Debate Now Hey you! Give Me My Rights!

[Foxfyre]

NOTICE: This topic is in the Structured Debate Zone so if this is your first visit, please scan over the rules for this forum.

I recently ran across an old Walter Williams short essay discussing the difference between natural or God given or inviolate or unalienable or inalienable rights and those things we consider rights via written law. (The members can choose which adjective or adjectives more closely reflect your preferences but for purposes of this discussion, the thread author will consider all the bolded words to be interchangeable without prejudice.)

Williams illustrates why some rights we consider inviolate such as our right to speak or to travel from place to place. And why some concepts that are too often described as 'rights' in modern society are in fact bogus rights. As he describes it, in a sense they are legalized theft committed by a government that would likely be voted out of office if it did not engage in it.

Excerpted from the essay to illustrate the difference between natural (inviolate) law and other law:

" . . . .My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights. . . Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights. . . ."

and IMO opinion the heart of this thesis is illustrated here:

". . . If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. . . ."

The Essay in its entirety here:
Bogus Rights​

It is instructive that this essay was written during the previous administration long before The ACA (Obamacare) was even suggested, much less on the drawing board.

I was prompted to hunt up Williams' essay during a recent discussion with another member over issues of involuntary servitude. The question raised there was whether military service, jury duty, being subpoenaed as a witness constitute involuntary servitude and what is the difference between that and paying taxes so that others can received healthcare, welfare, social security, education subsidies, etc.? And does andy or all of this satisfy Constitutional intent? Or not?

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:

How much right exists and where do we draw the line on what one citizen is entitled to of the earnings, labor, or property of others? Is Williams right that some things we call 'rights' are 'bogus rights' or should never be labeled rights at all?

RULES FOR THIS DEBATE:

1. No ad hominem. Focus on the argument the person makes and not on the person. This applies to both members participating and any named or linked sources they use.

For purposes of this discussion only:

2. "Inalienable" and "Unalienable" and "God given" and 'natural" and inviolate rights are the same thing and are defined as what free people expect to be able to be and do and use and enjoy that requires no specific law authorizing them and requires no involuntary participation or contribution by any other person.

3. "Constitutional", "civil", and "legal" rights define what people can expect to be able to be and do and use and enjoy as a result of official laws, executive orders, and/or regulations that are in effect.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How much right exists and where do we draw the line on what one citizen is entitled to of the earnings, labor, or property of others? Is Williams right that some things we call 'rights' are 'bogus rights' or should never be labeled rights at all?

The "rights" exist in the Constitution and are referred to in the Declaration of Independence. Williams' definition of rights and what constitutes "bogus rights" is immaterial to this debate because only Congress, in line with SCOTUS review, can determine what are these "rights", and only Congress can decide how taxation and programs are to be allotted.

 

[Foxfyre]

How much right exists and where do we draw the line on what one citizen is entitled to of the earnings, labor, or property of others? Is Williams right that some things we call 'rights' are 'bogus rights' or should never be labeled rights at all?

The "rights" exist in the Constitution and are referred to in the Declaration of Independence. Williams' definition of rights and what constitutes "bogus rights" is immaterial to this debate because only Congress, in line with SCOTUS review, can determine what are these "rights", and only Congress can decide how taxation and programs are to be allotted.

Then if Williams opinion, which is the thesis of the thread, is immaterial in your opinion, I guess you won't want to participate in this thread then Jake. But thanks for stopping by.

 

[Derideo_Te]

natural or God given or inviolate or unalienable or inalienable rights

There are no "natural or God given or inviolate or unalienable or inalienable rights" without them being upheld by the law.

In the examples of free speech and freedom to travel given in the OP neither are "natural or God given or inviolate or unalienable or inalienable rights" for the simple reason that your free speech rights are limited by law and so is your right to travel. You cannot trespass on restricted government facilities. You cannot incite a riot in a movie theater by yelling "fire".

