• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wealth or well-being - what is most important?

Should governments be more concerned about creating wealth or creating well-being?

  • Wealth

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • Well-being

    Votes: 26 96.3%

  • Total voters
    27
Then why did you bring up these communities in the first place if they can't actually exist?

Your assuming that 300 million people are a community.

Below can give you an idea of what a community actually is.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community]Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Well good for you. Maybe I need the schools but not the roads. Yet I still have to pay taxes for them. Why shouldn't you have to pay taxes for anything that you don't personally use?

Because you do use roads, unless you make 100% of everything you have, then of course you would have a point.

If you did make everything, you wouldn't have time to work to earn an income to pay taxes.

That doesn't make any sense. A) The government DOESN'T try to make every single person content, B) The fact that it's impossible to satisfy 100% of people doesn't mean that it shouldn't do anything. I have never heard a serious politician claim that a policy would satisfy every single person in the country. This absolutist/utopian mindset tends to manifest itself in (I hate to say it) libertarians and Marxists...not people in the political center.

So when a politician makes one group of people happy or content, how do they do it?
At the expense of another maybe? Why is that right?

There is nothing absolutest about my beliefs, I know for a fact that many people would find my government a dystopia.

My beliefs are based on that nothing is absolute.
 
Your assuming that 300 million people are a community.

Below can give you an idea of what a community actually is.

Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So can these communities actually exist or not?

Harry Guerrilla said:
Because you do use roads, unless you make 100% of everything you have, then of course you would have a point.

Not everyone uses them the same amount. At some point it just makes more sense to tax people for things instead of trying to measure the exact amount they use every public resource.

Harry Guerrilla said:
So when a politician makes one group of people happy or content, how do they do it?
At the expense of another maybe? Why is that right?

It isn't inherently right or wrong, it depends on the circumstances. Every government action will benefit someone at the expense of someone else; there's no way to avoid that. Laying taxes on highways benefits the people who frequently use highways (yes yes, directly and indirectly) at the expense of people who don't use them as much. Laying taxes on law enforcement benefits the people who rely heavily on law enforcement at the expense of people who don't. Etc, etc.
 
Last edited:
So can these communities actually exist or not?

They haven't existed but I never say never, It could exist.


Not everyone uses them the same amount. At some point it just makes more sense to tax people for things instead of trying to measure the exact amount they use every public resource.

I'm not demanding perfection, I know that someone will inadvertly pay more for something than someone else, whether they like it or not.

What you believe should be a part of government and what I believe are 2 different things.

My problem is that other people are trying to force me, through the police power of the state, to participate and pay for things that are unnessecary for them to do.

I do not want a single payer government medical care system, I do not want to be forced to pay for and send my kids to a government school, those things are goods that function outside of Federal government power and are completely unnessecary for the government to operate.

Competitive goods should stay on the market and government can handle the non competitive goods.

It isn't inherently right or wrong, it depends on the circumstances. Every government action will benefit someone at the expense of someone else; there's no way to avoid that. Laying taxes on highways benefits the people who frequently use highways (yes yes, directly and indirectly) at the expense of people who don't use them as much. Laying taxes on law enforcement benefits the people who rely heavily on law enforcement at the expense of people who don't. Etc, etc.

The effect of laying taxes for highways is marginable to the government laying taxes for Social Security, Medicare, a national single payer medical care system or government schools.
 
I'm not demanding perfection, I know that someone will inadvertly pay more for something than someone else, whether they like it or not.

What you believe should be a part of government and what I believe are 2 different things.

My problem is that other people are trying to force me, through the police power of the state, to participate and pay for things that are unnessecary for them to do.

"Unnecessary" in what sense? Obviously the voters consider those things necessary, or they wouldn't have voted for politicians who implemented those things.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I do not want a single payer government medical care system, I do not want to be forced to pay for and send my kids to a government school,

And I don't want to be forced to pay for the roads and power lines that connect your house to the outside world, which I don't use. But here we are. ;)

Harry Guerrilla said:
those things are goods that function outside of Federal government power and are completely unnessecary for the government to operate.

Those are two different questions. Your interpretation of the Constitution is one thing...your interpretation of what is "necessary" is completely separate. If the Constitution explicitly authorized public education and public health care, would you then support those programs? :confused:

Harry Guerrilla said:
Competitive goods should stay on the market and government can handle the non competitive goods.

How are education and health care competitive goods? They are human services. In education, there is an inherent monopoly or oligopoly based on geography...not competition. In health care, there is no geographic reason that it HAS to be that way, but in practice it's even more concentrated than education...again, not competition. Furthermore, it is in the interest of society as a whole to have an educated, healthy workforce.

