I have been mulling over this subject after seeing so much of political discussion revolving around this core ethical question.

It is part of many constitution debates. What are the rights of states(as a minority) versus federal? What is the status of religion with government? Should government be limited to what it can or can not do? If so, when?

It is part of many social laws dealing with family such as same sex marriage.

It is part of business law. What limits can or can not be put on corporations? Can corporations work with government to gain special privileges(big business is more important as it represents more people than a small business)? Corporations are treated differently than small businesses and they should because they are big.

It is part of states rights discussion. Is it bad for the majority of the entire country to decide issues which affect individuals but ok for a majority of a smaller slice of the country( a state) to decide issues for individuals?

I can not hardly think of any law where this should not be considered, unless you picked the last poll option.

I am interested in what everyone's core ethics are on this subject. This is not a constitution debate. I want to know how people view their interactions with each other. I want to see it from everyone's perspective of the role of government.

One of the most ironic things about law is that the rights of the minority only exists if the majority decide that they are important.

Please expand upon the cursory poll options from your point of view. State what the exceptions you might have to either absolute minority protection or majority rule.

TOPIC TO DEBATE:
Should we, or when should we, be concerned with protecting those in a minority?

From J.S. Mill, On Liberty Chapter 1



The minority I wish to protect is the smallest minority of all, the individual. In order to protect individual liberty government must be limited to protecting individuals from harming other individuals. Most issues should be the individual's to decide with an emphasis on property rights. Second hand smoke may cause harm to others. This does not give government the right to prohibit a property owner from allowing smoking in his business. You have no right to enter another's property and impose your rules; neither does government. Those who wish to avoid second hand smoke should stay at home or go to a business that has a smoke free environment. Similarly, the fact that some people may behave irresponsibly, and harm others, when using intoxicants does not justify prohibiting the sale or use of such intoxicants. All vice laws infringe on individual freedom and should be eliminated.

Government should also be concentrated at the local level. The basic principle behind this is that it reduces the obstacles to voting with your feet. I live in a subdivision with an HOA. What tyrannical powers they have. They can tell me what colors I can paint my house and how long I let my grass grow. Yet, I find this quite tolerable. If I ever find this intolerable I can move a couple miles away to an area where no deed restrictions are in effect. It is easier to move from a county than a state and a state than a nation. This is why proponents of individual freedom tend to support states rights, despite the obvious use in the past of states using the cry of states rights to attack individual liberty. Real opponents of individual freedom also would reject a states abuse of power.

I prefer to classify myself as a classical liberal. Classical liberals rightfully feared that government would either fall into the influence of the wealthy and the powerful
or a mob that would disregard the rights of property. The classical liberal solution was to limit the size and functions of government.

Of course government has this right. And, for the protection of the individual, over the "rights" of the corporation to knowingly endanger it's employees or it's customers. Now, I agree that "second-hand smoke" may not be an appropriate purview, but what about a sawmill that removes the blade-guards, because they can move more lumber through in a given period of time? Or, the FDA regulations regarding how food is processed, packaged and sold?

The fact is, that regulation of business for either the safety of that company's employees, or customers (you know, the "individuals") is absolutely the province of of government.


No argument here. The laws in those cases should definitely be aimed at enforcing consequences arising from the irresponsible behavior (like driving while under the influence) rather than preventing the use of whatever agent the user wishes.


Not exactly an apt example, Hugo. Home owners associations are usually established by a local neighborhood, or the private company which built the subdivision. It's more rightly to be considered a legal contract between two private entities, rather than a force of government.


It's my contention that we already have the first (influence of the wealthy and the powerful), and that if we don't make changes, we're going to see the second (the mob).

This is going to sound a tad simplistic, so my apologies in advance.

Should we, or when should we, be concerned with protecting those in a minority?

I think we should be concerned with and undertake steps to protect a minority when a minority is unable to protect itself and needs help.

I do not see homeowner's associations as minorities, though. But I do see homeowners whose property falls under eminent domain as among those who need protection and help. Building another highway for the sake of "convenience" is a pretty lame excuse for uprooting families from their homes.

So obviously, the Native Americans should have been protected in this manner, because their representation in our government was slim to none as American civilization was encroaching on the land. It is pretty much too late for them, but it would be nice if we had an attack of conscience every now and then when considering where the next shopping mall or highway was going to be built ostensibly "for the community."

Should we, or when should we, be concerned with protecting those in a minority?

I think there are a few ways to answer it. One is on principle. I would say that on principle there is absolutely no reason to protect the minority. I would vote for any law which enforced what I thought was right on any minority (with the condition I will discuss below).

Another way is legal. I think that constitutionally and otherwise there should be legal protections of minorities. The state should not be able to enforce a religion for example, because many religions have truth and different ones are good for different people, because even if there was one right religion it would likely enforce the wrong one, because enforced religion is not heart-felt, and for many other reasons. On the other hand, I think the nation should legally be able to force many things on states, because often states just plain do things wrong. I would be in favor of making the death penalty illegal nationally, for example.

A third way is in practice. Even if something seems good to force on a minority, in some areas the decision is left to that minority because it simply has more knowlege than I can possibly have about that subjective. But it depends on the subject at hand.

Hugo:

I disagree with the quote from Mill, I think there are many circumstances in which it is good to compel people to do things to help others or even themselves. I haven't read that much of his writing, but I think it is somewhat contradictary that he was a utilitarian, believing that we should to whatever is most likely to produce the most net happiness, and yet still believed that there was some abitary abstract principle prohibiting us from interfereing in the affairs of others.

Should we, or when should we, be concerned with protecting those in a minority?

The distinction between majority and minority in terms of ethics necessitates values which are not shared by both parties. Since these values differ, then there is no possibility for an argument, for the validation of any argument requires an appeal to shared values. However, if the values are shared, then there is no distinction between one group or the other.

I'm a fan of old John Stuart, and I agree, that the rights of the individual are paramount.

I discredit the notion that what others do between themselves degrades my happiness or the goodness of the society I live in. I have right wingers claim that freedoms should be limited in order to 'maximise' the overall freedom, and then use the example "to live in a society undamaged by pornography, the freedom to trade in or create pornography should be limited".