Those legal restriction override any "natural or God given or inviolate or unalienable or inalienable rights" you may believe yourself to have.

So having established that there are no "rights that are above the law" because America is a nation of laws we can address the bogus concept of "involuntary servitude" proposed in the OP.

Just so there is no confusion as to what the term "Involuntary Servitude" actually means here is the legal definition.

Involuntary Servitude legal definition of Involuntary Servitude

The OP made the following statement;

I was prompted to hunt up Williams' essay during a recent discussion with another member over issues of involuntary servitude. The question raised there was whether military service, jury duty, being subpoenaed as a witness constitute involuntary servitude and what is the difference between that and paying taxes so that others can received healthcare, welfare, social security, education subsidies, etc.? And does andy or all of this satisfy Constitutional intent? Or not?

It is readily apparent from the legal definition provided that military service, jury duty or serving as a witness most definitely do not fall under "involuntary servitude".

Those are all part of the social contract that every American can be called upon to fulfill as their duty for the right and privilege of being a US citizen.

Having cleared up all of the above we can now address the OP question;

How much right exists and where do we draw the line on what one citizen is entitled to of the earnings, labor, or property of others?

Putting aside that inflammatory partisan rhetoric such as "entitled to the earnings, labor or property of others" is merely the opinion of the OP and lacks legal substance we can address it instead as the kind of question that one might expect of a child asking why they must pay taxes.

The answer was summarized by Oliver Wendell Holmes as "Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society".

If you live in this nation you are the beneficiary of many services provided by all levels of government. Those services are paid for with your taxes. They are not free and yes, you have an obligation to pay for what you are receiving from the government.

"But what about those people who receive money without paying taxes" asks the child?

The answer lies in finding who they are and why they need that money. The bulk (91%) of all social welfare spending goes to provide social security and medicare for the elderly. People who have worked all their lives and contributed to society and who are now too old and/or too sick to work any longer. They paid into both of those programs all of their working lives and now they are entitled to those benefits.

"But what about those people who receive money who aren't old" asks the child?

The bulk (7% out of the 9%) of those people are the unemployed, widows and minor children and retirees.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.​

That covers 98% of all social welfare spending.

Yes, they are entitled to those benefits because everyone who received them either contributed by working, was married to someone who contributed or was the minor child of someone who contributed.

There OP question is quibbling about something so negligible as to be irrelevant in the larger scheme of the overall budget.

And there is absolutely zero legitimate basis for any claim of "involuntary servitude" whatsoever.

Next.

 

[G.T.]

Rights are abstract concepts invented by man, they are only inherent in that in our study of behavior - we've determined they're necessary to ensure optimal growth as individuals.

 

[Foxfyre]

Rights are abstract concepts invented by man, they are only inherent in that in our study of behavior - we've determined they're necessary to ensure optimal growth as individuals.

Were they 'invented' by man? Or are unalienable rights as defined in the the OP something that has always existed and, with our Declaration of Independence that formed the concept for our Constitution, were recognized and acknowledged by man?

 

[G.T.]

Rights are abstract concepts invented by man, they are only inherent in that in our study of behavior - we've determined they're necessary to ensure optimal growth as individuals.

Were they 'invented' by man? Or are unalienable rights as defined in the the OP something that has always existed and, with our Declaration of Independence that formed the concept for our Constitution, were recognized and acknowledged by man?

Invented. The concepts are meaningless without our brains. Aka non existent.

 

[Foxfyre]

Rights are abstract concepts invented by man, they are only inherent in that in our study of behavior - we've determined they're necessary to ensure optimal growth as individuals.

Were they 'invented' by man? Or are unalienable rights as defined in the the OP something that has always existed and, with our Declaration of Independence that formed the concept for our Constitution, were recognized and acknowledged by man?

Invented. The concepts are meaningless without our brains. Aka non existent.