Harry Guerrilla said:
The effect of laying taxes for highways is marginable to the government laying taxes for Social Security, Medicare, a national single payer medical care system or government schools.

You are framing it as a moral absolute, which it quite clearly is not, as demonstrated by the highway example. There is no particular reason that you should expect to keep every dollar you earn without contributing anything back to society.
 
"Unnecessary" in what sense? Obviously the voters consider those things necessary, or they wouldn't have voted for politicians who implemented those things.

It doesn't matter what "voters" think is necessary, they do not have perfect knowledge and if what they believe isn't based on factual or logical conclusions, then what is it worth?

And I don't want to be forced to pay for the roads and power lines that connect your house to the outside world, which I don't use. But here we are. ;)

I don't want you to pay for my power lines either but that is mostly because we used AC instead of DC sources of power generation, something that would take a massive undertaking to alter.

On a Federal level with roads you'd have a point, on a state or local level not so much.

Those are two different questions. Your interpretation of the Constitution is one thing...your interpretation of what is "necessary" is completely separate. If the Constitution explicitly authorized public education and public health care, would you then support those programs? :confused:

Not at all, as there would no factual basis for its inclusion.

Those are competitive goods.

How are education and health care competitive goods? They are human services. In education, there is an inherent monopoly or oligopoly based on geography...not competition. In health care, there is no geographic reason that it HAS to be that way, but in practice it's even more concentrated than education...again, not competition. Furthermore, it is in the interest of society as a whole to have an educated, healthy workforce.

The nature of its development which was usurped by the Federal government does not change the fact that they are competitive goods (services).

Hospitals compete on quality, doctors do as well, price competition has been altered because of insurance mandates preventative medicine etc, but none the less it is completely possible as it has already existed in the past.

Education is just as competitive if left to its own devices, there are multiple styles of education you seem to ignore like, homeschooling, tradesman ship et all.

Declaring something as non competitive because its history was altered, by an outside force, does not make it so.

You are framing it as a moral absolute, which it quite clearly is not, as demonstrated by the highway example. There is no particular reason that you should expect to keep every dollar you earn without contributing anything back to society.

Why should I contribute to things I never wanted in the first place?

Medicare and Social Security are not required for me to function in life.
On top of that my contributions have been diminished and I will pay more for lesser services than previous generations because of their excess with government welfare benefits.
 
And who made you the arbiter for determining what the government's role is, and whether or not a certain function is legitimate or not?

This is a poll based on personal opinions, is it not?
 
Wealth will bring well being. Entitlement programs hurt people and keep them in poverty.
 
I didn't vote in the poll for the lack of the option - "Government should not be concerned with providing EITHER of these things".

It is my responsibility to provide myself with wealth and well being. I sure as hell don't want the government providing those things for me. They can't even manage themselves.
 
And who made you the arbiter for determining what the government's role is, and whether or not a certain function is legitimate or not?

It's called an "opinion".
 
It doesn't matter what "voters" think is necessary, they do not have perfect knowledge and if what they believe isn't based on factual or logical conclusions, then what is it worth?

It doesn't matter what "you" think it's necessary, you do not have perfect knowledge and if what you believe isn't based on factual or logical conclusions, then what is it worth?

Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't want you to pay for my power lines either but that is mostly because we used AC instead of DC sources of power generation, something that would take a massive undertaking to alter.

Yeah, but I don't feel like paying for your power lines anyway. If it costs too much to change the setup...well, you can pay for that. ;)

Harry Guerrilla said:
On a Federal level with roads you'd have a point, on a state or local level not so much.

Even if I live in your state I probably would never use the road that connected your house to the outside world.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Not at all, as there would no factual basis for its inclusion.

No factual basis? What do you mean? What is the "factual basis" for ANYTHING explicitly written in the Constitution?

Harry Guerrilla said:
Those are competitive goods.

No they aren't. True competition is all but impossible in education, and doesn't currently exist in health care either. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for health and education vouchers to allow people to choose from among their limited options...but let's not pretend like there are a large number of education/health service providers competing for the same clients.

Harry Guerrilla said:
The nature of its development which was usurped by the Federal government does not change the fact that they are competitive goods (services).

Hospitals compete on quality, doctors do as well, price competition has been altered because of insurance mandates preventative medicine etc, but none the less it is completely possible as it has already existed in the past.

Oh you mean actual health CARE instead of health INSURANCE? That's fine if you live in a big city, but if you live in a smaller community you probably don't have much choice there either. In the city I'm originally from, there is only one hospital.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Education is just as competitive if left to its own devices, there are multiple styles of education you seem to ignore like, homeschooling, tradesman ship et all.