There are grey areas and moral judgements to be made, even when the principal of eliminating harms is followed.

In the example above, my opinion is that the sawmill owner should have the right remove the guards on his blades, but the employees have the right to leave, or, to sue the owner for damages due the the owner not following best practices.

Likewise, the certifying agency is responsible for the quality of the food, not necessarily the producer, though the producer could also be liable for damages.

In general, specific to situations like these, I feel that such regulations tend to protect the producer / owner from liability more than they protect the worker / consumer from harm.

Further, I tend to agree with the idea of small government, particularly federal government, for the exact same reasons listed above, with the implication that a free and open discourse between people about the effectiveness of their local governments, coupled with local government held accountable by their electorate, will lead to ever improving quality of life for all concerned.

Should we, or when should we, be concerned with protecting those in a minority?

I had to go with "tradition and precedent" on the poll question, because what's meant by the rights of the minority is so vague and undefned. Which rights of what minority?

Very broadly speakly, I agree with Hugo's answer: I'm for the rights of the smallest minoity of all, the individual.

The best way to make sure everyone's legitimate rights are respected is to follow the Constitution as it is written, taking it at face value, and when anything in it isn't crystal clear, referring to the original intent of the authors. That's the only way to make sure genuine rights aren't diluted by the proliferation of bogus rights, and gradually eroded by judges who think their role is to impose their own policy preferences.

I didn't vote in the poll because there was no answer I could unambiguously agree with. I think it will become clear why when I address the question seminal to this thread:

Should we, or when should we, be concerned with protecting those in a minority?

Yes, we should. The essence of a democracy is that policy is based on the will of the majority, limited by respect for the rights of the minority; this is what sets democracy apart from mob rule. The passages from John Stuart Mill quoted earlier in this thread may be paraphrased as
"your freedom to throw a punch should be limited only by the presence of my face,"
but the reverse of that same coin is that
"your freedom to throw a punch should go no further than the presence of my face."

In a democracy, the will of the majority should in principle be respected, but it is subject to a number of conditions.
Firstly, if failure to respect the will of the majority will demonstrably affect the material interests of the members of the majority in an adverse manner.
Secondly, if respecting the will of the majority will not affect the material interests of any minority in a manner to which the majority are not also subject or, as a corollary, if the burden imposed on the minority is not directly related to the problem this burden serves to alleviate.

To illustrate the first condition, we may take sexual acts conducted between consenting adults in private. Let us assume, hypothetically, that the majority of a given population disapproves of anal sex and therefore seeks to have it outlawed. However, as long as the anal sex occurs between two consenting adults in private (with the blinds closed etc.), no credible case can be made that this practice adversely affects the material interests of any member of this majority, and therefore, the will of the majority should, in this case, not be respected.

The second condition relates to taxing certain products or services used by minority in order to fund certain programs. On the one hand, it's not unreasonable that the government should impose a tax on certain products (alcohol and tobacco spring to mind) which impose certain societal costs in order to cover these costs. However, there is an increasing trend, certainly in the United State and likely elsewhere as well, to "tax the other guy," usually by proposing the levying of taxes on certain products (consumed only by a minority) in order to fund programs which would benefit society as a whole. In the Netherlands, an increase in tobacco tax funded increased security on public transport (totally unrelated to societal costs caused by smoking) in the mid-1990s. In 2003, a proposal was introduced in Seattle to levy a 10 cent tax on every espresso beverage to fund preschool and day-care programs. Now, I don't have a problem paying taxes to fund public services, but--as a smoker and espresso drinker--I do object to being fleeced in order to provide public services for free riders. Even if the free riders are in the majority.

I know it's cliche, but we are a republic, not a democracy. Mob rule was anathema to our founding fathers. Isn't that why we have the Bill of Rights?

How dangerous is democracy? Just watch -- and participate in -- American Idol!

Ditto. My basic answer would be yes, so long as it does not unduly infringe upon the majoriy. I didn't see any of the existing answers really reflecting this.


An excellent point. I would change "even if the free riders are in the majority" to especially if the free riders are in the majority. If you start down the path of taxing minority groups to fund majority services, you have essentially thrown these groups into servitude, thus violating, I think, the very principles this country was funded on. Remember the Boston tea party? It was essentially a revolt against this very practice. Far too often, though, this is exactly what is being done around the country, as you state...taxing one group to fund services for another. Why not tax the group using the service? They're the ones getting the benefit, they should be the ones paying for it. But, giving away freebies is a great way to win votes...especially when it also costs the politician nothing as well. Never mind that, in addition to being ultimately economically unfeasible, this violates the very principles upon which this country was founded.

Aside: My favorite example of this is how sports stadiums are funded around the country. Who do they tax? People traveling to the area (hotels and rental cars). Not only are these usually business travelers who will never see a game at that stadium....they also, not being from the area, never even get a chance to vote on the referendum. Hmmmm...'no taxation without representation' ring a bell with anyone? Apparently not

I am not sure I understand either of these two points clearly.


I think you are both on the same thought process. In other words, are you both saying that there should be minority rights unless those rights materialistically affect the majority? If the majority will profit by infringing on the rights of the minority, so be it? I do see a quantifiers being used (demonstrably, unduly) but not sure how much materialist gain you have in mind to make it OK. If I have it wrong, please explain your idea(s) again for me.

I'm confused. Wasn't the original intent of the framers to restrict voting rights to a few, wealthy, propertyholders? They did leave a door cracked open by not specifying race and gender in the Federal Constitution (that was added later), but it wasn't a very large crack. And the primary contributor, Madison, wasn't interested in protecting the individual liberties of the Revolutionary War veterans, for example, who were paid their wages in worthless IOUs and many of whom ended up in debtors prison. Madison was concerned with landholders, the established order, and the control of the masses. He certainly didn't have much liking for "power to the people", none of the founders did (Jefferson sometimes waxed idealistic on the concept, but he hung on to his slaves).

I don't mind using what they did right, but I think it's a shame to go back to their intent, when their actions and words (and sometimes their own words condemning their own actions), show they were limited human beings, educated, many of them startlingly brilliant, but still human, and often far less moral than certain members of their society (such as the abolitionist quakers).