What is meaningful without our brains? Does that mean the Earth and Sky and atmosphere and trees and grass and love and hate and hope and creativity and innovation don't exist without our brains? To me that argument just doesn't wash.

Does the wolf or the deer or the eagle that flies have the right to breathe the air it exists in? What law would give it that right? Or deny it that right? And if the other creatures on Earth have a natural right to breathe the air they must have to live at all, then so does man. The law can specify that we will die. But it cannot take from us our right to breathe so long as we live. The law can deny us the ability to exercise our natural rights. But it cannot take those rights from us.

So the debate becomes whether we believe or endorse laws that would deny us the ability to exercise our natural rights--rights that require no participation or contribution from any other--or whether we believe liberty should prohibit any law that would deny us ability to exercise our natural rights.

 

[RosieS]

Taxes are not the confiscation of the earnings, labor or property of others.

Taxes are not something that citizens can earmark.

You don't know if what you paid goes toward the earned income tax credit or the dropping of tons of bombs on ISIS.

And you don't need to know.

Each of us contributes our share of taxes according to a predetermined formula.

People getting help in paying for medical expenses are saving $$ when they use regular doctors rather than the much more expensive ERs.

The rise in health insurance premiums reflect reduced contributions of employers as well as more accurate pricing by insurers.

Health insurance costs can be expected to increase regardless of the ACA.

If there actually WERE an inalienable right to health care we would experience cost savings as a nation by having a single payer plan similar to Medicare that sets strict payment limits and also reduced payment for prescription drugs.

By not having Universal Healthcare Americans collectively and individually are paying more under the broken system as it exists now.

I don't have a dog in this fight since my SSDI gives me Medicare and my Hubs is seen at the VA

We have medical savings that most do not (but should) have access to.

Regards from Rosie.

 

[G.T.]

Rights are abstract concepts invented by man, they are only inherent in that in our study of behavior - we've determined they're necessary to ensure optimal growth as individuals.

Were they 'invented' by man? Or are unalienable rights as defined in the the OP something that has always existed and, with our Declaration of Independence that formed the concept for our Constitution, were recognized and acknowledged by man?

Invented. The concepts are meaningless without our brains. Aka non existent.

What is meaningful without our brains? Does that mean the Earth and Sky and atmosphere and trees and grass and love and hate and hope and creativity and innovation don't exist without our brains? To me that argument just doesn't wash.

Does the wolf or the deer or the eagle that flies have the right to breathe the air it exists in? What law would give it that right? Or deny it that right? And if the other creatures on Earth have a natural right to breathe the air they must have to live at all, then so does man. The law can specify that we will die. But it cannot take from us our right to breathe so long as we live. The law can deny us the ability to exercise our natural rights. But it cannot take those rights from us.

So the debate becomes whether we believe or endorse laws that would deny us the ability to exercise our natural rights--rights that require no participation or contribution from any other--or whether we believe liberty should prohibit any law that would deny us ability to exercise our natural rights.

Trees and air and such are physical objects, not concepts. Your analogy was flawed, thus creating a false choice.

Rights are merely theories on how best to cohabitate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Rights are abstract concepts invented by man, they are only inherent in that in our study of behavior - we've determined they're necessary to ensure optimal growth as individuals.

Were they 'invented' by man? Or are unalienable rights as defined in the the OP something that has always existed and, with our Declaration of Independence that formed the concept for our Constitution, were recognized and acknowledged by man?

Invented. The concepts are meaningless without our brains. Aka non existent.

What is meaningful without our brains? Does that mean the Earth and Sky and atmosphere and trees and grass and love and hate and hope and creativity and innovation don't exist without our brains? To me that argument just doesn't wash.

Does the wolf or the deer or the eagle that flies have the right to breathe the air it exists in? What law would give it that right? Or deny it that right? And if the other creatures on Earth have a natural right to breathe the air they must have to live at all, then so does man. The law can specify that we will die. But it cannot take from us our right to breathe so long as we live. The law can deny us the ability to exercise our natural rights. But it cannot take those rights from us.

