Say Anything Blog

’Deciding who lives and who dies among the innocent is not a decision to be made by the government.’

Quite right. This protocol, however, suggests no such thing. From the article you have quoted -

‘The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child’s medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it’s best.’ (my emphasis).

So there has to be a medical consensus that the child is in severe pain and has no prospect of improvement in its condition, and parental approval.

In turn, this renders your suggestion that parents can simply ‘do away’ with children they don’t want null and void. There has to be medical approval for any decision.

Furthermore, this claim of yours -

‘how long before the parents of a mentally handicapped child decide to “euthanize” it because they don’t want the hassle of raising it?’

is again spurious. This legislation (again, read the article) only applies to cases of severe pain coupled with terminal illness. There is no question whatsoever of killing mentally deficient children. Not at all. I suggest you remove this insinuation, one that leads to this wild assertion -

‘Even the title “the Groningen Protocal” is creepy. It ought to remind you of the Wannsee Conference - both waystations on the same road.’

I know you did not write these words, Rob, but they are utterly ludicrous.
The Wansee Conference orchestrated the deliberate murder of millions of fully-functiong adults and children, against their will. To even mention this outrage in the same sentence as the mercy-killing of terminally-ill infants in severe pain simply closes down all rational debate.

Is halting recussitation of a terminally-ill elderly person, perhaps dying of cancer, and in great pain, ‘on the same road’ as the Wansee Conference? Of course not.

Even the use of Wansee as an example is misguided. Although the Nazis used the term ‘euthanasia’ widely pre-1942, the historical record shows that in the vast majority of cases, the people ‘euthanised’ were suffering from epilepsy, blindness, deafness, schizophrenia, and so on (or even had nothing more than a history of such ‘illnesses’ in their family) - these people hardly needed, or wanted, to be put of their misery.

The term ‘euthanasia’ then came to be elided with the elimination of peasant Slavs, the great mass of Russians and Poles who the Nazis simply viewed as sub-human.

But by the time of the Wansee Conference, even the Nazis’ crude distortion of vocabulary could not extend to using the term ‘euthanasia’ to cover murder. The word was simply not used. I think, from what I have read, that the term ‘evacuation’ was the convenient substitute for what everyone present by that lake knew was simple murder.

Mark: when you get your health care from your government, and you have no other option, it is ultimately the decision of the government.  The “Groningen Protocalâ€? will be handled by people who ultimately work under the government.  This isn’t to say that “under the government” is equal to following laws; they are literally working under a government program.

Do you really want to go down this path?

likwidshoe,
You automatically assume that the government will pressure doctors into making decisions.  I can’t say that the Netherlands doesn’t have a corrupt government.  I don’t know enough about it.  However, that doesn’t mean that they definitly are.  I think its your fear of socialized medicine that is making you believe that the government would perform such atrocities as to really have doctors kill healthy babies.  If socialized medicine is so bad, then why do the majority of citizens who live in those countries love it so much?  I’m not saying its right for America, but obviously they like so its right for them.

I’m also offended that you would think doctors would really stoop so low as to kill a healthy baby.  The majority of doctors I’ve known and worked with have always had integrity and put the patient’s health first.  I know that socialist doctors might be different, but this protocol would only be applied very rarely, so doctors wouldn’t make anymore money then they would if they did not kill the baby.

Andrew says, “You automatically assume that the government will pressure doctors into making decisions.”

Yes.  That’s reality in government.

If socialized medicine is so bad, then why do the majority of citizens who live in those countries love it so much?

Ignorance.

I’m also offended that you would think doctors would really stoop so low as to kill a healthy baby.

Why?  They do it in China, don’t they?  You think the Chinese are bad people?  Or that they have a government that’s out of their hands?

The majority of doctors I’ve known and worked with have always had integrity and put the patient’s health first.

Key word that must not be overlooked: “majority”.

I know that socialist doctors might be different...

Stop right there… No need to defend it now.  Socialist doctors owe their allegiance to whom?  Answer: the government.  Not the patient.

You seem like you have honorable intentions Andrew.  I don’t question your intent in this subject because you’ve made it clear that your compassion is just and you’re just looking to ease the suffering of truely hopelessly in pain people.  Ultimately our main difference is that I think you place too much trust into the hands of government.

