Now that our season is over...

[KeithK]

Keith, you're ignoring the main reason for this part of the legislation. It's a classic free-rider problem. Insurance is all about pooling resources to protect against risk. If people are "free" to choose any and all insurance, they're "free" play the odds while they're low risk, thereby making the cost to those of higher risk unaffordable. It's hard to see how this is an optimal solution in any way, particularly since international comparative data indicate much higher benefit/cost ratios associated with single-payer, universal systems.

It's free-rider only insofar as we guarantee treatment to those who cannot pay for it. If I choose not to buy insurance and can't pay my medical bills then my medical treatment should stop, except when the providers are will to provide it pro bono. If 'm a twnetysomething professionalwho chooses to take the risk and not buy insurance then I should face the potential financial ruin if my bet goes bad.

For the insurer insurance is about poling risk. For the insuree it's about a cost-benefit analysis based on my situation. Now the two are related insofar as the polling is the only reason insurers can afford to provide the service. But that's just a matter of cost. From an individual perspective I don't have to care that my refusal to buy insurance makes your remiums go up. (And in point of fact, the older, sicker cohorts in this country on average have more accumulated wealth to pay for health care anyway.)

Furthermore, there's freedom to act as an individual and freedom to act collectively. Are you assuming the former trumps the latter? If so, why?

Freedom to act collectively?  I consider that a contradiction in terms. More specifically, you are free to act in concert with whoever you please - that's freedom of association. But when you "collectively" force me to act in concert with you you have have taken away my freedom. So yes, individual freedom trump "collective".

We are not talking about a Pareto optimum here, either way. (It always amazes me how a a situation with extraordinarily rare conditions drives so much economic policy debates.) One person's "choice" to not have to purchase insurance necessarily impinges on another's "choice" to have universal health insurance. If you were allowed under the new bill to choose not to have to buy health insurance, how much would you be willing to pay in side-payments to everyone (even just on this list) who want both to have insurance for themselves and to know that you won't show up unconscious at an emergency room somewhere and receive high-cost treatment at the expense of everyone else (i.e. public expense)?

From my perspective you misunderstand what freedom is.  There is no right to universal health coverage, so I am not impinging on anyone's freedom by opposing it.  I do believe there are certain inherent rights regarding property ownership and if you force me to spend some of my property (money) on a product that I don't want then you are impinging on my rights.

[KeithK]

Saying "you don't have to buy the product, you can just pay the tax" is ridiculou. I could similarly say "I don't have to pay my taxes, I can just go to jail... If the tax/fine is less than the cost of insurance premiums then the "rational" behavior is not to buy insurance until you need it (if they can't refuse you).  If it's more than the cost of premiums then it's forcing you to buy the product - see above.

I do understand that some young people will get sick unexpectedly. If they have taken the risk of not buying insurance then they may be in big trouble.  But a necessary part of freedom is being able to make incorrect decisions. I value freedom very highly. Just because I think a lot of people make dumb life decisions doesn't mean that I have the right or should he the authority to stop them from making them.

Some argue that it's not an individual decision because by refusing to buy insurance you raise costs for others.  If you follow this line of argument then there is absolutely no limit to government action. This is a BAD thing (assuming you value individual liberty at all.)

I don't believ that costs will be lower this way. I'm not willing towait 20 years to find out before passing judgement.

[Roy 82]

Well, I have to respond to this, because that's not what I said. I didn't say anything about leaving if you don't like it. I'm not that kind of person and hope that you would be able to see the difference in what I wrote. "go find that society and live there. I don't think you'll be moving soon." Meaning, I don't think you'll leave because that society doesn't exist and I doubt it ever will. OK?

While I do grok the subtle difference between the two sentiments, in practical terms they amount to the same thing because the implication is that I will never have the freedom to create such a society with like-minded folks.  In a world in which every scrap of land is owned by a government (and if you dispute this, try not paying your property taxes and find out who really owns the land), this is a very difficult proposition without a change in attitude away from centralization.