So the debate becomes whether we believe or endorse laws that would deny us the ability to exercise our natural rights--rights that require no participation or contribution from any other--or whether we believe liberty should prohibit any law that would deny us ability to exercise our natural rights.

Trees and air and such are physical objects, not concepts. Your analogy was flawed, thus creating a false choice.

Rights are merely theories on how best to cohabitate.

Okay, I accept that you don't believe in rights. So you probably won't find a lot to interest you in this thread. I'm sure you won't mind if others of us do discuss the topic though?

 

[Foxfyre]

Taxes are not the confiscation of the earnings, labor or property of others.

Taxes are not something that citizens can earmark.

You don't know if what you paid goes toward the earned income tax credit or the dropping of tons of bombs on ISIS.

And you don't need to know.

Each of us contributes our share of taxes according to a predetermined formula.

People getting help in paying for medical expenses are saving $$ when they use regular doctors rather than the much more expensive ERs.

The rise in health insurance premiums reflect reduced contributions of employers as well as more accurate pricing by insurers.

Health insurance costs can be expected to increase regardless of the ACA.

If there actually WERE an inalienable right to health care we would experience cost savings as a nation by having a single payer plan similar to Medicare that sets strict payment limits and also reduced payment for prescription drugs.

By not having Universal Healthcare Americans collectively and individually are paying more under the broken system as it exists now.

I don't have a dog in this fight since my SSDI gives me Medicare and my Hubs is seen at the VA

We have medical savings that most do not (but should) have access to.

Regards from Rosie.

A medical savings account is a very different animal however as it is completely voluntary and doesn't cost require anybody to contribute to it.

So let me be sure I am understanding you. If I don't KNOW that my taxes are going to pay for your healthcare insurance that you cannot or do not wish to pay for yourself, then it isn't involuntary contribution for the benefit of somebody else? I think that is what you said but if not, please correct me.

 

[G.T.]

Rights are abstract concepts invented by man, they are only inherent in that in our study of behavior - we've determined they're necessary to ensure optimal growth as individuals.

Were they 'invented' by man? Or are unalienable rights as defined in the the OP something that has always existed and, with our Declaration of Independence that formed the concept for our Constitution, were recognized and acknowledged by man?

Invented. The concepts are meaningless without our brains. Aka non existent.

What is meaningful without our brains? Does that mean the Earth and Sky and atmosphere and trees and grass and love and hate and hope and creativity and innovation don't exist without our brains? To me that argument just doesn't wash.

Does the wolf or the deer or the eagle that flies have the right to breathe the air it exists in? What law would give it that right? Or deny it that right? And if the other creatures on Earth have a natural right to breathe the air they must have to live at all, then so does man. The law can specify that we will die. But it cannot take from us our right to breathe so long as we live. The law can deny us the ability to exercise our natural rights. But it cannot take those rights from us.

So the debate becomes whether we believe or endorse laws that would deny us the ability to exercise our natural rights--rights that require no participation or contribution from any other--or whether we believe liberty should prohibit any law that would deny us ability to exercise our natural rights.

Trees and air and such are physical objects, not concepts. Your analogy was flawed, thus creating a false choice.

Rights are merely theories on how best to cohabitate.

Okay, I accept that you don't believe in rights. So you probably won't find a lot to interest you in this thread. I'm sure you won't mind if others of us do discuss the topic though?

Well, youd be wrong. I believe in them....i just dont delude myself as to their origins. Thats all.

 

[RosieS]

Taxes are not the confiscation of the earnings, labor or property of others.

Taxes are not something that citizens can earmark.

You don't know if what you paid goes toward the earned income tax credit or the dropping of tons of bombs on ISIS.

And you don't need to know.

Each of us contributes our share of taxes according to a predetermined formula.