Again, that's fine if you live in a big city. If you live in rural Montana you're going to go to the only school within 30 miles.

And what happens if someone can't afford to go to a private school? They just don't get educated? Who is going to pay for the resulting increase in crime and associated prison costs...you?

Harry Guerrilla said:
Why should I contribute to things I never wanted in the first place?

Because that's the way a society works. You seem to have no problem forcing me to pay for your power and roads, simply because you deem them necessary or because it would be too much of a hassle to change it. :roll:

Harry Guerrilla said:
Medicare and Social Security are not required for me to function in life.

Neither are your power lines or roads. People survived for thousands of years without them.

Harry Guerrilla said:
On top of that my contributions have been diminished and I will pay more for lesser services than previous generations because of their excess with government welfare benefits.

While that may be a decent argument for reforming those programs, it is not a valid argument for opposing their existence on the grounds that you have a fundamental right to keep every dollar you own.
 
It doesn't matter what "you" think it's necessary, you do not have perfect knowledge and if what you believe isn't based on factual or logical conclusions, then what is it worth?

It isn't worth anything but then again I don't go around making mass proclamations on what others should provide for me.

Yeah, but I don't feel like paying for your power lines anyway. If it costs too much to change the setup...well, you can pay for that. ;)

That's certainly fine with me.

I've studied, in great detail, home power generation using solar, wind, micro hydro and small steam.


Even if I live in your state I probably would never use the road that connected your house to the outside world.

Sure but my county/and or city pays for that through my taxes.

And for the most part, it's a non competitive good.

No factual basis? What do you mean? What is the "factual basis" for ANYTHING explicitly written in the Constitution?

The general meaning of The Constitution is that people are best left to decide for themselves, I can certainly agree with that.

Of course if The Constitution said that government should provide a single payer medical care system, I'd disagree because it can be adequately provided through the competitive/cooperative market.


No they aren't. True competition is all but impossible in education, and doesn't currently exist in health care either. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for health and education vouchers to allow people to choose from among their limited options...but let's not pretend like there are a large number of education/health service providers competing for the same clients.

Are you so sure about education?
You do know that colleges and pre-k programs compete for students, don't you?
If they do that, whats stopping it from happening in every other form of education?

Oh you mean actual health CARE instead of health INSURANCE? That's fine if you live in a big city, but if you live in a smaller community you probably don't have much choice there either. In the city I'm originally from, there is only one hospital.

No I mean medical care, as health care is family genetics, lifestyle, climate etc.
Medical care is only a portion of health care.

The city I live in has no hospital but in the surrounding 50 mile radius I have at least 5 to choose from but that isn't really relevant.

Medical care is competitive on some levels and isn't on others, most of the non competitive portions of medical care are based on the wedge from health insurance and government subsidy.

Again, that's fine if you live in a big city. If you live in rural Montana you're going to go to the only school within 30 miles.

And what happens if someone can't afford to go to a private school? They just don't get educated? Who is going to pay for the resulting increase in crime and associated prison costs...you?

Homeschooling and apprenticeship are viable alternatives.
Since when have schools been the only place to receive an education?

Because that's the way a society works. You seem to have no problem forcing me to pay for your power and roads, simply because you deem them necessary or because it would be too much of a hassle to change it. :roll:

There is a stark difference though, people can save their own money for retirement and they can buy medical insurance for their elder years.

Can any one person build an entire network of paved roads just for them?

While that may be a decent argument for reforming those programs, it is not a valid argument for opposing their existence on the grounds that you have a fundamental right to keep every dollar you own.

I never claimed that I have a fundamental right to keep every dollar I own.

Your really good at putting words into my mouth though.
 
Sure but my county/and or city pays for that through my taxes.

Well that's the point...most of the people who live in your county and/or city don't use the road that connects your house to the outside world.

Harry Guerrilla said:
And for the most part, it's a non competitive good.

How is it any less competitive than, say, health care? Companies bid on construction contracts, and the city government picks the lowest bidder and/or best service provider.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Are you so sure about education?
You do know that colleges and pre-k programs compete for students, don't you?
If they do that, whats stopping it from happening in every other form of education?

Like I said, I'm in favor of vouchers to allow competition inasmuch as it's possible. But there are a couple of differences between normal schooling, and colleges and pre-K programs:

1) In college, geography is not as much of an issue because students can live in dorms. Most younger students live with their parents, and are thus confined to their immediate geographic area when choosing a school.