You mentioned that I have a fear of socialized medicine.  You are right.  Think about socialism.  Fundamentally in a socialist state = each new birth is a burden for the state.  Someone that now has to be clothed, housed, and given medical care.  That state is the one who provides.  Socialism isn’t a zero-sum game.  It doesn’t create wealth like capitalism does.  It merely redistributes wealth.  There’s an incentive to discourage redistribution to people who can’t pay back.

The slippery slope of the “the Groningen Protocalâ€? is this: it will eventually be society’s (i.e.: the government’s) decision, not the doctor’s and parent’s. Unless, of course, you trust that the government has the people’s interest in mind, and not it’s own.

Addendum:

I know that you have made clear that you are arguing the merits of the “Groningen Protocal” as it is written.  I understand this.  I’m arguing about the merits of the “Groningen Protocal” as it will be applied.

Likwidshoe -
Your post is so chock-full of half-truths, insinuations, and patronising garbage, I don’t really know where to start. And I’m being polite.

As it happens, I am British, which has what you would term a ‘socialized’ system of health care. You seem to think this means I don’t have a choice. Incorrect. There are a number of private health firms I could quite easily choose to use if I didn’t trust the government provision.

That’s that out of the way. You then suggest that all medical decisions will ‘ultimately the decision of the government’.

Wrong. You are talking absolute nonsense. Government makes law, it is true. But it is also bound by it. So this assertion that the doctors will ‘apply’ the law in contradiction to what is actually written is ludicrous. If a doctor murders a child, contrary to the wishes of the parent, there will be an outcry, and a legal firestorm. But then again, everyone in Western Europe is ignorant. So what do we know.

There are legitimate cases to be made for and against state provision of medicine. Stating that everyone in a country is stupid does nothing to advance the debate. I suggest you grow up a little.

Equally, impugning doctors as murderers tells me you don’t really have any sensible arguments.

And this comment -

“Fundamentally in a socialist state = each new birth is a burden for the state.”

only serves to confirm that notion.

In addition to my last post, you (Mark) say, “You are talking absolute nonsense. Government makes law, it is true. But it is also bound by it.”

In a socialist country, the government holds the purse, the sword, and the power to make law.  True or not?

Mark says, “There are a number of private health firms I could quite easily choose to use if I didn’t trust the government provision.”

That’s how your system works.  Is it like this in every socialist country?

If a doctor murders a child, contrary to the wishes of the parent, there will be an outcry, and a legal firestorm.

Just like in China, right?

There are legitimate cases to be made for and against state provision of medicine. Stating that everyone in a country is stupid does nothing to advance the debate. I suggest you grow up a little.

I didn’t say stupid.  I said ignorant.  I suggest you get a dictionary to look up the difference.

Equally, impugning doctors as murderers tells me you don’t really have any sensible arguments.

Um...we’re talking about euthanasia, not murder.

And this comment -

only serves to confirm that notion.

Confirm the notion of what?  If you have an argument, present it.

Likwidshoe -
You suggested that living in a ‘socialist’ country, with socialized medicine, necessarily means I don’t have a choice. I told you why this connection is false. The fact that in some other countries there is no choice is neither here nor there. Your argument is wrong. Deal with it.

In precisely the same fashion, pointing to China as a response to my point that in this country, and across Western Europe, we are governed by law, is equally invalid.

Your problem is that you assume a system of socialization (be it of medicine, or of education, or otherwise) to be one and the same with totalitarianism. It is true that there are totalitarian countries which happen to be socialist. Equally, however, there are totalitarian countries who happen to be capitalist. Most countries in western Europe are governed by social democratic parties - that is to say, governed by democratically elected, socialist-leaning parties. The great majority of citizens in these countries choose to have the public systems of health and education we currently have.

The only way you can counter this awkward fact, it seems, is to imply that we are all ill-informed or igorant. I’m not going to dignify that with a response.

Now to the distinction beween murder and euthanasia. Andrew said -

‘I’m also offended that you would think doctors would really stoop so low as to kill a healthy baby.’

To which you replied - ‘they do it in China’.

Now, euthanasia involves the ending of suffering. Killing a healthy baby, therefore, is murder. Ergo, you did imply that doctors are murderers. Either refer to your own posts, or be more careful with the words you are using.

