond "moderate anarchists" (!) and "liberals" such as Mr "property is robbery" Proudhon:

The emancipation of human beings, according to Dejacques, comes from taking the ideas that Proudhon happily promoted in economy - to limit power, be it over persons or property - to the full conclusion with a focus on the emancipation of all humanity.

Mere de jure emancipation will not do, then, if people can not take advantage of it. Maximising liberty to Dejacques meant being uncompromisingly willing to take that which is being hoarded and share it, be it money or power, or authority.

As such, the idea of maximising liberty from a left libertarian viewpoint does not see property as the holy cow that right libertarianism does, but in fact has from the outset seen strict property-rights as a direct threat to liberty, rising to outright aggression (e.g. if you try to use force to prevent someone who is starving from eating to maintain life you are putting their life at risk).

Right-libertarianism makes a mockery of libertarianism by sacrificing the principle of maximising liberty in order to provide an ideological veneer for the protection of wealth and privilege.

[1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-t...

[willvarfar]

This is the "What have the Romans done for us?!" argument :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

[flexie]

Money is taken from citizens against their consent to pay for

- military

- roads

- primary education

- secondary education

- criminal justice system

- research

Each and every one of those could in theory run entirely on a voluntary basis and has through history been doing so here and there from time to time.

[wavefunction]

>Each and every one of those could in theory

I prefer to stick with what works in practice, even if it's imperfect.

[AsyncAwait]

Agreed and it seems to me that "free-market healthcare" doesn't work well in practice.

[orf]

It's rather ridiculous to argue that point. None of those could or should be ran on a 'voluntry' basis in today's society.

Consider more rural areas, where there are less people to make these donations, and more roads are needed. Is it ok to say "pay for your own roads" when it unfairly shoulders them with the largest burden? It will end up with lower income rural areas having crappy or no roads. Same for all the others you listed, bar military. Also, who pays for the highways?

Having a justice system depend on donations from the populace is kind of a huge issue with impartiality.

Fyi, England used to effectively do what you suggest pre ~1700. It didn't work out well from a justice, education or infrastructure angle until the state got involved.

[flexie]

I don't suggest that. I think it would be silly not to cover those items through taxes. My post is an answer to the guy above who suggests that healthcare shouldn't be paid by taxes because that's not voluntary. Then I point out that with the same reasoning you could argue that primary education or secondary education shouldn't be paid through taxes.

I think it works very well to pay all those things through taxes.

[pgeorgi]

> Fyi, England used to effectively do what you suggest pre ~1700. It didn't work out well from a justice, education or infrastructure angle until the state got involved.

Same can be said about health care, at least in countries that (unlike Post-Thatcher UK) don't actively try to ruin their public health system.

[AsyncAwait]

> the counter-argument would be that state-sponsored coverage involves taking money from people without their consent (taxes)

I hate this argument, taxes are a fact of life in society, you're going to pay them and the only question is where are they being spent. If instead of spending so much on the military, some of that budget was spent on healthcare, than maybe there wouldn't even be a need for higher taxes.

But instead of lobbying for their taxes being spent appropriately at home, many in the US seem happy with going to sovereign countries instead of taking care of their own citizens.

There never seems to be a concern if you have money for the next invasion, but when it comes to healthcare or education, where's the money going to come from? (To be fair, it's not just the US that has this problem, but it is certainly one of the worst examples.)

[MindOfAllDogs]

The problem with charity is that no one will think they need to give money to it if no one else gives it money. Also, people don't necessarily feel an obligation to pay anything whereas taxes are enforced by a government and regardless at this point pretty much anything is more efficient than US healthcare

[mempko]

This is plain wrong. At the federal level I in the USA, taxes are not used to pay for anything. Federal government spends first and then collects taxes. If you haven't noticed, the government ran a deficit for the good part of the last 150 years with no issue. In fact the government MUST run a deficit if we want our economy to grow, or even stay out of recession/depression.

[forapurpose]

I fully consent to paying my taxes, even when the money goes to things that I don't want my government to do. Everyone consents to the rules of democracy: Debate it, take a vote, majority wins. Sometimes I'll win, sometimes I'll lose, but I fully support the outcome every time (even if when I'm trying to change it for next time).

[pitaj]

Not everybody consents to those rules. The founding fathers thought those rules were fundamentally broken which is why they encoded a stringent restrictive constitution including checks and balances and the bill of rights.

[simonh]

The founding fathers thought the rules of democracy were fundamentally broken? Isn't the Constitution and Bill of Rights precisely a set of rules for democracy?

[pitaj]

Yes, they did. Based on what happened in Greece, Rome, etc.

[wildrhythms]

In what way do you think the Bill of Rights is restrictive?

[pitaj]

It restricts the power of the government to do things it otherwise would have the power to do.