Will physicians be taxed out the a** if Bernie Sanders is president?

[nyxassassin]

I meant where private property became king

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

Can you cite where this right comes from?

Are you implying that men/women don't have a right to not be murdered randomly?

 

[22031 Alum]

So you aren't a hard core absolutist, you just find difference in positive vs negative immoral acts. By that I mean, you see a difference between a man with excess taking a child's food and watching him starve, vs a man with excess finding a starving child and refusing to feed them. To me as a consequentialist, these acts are equally heinous as they both result in a killed child with no/meaningless gain for the man. To you however the first act could be met with death, while the latter should be tolerated by the government?


I'm interesting in probing the blend of moral codes he has going, it's way past "how would you vote" or anything else realistic at this point!

I wouldn't even call it a blend of moral codes. It seems pretty hardline "property > life." Protecting life is only the goal if nobody else's property is threatened. So shooting a murderer to stop him is fine, using public funds to prevent children from starving is not. Not much more to probe.

 

[Gandyy]

This thread is getting pretty off track. Bernie Sanders -------> Justifiable Homicide.

 

[nyxassassin]

Why did everyone think I was asking about life, guess I have to quote better.

 

[efle]

Are you implying that men/women don't have a right to not be murdered randomly?

Perhaps only as much right as an orphan child has to be fed? Not everyone sees a difference in positive/negative actions that result in the same outcomes.

 

[ngc 2170]

I don't have a right to anyone's earnings or property, regardless of how bad I need it

Taxation is in the constitution, as is the right to property. Absent all laws, is the right to property real? (I admit that becomes more of a question of morals than laws.)

Perhaps the right to property is contingent upon accepting the socially determined laws, including taxes here in the U.S. Therefore taxation is not theft (taking something unlawfully), but part of a contract through which you may possess property.

 

[deleted480308]

Taxation is in the constitution, as is the right to property. Absent all laws, is the right to property real? (I admit that becomes more of a question of morals than laws.)

Perhaps the right to property is contingent upon accepting the socially determined laws, including taxes here in the U.S. Therefore taxation is not theft (taking something unlawfully), but part of a contract through which you may possess property.

It is a question of morals, we agree on that

 

[efle]

It is a question of morals, we agree on that

You never did clarify the moral difference between a man with unending excess taking the kids food vs refusing to feed them. Are they not the same evil outcome from action vs inaction? Why should only the latter case be allowed to occur by government?

 

[deleted480308]

You never did clarify the moral difference between a man with unending excess taking the kids food vs refusing to feed them. Are they not the same evil outcome from action vs inaction? Why should only the latter case be allowed to occur by government?

Because my hunger doesn't grant me rights to your food, regardless of my age. No amount of my need grants me rights to take from you without your permission. That's why you aren't allowed to just walk in and steal food from a restaurant whenever they are hungry and hotels can throw you out even when it's cold. None of that changes just because the person being stolen from has more than you have deemed (through some arbitrary means) they need...it's irrelevant how much they have, it's theirs

 

[nyxassassin]

Because my hunger doesn't grant me rights to your food, regardless of my age. No amount of my need grants me rights to take from you without your permission. That's why you aren't allowed to just walk in and steal food from a restaurant whenever they are hungry and hotels can throw you out even when it's cold. None of that changes just because the person being stolen from has more than you have deemed (through some arbitrary means) they need...it's irrelevant how much they have, it's theirs

Exactly, you have no right to others food, but the government might (government can take contraband food etc. specifically USDA). The government is different than an individual. The government can make value decisions for better or for worse in our current system.

 

[deleted480308]

Exactly, you have no right to others food, but the government might (government can take contraband food etc. specifically USDA). The government is different than an individual. The government can make value decisions for better or for worse in our current system.

And a man who is stronger than you can beat you to death with his bare hands...that doesn't mean he has the right to do so. The government is no different in this manner...

 

[22031 Alum]

And a man who is stronger than you can beat you to death with his bare hands...that doesn't mean he has the right to do so. The government is no different in this manner...

