Originally posted by sh76No one has the right to demand such spending for a particular purpose? Isn't that what politics is about?
I mean that government can make the choice to tax and spend for a particular purpose. However, no one has the right to demand such. If, for example, the government chooses not to tax and spend for healthcare, no one's rights have been violated. They cannot sue the government for failing to provide healthcare. ergo, it is not a right.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSubsidizing housing for the poor further drives up the cost of housing that was already too high because of mortgage interest deductions, building restrictions, and depreciating the value of rental property.
Plenty of governments subsidize housing for the poor, public transport and guarantee minimum incomes. It's not that expensive.
Subsidizing public transport means well-paid, secure jobs for thousands of people who drive often sparsely-populated vehicles of all sizes.
Guaranteed minimum incomes ensure structural unemployment.
All of this "brilliant" government meddling is actually VERY expensive, KN!
Originally posted by spruce112358I am not in favour of subsidizing housing myself, simply insuring everyone has at least enough income to rent a small home is fine by me.
Subsidizing housing for the poor further drives up the cost of housing that was already too high because of mortgage interest deductions, building restrictions, and depreciating the value of rental property.
Subsidizing public transport means well-paid, secure jobs for thousands of people who drive often sparsely-populated vehicles of all sizes.
G ...[text shortened]... l unemployment.
All of this "brilliant" government meddling is actually VERY expensive, KN!
Subsidizing public transport improves mobility, which is beneficial to the economy. This benefit should be weighed against the cost of subsidizing, so whether or not it's a good idea should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Guaranteed minimum incomes, if not too high, improve social mobility which is good for the economy. On a side note, the guaranteed income here is $1000/mo for someone living alone; unemployment is about 4.2% according to Eurostat.
Originally posted by sh76'A right' may have been a poor choice of words. But in my view it should be treated the same as other basic services, like fire protection, that provide for all.
At best, that means that our current system is a bad idea and should be changed. It does not mean that anyone has a right to demand that healthcare be provided on a theory of individual rights.
Originally posted by FMFIf, by "demand" you mean petition the government to provide, then of course. That's freedom of speech. I mean that if it is not provided, the person is not entitled to it. For example, they could not successfully sue for it in a court of law.
No one has the right to demand such spending for a particular purpose? Isn't that what politics is about?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperOkay, fair enough.
'A right' may have been a poor choice of words. But in my view it should be treated the same as other basic services, like fire protection, that provide for all.
So, you're saying that government provided healthcare is a really good idea. That's a legitimate position, of course.
Originally posted by sh76You are the one who used the word "demand". So when you said "...there is no such thing as a "right" to stick your hand in someone else's pocket" you meant that you or I do not have the right to steal money from someone else but government can levy taxes? I'm trying to work out why you suddenly used the tabloid analogy. It doesn't gel with the rest of what you are saying.
If, by "demand" you mean petition the government to provide, then of course. That's freedom of speech. I mean that if it is not provided, the person is not entitled to it. For example, they could not successfully sue for it in a court of law.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFThe "demand" issue is just an issue of terminology. Among lawyers, the "right to demand" means the right to sue for something (and win) if it's not given to you, not the right to request something in strong terms. That's the sense in which I was using it.
You are the one who used the word "demand". So when you said "...there is no such thing as a "right" to stick your hand in someone else's pocket" you meant that you or I do not have the right to steal money from someone else but government can levy taxes? I'm trying to work out why you suddenly used the tabloid analogy. It doesn't gel with the rest of what you are saying.
I did not use the word "steal." "stick your hand in someone else's pocket" is not the same as steal. And "right" also has different meanings depending on the context. USAP has already conceded he used the word "right" inexactly, which essentially ended this debate. A "right" is something that you may do and that no one else, by definition, may take away from you (except, perhaps in compelling circumstances or as punishment for a crime, etc.)
Think No1's famous "natural rights." You have a natural right to privacy; you have a natural right to due process before you are sent to prison; you have a natural right to freedom of speech.* You do not have a natural right to have someone else give you stuff. That is what I said and that is what I meant.
* If you don't believe in natural rights, replace with moral rights or government afforded rights... it matters not.
Originally posted by sh76So the government has the right to stick its hand in people's pockets? Yes or no? Just to be clear.
I did not use the word "steal." "stick your hand in someone else's pocket" is not the same as steal. And "right" also has different meanings depending on the context.
Originally posted by sh76To be clear I'm A-OK with heathcare being deemed a right to our citizens. I'm more concerned with the end result, that literally nobody is turned away for basic healthcare. Whether it's a right or an agreed upon service is immateral to me.
The "demand" issue is just an issue of terminology. Among lawyers, the "right to demand" means the right to sue for something (and win) if it's not given to you, not the right to request something in strong terms. That's the sense in which I was using it.
I did not use the word "steal." "stick your hand in someone else's pocket" is not the same as steal. And ...[text shortened]... replace with moral rights or government afforded rights... it matters not.
Aside from the compelling statistics already provided, think about how much money that would save employers. Healthcare is an enormous cost foe each employee's benefits package. The saving would be seen in overall profits and/or employee salaries - which of course is taxed.