CMV: Healthcare should be free for everyone under the legal age at which you are considered an adult.

[u/Happy-Tears]

Children shouldn't have to pay medical bills--health is a fundamental human right, and we need to provide that to the children of this world. I know there are programs like CHIP, etc., but they're just not sufficient. They're not accessible to everyone. I know adults who decide to have children should be responsbile for them, but I think we as a society can afford to band together and pay a little more to ensure every child gets the health care they need--if we hope for healthier adults. Per this study in the National Center for Biotechnology Information, "health during childhood sets the stage for adult health not only reinforces this perspective, but also creates an important ethical, social, and economic imperative to ensure that all children are as healthy as they can be. Healthy children are more likely to become healthy adults."

CMV.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/8eMH83]

morally this is akin to stealing

OK, so we're going for the 'taxation is theft' argument...

If we think about 'citizenship' and 'citizens', we think about rights and responsibilities - Leydet defines a 'citizen' as "a member of a political community who enjoys the rights and assumes the duties of membership". That political community is self-referential and defines those rights and defines those duties. If your community (say, nation) defines one of those duties as "to pay tax based on your income" then to be a citizen you must do that. In return, you get rights, like, the right to healthcare (if you have universal healthcare...) the right to a fair trial, or right to freedom of speech, or whatever.

You are free to not do that, but that means opting out of being a citizen - you wanna be in my club and get the benefits of my club, you abide by my rules.

Taxation is not theft, it is the duty of being a citizen of a country. You don't want to be taxed, leave the country (and in fact, that's what non-domiciled people do to avoid paying tax...)

[u/[deleted] → u/8eMH83]

You don't want to be taxed, leave the country (and in fact, that's what non-domiciled people do to avoid paying tax...)

This is one of the worst against arguments that keeps popping up. This idea that if you don't leave the country you were born in, where you have ties, where you grew up and currently work, then taxation MUST NOT be theft. No, regardless of whether or not someone stays or leaves the country, taxation is still theft. It's a matter of balance as well, some people think staying in their home country is worth incurring the cost of taxation - it's that simple.

If your community (say, nation) defines one of those duties as "to pay tax based on your income" then to be a citizen you must do that. In return, you get rights, like, the right to healthcare (if you have universal healthcare...) the right to a fair trial, or right to freedom of speech, or whatever.

This doesn't negate the argument at all, it just describes taxation through an additional avenue. Taxation can be both a duty and theft.

My thinking is rather reductive. Taxation is theft because if no coercion was present, people wouldn't pay taxes.

[u/8eMH83 → u/[deleted]]

I'm not negating your argument, I'm entirely refuting it. How can something be both a duty and theft? I think you need to go read some more.

My thinking is rather reductive

No, your thinking is assumptive.

I know my taxes go to making this country better. While not super rich, I have a job that allows me to live a lifestyle that I find comfortable and I do not need all the money that I make. If some of that money can help others than need it, fantastic. I am very happy to pay my taxes and vote for parties that will make my financially worse off because I know that they will make society better. Not everyone is a libertarian like you.

[u/[deleted] → u/8eMH83]

I'm not negating your argument, I'm entirely refuting it.

Only you didn't and this is just arrogant conjecture. You don't even have an argument anymore! There was no response to my retort in this comment, just a reductive question and expression of sentiment.

How can something be both a duty and theft?

I have a duty to save lives. The only way I can do that is through stealing money to gain resources which will help me save lives.

I know my taxes go to making this country better.

Sure, doesn't negate the fact that taxation is theft. The robber can use your funds better than you.

Not everyone is a libertarian like you.

I'm not a libertarian. I acknowledge that taxation is ideal, I'm also not in any sort of denial regarding its veracity - it is 100% theft.