You still have yet to have the cojones to flat out say you don't care if innocent kids die so long as nobody's property is threatened. Despite implying it over and over with all your talk of government theft and rights and so on. I am absolutely fascinated by both your stance and your commitment to avoid declaring it for what it is.

Edit-- "You don't care" may be unfair. Maybe you care, but think it's a necessary consequence of protecting the supreme right of property.

 

[efle]

Because my hunger doesn't grant me rights to your food, regardless of my age. No amount of my need grants me rights to take from you without your permission. That's why you aren't allowed to just walk in and steal food from a restaurant whenever they are hungry and hotels can throw you out even when it's cold. None of that changes just because the person being stolen from has more than you have deemed (through some arbitrary means) they need...it's irrelevant how much they have, it's theirs

In our current system those things are only morally sound because the person has alternative means to receive food and shelter (government aid). If the alternative to stealing excess food was starving to death, you then would have moral grounds to steal that food.

But were just getting circular again !

 

[el_duderino]

Because my hunger doesn't grant me rights to your food

It does if I'm not a monster, assuming it's done in a fair and legal way.

This is the 21st century in the world's most prosperous nation. Hunger DOES grant you rights to a helping hand from the rest of society. That's because we are, collectively, not monsters, although some of us are pushing very hard for us to be exactly that.

 

[deleted480308]

It does if I'm not a monster, assuming it's done in a fair and legal way.

This is the 21st century in the world's most prosperous nation. Hunger DOES grant you rights to a helping hand from the rest of society. That's because we are, collectively, not monsters, although some of us are pushing very hard for us to be exactly that.

If a nation must be wealthy for the "right" to exist, it isn't a right

 

[el_duderino]

If a nation must be wealthy for the "right" to exist, it isn't a right

It is a human right, but unfortunately it's one that can't be protected for most people on this planet right now.

The US, though? We have no excuse. We're just, collectively, a-holes.

 

[deleted480308]

It is a human right, but unfortunately it's one that can't be protected for most people on this planet right now.

The US, though? We have no excuse. We're just, collectively, a-holes.

There is a large difference between you being a jerk if you don't help the poor and thinking the poor have a right to take your stuff by force...do you see that difference?

 

[mmgggee1]

Deleted

 

[resiroth]

For doctors...yes. For the rich, no. Here's a good example about how the rich completely and repeatedly skirt the law:

Despite being bankrupt he lived in a 6 million dollar mansion for 20 years.


Finally if you want to hit the rich where it hurts tie the capital gains rate to assets...but to do that of course is easier said than done. The millionaire above technically had no "assets".

It's a really tough situation, could be mitigated by eliminating or at least drastically increasing transparency with trusts and conglomerates.


Side note: Dan bilzerian (that Instagram guy) is the guy's son. Dan may or may not be laundering money for his dad by "playing poker". And his trust fund certainly comes from money that his dad stole. Good times.

 

[NicMouse64]

That is not at all government's job. Your job is to pay your federal tax bill. If you have a personal loan for your med school tuition then that is your problem. You'll just take longer to pay it off. Your other personal expenses is not the govt's business.

I can guarantee I've researched this stuff more than you. Being less homogeneous has to do with overall healthcare costs which any healthcare system has to take into consideration, not anything to do with race. You need to do some more reading. And decreased reimbursement to hospitals does affect salaries. Also Bernie Sanders only wants increased reimbursement to primary care as he has said specialists are overpaid.

Yes so increasing the salaries of primary care...That'd be about what specialists make. Is that such a terrible apocalpytic socialist thing to do?

 

[ngc 2170]

It is a question of morals, we agree on that

Absolutely. My position, which I am not sure you share, is that rights are based on moral grounds, and therefore equally arbitrary as laws. They are simply basic laws that society globally has set. (Despite this, not all countries respect their existence.)

If society sets what is moral, and so what constitutes a right, then the right to property contingent on forfeiture to taxes, for example, is no more right or wrong than the absolute right to property. It's open to interpretation.

And a man who is stronger than you can beat you to death with his bare hands...that doesn't mean he has the right to do so. The government is no different in this manner...