People getting help in paying for medical expenses are saving $$ when they use regular doctors rather than the much more expensive ERs.

The rise in health insurance premiums reflect reduced contributions of employers as well as more accurate pricing by insurers.

Health insurance costs can be expected to increase regardless of the ACA.

If there actually WERE an inalienable right to health care we would experience cost savings as a nation by having a single payer plan similar to Medicare that sets strict payment limits and also reduced payment for prescription drugs.

By not having Universal Healthcare Americans collectively and individually are paying more under the broken system as it exists now.

I don't have a dog in this fight since my SSDI gives me Medicare and my Hubs is seen at the VA

We have medical savings that most do not (but should) have access to.

Regards from Rosie.

A medical savings account is a very different animal however as it is completely voluntary and doesn't cost require anybody to contribute to it.

So let me be sure I am understanding you. If I don't KNOW that my taxes are going to pay for your healthcare insurance that you cannot or do not wish to pay for yourself, then it isn't involuntary contribution for the benefit of somebody else? I think that is what you said but if not, please correct me.

I am saying that no one can earmark their taxes.

So, therefore, it is not an involuntary contribution to X but not Y, because everyone ends up contributing to things they both like and don't.

So there is no involuntary nor unjust involved in how the Federal gov't. pays for its expenses with IRS proceeds.

Regards from Rosie

 

[JakeStarkey]

How much right exists and where do we draw the line on what one citizen is entitled to of the earnings, labor, or property of others? Is Williams right that some things we call 'rights' are 'bogus rights' or should never be labeled rights at all?

The "rights" exist in the Constitution and are referred to in the Declaration of Independence. Williams' definition of rights and what constitutes "bogus rights" is immaterial to this debate because only Congress, in line with SCOTUS review, can determine what are these "rights", and only Congress can decide how taxation and programs are to be allotted.

Then if Williams opinion, which is the thesis of the thread, is immaterial in your opinion, I guess you won't want to participate in this thread then Jake. But thanks for stopping by.

Of course I will participate, because I find much of it interesting to read. You asked if Williams is right. I said "no", because Congress and SCOTUS define those rights. I have stayed within your rules.

Since Congress has the power of the budget and taxation, then Congress within the Constitution can apportion the funds as it sees appropriately.

 

[Foxfyre]

Taxes are not the confiscation of the earnings, labor or property of others.

Taxes are not something that citizens can earmark.

You don't know if what you paid goes toward the earned income tax credit or the dropping of tons of bombs on ISIS.

And you don't need to know.

Each of us contributes our share of taxes according to a predetermined formula.

People getting help in paying for medical expenses are saving $$ when they use regular doctors rather than the much more expensive ERs.

The rise in health insurance premiums reflect reduced contributions of employers as well as more accurate pricing by insurers.

Health insurance costs can be expected to increase regardless of the ACA.

If there actually WERE an inalienable right to health care we would experience cost savings as a nation by having a single payer plan similar to Medicare that sets strict payment limits and also reduced payment for prescription drugs.

By not having Universal Healthcare Americans collectively and individually are paying more under the broken system as it exists now.

I don't have a dog in this fight since my SSDI gives me Medicare and my Hubs is seen at the VA

We have medical savings that most do not (but should) have access to.

Regards from Rosie.

A medical savings account is a very different animal however as it is completely voluntary and doesn't cost require anybody to contribute to it.

So let me be sure I am understanding you. If I don't KNOW that my taxes are going to pay for your healthcare insurance that you cannot or do not wish to pay for yourself, then it isn't involuntary contribution for the benefit of somebody else? I think that is what you said but if not, please correct me.

I am saying that no one can earmark their taxes.

So, therefore, it is not an involuntary contribution to X but not Y, because everyone ends up contributing to things they both like and don't.

So there is no involuntary nor unjust involved in how the Federal gov't. pays for its expenses with IRS proceeds.