And allowing an individual who can tell you to work the hours he sets you, or starve, doesn't seem particularly protective of the individual, when one individual has so much power over another! I have read enough about the 19th century mills and factories to know that unregulated corporations does not produce the most freedom, per individual, in America. It didn't when little children were losing fingers in Armor's meatpacking plants, and it doesn't today. Of course, one may argue that, had the US government respected the law and not called out the guard, or allowed the states to call out the guard, to break up strikes and kill or jail ringleaders, it's possible things could have been righted without resorting to minimum wage laws and the like, but the officials didn't respect the Constitution. The officials did, however, seem in keeping with the original intent of the founders, who probably would not have favored nationwide strikes and protests by workers and citizens intent on toppling the power structure.

Nope, that's not what I meant. Consider the following...suppose I use my right to free speech to incite a riot. I'm not actually causing any harm (I'm just standing there talking), but because of my actions I am causing significant harm to a great number of people. Shouldn't the majority have the right to be free from someone exercising their rights in this manner? Many individual, or minority, rights will reach some point where most people would look at the situation and say that doesn't make sense, we shouldn't allow that. Materialism doesn't really have anything to do with it...its a many vs. the few argument. Sometimes the rights of the one should take precedence....but sometimes the rights of the many should. This is perhaps most prominent in the various security measures undertaken over the last few years. The rights of the many to security outweigh the rights of the one to privacy (or at least that's the balancing act being considered). Should many people have to die on a plane so that one can refuse to be searched? If the rights of the many are never considered, what you are left with is a society dominated by minority elements. I'm not sure what the benefit of that is.

I believe I hear what you, Hobbes, are saying this time. Your use of the phrase 'rights of the majority' seems to me to be troublesome. I am not sure of your definition.

There are rights of individuals which should be protected even when they are in a majority group. Yet, I would not call those rights 'majority rights'. They would still be rights which should be protected when you are a member of the majority, minority, or an individual. You should not be able to incite a riot against the majority, minority, or an individual.

You airport security analogy is an interesting one. To me, the rights of those in a majority group are being infringed to protect a small minority: those who may be harmed by terrorists. On the other hand, a majority of the people seem to have decided these rights should be given up. It is also an interesting example as the majority are electing to give up their own rights as well as those of the minority.

In general, I am in the minority on the subject of our country's reaction to 9/11 as I am more concerned with the damage caused by rights which have been lost since September 11th than damage caused by terrorists attack.

----------------------------

There is a worrisome tendencies for a majority of the people to not be concerned when bad things happen to a minority and they perceive it will not affect themselves.

Examples:

The Patriot Act tends to negatively affect those who are Arab or Muslim. The majority do not seem to mind as it does not affect them.

The flawed Family Law is not being corrected since 'only a few' are being harmed by it. It will affect someone badly but not me.

The argument is put forth that prayer or bible study should be in schools since only a minority are negatively affected. My religion is being supported. Too bad for them their beliefs are not.

These examples and more lead me to conclude the country operates at the level of, "The majority should have precedence with a few exceptions." We do not have, nor have we had, a Supreme Court has fully backed the Constitutional ideas of protection of individual rights over rights of the state (the majority). The election of George Bush with his rhetoric is pushing the balance towards stronger federal controls, limitations on rights, and greater acceptance of the idea of mixing of Christianity with government.

I see this thought process in debates here.

Should homosexuals be able to marry? Of course not, so says the majority opinion, as it does not fit their definition of marriage. If the minority have a different definition, we do not care. The majority should rule.

There are many here who wish to nationalize health care. Why let people pick and choose health care for themselves if we can get the majority decide it for themselves and everyone else, too?

I truly wish we did think along the lines of "The minority should be protected absolutely, or with few exceptions." but frankly, I think people are fooling themselves when I look at this poll. Though we do have a higher representation of libertarian ideology in the AD population than the country at large, we here at AD do not support the idea of protecting the minority very well in practice.

I'm not persuaded that your case regarding minority/individual rights and health care holds together.

First of all, our current system can be accurately described as screwing over a substantial minority - those who can't afford health insurance or decent health care - in order to benefit the majority by sparing the majority from paying higher taxes to provide health care for all.

Second of all, it seems to me that most advocates of health care for all want something like France's health care system. In that system (quoting from blogger Ezra Klien's overview):



It's inaccurate to suggest that such a system prevents people from "pick[ing] and choos[ing] health care for themselves." In fact, for people without much money, they have much greater freedom to pick and choose in France than in the USA.

* * *

I don't think we can talk about "minority rights" without talking about the rights of the poor. Can a system which basically denies that poor people have a right to decent medical care (including dental) really be said to be supporting minority rights? I don't think so.

The word 'rights' has several definitions. In the context of the poll they refer to protection from the state and others.

You are using 'rights' in the context of entitlements which is not the same thing. Yet, you are mixing the two as if they are. Doing so confuses the issues and the ability to communicate ideas.

You, ampersand, believe that the best way for large communities to operate is on the commune level where skills and services are equally shared. People are entitled to services and skills and should receive them without paying for the. The basic government model you prefer does not have minority rights as a priority but champions the majority. I am not able to convince you otherwise as you do not thing minority rights are important. Your minority rights should be called minority entitlements to make the discussion clear.

This poll was directed at identifying core beliefs. I doubt any will be convinced by the discussion. The discussion is more to describe those different beliefs.

I presumed you picked either the last or second to last choice on the poll ?

With all due respect, GS, the way you worded the poll did not make that clear.



That's not an accurate description of what I believe. I think people should receive services through paying for them. The question is how these services are paid for. In the case of essential needs - such as food or medical care - I think we should all pay for them through taxes. However, we are still paying for those services (except for a tiny minority so poor that they pay no taxes at all), so to say that people are receiving services "without paying for them" is not accurate.



With all due respect, please don't presume to tell me what I think or don't think.

I think minority rights are extremely important (I didn't vote in your poll, but if I had voted I would have selected option "2"). I think it's essential that unpopular minorities - be they homosexuals, transsexuals, religious minorities, political minorities, or anyone else - need to have their rights protected from majority rule. I certainly agree with your example of same-sex marriage.

I merely disagree that universal health care is necessarily a case of protecting majority rights at the expense of a minority.