This is similarly ambiguous. The law tells us he has no right. But if rights change or are differently interpreted, he may very well claim the right. This is why society has had laws we now consider abhorrent, and others that were considered abhorrent but are now acceptable.

I am driving at the idea that your view of taxes as morally unsound theft is no more or less correct than others' views on this thread that taxes are moral means of helping the less fortunate. Whether your beliefs are seen as reasonable or heartless is up to personal values.

 

[Tommyguns89]

Bernie sanders is just an insurgent candidate. He will make life difficult for Clinton but won't get the nomination

I remember the same exact thing being said about Obama.

 

[ngc 2170]

Yes so increasing the salaries of primary care...That'd be about what specialists make. Is that such a terrible apocalpytic socialist thing to do?

How would that be done rationally? The way things are, tests and procedures are much better compensated and in more demand for the supply than clinical visits to primary care. But higher overhead too. How would we go about arbitrarily assigning higher payments to primary care?

 

[deleted480308]

Absolutely. My position, which I am not sure you share, is that rights are based on moral grounds, and therefore equally arbitrary as laws. They are simply basic laws that society globally has set. (Despite this, not all countries respect their existence.)

If society sets what is moral, and so what constitutes a right, then the right to property contingent on forfeiture to taxes, for example, is no more right or wrong than the absolute right to property. It's open to interpretation.



This is similarly ambiguous. The law tells us he has no right. But if rights change or are differently interpreted, he may very well claim the right. This is why society has had laws we now consider abhorrent, and others that were considered abhorrent but are now acceptable.

I am driving at the idea that your view of taxes as morally unsound theft is no more or less correct than others' views on this thread that taxes are moral means of helping the less fortunate. Whether your beliefs are seen as reasonable or heartless is up to personal values.

I would argue that morality is immune to our opinion...right and wrong simply "is". Slavery was wrong even when people didn't think it was wrong.

 

[ngc 2170]

I would argue that morality is immune to our opinion...right and wrong simply "is". Slavery was wrong even when people didn't think it was wrong.

This is where we differ. You view taxation and slavery as inherently wrong. I could say killing a fly, eating meat, or being gay are inherently wrong (for discussion purposes only; I think all three are fine). There are cultures and countries in which views on such matters of "right/wrong" are entirely opposite ours.

Just as you say slavery always is and was wrong, one may say taking from a rich man to stave off starvation is, was, and always will be right. Arguing who is correct on the subject is meaningless.

I think the variation in views about the morality of many actions supports the idea that right and wrong are not immune, but wholly created by our opinions.

 

[deleted480308]

This is where we differ. You view taxation and slavery as inherently wrong. I could say killing a fly, eating meat, or being gay are inherently wrong (for discussion purposes only; I think all three are fine). There are cultures and countries in which views on such matters of "right/wrong" are entirely opposite ours.

I think the variation in views about the morality of many actions supports the view that right and wrong as not immune, but wholly created by our opinions.

To say that rape wouldn't be wrong in a society that had no problem with it is ridiculous...

 

[ngc 2170]

To say that rape wouldn't be wrong in a society that had no problem with it is ridiculous...

Says who? This is a societal agreement nearly — nearly — universally shared. (Again for discussion purposes.)

I will equally say that denying a starving child food via taxes is wrong, even if society were to say it is not wrong. "Ridiculous" means nothing.

Where does the moral value of anything reside?

 

[deleted480308]

Says who? This is a societal agreement nearly — nearly — universally shared. (Again for discussion purposes.)

I will equally say that denying a starving child food via taxes is wrong, even if society says it is not wrong. "Ridiculous" means nothing.

Where does the moral value of anything reside?

Right and wrong come from our creator. Without objective right and wrong there can be no right and wrong...just impulses that don't seperate us from the animals

 

[Gandyy]

This thread has turned into a disaster.

SB247 is now talking about a creator, and comparing right and wrong to animal impulses folks.

Stay Tuned....