Why shouldn't land be owned by society at large? With the possible exception of landfills, it's not as if anyone makes the land. You're assuming private property rights to argue for private property rights. This is a circular argument. You have to establish the desirability of private property not only in land but also land value independently first.

Both Henry George and U.S. housing policy (which deliberately makes private home ownership advantageous) are useful starting points for examining your statement.

Also, BTW, property taxes in the U.S. are usually on the combined value of land and structure, whereas George would have it almost entirely on land. So isn't your argument really that anything but a flat tax per head is confiscatory? And, isn't one of the the big flaws in this kind of tax the underlying assumption that individuals obtain wealth independently of society at large?

Lastly, what does centralization have to do with it? Property taxes are about the most decentralized form of taxes we have.

I think that the question of true ownership of land involves a lot that is up for discussion. If you trace the ownership of most land in the US back far enough then it was probably obtained at gunpoint by settlers in collaboration with the government (or previous governments or crowns) or doled out by the government (160 acres and a mule).

I thought that it was kind of cool that the Vancouver Olympics opening and closing ceremonies thanked the "First Nations" for the use of their land. Of course, over the millennia there have been many tribal wars and so even the onwership of land by specific tribes is questionable.

I don't have any answers here but the notion of "property rights" begs a deeper discussion.

[Rosey]

Why shouldn't land be owned by society at large?

Because for all but the last 0.1% of recorded human history, homesteading was an accepted way of asserting a first claim to property.  This only stopped in the last 100 years because the free land basically ran out.  So now it's okay to reappropriate all land and distribute it out according to the will of the majority?

Both Henry George and U.S. housing policy (which deliberately makes private home ownership advantageous) are useful starting points for examining your statement.

I am familiar with Henry George.  Ludwig von Mises' "Human Action" is a good place for you to start.

Also, BTW, property taxes in the U.S. are usually on the combined value of land and structure, whereas George would have it almost entirely on land. So isn't your argument really that anything but a flat tax per head is confiscatory?

Yes: if we are going to admit taxes as a valid way of financing public goods, a head tax is the only tax I'd consider equitable.

And, isn't one of the the big flaws in this kind of tax the underlying assumption that individuals obtain wealth independently of society at large?

Another straw man.  Individuals in a free market obtain wealth through voluntary trade.  "Society at large" has no claim to the benefits accrued by third parties involved in such an exchange.

Lastly, what does centralization have to do with it? Property taxes are about the most decentralized form of taxes we have.

Centralization means that rules become uniform across a much wider territory, making competition between sets of rules impractical.  The snarky comment about property taxes was just an aside, not part of the main point, and hence in parentheses.

[KeithK]

I don't have any answers here but the notion of "property rights" begs a deeper discussion.

I saw you reach for that bucket of popcorn...

[Rosey]

I don't have any answers here but the notion of "property rights" begs a deeper discussion.

I saw you reach for that bucket of popcorn...

I'm knee deep in mine. ::popcorn::

Got it at Starbucks.

[mnagowski]

Saying "you don't have to buy the product, you can just pay the tax" is ridiculou. I could similarly say "I don't have to pay my taxes, I can just go to jail... If the tax/fine is less than the cost of insurance premiums then the "rational" behavior is not to buy insurance until you need it (if they can't refuse you).  If it's more than the cost of premiums then it's forcing you to buy the product - see above.

You can say the same thing about Social Security or asbestos regulations, both of which are taxes, implicit or explicit. Nobody said you had to like them. But you have agreed to living under the law of the land.

I do understand that some young people will get sick unexpectedly. If they have taken the risk of not buying insurance then they may be in big trouble.  But a necessary part of freedom is being able to make incorrect decisions. I value freedom very highly. Just because I think a lot of people make dumb life decisions doesn't mean that I have the right or should he the authority to stop them from making them.

Some argue that it's not an individual decision because by refusing to buy insurance you raise costs for others.  If you follow this line of argument then there is absolutely no limit to government action. This is a BAD thing (assuming you value individual liberty at all.)