“Fundamentally in a socialist state = each new birth is a burden for the state.�

For your benefit, I will elaborate. Setting aside the fact it does not make any sense (I suggest you replace the equals sign with a comma, to give the sentence some form of intelligibility), the basis for your argument seems to be the confused notion that citizens in socialist countries don’t pay any tax, or make any contribution towards the running of society. You imply that in a socialist country, everyone is a burden, because the state has to give them ‘clothing’, ‘housing’, and ‘medical care’. Ironically, you (unintentionally?) present a socialist country as something of a paradise, where no-one needs to work, and they can sit back while the state somehow magically clothes, feeds, houses, and takes care of them.

Now, tell me, is that not the exact opposite of the libertarian case against socialism?

Deary me…

And one other thing -

‘In a socialist country, the government holds the purse, the sword, and the power to make law.’

And this is different from a capitalist society… how?

Mark replies, “You suggested that living in a ’socialist’ country, with socialized medicine, necessarily means I don’t have a choice. I told you why this connection is false. The fact that in some other countries there is no choice is neither here nor there. Your argument is wrong. Deal with it.”

Deal with what?  You have a choice in your socialist country.  You have a free market option.  Congratulations, as that’s usually not the case.  Your country’s degree of socialism isn’t as rough as others.

In precisely the same fashion, pointing to China as a response to my point that in this country, and across Western Europe, we are governed by law, is equally invalid.

I’ll accept that.  They have a more radical form of socialism that’s known as communism.  Maybe it wasn’t fair to include them.

Your problem is that you assume a system of socialization (be it of medicine, or of education, or otherwise) to be one and the same with totalitarianism. It is true that there are totalitarian countries which happen to be socialist. Equally, however, there are totalitarian countries who happen to be capitalist.

Ahhh!  But therein lies the difference.  Capitalism is merely a system of economics.  It can be coupled with different governmental systems as you said.  But socialism is different.  It is a form of government that controls the economics.  Only the degree of which differs.

Most countries in western Europe are governed by social democratic parties - that is to say, governed by democratically elected, socialist-leaning parties. The great majority of citizens in these countries choose to have the public systems of health and education we currently have.

I understand this.  You have a choice between one (or more) socialist solution(s) and another.  Not much of a choice if you ask me.

The only way you can counter this awkward fact, it seems, is to imply that we are all ill-informed or igorant. I’m not going to dignify that with a response.

I only responded to Andrew’s question of, “If socialized medicine is so bad, then why do the majority of citizens who live in those countries love it so much?” with the answer of ignorance.  That is quite different from what you just said.

Now, euthanasia involves the ending of suffering. Killing a healthy baby, therefore, is murder. Ergo, you did imply that doctors are murderers. Either refer to your own posts, or be more careful with the words you are using.

Point taken. Thanks for clearing that up.  I could retort with, “their idea of suffering is having too many people in the world, so it’s better to euthanize them”; but I won’t go there.

...the basis for your argument seems to be the confused notion that citizens in socialist countries don’t pay any tax, or make any contribution towards the running of society.

Hardly.  I realize that a socialist state’s citizens (or subjects) pay an enormous amount of taxes.

You imply that in a socialist country, everyone is a burden, because the state has to give them ‘clothing’, ‘housing’, and ‘medical care’.

Everyone is a burden for the state in a socialist country.  The degree to which is determined by how socialist the country is.

Ironically, you (unintentionally?) present a socialist country as something of a paradise, where no-one needs to work, and they can sit back while the state somehow magically clothes, feeds, houses, and takes care of them.

Nope.  I’m all too aware that one is taxed inordinately in a socialist country and that one often spends most of his workday working for the government (i.e.: working for others).

Now, tell me, is that not the exact opposite of the libertarian case against socialism?

Yes it is.  Complete opposite.  You have this libertarian confused for a socialist utopian (who has abundantly made clear that I don’t like nor agree with a socialist solution). 

And one other thing -

And this is different from a capitalist society… how?

You’re confusing capitalism with a form of government again.  If it’s a limited constitutional democratic republic coupled with capitalism then it’s the people who hold the purse string and make law.

Likwidshoe,
What you term ‘socialist’ medicine in this country can quite easily be put another way.