2) Neither college nor pre-K education is an absolute necessity for a reasonably productive life, whereas everything in between is. If you eliminate public education for those years, many people simply will not get an education. This will create economic and sociological problems for society as a whole.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Medical care is competitive on some levels and isn't on others, most of the non competitive portions of medical care are based on the wedge from health insurance and government subsidy.

But there isn't really any way to eliminate that, unless you support banning health insurance altogether and/or government incentives for high-deductible plans. And something tells me you don't support either of those options...

Harry Guerrilla said:
Homeschooling and apprenticeship are viable alternatives.
Since when have schools been the only place to receive an education?

Many parents have neither the time nor intelligence to homeschool their child. And apprenticeship is all well and good for high-schoolers...not so good for first graders.

So what happens if parents can't send their child to private school or homeschool him, so he never advances beyond a kindergarten education? You don't see any problem with this?

Harry Guerrilla said:
There is a stark difference though, people can save their own money for retirement and they can buy medical insurance for their elder years.

Can any one person build an entire network of paved roads just for them?

For what it's worth, I agree with you that social security is largely unnecessary, in that people can save their money for retirement as they see fit. But medical insurance is different. Unlike retirement, it is a necessity and not a luxury. Furthermore, they may not be ABLE to buy medical insurance if they have some sort of health condition (for now...hopefully that changes soon).

Harry Guerrilla said:
I never claimed that I have a fundamental right to keep every dollar I own.

Your really good at putting words into my mouth though.

When you are constantly complaining about how you are forced to participate in social programs (the implication being that you should NOT be forced to participate in any such programs), that's sure what it sounds like to me. Rather than criticizing the usefulness of such programs, you question their legitimacy entirely.
 
Last edited:
Well that's the point...most of the people who live in your county and/or city don't use the road that connects your house to the outside world.

To make an error clarification of my own, roads are common pool resources and not entirely non competitive goods, although they do share some similarities.


How is it any less competitive than, say, health care? Companies bid on construction contracts, and the city government picks the lowest bidder and/or best service provider.

I don't think you understand what non competitive goods are, they are "things" where one persons consumption of it does not prevent another from consuming it.

Like I said though I made a labeling error, however, it's impossible for one person to pave an entire network of roads to use for their personal use.

On the other hand, I'd have no problem with individuals being required to fund their portion of road being connected to a main street or road.


Like I said, I'm in favor of vouchers to allow competition inasmuch as it's possible. But there are a couple of differences between normal schooling, and colleges and pre-K programs:

1) In college, geography is not as much of an issue because students can live in dorms. Most younger students live with their parents, and are thus confined to their immediate geographic area when choosing a school.

2) Neither college nor pre-K education is an absolute necessity for a reasonably productive life, whereas everything in between is. If you eliminate public education for those years, many people simply will not get an education. This will create economic and sociological problems for society as a whole.

The time spent between college and pre-k is largely a waste in my eyes, because you spend 12 years in school and come out qualified to do nothing.
That can definitely be reduced towards a more efficient use of time to knowledge acquisition.

But there isn't really any way to eliminate that, unless you support banning health insurance altogether and/or government incentives for high-deductible plans. And something tells me you don't support either of those options...

You don't have to ban health insurance, you just remove insurance mandates and uphold the contracts in court.

I have no problem removing government incentives from the entire medical care market.

Many parents have neither the time nor intelligence to homeschool their child. And apprenticeship is all well and good for high-schoolers...not so good for first graders.

So what happens if parents can't send their child to private school or homeschool him, so he never advances beyond a kindergarten education? You don't see any problem with this?

Then you have private tutors, neighborhood home schools and plenty of other alternatives.
A vacuum of supply for a needed demand creates a whole new market.
One where it can be competitive and/or cooperative.

Not only that but it creates a disincentive for people, who can't afford kids and are not really ready, to have kids in the first place.
Less dependency on third party financing is a good thing.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that social security is largely unnecessary, in that people can save their money for retirement as they see fit. But medical insurance is different. Unlike retirement, it is a necessity and not a luxury. Furthermore, they may not be ABLE to buy medical insurance if they have some sort of health condition (for now...hopefully that changes soon).

We are talking about 2 different health insurances, I believe your mostly referring to health insurance with maintenance included, while I'm talking about insurance in the form surgical only or immediate medical plans.

When you are constantly complaining about how you are forced to participate in social programs (the implication being that you should NOT be forced to participate in any such programs), that's sure what it sounds like to me. Rather than criticizing the usefulness of such programs, you question their legitimacy entirely.

They are not legitimate at all, no one bothered ask me if I wanted to participate in them and I'm not given an option to opt out.

All of those things an individual can provide for him or her self.
 
Back
Top Bottom