You're right. There is no limit to potential government action. We have seen just how poorly this can result in right-wing Italy and left-wing Russia. But, thankfully, in this country, we have something called the Constitution and a system that allows us to come to some sort of agreement on how we would like to govern ourselves based on our collective tastes and preferences.

What I'm really having trouble with is your insistence on 'freedom' without providing a clear definition of what it is and what it can be used for. You seem very keen on property rights, but it is unclear to me that you have thought of any other rights or freedoms that living beings might aspire to have. You can try reading Issiah Berlin, Henry George, or Kwame Appiah.

Just exactly what have people in Canada or Britain or Denmark lost with 'less' freedom? Better health outcomes? (No.) Higher quality of life? (No.) Longer life expectancy? (No.) Higher levels of civic involvement? (No.) Stable family life? (No.) Lower social mobility? (No.) Inability to travel or freely associate with others? (No.) Or an extra plasma television in their bedroom? (Possibly yes, although for some reason the European states have cell phone service that is decades ahead of the U.S. But I suppose that is the liberal's fault as well.)

But in America, I know that a lot of people have lost their health and their lives because of your ill-defined notion of freedom.

I don't believ that costs will be lower this way. I'm not willing towait 20 years to find out before passing judgement.

That's a really fantastic argument. Filled with facts and reason (and typos). I have hundreds of people who have studied the issue for decades on my side. Can you at least agree that the majority has spoken and health care reform is legal?

[mnagowski]

Why shouldn't land be owned by society at large?

Because for all but the last 0.1% of recorded human history, homesteading was an accepted way of asserting a first claim to property.  This only stopped in the last 100 years because the free land basically ran out.  So now it's okay to reappropriate all land and distribute it out according to the will of the majority?

For all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

EDIT: I suppose it still is an acceptable form of behavior by some. But that still doesn't mean it's okay.

[Rosey]

That's a really fantastic argument. Filled with facts and reason (and typos). I have hundreds of people who have studied the issue for decades on my side. Can you at least agree that the majority has spoken and health care reform is legal?

LOL.  Yes, tyranny of the majority does carry the day... at least until the economics of the situation assert themselves.  That's where the popcorn comes in. ::popcorn::

Keith: When someone gets frustrated enough to post an "I'm right and you're wrong"-type response full of fallacies (multiple instances of appeals to authority in this case), you know you have won as much as you can and should move on.

[Rosey]

For all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

Mmmmkay.  I suspect that's not really true, since the people raped/pillaged were likely involuntary parties.  But thanks for playing.

Can you just come right out and call me and/or Keith a Nazi?  At least then we could Godwin the thread and save us all from more of your emotional invective and logical fallacies.

[mnagowski]

For all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

Mmmmkay.  I suspect that's not really true, since the people raped/pillaged were likely involuntary parties.  But thanks for playing.

Can you just come right out and call me and/or Keith a Nazi?  At least then we could Godwin the thread and save us all from more of your emotional invective and logical fallacies.

Point out one of my logical fallacies. Just one.

[Rosey]

For all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

Mmmmkay.  I suspect that's not really true, since the people raped/pillaged were likely involuntary parties.  But thanks for playing.

Can you just come right out and call me and/or Keith a Nazi?  At least then we could Godwin the thread and save us all from more of your emotional invective and logical fallacies.

Point out one of my logical fallacies. Just one.

I'll give you two:

For all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights.

This is either:
Assuming false: you can prove anything if you assume false.
Straw man: restating someone's (potentially valid) argument as something else that is very easy to refute.

You seem very keen on property rights, but it is unclear to me that you have thought of any other rights or freedoms that living beings might aspire to have. You can try reading Issiah Berlin, Henry George, or Kwame Appiah.

Appeal to authority: assuming Keith doesn't understand what freedom is and then dazzling him with a bunch of names of people who (obviously) know better than he does.

I'm sure I can find more.  Would you like me to?

[mnagowski]

For all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

Mmmmkay.  I suspect that's not really true, since the people raped/pillaged were likely involuntary parties.  But thanks for playing.

Can you just come right out and call me and/or Keith a Nazi?  At least then we could Godwin the thread and save us all from more of your emotional invective and logical fallacies.