Each and every UK citizen pays ‘National Insurance’. That is, a payment towards their own health care, which funds our health service. The only difference between this system, and yours, is the fact that it is compulsory. In your country, I take it, it is perfectly possible to opt out of this system, and not pay any health insurance. That is the difference. Talk of ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism’ rather clouds this issue, and makes the divide seem greater than it actually is.

I have discussed my reasons for supporting compulsory health care with Rob before, so rather than repeat them, I’ll direct you to my comments at the bottom of this post -

http://sayanythingblog.com/2004/11/20/marijuana-good-trans-fats-baaaad/#comments

Would you let the stupid man I refer to die? If not, then you may be closer to ‘socialist’ medicine than you think. People should ordinarily take responsibility for their lives - but when people can exploit the compassion of others, then perhaps compulsion is necessary.

‘You have a choice between one (or more) socialist solution(s) and another. Not much of a choice if you ask me.’

Now if there was an appetite for ‘non-socialist’ (I use the term advisedly) solutions to health care in this country, a party would exist to satisfy that appetite, or at least would adopt it as a policy. A choice would therefore exist - we could choose to elect a party which explicitly adopted a market-led solution to healthcare.

No party this country has such a policy, not even the major right-wing Conservative Party. Are all our politicians stupid too? I don’t think so. The reason no choice exists is because of a happy state of consensus on our national health service, just as I’m sure consensus exists on some fundamentals of American political life. Asserting that there is some sinister ‘socialist’ conspiracy to deny choice is ridiculous.

Next - this idea that people in socialist countries are a ‘burden.’ You are advancing two incompatible ideas.

1) People have to pay lots of taxes in socialist countries, to pay for health, housing, clothing and food.
2) People in socialist countries are a burden, because the state has to pay for their health, housing, clothing and food.

Now, if people are paying lots of tax to fund their health, housing, clothing and food (idea 1), then why on earth are they a ‘burden’ (idea 2)? Logically, for them to be a burden, they should be paying very little tax, while needing all the things you speak of - hence the implication that you are painting a rather rosy picture of socialism. So what is it to be? Idea 1, or idea 2? You need to abandon one of these notions. Given that I don’t dispute taxation is high in socialist countries, I suggest you drop idea 2.

Now it is true that in China the state has taken dramatic action to try and limit the rate of child birth. However, that is in response to a specific demographic problem - namely, a potential population explosion, which would far outstrip the rate of production of goods and services. Extrapolating from this situation, to suggest that in all socialist countries each new birth is a burden, is nonsense. Each and every society needs a new generation to pay taxes to maintain and fund public services, and to drive the economy, and this is just as true in socialist countries as in capitalist countries.

If there was any doubt on this matter, I only need to direct you to the grotesque pro natalist policies of 1970s socialist Romania to demonstrate that your argument is tendentious.

Finally, the point that government holds the ‘purse, sword, and power to make law’.

Do you grasp that a capitalist economy cannot even function without state control? Do you realise how small a fraction of GDP arises independent of (capitalist) state interference? Every aspect of life in a capitalist democracy is dependent upon taxation to fund and maintain the infrastructure that permits free enterprise. The state creates the market, and allows its operation.

Mark writes, “The only difference between this system, and yours, is the fact that it is compulsory. In your country, I take it, it is perfectly possible to opt out of this system, and not pay any health insurance.”

If only that were true!  No.  We have a system of socialized medicine in the U.S. that workers can’t opt out of.  It’s called Medicare.  I pay into it, yet don’t recieve it.  That’s how Ponzi schemes work.

I’ll spend time on your defense of “compulsory health care” another time.  The points you made in regards to it here I’ll deal with in greater depth later.

Asserting that there is some sinister ’socialist’ conspiracy to deny choice is ridiculous.

I don’t believe that and haven’t asserted it.

Next - this idea that people in socialist countries are a ‘burden.’ You are advancing two incompatible ideas.

1) People have to pay lots of taxes in socialist countries, to pay for health, housing, clothing and food.
2) People in socialist countries are a burden, because the state has to pay for their health, housing, clothing and food.

First of all, I don’t consider the people in a socialist state a burden, the state does.  And those aren’t incompatible ideas when one considers the amount of tax money that goes to feed the government bureaucracy.  The money that goes to the people doesn’t go to the cushy government jobs.  Simple concept.  Now I do realize that people are the ones who pay taxes, and without them, there are no taxes.  But you have to realize that socialism isn’t a zero sum game.  It doesn’t generate wealth like capitalism does.  No wealth generated + money lost to administration fees = a program that loses money. Getting more people to pay into it doesn’t help unless you cut services.