Regards from Rosie

I am not concerned about earmarking or advocating that citizens be able to earmark their taxes. Nor am I suggesting that there is no justification for taxes at all.

But if the government doesn't TELL me that that taxes I paid were used to pay for X's healthcare because X cannot or will not pay for his/her own, how is that not an involuntary contribution to X's healthcare? I would pay less in taxes if nobody's taxes were used to pay for X's healthcare.

But the more imperative question that relates to the OP, what gives X a "right" to my money to pay for his/her healthcare?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If X can't pay taxes then our taxes that go to defense or transportation or whatever are involuntary contributions for X's share by the above reasoning.

 

[RosieS]

Taxes are not the confiscation of the earnings, labor or property of others.

Taxes are not something that citizens can earmark.

You don't know if what you paid goes toward the earned income tax credit or the dropping of tons of bombs on ISIS.

And you don't need to know.

Each of us contributes our share of taxes according to a predetermined formula.

People getting help in paying for medical expenses are saving $$ when they use regular doctors rather than the much more expensive ERs.

The rise in health insurance premiums reflect reduced contributions of employers as well as more accurate pricing by insurers.

Health insurance costs can be expected to increase regardless of the ACA.

If there actually WERE an inalienable right to health care we would experience cost savings as a nation by having a single payer plan similar to Medicare that sets strict payment limits and also reduced payment for prescription drugs.

By not having Universal Healthcare Americans collectively and individually are paying more under the broken system as it exists now.

I don't have a dog in this fight since my SSDI gives me Medicare and my Hubs is seen at the VA

We have medical savings that most do not (but should) have access to.

Regards from Rosie.

A medical savings account is a very different animal however as it is completely voluntary and doesn't cost require anybody to contribute to it.

So let me be sure I am understanding you. If I don't KNOW that my taxes are going to pay for your healthcare insurance that you cannot or do not wish to pay for yourself, then it isn't involuntary contribution for the benefit of somebody else? I think that is what you said but if not, please correct me.

I am saying that no one can earmark their taxes.

So, therefore, it is not an involuntary contribution to X but not Y, because everyone ends up contributing to things they both like and don't.

So there is no involuntary nor unjust involved in how the Federal gov't. pays for its expenses with IRS proceeds.

Regards from Rosie

I am not concerned about earmarking or advocating that citizens be able to earmark their taxes. Nor am I suggesting that there is no justification for taxes at all.

But if the government doesn't TELL me that that taxes I paid were used to pay for X's healthcare because X cannot or will not pay for his/her own, how is that not an involuntary contribution to X's healthcare? I would pay less in taxes if nobody's taxes were used to pay for X's healthcare.

But the more imperative question that relates to the OP, what gives X a "right" to my money to pay for his/her healthcare?

a) I just explained why it is not an involuntary contribution.

b) you are paying for other's healthcare regardless. Use of the ER by the uninsured is much more expensive than regular care by a doctor. These hospital costs are spread out among the citizens of that hospital's locality.

c) Health insurance costs better reflect what healthcare actually really costs for your family and yourself since employers are subsidizing less and millions of uninsured have been veered off into ACA coverage. If the ACA insured did not have that option, your health care premiums would be even higher.

d) residents of some states, like Florida, are paying more into Federal coffers than others and receiving less in return because certain governors did not sign up to the exchanges, so billions coming from Washington are diverted to states who did. This is a state and not a federal problem and added cost because of turning down Federal funding.

e) if you had single payer coverage like my Medicare, you also would be unaffected by all of the above.

Regards from Rosie

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'How much right exists and where do we draw the line on what one citizen is entitled to of the earnings, labor, or property of others? Is Williams right that some things we call 'rights' are 'bogus rights' or should never be labeled rights at all?'

Our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity – they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any constitution, government, or man.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government as authorized by the Constitution, and where government is restricted by that same Constitutional case law.