How is this minority being screwed? They have just as much opportunity to buy health care as everyone else. Saying they're being screwed over by not being able to do so is basically the same as saying I am being screwed over because I cannot afford a Ferrari. No one is discriminating against me, nor taking away my right to purchase one...I simply don't have the means. That's no one's fault...no one is screwing me over to keep me from getting it. So, I think your desciption is highly inaccurate....rendering the conclusion false. The majority in this case are not receiving a 'benefit', they are simply exercising the right to purchase health care, which isn't denied anyone. But they are concerned about having other rights (the right to their own money, and the right to choose their own health care) taken away to benefit a minority. As such, this seems like an excellent analogy for Gray Seal's point.

I guess if you consider "not owning a Ferrari" the same as "needless premature dying because of lack of medical care," then yes, these two things are equivilent. However, I think that to most people, it's obvious that there's a difference in importance between these two losses. Having heatlh care is essential; owning an expensive car is not.



If my house is destroyed in a hurricane, I'm screwed over - the fact that no one discriminated against me in particular doesn't change the fact that I'm screwed. :-)

In any case, in our system the poor are discriminated against. Health care is given according to ability to pay; those without ability to pay are discriminated against.



As I've already pointed out, and no one has refuted, the belief that universal health care necessarily means people won't be able to choose their own health care is not supported by the facts; it's perfectly possible to combine universal health care with as much or more freedom to choose than Americans currently experience.

Second of all, what we have here are two competing "rights." One is the right to a lower tax rate, or as you put it "the right to their own money," for the majority. The other is the right to decent health care for the too-poor-to-afford-it minority.

I agree that it's therefore a relevant issue for this thread. But, contrary to GS's claim, in this case it's me who is supporting minority rights; GS (and you) are supporting the rights of the majority to avoid a marginal loss of post-tax income, against the rights of the lower-income minority to have essential health care.

Of course, one odd twist on this issue is that the majority of Americans favor raising taxes to pay for universal health care (see poll data).

And I suppose that if those demanding free health care became the majority, ie, the richest few were taxed to support everyone else, then you would switch your position to support the rich minority? I doubt it. I would guess you're not for minority rights, you're for socialistic wealth redistribution. But in the case that I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

The difference between the "right to keep one's income" and the "right to receive health care" is that infringing on the first right requires action. I (the government) have to actively take your money to infringe upon that right. Whereas the second inaccurately-named "right" can only be infringed upon by inaction. If I do nothing, your "right" is infringed upon. Think about it this way: only true "rights" would apply if you were the only person on earth. Personal property? Sure. Free health care? Nope.

The reason health care is so incredibly expensive is that the federal government has stepped in and gotten its huge, inefficient, clumsy claws mixed up in the free market. We have huge regulations that attempt to ensure perfect accident-free care, make doctors completely liable for any harm done to a patient, and then complain when we have to pay the huge bill that supports their malpractice insurance.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to ensure anything for every citizen, except for the freedom to fulfill their own wishes.

And as far as a hurricane distroying your house - how far do you take this analogy? Should the taxpayers pay for your hurricane insurance? Car insurance? How about national taxpayer funded band-aids for stubbed toes? What is the difference between these and public health care?

Please don't say that most people support it. That just shows that most people don't understand economics. The poll you cite also shows that most people support the minimum wage, because most people don't understand that the minimum wage reduces employment and is proven to have a net negative effect on the economy. How does a $200/hour minimum wage sound? That would be great for low-income people, right?

-asoko

Yes, given a choice between "no universal health care" and "soaking the rich exclusively," I'd choose the latter. However, what I'd prefer to either of those alternatives is universal health care paid for through progressive taxes on all but the poorest Americans. If you're assuming that I'd rather tax the rich exclusively than have almost everybody pay a fair share, you're mistaken. (Of course, I suspect you and I might have different opinions on what "a fair share" is!)

So no, I'm not for punishing the "minority" known as the rich. I think that paying for universal health care is a responsibility that should be shared by almost all taxpayers.



I think your inaction/action distinction is not an accurate description of how rights work in practice.

For example, I have a right to equal protection of the law. If the cops saw I was being mugged and decided "hey, we don't like Jews, so let's just not act," my rights would have been infringed on by the cops. Just because it's inaction doesn't give them the right to discriminate against Jews (or anyone else) through inaction.

Secondly, there is no "right to keep one's income," per se, and hasn't been since at least the 16th amendment. If there were such a right, there'd be no income tax.

So the right to equal protection of the law exists - even when it in effect forbids government inaction. And the right to keep one's income doesn't exist, even though taking away income involves direct government action. Therefore, the action/inaction distinction you're making isn't how rights work in practice.

There's no such thing as a "natural right," in my view. The only rights that really exist are the rights that the government is willing to acknowledge and enforce (how horrifying that is depends on if you think the government represents the collective consensus of the people or not). In our country, there is no right not to have your income taxed.

Nor, unfortunately, is there a right to health care. But I predict that will change in our lifetime.



I don't think the facts support this argument.

First of all, countries that have much more government interference in health care also typically spend less on health care as a portion of GDP or per capita, while achieving better outcomes. So increasing government involvement in health care is associated with cheaper health care.

Secondly, even in states that have passed laws capping liability awards, insurance companies have kept on jacking up prices. So whatever is causing malpractice companies to continually raise their charges, it's not an alleged increase in liability payments.



Since other countries have universal health care systems - in some cases, very successful universal health care systems - it's illogical to claim that such systems are impossible.



I only pointed out that most people support it because I thought that was an ironic contrast to my claim that universal health insurance would primarily benefit a minority of Americans. I wasn't intending it as a claim that "most people want it, therefore it must be right"; obviously, it's possible for majorities to be mistaken.

That said, I don't think your particular example is very meaningful.

1) I don't think it's a good idea to suggest that anyone who disagrees with your view doesn't "understand economics." Many economists disagree with your position on the minimum wage; that doesn't mean that they don't understand their own field.

2) Of course raising the minimum wage to $200 an hour would be a terrible idea. But since no one's proposing that high a minimum wage, who cares? It would be a very bad idea for me to build a house with 100 foot high ceilings, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad idea for me to build a house with 10 foot ceilings.