Now it is true that in China the state has taken dramatic action to try and limit the rate of child birth. However, that is in response to a specific demographic problem - namely, a potential population explosion, which would far outstrip the rate of production of goods and services.

No.  They don’t have a “demographic problem”.  The have a lack of freedom problem.  The people of China aren’t free to act on their available resources.

Do you grasp that a capitalist economy cannot even function without state control?

“Without state control”?  That sentence is pure nonesense.  Capitalism is economic freedom.  It’s not state control.

Do you realise how small a fraction of GDP arises independent of (capitalist) state interference?

Well it wasn’t always like that and it doesn’t have to be like that.  That point is moot.

Every aspect of life in a capitalist democracy is dependent upon taxation to fund and maintain the infrastructure that permits free enterprise.

No it’s not.  This is more nonesense.  I’ll explain again: capitalism is economic freedom.  It is not dependent upon government infrastructure.  It funds itself.  That argument you just made is often used by socialists in a misguided attempt to bolden their claims that a big government is needed.  Now you may be able to make the claim that roads are needed for capitalism to work and I wouldn’t disagree.  I also wouldn’t disagree with the argument that it’s probably better for road planning to be government centralized to ensure efficiency and whatnot.  But you can’t convince me that the money spent to build the roads wouldn’t be better spent among competing capitalist companies.  Same goes for just about every other service you think government has to provide.

The state creates the market, and allows its operation.

No it doesn’t!  The state hinders the market.  The market (I’ll use the US as an example) existed before the state did so your argument is gone.

Likwidshoe -
Interesting. I didn’t realise your system was virtually identical to ours.
Do you consider it socialist?

My point about you implying that there was a socialist conspiracy (while admittedly a little hyperbolic) stemmed from this comment of yours -

‘I understand this. You have a choice between one (or more) socialist solution(s) and another. Not much of a choice if you ask me.’

This is not true on two grounds - A) We have a choice to use non-socialist healthcare, B) We have a choice to elect governments that will liberalise healthcare. It just happens that we decide not to. That’s democracy for you. Regardless, on both grounds your point is false.

Now the ‘burden’ point. I notice you chose to ignore my example of socialist Romania and its pro-natalist policies. Rather than going around in circles like we have been, I would suggest you respond to this case, for it totally undermines your argument.

As for your argument that capitalism can function independent of state interference - hmm. I think a lot of your case rests on terminology. Certainly, a market in goods existed in what was the United States before its formal creation as a nation state. But people still paid taxes, or made some form of contribution, monetary or not, to allow administration of their community. And this has been the case since humans have lived in settled communities - for example, peasant societies involve peasants putting in labour on common land for part of the year, in return for which they get protection from the members of the village, administration of disputes, help in lean times, etc. This is not ‘taxation’, or a ‘state’, in any strict sense of the term - but it is its equivalent. Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.

My argument certainly is not ‘gone’, as you imply. This is why - a market cannot function without taxation, or some form of contribution to an overarching authority. Without it, life would be ‘nasty, brutish and short’. At the absolute minimum, we need to fund a police force (to protect against internal use of force), a military (to protect against external force), a judiciary (to settle and adjudicate on disputes), and a prison service (to detain criminals).

Without these, we will simply be rolling around in the mud, eating grass, in a world of misery.

(Incidentally, have you read Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia? Perhaps the foremost work of libertarian anarchism of the 20th century. Even he argues for taxation for funding of the above.)

You shouldn’t need to put them in.  Hard returns are converted to paragraph breaks automatically.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Mark writes, “Interesting. I didn’t realise your [socialized medical] system was virtually identical to ours.”

It’s not the same.  America’s program is a lot smaller than your country’s program and I pay into it yet don’t recieve it.

Do you consider it socialist?

Most definitely fits the bill.

My point about you implying that there was a socialist conspiracy (while admittedly a little hyperbolic) stemmed from this comment of yours -

‘I understand this. You have a choice between one (or more) socialist solution(s) and another. Not much of a choice if you ask me.’