 

[ngc 2170]

Right and wrong come from our creator. Without objective right and wrong there can be no right and wrong...just impulses that don't seperate us from the animals

I completely disagree. Further, there is no resolution to the disagreement, because it is based on fundamental views on reality. I believe the logic that "existence of a creator" necessitates "taxes are immoral" is ludicrous.

This is why you will encounter so much resistance from those who do not share your strongly held opinions on issues such as taxes.

 

[M.MD]

This thread has turned into a disaster.

SB247 is now talking about a creator, and comparing right and wrong to animal impulses folks.

Stay Tuned....

Great contribution.

 

[Tommyguns89]

Right and wrong come from our creator. Without objective right and wrong there can be no right and wrong...just impulses that don't seperate us from the animals

There is objective right and wrong. As humans our ability to determine right and wrong is limited in some of the trickier cases, example being the starving child who has to either steal or die. That doesnt mean that there isnt a right and wrong answer. Objective morality doesnt have to come from a creator though. Human experience can determine morality. Im kinda surprised you implied otherwise since being a member of this this forum I am reasonably sure you are at least open to the possibility that there is no creator.

 

[Gandyy]

Great contribution.

Lighthearted Humor > Fanning the Flames

 

[ngc 2170]

As humans our ability to determine right and wrong is limited in some of the trickier cases, example being the starving child who has to either steal or die. That doesnt mean that there isnt a right and wrong answer.

You think there is a right and a wrong answer to that? I don't know... I think much of life consists of shades of gray, that situation included.

 

[Tommyguns89]

You think there is a right and a wrong answer to that? I don't know... I think much of life consists of shades of gray, that situation included.

I agree that it appears as shades of gray to pretty much everyone, myself included. However I think there is an objective right and wrong. Or maybe an objective "better" and "worse" for a situation like this. The problem is that the determine what is "better" would require knowing the long term results of each. What are the long term results of children being allowed to steal if they have a "good" reason and what are all of the indirect consequences? How do they compare to the same of the other choice? Maybe there are other options that dont require hungry kids to steal, which in all likelihood is the "right" option. The problem with that is that those "other options" might indirectly bring moral dilemmas of their own. Its almost like Jaime Lannister's speech on vows. What do you do when they conflict? Who has the processing power to be able to select the best possible combination of actions to lead to the best outcomes? The difficulty with morality especially in the context of politics is that it doesnt exist in a vacuum. Everything is indirectly impacts everything else. For simple questions this doesnt matter much, but for the trickier ones I certainly dont have the processing power to come up with the answer. I do however believe there is one, or rather a set of answers that agree with eachother and produce the best possible outcome. I will never know that set though.

This is all assuming that morality comes from human experience though. If you derive morality from a creator it is quite simple, whatever the creator says goes.

 

[NicMouse64]

How would that be done rationally? The way things are, tests and procedures are much better compensated and in more demand for the supply than clinical visits to primary care. But higher overhead too. How would we go about arbitrarily assigning higher payments to primary care?

That's exactly the point, theoretically and in practice primary care decreases overall healthcare spending. Physicians would be paid on salary, with certain requirements of patient volume, etc.

 

[22031 Alum]

Right and wrong come from our creator.

I am more fascinated with you by the minute. You honestly believe that if individuals don't choose to help the poor at a sufficient level, your creator is cool with innocents suffering and dying, for the sake of those individuals' property rights??

 

[ngc 2170]

I agree that it appears as shades of gray to pretty much everyone, myself included. However I think there is an objective right and wrong. Or maybe an objective "better" and "worse" for a situation like this. The problem is that the determine what is "better" would require knowing the long term results of each. What are the long term results of children being allowed to steal if they have a "good" reason and what are all of the indirect consequences? How do they compare to the same of the other choice? Maybe there are other options that dont require hungry kids to steal, which in all likelihood is the "right" option. The problem with that is that those "other options" might indirectly bring moral dilemmas of their own. Its almost like Jaime Lannister's speech on vows. What do you do when they conflict? Who has the processing power to be able to select the best possible combination of actions to lead to the best outcomes? The difficulty with morality especially in the context of politics is that it doesnt exist in a vacuum. Everything is indirectly impacts everything else. For simple questions this doesnt matter much, but for the trickier ones I certainly dont have the processing power to come up with the answer. I do however believe there is one, or rather a set of answers that agree with eachother and produce the best possible outcome. I will never know that set though.

