From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Jun 25 2004 - 07:09:25 BST
Dear Mark H. (and Platt),
You wrote 14 Jun 2004 06:10:48 -0700:
'So, in your view, a health-care system that is supported by
voluntary contributions is morally superior to one that is funded by
non-voluntary tax contributions. What if it can be demonstrated that
the voluntary system is inferior in providing adequate health care to
all citizens? That is, what if we apply your philosophical idea to
the real world?
And does your voluntary/forced distinction regarding behavior apply
across the board? That is, not just to ways of funding health care?'
Yes, all other things being equal, voluntary financing of collective
services (and its direct consequences) is morally superior to enforcement.
If the people involved have a large enough capacity to identify with that
collective (ON TOP OF their individual identity and other group
identifications), I don't see why a voluntary system would provide less
adequate health care than an system of enforcement (unless as a result of a
choice by those voluntary contributors to spend less on collective health
care and more on other things).
Funding through taxes can be experienced by tax payers as voluntary
contributions to a system in which democratically arrived at law determines
how much everyone pays and what are the consequences if you refuse to pay.
Most people in the Netherlands experience the tax system in this way, I
think.
Real world societies and parts of those societies (like the way of funding
collective health care) are mixtures of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th type of
arrangements. Increasing the 4th type, voluntary element (based on
convincement/ideology) and decreasing the other types is a moral
development. So is increasing the 3rd type, market-based element (based on
economic dependence) to the extent that it reduces the 1st and 2nd types.
Even increasing the 2nd type, enforcement, can be moral to the extent that
it reduces the 1st type, based on inclusion and exclusion based on
presumably given characteristics (e.g. limiting collective health care to
those who belong to your own ethnic group and 'financing' it by traditional
obligations to keep up those who are 'gifted by the Gods' to provide that
health care).
Indeed: "The choices are not limited to private tyranny and state
ownership." (as you quoted Chomsky 19 Jun 2004 18:46:07 -0700).
3rd type arrangements are better not described as 'private tyranny' (and
thus implicitly as immoral). They are more moral than 1st and 2nd types.
State 'ownership' refers not only to 2nd type state enforcement, but also to
a 4th type element: the ideology that 'property rights' should determine who
can profit from what (instead of family-like relations, possession of means
of enforcement and/or ways of making others economically dependent on you).
You wrote 14 Jun 2004 06:43:41 -0700:
'theoretical "Free Market" societies are in most ways morally superior to
"Socialist" societies. The problem is that no such "Free Market" societies
exist.'
I agree. Reality only contains mixtures. Moral evolution of society requires
changing the mixture in the direction of more higher quality elements.
Discussion of the (theoretical) elements is useful only to the extent that
we keep that in mind.
I wrote 21 Jun 2004 08:30:13 +0200:
'I wonder what's the principal moral difference between social security for
low-status individuals and keeping up your local feudal lord??' Given that
both are ways in which 'groups/societies ... exclude ... individuals from
the need to produce their own food, shelter & clothing by providing it (at
least partially) for them'.
Platt answered 21 Jun 2004 15:01:25 -0400:
'Good question. It's similar to the moral difference between taxing everyone
equally and a progressive tax. I wonder about what moral principle applies
in that case, too.'
Mark commented 21 Jun 2004 20:52:15 -0700:
'Taxing everyone equally would be fine [only] in a world where resources and
opportunities are distributed equally.'
The principal moral difference between social security for low-status
individuals and keeping up local feudal lords is that between low-status
versus high-status individuals being kept up. Keeping up high-status
individuals (combined with the exclusion of bottom-status individuals, the
resulting competition for status and the survival-of-the-fittest competition
between societies measuring status in different ways) is the way in which
societies are maintained and evolve. (Society is evolving towards
predominance of intellectual status, i.e. presumed ability to convince
others and assert ideology, and exclusion based on lunacy.)
Social security for low-status individuals originates in the felt need by
high-status groups to share out part of their wealth to prevent it from
being appropriated by low-status groups that thumb their nose at
high-status.
Moral principles and other justifications for behaviour are a whole
different (4th level) chapter and -in my opinion- not the subject of this
thread. Let me just say that progressive taxation is not perceived in the
Netherlands (by the majority) as a way to equalize wealth, but as the
fairest way of sharing the burden that we have taken upon us collectively:
the strongest shoulders should carry the largest part.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 25 2004 - 07:17:59 BST