This is not true on two grounds - A) We have a choice to use non-socialist healthcare, B) We have a choice to elect governments that will liberalise healthcare. It just happens that we decide not to. That’s democracy for you. Regardless, on both grounds your point is false.

Uh...read when I wrote that.  I was talking about your choice of political parties.  We were talking about what you termed, “social democratic parties” which you said were, “democratically elected, socialist-leaning parties”.  That’s when I made my comment.  So my point wasn’t wrong, just misunderstood.  And, as I have stated before in this thread, I understand that you have the option of free market health care (while at the same time forced to pay for the socialist one whether you want it or not).  And yes.  That is democracy.  A socialist democracy.  I’ll say it again: not much of a choice if you ask me.

urden’ point. I notice you chose to ignore my example of socialist Romania and its pro-natalist policies. Rather than going around in circles like we have been, I would suggest you respond to this case, for it totally undermines your argument.

As for your argument that capitalism can function independent of state interference - hmm. I think a lot of your case rests on terminology.

Oh yeah?

y, a market in goods existed in what was the United States before its formal creation as a nation state.

Well there you go!  Stop right there.

But people still paid taxes, or made some form of contribution, monetary or not, to allow administration of their community.

And this changes my argument not a whit because this administration wasn’t the primary enabler of the economy as you suggest.  (possible exception: patent protection laws enshrined into our Constitution and upheld by our courts; but you’re not arguing it from that perspective)

And this has been the case since humans have lived in settled communities - for example, peasant societies involve peasants putting in labour on common land for part of the year, in return for which they get protection from the members of the village, administration of disputes, help in lean times, etc. This is not ‘taxation’, or a ’state’, in any strict sense of the term - but it is its equivalent. Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.

So you are trying to argue it from a perspective of strict governmental jobs like judicial, legislative, executive, and defense branches.  This is quite a departure from your earlier claims that “a capitalist economy cannot even function without state control”.  Quite a departure indeed.  You moved the goalposts.

My argument certainly is not ‘gone’, as you imply.

Gone?  It’s now lost!

This is why - a market cannot function without taxation, or some form of contribution to an overarching authority.

Hahaha.  You’ve spent your whole time trying to prove this and aren’t even one iota closer.

At the absolute minimum, we need to fund a police force (to protect against internal use of force), a military (to protect against external force), a judiciary (to settle and adjudicate on disputes), and a prison service (to detain criminals).

Yes.  I don’t dispute that at all.  But once again you are far away from your claim of, “a capitalist economy cannot even function without state control”. State control of what Mark?  The police force?  Is that what you had set out to prove?

Without these, we will simply be rolling around in the mud, eating grass, in a world of misery.

Nice touch.

(Incidentally, have you read Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia? Perhaps the foremost work of libertarian anarchism of the 20th century. Even he argues for taxation for funding of the above.)

As do I!

Glad we got that out of the way…

Additionally!
Mark says, “This is why - a market cannot function without taxation, or some form of contribution to an overarching authority.”

Anyone who has spent any time in or around a black market would laugh loudly at this assertion.

Checkmate.

Note to webmaster: this comment box doesn’t take too kindly to the html paragraph breaks.

Likwidshoe –

Firstly, I notice you still have not responded to my example of the aggressively pro-natalist policies of socialist Romania. Let me remind you – this is the case that stands directly counter to your assertion that new births are a burden to a socialist state. So, please, respond to it. Please. I do want to keep this interesting.

Secondly, you seem to assume that the people of Britain can only vote for social democratic parties – ones who wish, among other policies, to maintain the present system of compulsory national insurance contributions. This is decidedly not the case. If the people of Britain so wanted, they could vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in our general election next year – and at a stroke, they would remove this policy. The people of Britain could quite happily usher in a new political climate, just as, in electing Tony Blair, they made the transition from a market-led conservative democracy to a social democracy. They have a choice, and it is patronising to suggest otherwise.

Thirdly, rather than going around in circles like we have been, the essential point is this one (I will repeat it) – ‘taxation is the price we pay for civilization’. Perhaps a market can function without taxation – but it would be one riven with insecurity, extortion, indiscriminate violence and fear. So it is, ironically, fitting that you use the example of the black market to ‘rebut’ my claims.