3) The empirical evidence for the harms caused by the minimum wage is pretty slim; most of the "proof" is highly theoretical. There is, however, solid empirical evidence showing that any "harms" caused by raising the minimum wage are negligible. When economists Card and Krueger ran a study comparing the New Jersey and Pennsylvania fast-food markets (New Jersey raised their minimum wage, Penn didn't, making it possible to compare two otherwise economically similar areas), they found no increase in unemployment in New Jersey's fast-food restaurants.

Wrong. Taxation is negative action by the government. Law enforcement is the prevention of negative action by one citizen against another. Huge difference there.



I think what you describe is horrifying, and I'm surprised you're not. We both know pure democracy doesn't work. In a pure democracy, if 75% of the population were devout Christians, they could have the atheists and all other religious people thrown in jail. My problem with the government representing collective consensus is that people are not a collective, no matter how you slice it. Every human on this earth is far too complicated to be fit into a standard template.

There is a reason the founding fathers called the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" self evident. They are. If everyone is allowed these rights (and protected from others infringing upon these rights), society works. What should be called rights are only those things that work on any scale.

As far as the police example, the police are an arm of the government, and everone is allowed the right to life and property. The government's role is to enforce these rights, and if it fails, the government is wrong. You cannot be denied these rights because of your religion or race. However, I, not being a policeman, am not obligated to come to your aid. Yes, as a good citizen I would, but I don't have to. In the same way, I don't have to donate money to charity every year, and I shouldn't have to pay another citizen's medical bills unless I choose to do so. The government says I have to, and the government is wrong.

We do have a right to the fruits of our labor. The problem is, our government does not recognize and enforce that right. I mean, they enforce in all cases except when they're the ones taking our income.

As far as taxing the rich more being "fair": every voluntary transactions benefits both parties, because people naturally act in their own self interest. Someone who is very wealthy (by honest means) has benefitted many people along the way, and they should not be discouraged, but allowed to keep their wealth. The main problem many people have is that they look at the economy as a zero-sum game, but wealth can be created. Rich people don't take money and make people poor - they create wealth and make other people rich.



I'm not saying that one government run system can't be more efficient than another from other variables. Think about it - these other countries are generally smaller than the US, right? So it seems to imply that the smaller the organization involved, the more efficient. Hint - the smallest possible organizationa are private businesses and individuals.


Liability is one variable. Do these states also freeze medical industry standards and regulations? And how do the prices in liability-capped states compare to other states?



You are correct, and I apologize. It is possible. We disagree on whether it is good. I say that the government should never do something that provides good for one group by hurting another.



Of course truly "free" health care might benefit most people - but nothing is truly free. Everyone hopes to get the other guy to pay for it, and the government is the crowbar we (citizens, businesses, special interest groups) try to use to pry money out of the hands of others (citizens, businesses, special interest groups). It's a vicious cycle of income redistribution, with losses from inefficiency every step of the way.

People in the US want something for nothing. We don't want nuclear power or more refineries, but we want cheap gas. We want federal subsidies for higher education, but complain about how universities hike tuition far faster than the rate of inflation. (http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-09-03.html)

And as for your last point, check this out:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5224.html
The study was re-evaluated using actual payroll data from the restaurants rather than phone surveys, and it was found that the increase in minimum wage actually did correlate to a drop in employment.

Asoko, you've switched what you're advocating. At first you advocated that the distinction between rights and nonrights is that rights don't require active government action. When I showed that this isn't true, suddenly you're using an entirely different metric - "negative action" versus "prevention of negative action." That's poor logic on your part.

In response to my saying "The only rights that really exist are the rights that the government is willing to acknowledge and enforce (how horrifying that is depends on if you think the government represents the collective consensus of the people or not)," you wrote:



You're throwing strawmen left and right, here.

First of all, "collective consensus" is not the same thing as "pure democracy," by which you mean "majority always rules." I'd argue that in our country, there is a consensus that we should be ruled by our constitution, even when constitutional rights come into conflict with the wishes of a majority of citizens.

So no, I'm not advocating for pure majority rules. However, I think that in the end, a government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed (meaning consent in the general system, not in every individual law and ruling); in that sense, "collective consensus" is essential.



You're confusing the issues with imprecise descriptions. No one is suggesting "Asoko, go pay Jill's medical bills," any more than anyone's saying you have to do the police's job. People are suggesting that EVERYONE'S medical bills should be paid for by our collective efforts, through the government; just as everyone protects everyone else from crime, through collectively paying for police.



Even you admit that the government has a right to take your income for some purposes, such as paying for police. So how can you also say that the government has no right to take part of your income? You really seem to be contradicting yourself.

My guess is you'll say "it's legitimate of the government to take my money to help prevent Sally from being mugged, but not to provide Sally with needed health care."

But that just brings up the question of what is or isn't legitimate. Clearly, you're not saying it's never legitimate to tax you to help Sally; the police are an example of taxing you to help Sally, and you approve of that.

I say what's legitimate or not when it comes to spending tax money is decided by our government, in the ways laid out by the Constitution. So if the legislature of our elected representatives votes to use taxes to pay for universal health care, then that's a legitimate use of taxes.

Clearly, you don't think that's the legitimate way of making these decisions. So what alternative method do you propose?

* * *



I think there's too great a variety of rich people to make a generalization like this stick. However, I'd certainly agree that many rich people do help with wealth creation (as do many non-rich people).

That's irrelevant to my feeling that taxes should be paid by those who can afford it with the least pain. Taxes aren't a punishment inflicted on folks for being unproductive; they're a way of paying for government functions and services. They should be divided in the way that causes the least pain to the greatest number of people.



The problem with your theory is, there is no general correlation between population size and cost of health care per capita. France and England have similar populations (about 60 million), but France's health care is cheaper and has better outcomes. For that matter, Spain and Poland both have much smaller populations than France, but France's health care system works much better.

In the US, the best health care systems by many measures are the VA and Kaiser, both of which are huge organizations, relative to most other US health providers.

Responding to the fact that liability caps don't stop soaring insurance prices, you wrote:



It's the one variable you concentrated the most on in your previous post: "We have huge regulations that attempt to ensure perfect accident-free care, make doctors completely liable for any harm done to a patient, and then complain when we have to pay the huge bill that supports their malpractice insurance."