Our civil rights represent solely the relationship between the citizen and his government, not the relationship between one private citizen and another, or a private person and private organization; and if government acts in a manner the citizen perceives to be beyond government's authority, he may file suit in Federal court to seek relief.

The issue of what one citizen is entitled to of the earnings of others is addressed by government's authority to tax as authorized by the Constitution; neither government nor a private person can compel citizens to give their labor unwillingly and without compensation, nor may a citizen seek to take the property of another he is not entitled to. With regard to the relationship between the citizen and his government, the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment authorizes the doctrine of eminent domain, affording citizens the right to due process and just compensation.

Consequently, the issue doesn't concern what one might perceive as 'bogus rights,' rather it's a failure to understand the relationship between the government and those governed, how the Constitution and its case law defines that relationship, and that the relationship is indeed only between the government and private citizens.

 

[Foxfyre]

Taxes are not the confiscation of the earnings, labor or property of others.

Taxes are not something that citizens can earmark.

You don't know if what you paid goes toward the earned income tax credit or the dropping of tons of bombs on ISIS.

And you don't need to know.

Each of us contributes our share of taxes according to a predetermined formula.

People getting help in paying for medical expenses are saving $$ when they use regular doctors rather than the much more expensive ERs.

The rise in health insurance premiums reflect reduced contributions of employers as well as more accurate pricing by insurers.

Health insurance costs can be expected to increase regardless of the ACA.

If there actually WERE an inalienable right to health care we would experience cost savings as a nation by having a single payer plan similar to Medicare that sets strict payment limits and also reduced payment for prescription drugs.

By not having Universal Healthcare Americans collectively and individually are paying more under the broken system as it exists now.

I don't have a dog in this fight since my SSDI gives me Medicare and my Hubs is seen at the VA

We have medical savings that most do not (but should) have access to.

Regards from Rosie.

A medical savings account is a very different animal however as it is completely voluntary and doesn't cost require anybody to contribute to it.

So let me be sure I am understanding you. If I don't KNOW that my taxes are going to pay for your healthcare insurance that you cannot or do not wish to pay for yourself, then it isn't involuntary contribution for the benefit of somebody else? I think that is what you said but if not, please correct me.

I am saying that no one can earmark their taxes.

So, therefore, it is not an involuntary contribution to X but not Y, because everyone ends up contributing to things they both like and don't.

So there is no involuntary nor unjust involved in how the Federal gov't. pays for its expenses with IRS proceeds.

Regards from Rosie

I am not concerned about earmarking or advocating that citizens be able to earmark their taxes. Nor am I suggesting that there is no justification for taxes at all.

But if the government doesn't TELL me that that taxes I paid were used to pay for X's healthcare because X cannot or will not pay for his/her own, how is that not an involuntary contribution to X's healthcare? I would pay less in taxes if nobody's taxes were used to pay for X's healthcare.

But the more imperative question that relates to the OP, what gives X a "right" to my money to pay for his/her healthcare?

a) I just explained why it is not an involuntary contribution.

b) you are paying for other's healthcare regardless. Use of the ER by the uninsured is much more expensive than regular care by a doctor. These hospital costs are spread out among the citizens of that hospital's locality.

c) Health insurance costs better reflect what healthcare actually really costs for your family and yourself since employers are subsidizing less and millions of uninsured have been veered off into ACA coverage. If the ACA insured did not have that option, your health care premiums would be even higher.

d) residents of some states, like Florida, are paying more into Federal coffers than others and receiving less in return because certain governors did not sign up to the exchanges, so billions coming from Washington are diverted to states who did. This is a state and not a federal problem and added cost because of turning down Federal funding.

e) if you had single payer coverage like my Medicare, you also would be unaffected by all of the above.

Regards from Rosie

You explained it as you saw it Rosie but I'm not seeing it the same way. But it is late and I'm sleepy. So I'll wish everybody a good night and shall return to do battle tomorrow.