So, if we don’t want to live under these conditions, some taxation is inevitable, at the very least for a police force, a military, a judiciary, and a prison service. I take it we are we agreed on this. Now – just what percentage of current US governmental spending do these four branches take up? At the very least, the majority of it.

Finally, if we return to the topic initially under discussion – that is to say, the probability that ‘socialist’ states are more likely to bump off newly-born citizens than states with private healthcare – are you suggesting that the financial imperative does not exist in privately-financed hospital?

Mark responds, “Firstly, I notice you still have not responded to my example of the aggressively pro-natalist policies of socialist Romania. Let me remind you – this is the case that stands directly counter to your assertion that new births are a burden to a socialist state. So, please, respond to it. Please. I do want to keep this interesting.”

I don’t know much about Romania or her history but my interest is piqued.  I’ll have to look into it some other time.

Thirdly, rather than going around in circles like we have been, the essential point is this one (I will repeat it) – ‘taxation is the price we pay for civilization’. Perhaps a market can function without taxation – but it would be one riven with insecurity, extortion, indiscriminate violence and fear. So it is, ironically, fitting that you use the example of the black market to ‘rebut’ my claims.

I used the black market to refute your claim of “This is why - a market cannot function without taxation, or some form of contribution to an overarching authority.â€?  Bringing up a black market is a perfect rebuttal to that claim.  Now if you had said, “civilized society with laws and the means to enforce those laws”, I would have agreed with you.  But you didn’t say that.  You keep on moving the goalposts without realizing it.

So, if we don’t want to live under these conditions, some taxation is inevitable, at the very least for a police force, a military, a judiciary, and a prison service. I take it we are we agreed on this.

I would hope that would be obvious.  I thought it was obvious before that I am against socialist welfare policies, not essential government services such as executive, legislative, and judicial.

Now – just what percentage of current US governmental spending do these four branches take up? At the very least, the majority of it.

I wish you were right.  Most of the United States government tax take now goes to socialist welfare policies.  Our military takes up less than 20% of the federal budget.  You have to remember: we have a Constitution that specifically enumerates certain individual rights and spells out the duties of the federal government.  We are supposed to have three branches of government; the executive (of which our President and military falls under), the judicial (the Supreme Court), and the legislative (Congress and the Senate) branch.  That’s it.  We aren’t supposed to have a welfare/administrative branch, and yet we do and it takes up the majority of the federal taxes. 

Most of my taxes go to socialist programs that I am forced into “for my own good”.  My condescending betters think they know what’s good for me.  A funny thing happened when I turned 18 years old.  I thought I was “free” from my parents and now could make my own adult financial decisions.  Saddened that I was when I found out that my parents gave me more freedom than my government does.

Finally, if we return to the topic initially under discussion – that is to say, the probability that ‘socialist’ states are more likely to bump off newly-born citizens than states with private healthcare – are you suggesting that the financial imperative does not exist in privately-financed hospital?

It does to some extent.  But they don’t hold the sword (the law) and the purse (taxes), now do they?  They might be able to get away with this sort of behavior for some time, but when they get caught they have to deal with an angry citizenry and the law.  They’ll go to jail and get sued off their asses.  That’s the power of juries and a judicial system with checks and balances.  There’s a separation of powers.  You can’t say the same for a government run hospital.

I’ve been dwelling on this recently, and I’ve noticed a small problem that (I think) needs to be addresssed.

I would argue that the black market only appears to stand as a counter-example to a market functioning without taxation, or contribution to a higher authority, precisely because it functions within a taxation-paying society.

That is to say, if we decide to operate outside of a taxation-paying market, and buy goods on a black market, the transactions we make are still guaranteed by the operation of law within the wider society. If we buy goods on a black market, we are still protected from the threat or use of force by the state we are in.

If you actually want to counter my argument that a market cannot function without some ‘Leviathan’, to which citizens make a contribution, in order to guarantee the operation of that market, then I suggest you have to imagine what would happen without any authority whatsoever - that is to say, in a situation of pure anarchy. Would a market still be able to operate?

BTW - any thoughts on communist Romania?

I think there must be a law to provoke this illegal action and the government ought to holds the purse, the sword, and the power to make law to control these.

This trend of overseas outsourcing continues to grow—whether it be product manufacturing, medical dictation services, radiology services, engineering services, legal services -