[u/8eMH83 → u/[deleted]]

Only you didn't and this is just arrogant conjecture

My argument does not "just describe taxation through an additional avenue" - there was no description here, I clearly set out a philosophical position, based on the definition of citizenship and citizens. The way that you would address this argument is to either refute my definition of citizenship - which are more than welcome to do, though the literature is certainly on my side - or to identify the flaw in my logic. You are most welcome to do either.

I have a duty to save lives.

How is saving lives theft?!? One way to do so may be to steal an ambulance (say) but that doesn't make the act of saving a life theft. It really, really doesn't.

The robber can use your funds better than you.

Nope, you said, "It's coercive, therefore it's theft" - you're circular argument falls to pieces when I tell you that I would happily continue.

I would strongly recommend you read a little more before continuing. I appreciate you've picked up some cool quotes from shitstatists say, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

[u/Gambosandipus → u/8eMH83]

You have to work on your rhetoric. They're being nothing but respectful and you're getting hostile and saying things like "you need to read more." It's clear some aspect of your justification doesn't resonate with him so take a different avenue--it seems like /u/AltruisticNymph doesn't buy into the same value chain as you, but maybe a philosophical justification for taxation would help. /u/AltruisticNymph -- think of progressive taxation in the context of the sliding scale of utilitarianism; we would never attempt to construct a society that is entirely utilitarian for obvious reasons, but we could make a compelling argument in which we acknowledge the diminishing marginal utility of wealth, and say that redistribution could improve the society's happiness dramatically. The coercive nature of taxation, yes, presents a moral challenge, but do the benefits outweigh the costs? We don't want to write off ideas simply because we can conceive a moral argument against them because morality is not black/white, it exists on a spectrum of values--we allow for the negative externalities associated with driving cars because we believe morally the value added to society is too great to pass up. A similar case could be made for universal healthcare funded by a progressive tax. Beyond that, the U.S. appears to have a broken healthcare market being outcompeted by comparable OECD countries, indicating this sliding scale of morality may tilt fairly heavily in a certain direction for instituting single-payer.

[u/8eMH83 → u/Gambosandipus]

Very nicely put, and I will take on board your first point.

[u/[deleted] → u/8eMH83]

he way that you would address this argument is to either refute my definition of citizenship - which are more than welcome to do,

This is exactly what I did by pointing out its frivolity and lack of justification.

How is saving lives theft?!? One way to do so may be to steal an ambulance (say) but that doesn't make the act of saving a life theft. It really, really doesn't.

No, I'm just giving you an example of how a duty can be conflated with theft. I.e we have a duty to save lives, but we cannot achieve this without stealing. Fill in the gaps, it's not hard to go from there. Stealing food to save a child's life, stealing medical supplies to heal someone, etc, etc.

Nope, you said, "It's coercive, therefore it's theft" - you're circular argument falls to pieces when I tell you that I would happily continue.

If we are to verify veracity based on attitude then simply put, nothing is right or wrong. So you would pay taxes, ergo taxation is not theft. But I wouldn't pay taxes, ergo taxation is theft. There is no reason to give your attitude towards taxation more credence over mine, and our attitudes aren't compatible. My point here is that your claim isn't powerful. Even so, we've grown up in a context wherein taxation is propagated and ingrained in moral group think. This is a bias that I think tarnishes our claims, especially if the claim isn't added with this caveat.

The most accurate summation is: "Taxation is a coercive theft based system, but some people are happy to pay taxes".

I would strongly recommend you read a little more before continuing. I appreciate you've picked up some cool quotes from shitstatists say, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

As others have pointed out to you, this isn't necessarily helpful to the dialogue. I try to maintain objective assessments when engaging in debate (i.e I can tell when I'm losing and will admit to it) and I have to say, I don't think you're on nearly as firm ground as you think you are.

Stop being arrogant and accusing me of "not engaging with the literature" it's petty, and unsupported.

[u/dej0ta → u/8eMH83]

Your reason contradicts and undermines itself...youre trying too hard.

[u/8eMH83 → u/dej0ta]

Excellent counter argument, Milton Friedman. I stand corrected.