You're switching topics again. No fair; you brought up liability, you should be willing to defend it.



So are you against public education (benefits parents at the expense of non-parents)? Fire departments (benefits people who experience fires at the expense of those who do not)? Police (benefits people who experience crime at the expense of those who do not)? Etc, etc..

In the same way that fire and police departments benefit everybody, universal health insurance benefits everybody; it provides everyone with a security net, regardless of if they ever actually need to use it.



Regarding universal health care, this statement is inaccurate. The poll I cited earlier showed that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes in exchange for universal health care; that's not "something for nothing."



Actually, you've only told half the story there. Two economists, David Neumark and William Wascher (using data provided by a think tank funded by the fast-food industry), did indeed SAY that using actual payroll data from restaurants, they found that increased minimum wage correlated to a drop in unemployment.

But then it turned out that the think tank that provided Neumark/Wascher with their data wasn't willing to let anyone else look at their data, or to say how the restaurants included in the sample were chosen. Nor was anyone able to reproduce the results with non-secret data, although Neumark and Wascher certainly tried. In other word, the "rebuttal" data you cited appears to have been a fraud.

(It should be noted, by the way, that the "increase" in unemployment found consisted of one hour less of work a week per employee - not of more unemployed individuals).

Long story short, the Bureau of Labor Statistics agreed to release confidential payroll data to settle the dispute. This removed questions of "is the data accurately gathered" or "did you cherry pick"; it's by far the most authoritative data source available. Results: the original research results are confirmed: there is no effect on employment due to the minimum wage increasing modestly.

By the way, the idea that the rich would be 'screwed' at the expense of the sickly poor in the case of Universal health care in the US is a fantasy.

At the moment, despite being the ONLY first world nation on the planet without a universal health care system... guess what? The US pays more per capita in health services then any other first world nation, nearly 15% of the GDP. All that taxation for a system where the poor go untreated, chronic ailment treatments are cut off when insurance runs out, life expectency and child mortality are among the worst in the first world.

That is the system you are fighting to keep, higher taxes then anyone else and worse service then anyone else.Mostly due to inefficiency, stagnation in administration and of course the blatant graft of the insurance companies who for years now have been increasing their rates far above the comparative increase in the cost of heath services.

First, Ampersand, I do want to thank you for an excellent debate. You're making me think very hard.

By the way, you never responded to my question in an earlier question: Where does it stop? Everyone needs food - should we have a nationalized food program? How about a nationalized toilet paper program? Why can we not simply provide for the truly needy with private voluntary donations? Tell me where you'd draw the line before you respond to anything else I've said.


I guess what I mean is that I support the standard libertarian definition of rights - no one has a right to *initiate* force. So, the government is not initiating force in protecting one citizen from another, because the attacker is the initiator. But if you stop paying taxes, the government will initiate force against you by arresting / jailing you. Sorry for not being clear.

Along those lines, I think that even though a majority may want everyone to be taxed in order to pay for everyone's health care, it's not enumerated by the constitution, and thus should not be done. Also, I think the 16th amendment is a ridiculous overstepping of the bounds by government.

This description of health care smacks of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The problem is, the only true way to determine need is by charging money. Those who need, pay, plain and simple. There are those whose needs truly do outweigh their ability to pay, and for those cases I'm not against charity, but if anyone claims they need subsidized health care and yet somehow has enough money to pay for cigarettes or a TV or 10 pairs of dress shoes or a decent car, they won't get sympathy from me. The truly needy are few and far between. I may even give money / time to those that aren't truly needy - family, friends, neighbors - but I don't want to be forced to.

You know what, you're right about the police bit. I changed my mind. I don't think the government has a right to take part of my income to pay for anything, be it police, education, fire departments, whatever. If I pay for the service, great, if I volunteer money or time, that's even better. Have you not heard of volunteer fire / police departments, private schools, and homeschooling? The only tax I truly believe in is a tax on land. No one creates land, people just use it, and this use can be taxed without hurting the economy.

Besides, about the police bit, I have a right to defend myself. I shouldn't be forced to pay for police protection if I would rather buy a gun and take my chances. If you have to pay for protection, the police and the mafia serve basically the same purpose. Granted, I'd choose the police any day, but history proves they are also prone to corruption. Everone is. I want the ability to choose what's best for me.


No, in fact, they're effectively a punishment for being productive. The more you make, the more they take. Also, have you ever considered that the way to cause the least pain to the greatest number of people might be to eliminate the vast majority (if not all) programs and taxes? I mean, you do admit that taxes cause some pain. Remember - taxing a rich person can stop him/her from buying a new home which would have created more business for a carpenter. It's economically proven that taxes cause a net dead-weight loss for society. That's in the short term, however. I believe that the effect of any dead-weight loss is compounded in time. A rich society gets richer faster than a poor one does.


But the thing is, some people don't need / want a security net, at least one as big. Some people buy a gun to defend themselves so they don't need the police. Some people live in stone houses and don't need as much fire protection (don't have fires as often). Some people don't smoke and are in good health, and don't need as comprehensive coverage as unhealthy smokers. Should those who cost less to society pay as much? On the flip side, shouldn't hypochondriacs who waste doctors' time have to pay more than those who visit twice a year for standard checkups? We already have insurance companies whose purpose is to even out risk. It works for cars, why can't it work for people?



What I mean is that there is a sentiment in this country that the rich should pay for the rest. I'd wager that most people who support this think they would get more value in care than they would lose in taxes, because of graduated tax brackets.

Here's me defending my claim about liability.
$845 yearly for the average american to pay for the tort system (and more)
Also, how do you assert that a continued rise in health care costs proves that tort reform is ineffective? Perhaps the rise is less steep with the cap in place - perhaps the number of lawsuits continued to increase, etc.

About the minimum wage - my head hurts. Economists don't agree on this one, so I'm going to stop arguing on that basis. Check out this page. It's got every possible viewpoint on the Card / Krueger study and others. Like they say, if you laid all the economist on earth end-to-end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. Notice, however, that most people who benefit from the minumum wage aren't poor (see that site). Lots are teenagers in middle-class or wealthy households.