Point out one of my logical fallacies. Just one.

I'll give you two:

For all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights.

This is either:
Assuming false: you can prove anything if you assume false.
Straw man: restating someone's (potentially valid) argument as something else that is very easy to refute.

You seem very keen on property rights, but it is unclear to me that you have thought of any other rights or freedoms that living beings might aspire to have. You can try reading Issiah Berlin, Henry George, or Kwame Appiah.

Appeal to authority: assuming Keith doesn't understand what freedom is and then dazzling him with a bunch of names of people who (obviously) know better than he does.

I'm sure I can find more.  Would you like me to?

Those aren't fallacies, Kyle. They are rhetorical tools. Fallacies would have required there to be something incorrect in my logic.

In the first, I used a counterfactual to suggest that your argument for property rights (homesteading is an acceptable form of allocating property rights because it is a historical practice) didn't pass the sniff test because other historical practices for assigning property rights don't exactly pass the sniff test either.

If you want to go deeper into the argument, you later suggested that homesteading is okay because it happens between two consenting parties. But that's not exactly true. I never consented to property that was obtained via homesteading before I was born. And back in the days prior to the development of civilization, my ancestors certainly didn't agree to the land usurped by your ancestors, or vice versa.

Now, what did happen 230 years ago was that some of the forefathers of this country agreed to a basic set of principles upon which this country could be governed and in which decisions could be made by the majority with ample safeguards to protect the interests of the minority. And we've done a somewhat decent job in living up to their promise.

In the second, I didn't appeal to authority. I asked him to consider an opposing perspective when it was clear that he had not done so. He seemed quite surprised that there are competing definitions of freedom and property rights out there. I suggested places where he could see that minds differ.

Now are you going to keep on whining about my emotional appeals and egging us on to invoke the names of totalitarian dictators or are you actually going to engage in a conversation?

[Rosey]

In the first, I used a counterfactual to suggest that your argument for property rights (homesteading is an acceptable form of allocating property rights because it is a historical practice) didn't pass the sniff test because other historical practices for assigning property rights don't exactly pass the sniff test either.

Funny, "sniff test" doesn't appear in my list of valid arguments.

If you want to go deeper into the argument, you later suggested that homesteading is okay because it happens between two consenting parties.

Where did I say that?  Homesteading is something that one does with unclaimed land.  There is no other party, which is why it's primary land acquisition.

And back in the days prior to the development of civilization, my ancestors certainly didn't agree to the land usurped by your ancestors, or vice versa.

The point is that homesteading allows one to transform unclaimed land plus labor into a claim of ownership.  It's not sufficient to simply land on the moon and say, "All of this is mine!"  But it should be okay for one to set up a mine on the moon and claim the land around the mine.

Now, what did happen 230 years ago was that some of the forefathers of this country agreed to a basic set of principles upon which this country could be governed and in which decisions could be made by the majority with ample safeguards to protect the interests of the minority. And we've done a somewhat decent job in living up to their promise.

First of all, I don't think this has worked out particularly well: the Constitution is pretty well meaningless these days, as it means whatever nine people in black robes say so rather than what the text plainly says.

Second of all, I don't see what this has to do with the rest of the discussion.

In the second, I didn't appeal to authority. I asked him to consider an opposing perspective when it was clear that he had not done so.

I read it as, "You are obviously not qualified to have this discussion because you don't understand what all these other people you've never heard of say about freedom."  Whether or not you intended it that way, that's the way I interpreted it, especially in light of your final statement in that post.  Having quite extreme views, I see this style of argument quite frequently from people who think democracy and liberty are equivalent or even related concepts.

Now are you going to keep on whining about my emotional appeals and egging us on to invoke the names of totalitarian dictators or are you actually going to engage in a conversation?

Thankfully, I know the limits of my patience.  Having a life, I am going to go back to living it. :-)

[ugarte]

...the Constitution is pretty well meaningless these days, as it means whatever nine people in black robes say so rather than what the text plainly says...

If only it were ever so simple as plain language interpretation.