This is all assuming that morality comes from human experience though. If you derive morality from a creator it is quite simple, whatever the creator says goes.

I heard a fascinating discussion on this topic on NPR last winter. The discussion was about whether or not a perfect, emotionless AI could objectively decide the answer to every situation. Conclusion? Probably not. How would it decide whether to eat a muffin or a bagel? Etc. There are many situations that you can't simply decide by weighing up pros and cons — they're too subjective!

 

[mmgggee1]

Absolutely. My position, which I am not sure you share, is that rights are based on moral grounds, and therefore equally arbitrary as laws. They are simply basic laws that society globally has set. (Despite this, not all countries respect their existence.)

If society sets what is moral, and so what constitutes a right, then the right to property contingent on forfeiture to taxes, for example, is no more right or wrong than the absolute right to property. It's open to interpretation.



This is similarly ambiguous. The law tells us he has no right. But if rights change or are differently interpreted, he may very well claim the right. This is why society has had laws we now consider abhorrent, and others that were considered abhorrent but are now acceptable.

I am driving at the idea that your view of taxes as morally unsound theft is no more or less correct than others' views on this thread that taxes are moral means of helping the less fortunate. Whether your beliefs are seen as reasonable or heartless is up to personal values.

This is so wrong on so many reasons in terms of society setting some global human rights based on universal morals. These morals, which btw I quite like and wish to be used to guide the society I personally live in, are not the only valid set of morals in existence. People 200 years ago would think your ideas and morals are insane and the same will be said for probably 50 years from now as well.

These morals are WESTERN morals and are no more correct and right than any other set of morals. It is fine to want your society to be governed by them as I do as well. But to say your morals are better and should apply universally ignoring all the differences in cultures, societies and beliefs around the world is not just ignorant but also fundamentally the cause of catastrophic moments in history such as colonialism in which us white, euro-centric individuals decided it was our job to correct and educate these backwards, barbaric people.

Just wanted to highlight this to you so maybe we could correct this dangerous type of egocentric thinking.

 

[deleted480308]

I am more fascinated with you by the minute. You honestly believe that if individuals don't choose to help the poor at a sufficient level, your creator is cool with innocents suffering and dying, for the sake of those individuals' property rights??

God quite clearly says stealing is wrong. He also mandated that his followers choose to be charitable, he never authorized them to steal to accomplish that charity.

 

[ngc 2170]

This is so wrong on so many reasons in terms of society setting some global human rights based on universal morals. These morals, which btw I quite like and wish to be used to guide the society I personally live in, are not the only valid set of morals in existence. People 200 years ago would think your ideas and morals are insane and the same will be said for probably 50 years from now as well.

These morals are WESTERN morals and are no more correct and right than any other set of morals. It is fine to want your society to be governed by them as I do as well. But to say your morals are better and should apply universally ignoring all the differences in cultures, societies and beliefs around the world is not just ignorant but also fundamentally the cause of catastrophic moments in history such as colonialism in which us white, euro-centric individuals decided it was our job to correct and educate these backwards, barbaric people.

Just wanted to highlight this to you so maybe we could correct this dangerous type of egocentric thinking.

Did you quote me by mistake? Because what you are saying aligns with what I was trying to express. I don't believe there are universal morals or that western beliefs should apply globally — quite the opposite. (Like you, though, I do feel certain aspects of western culture would be great if adopted globally.)

Edit: ah wait, I see what you're focusing on. I misspoke — I was referring in particular to the international declaration of human rights. My post made it seem I believe a small number of nations can speak for the global population and set the definition of what is moral and what rights are. That is not what I believe; my post did not make that clear.