The only argument I can make is one based on principle - that business owners should not be forced to pay their employees a minimum wage if the employees are willing to work for less. It's a type of initiation of force (as becomes evident if one tries to pay less than minimum wage).

Finally a sidenote - check out how Sweden is fixing their government-run health care problems.

Geez, these arguments are taking longer and longer to put together
asoko

Never. Today's minority is tomorrow's majority; likewise, today's majority become the minority. The very idea that minorities need protection is laughable. We are a free nation with a democratic system where every citizen gets one vote. Not every caucasian gets one vote, nor any hispanic, nor asians or africans. Every person gets representation in this nation. To protect the minority is to insult a majority with favoring a group too weak to influence most opinion.

Minority groups complain they aren't heard, well I can tell you why. Because they are the MINORITY. They have lesser influence, lesser support and lesser resources. But my repeating theme that they we are all equal people with no need for a minority vs. majority type society does not go down very well in practice.

Some odd number of decades ago African-Americans were the minority group of America, they still could be considered a minority, but African-Americans disprove anyone's theory that the minority needs protecting. Outspoken leaders for equality changed everything by showing us we needed them as equals. They did not have much caucasian-support from government/private channels. Individuals aided them, that is true, but the force that changed our views on equality were a minority. The same minority that redefined American civil rights did not need protection, they still do not need protection; because they came together as Americans to demand a better America.

Thanks, I'm enjoying it too. Sorry that my replies are coming so infrequently!



I'd ask, first, is this a genuine need? Food, medical care, education, clothes, secure shelter, basic groceries (including toilet paper): Yup, people need those things to get by and be able to reasonably participate in society as citizens. Vacation cruises to Alaska, bi CD collections, big-screen TVs, etc: People can get by without these things, so I'd be against any specialized government programs aimed at buying them for poor people.

The second question is, is the free market fully meeting this need, or are there some people who can't afford these needs at free market prices? If so, no reason for the government to step in.

So the line I'd draw is, I only want the government to provide things that are genuinely needed, and which the free market is failing to provide in a reasonable manner to everyone.



In principle, I don't have anything against private donations, so long as they're not structured in a way that humiliates or dehumanizes the recipients. But in practice, there's not a single example - ever - of a society that has been as successful as, say, Sweden or France at alleviating child poverty or medical need through private charity.

So I'm against it on purely practical grounds; it don't work.

In fact, by definition, the worse the private economy gets, the less money people have to give to charity. So one problem with relying on private donations is that just when people have the deepest and most urgent needs, donors will be the least able to afford giving at their prior levels (let alone increasing their donations, which is what's really required).



That's fine - that's why we have discussions, to clarify what it is we're saying.

So in your view, suppose that I stroll onto your property - you don't have a fence, so I didn't have to use any force. Are you allowed to initiate force to kick me off your lawn?

Let's say you drop your wallet on public property. I pick it up. Are you allowed to initiate force to get your wallet back - recalling that I didn't use any force to take it from you?

How are contracts enforced, if no one is allowed to initiate force?



The Constitution allows the government to provide for the general welfare; I think that medical care certainly fits in to that. And regardless of what you think of the 16th amendment, it IS part of the US Constitution; if you want to overturn it, I think you need a new Constitutional amendment.



Donald Trump wants a face lift. Shirley Nomoney wants an operation to keep her kidney functioning. By your definition, Donald must need a face lift more than Shirley needs a kidney.



I'm a little confused. I need a $120,000 kidney operation, plus $60,000 for critical care before and after. (Not really - I'm just saying for example). Do you really think that I'll make a significant difference to my level of need by selling my TV (maybe I'll get thirty bucks for it) and my car (I paid $4000 for it, maybe I'll get $3000 for it today)? Plus, how am I going to get to the hospital for treatment without my car?

You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that the measure of how poor someone is, is if they own consumer durables. Here's what you don't seem to get: Consumer durables are cheap. I paid $250 for my TV eight years ago - that means that so far it has cost me $2.60 for every month I've used it! The previous TV was a gift from a relative who had bought a new TV and didn't need the old one. The current car we bought with an inheritance - a one-time flush moment when we could afford a good used car.

In short, consumer durables can be owned by poor people because they can often be done without until a flush moment, and then they don't have to be paid for again for years (with a little luck).

The measure of poverty isn't if you own a TV. The measure of poverty is if you have a secure ability to pay for things like food, rent, and medical care - things that you can't buy just once 8 years ago and then never pay a cent for them again for a decade.

And this exactly why I don't want it to be up to individual charity to determine who gets medical care and food, and who doesn't. You shouldn't be in charge of deciding that stuff, because with all due respect, you obviously don't have a clue what poverty is. Medical bills in the USA are often in the thousands, and sometimes in the tens of thousands or much more - and you seriously suggest that people pay for that by selling their TV set?

Go take your average 20 inch color TV to a pawn shop and find out what you get for it. Most won't even give you $25, but let's say you get really lucky and get $40. How many months rent do you think you'll get for the $40? How many doctor bills? How many weeks of food for you and your family will that $40 buy? How many heating bills can you pay with $40?

Having a TV set doesn't make anyone not poor.



I've heard of them. They work great if you're rich or have plenty of leisure time. If you're working 60 hours a week to support your family, are making minimum wage, and would like to spend the rest of the time raising your children, however, they're a terrible idea.



You keep on saying "hurting the economy." What do you mean by that, exactly? I suspect you're pretending to be objective while actually being normative.



Here's the irony. If you get the "ability to choose what's best for me" as you describe it, you'll lose your ability to choose the police over the mafia - because the police won't exist without taxes. So by trying to preserve perfect free choice, you'll actually eliminate the choice you'd prefer (you said you'd "choose the police any day").

What you're describing is anarchy - every person with a gun defends themselves as best they can. But what about blind people? What about children? What about poor shots? What about gangs - one gun won't defend you from 40 armed hoods, you know.

I think your policy preferences have become completely divorced from reality. Low taxes are a value - but they're only one value, and they need to be balanced against other values. A society that's unable to provide basic police protection is no society at all; and someone who's willing to see the USA descend into gang wars and anarchy in order to avoid paying the income tax is someone with an indefensible set of priorities.