 

[mmgggee1]

Did you quote me by mistake? Because what you are saying aligns with what I was trying to express. I don't believe there are universal morals or that western beliefs should apply globally — quite the opposite. (Like you, though, I do feel certain aspects of western culture would be great if adopted globally.)

Haha probably then. My bad, I think I read what you quoted and then responded to you by mistake. (I am on my phone right now so please excuse the technical mistake). Glad we agree though. Someone did say that society set global morals and I'll look to see who it is. My bad again.

 

[Tommyguns89]

I heard a fascinating discussion on this topic on NPR last winter. The discussion was about whether or not a perfect, emotionless AI could objectively decide the answer to every situation. Conclusion? Probably not. How would it decide whether to eat a muffin or a bagel? Etc. There are many situations that you can't simply decide by weighing up pros and cons — they're too subjective!

I dont get that example. Deciding to eat a muffin or bagel isnt a moral question.

 

[ngc 2170]

Haha probably then. My bad, I think I read what you quoted and then responded to you by mistake. (I am on my phone right now so please excuse the technical mistake). Glad we agree though. Someone did say that society set global morals and I'll look to see who it is. My bad again.

Yeah that was me — but my wording misrepresented my thoughts. You're right to critique the post as it was written.

I dont get that example. Deciding to eat a muffin or bagel isnt a moral question.

That's true. It's just an example of a scenario in which weighing all the factors wouldn't get you close to a "correct" answer. Kind of like the paradigmatic "trolley problem," which is a moral question. In other words, what factors are most valuable in calculating whether the child should steal or not? Maybe it is possible to calculate and come to a conclusion, but to my mind it seems impossible.

 

[Tommyguns89]

God quite clearly says stealing is wrong. He also mandated that his followers choose to be charitable, he never authorized them to steal to accomplish that charity.

So what do you say to people who dont believe God exists? Do you think those people are incapable of morality? And what would you do if you were somehow convinced God didnt exist? Just curious, no disrespect intended.

 

[22031 Alum]

God quite clearly says stealing is wrong. He also mandated that his followers choose to be charitable, he never authorized them to steal to accomplish that charity.

I don't believe taxes are stealing so I don't come to the conclusion that you do, but otherwise what you say is true. I personally don't find it acceptable for society as a whole to allow suffering and death because of individual failings- if the actions of people like you and me aren't enough, I think government has a role. I probably won't ever understand how you reconcile a God who says not to steal with a God who also says to take care of the least of us-- how you decided that not "stealing" is more important than alleviating suffering-- but that's why I'm not you, I guess.

 

[mmgggee1]

Yeah that was me — but my wording misrepresented my thoughts. You're right to critique the post as it was written.



That's true. It's just an example of a scenario in which weighing all the factors wouldn't get you close to a "correct" answer. Kind of like the paradigmatic "trolley problem," which is a moral question. In other words, what factors are most valuable in calculating whether the child should steal or not? Maybe it is possible to calculate and come to a conclusion, but to my mind it seems impossible.

No worries. Sorry about the intensity of my response though. I have been following this thread for a while and certain things have gotten under my skin. All the best though.

 

[Tommyguns89]

Yeah that was me — but my wording misrepresented my thoughts. You're right to critique the post as it was written.



That's true. It's just an example of a scenario in which weighing all the factors wouldn't get you close to a "correct" answer. Kind of like the paradigmatic "trolley problem," which is a moral question. In other words, what factors are most valuable in calculating whether the child should steal or not? Maybe it is possible to calculate and come to a conclusion, but to my mind it seems impossible.

Then we agree, I think. The key phrase though is "to my mind"(and this goes for my mind as well). That doesnt mean that the combination of "answers" doesnt exist though.

 

[ngc 2170]

No worries. Sorry about the intensity of my response though. I have been following this thread for a while and certain things have gotten under my skin. All the best though.

No apology needed — and that is understandable.

Then we agree, I think. The key phrase though is "to my mind"(and this goes for my mind as well). That doesnt mean that the combination of "answers" doesnt exist though.

Possibly. I have no idea how one would go about showing whether or not there is an answer though.
Is it 42?