Still not a punishment, any more than speed limits are a punishment for driving a fast car, or a kindergarten with a "everyone shares their toys" rule is punishing those who own nice toys.



You use the word "proven" far too lightly. If you think it's proven, then how about providing an explanation of what the proof is, please. And perhaps a citation.

I think the pain caused to me of having to pay taxes is far, far less than the pain that would be caused if we eliminated food stamps, or social security. Or, for that matter, the pain caused to someone who loses all their teeth because they couldn't afford dental care or insurance. And they certainly cause me less pain than losing all police protection would cause. So yes, I've considered the idea that taxes cause more pain than no-taxes, and found that the idea is not realistic.



In fact, the free market doesn't work for cars - we have to have laws forcing people to buy drivers' insurance, whether they want it or not.

You can't logically prove to me that you'll never need a security net. Can you prove to me that you'll never be hit by a car and break your back? That you'll never lose your ability to work? That lightning will never strike?

Tell me, do you drive to work? Did you pave the road personally? Will your gun be a replacement for police enforcing the traffic laws, without which the roads will not remain drivable? When there's an accident blocking the road for you and a few thousand others, will you personally pick up the body parts off the road so that traffic can continue? Will you pony up the money to pay the tow truck to remove the wreck?

The idea that you're an independent person, with no reliance on greater society at all, is an illusion. We are all independent to a degree - but to a large degree, we all depend on society to keep things running. The system you're describing, in which none of us can ever depend on help from the collective society for anything, and power belongs to the gang who has the most guns, is what the most hellish parts of current-day Africa are like. I don't want to move to Darfur - do you?



Or maybe they think that they'd get security and peace of mind. Probably they'll never need catastrophic care, in which case they might pay out more than they take in - but if they do have a health catastrophe, it'll be covered without bankrupting their whole family and leaving them a pauper - or, even worse, doing all that and still not giving them enough money to pay for the medical care they need.

You seem to think it's awful, greedy and selfish of people to want security. I disagree. It's normal to want security.

In the interests of time, I'm skipping the liability debate (but check out this link, if you're interested).



No, it doesn't have "every possible viewpoint on the Card/Krueger study" - like the earlier link you provided, it literally skips half the facts. (Note that I'm using the word "literally" correctly.)

It's a fact that, using EVERY data base other than a secret data base provided by a think tank, Card and Krueger were right. It's a fact that BLS data showed that Card and Krueger's results weren't because of bad data selection. Your link doesn't include these facts, which makes your link worthless for discussing Card and Krueger.

Imagine that I said "well, all the studies you point out prove conclusion A. But a left-wing think tank says they have secret data, that they're not willing to show anyone else, which proves conclusion B." What would you say? I hope you'd call me on it, and say I'm being ridiculous. Secret data that a biased think tank isn't willing to share proves exactly nothing, especially when compared to authoritative data from the BLS.

Even the strongest anti-minimum wage empirical studies (none of which are as well designed as the Card/Krueger study) show that the unemployment effects of the minimum wage are tiny - in effect, we're talking about people working an hour less a week in exchange for making much more per hour. The net result is still beneficial for minimum wage earners.



That's simply not true. Over 70% of workers who'd directly benefit from raising the minimum wage are over 20 years old; and less than 22% work under 20 hours a week. (source)

According to this statement (pdf link), signed by 562 economists, including several Nobel winners, "While controversy about the precise employment effects of the minimum wage continues, research has shown that most of the beneficiaries are adults, most are female, and the vast majority are members of low-income working families."



Realistically, someone faced with a choice of working for fifty cents an hour or starving is being forced to do that work, just as much as if you pointed a gun at them. Why would any employer pay decent wages for low-skill labor, if they didn't have to? The injustice to an employer of having to pay minimum wage, is far less than the injustice to a low-wage worker who works full-time and still doesn't take home enough money to feed herself and her family, or pay rent on a livable apartment.

I'm not against using force if the force is as mild and indirect as a labor law, and the net result is improving things for the worse-off members of society. You seem to be saying that you'd be willing to live with massive poverty, so long as there's no governmental force involved. I thing our society can do better than that.

Regarding your link to Sweden, it was pretty biased and gives a false impression. It is, however, true that Sweden is moving to using private providers for a lot of what it does. So what? France, the example I cited before, uses private insurance companies for a lot of its medical system. No one who knows anything about this debate is suggesting that the marketplace has no part to play in providing health care. As Sweden, and France, and many other countries have shown, it's possible to incorporate marketplace mechanisms into countrywide guarantees of universal health care.

The issue isn't "will the marketplace be involved at all"? Of course, it will be, beyond any doubt. The issue is, "will the marketplace be used to decide who gets non-vanity health care and who doesn't?" In the US, we let the marketplace decide - and the result is lots of people who have no health care. In France and other places, the free market has a lot to do with providing medical services - but it has to provide it to everyone, not just people with money.

You know what I think is most interesting about your response is that you immediately interpreted "minority" to mean "black" and then based your entire response on this assumption that I have no idea where you got it from. There were absolutely no indications of the subject of a racial minority in the OP; indeed, when I first read I didn't think about black people, but the concept of being in the minority. Many times, being in the minority has nothing to do with race. I am a racial minority, but I'm even more concerned about being in a religious minority.

But with gems like "to protect the minority is to insult a majority with favoring a group too weak to influence most opinion" I guess when you, as a non-minority male, become a minority in a mostly hispanic America, you will shut up and take it and assume that you should have no voice in government or laws or anything just because you happen to be less than 50%. I assume you will be lobbying for a mostly white Congress to give up their seats to hispanic candidates? I assume you will have no problem with Hispanics enacting laws that, overtly or covertly, favor themselves? Do you really believe that because someone happens to belong to a group that is less than 50%, they shouldn't have a voice? That any opinions or views or needs they may have are completely irrelevant? That by the very definition of being a minority means that they have nothing useful to contribute to anything and therefore deserve to be ignored?

The second thing I have a problem with is that you immediately associating being in the minority with being "weak." I have a MAJOR problem with this and I'm sure if you look at my member photo, you'll understand why. Just because someone is part of a minority group does not mean that they are too weak to influence most opinion, in fact if you ask your conservative counterparts I'm s