Stupid experiment. All Stossel showed is that in an area where "relatively few people attend church" (his words), people are less likely to give money to a Christian church/charity organization.

Perhaps it was because liberals are more comfortable taking money from people through the coercive arm of the state and making sure that government, not private individuals, "help" the poor. It rings true to me. Liberals want the government to steal my money (Republicans do too) and redistribute it to others. How dare I bypass their control and actually freely give to others!

"Stealing" is gross hyperbole.

Is the government stealing your money if it taxes you to support an army? How about a fire department? I'm going to imagine you'd say no.

What if there is some waste in how that money gets spent by the army? Or if the fire chief gets a bonus that you think is undeserved? Is it stealing then? Where do you draw the line? Who decides what's appropriate for the government to spend money on?

Our elected officials, that's who. The ones that we elect, and empower to make those decisions.

My point is that if you don't like the way government spends money, then say so and work within the political system to change government spending. Don't resort to crying theft just because you have a minority view about the role of government.

The only purpose of government is to protect individual rights and to abide by it's Constitutional limits. Whether that is the "minority view" is irrelevant. The Constitution states that this is country is a republic, not a democracy.

In essence what you support is slavery. They minority must bow to the will of the majority. We as individuals, do not exist in your concept of government. We are slaves to the common good. Altruism is forced down our throats. What you promote is be definition...slavery.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but again, just because you are in the minority doesn't make you a slave. Does having to pay taxes to support the fire department make you a slave to the common good?

There is a difference between funding for police or fire service than what my complaints are against.

I'm a minarchist, which means I support minimal government.

There's a difference, but it's one of degree. A publicly supported fire department is clearly necessary because a fire can spread. If fire protection were privatized, then those who choose not to (or can't afford to) pay for the service would be endangering everyone else. Hmmm, where else can we use that argument? If folks are responsible for their own medical expenses, some will choose not to, or be unable to, pay for their insurance. This will endanger everyone else when the untreated people spread infectious diseases. So, is providing universal healthcare an appropriate role for the government? I imagine you have an opinion. Would it be stealing for the government to tax you to subsidize universal healthcare? If so, how would that be so different in principle from taxing you to pay the fire chief's salary?

Everyone has a different view of where that line is, of what's an appropriate government function and what isn't. Nobody is ever going to agree on how each dime of taxpayers' money should be spent - that doesn't make all taxation theft. If you support minimal government, fine. I just don't see how you can justify equating taxation with stealing, and being taxed with being enslaved.

If folks are responsible for their own medical expenses, some will choose not to, or be unable to, pay for their insurance. This will endanger everyone else when the untreated people spread infectious diseases.
You are assuming that there are not charitable organizations and religious organizations that will lend a hand to those that can't afford healthcare on their own.

Not to mention the quality of healthcare would go right down the drain. We'd wind up like Canada where a dog can get a hip replacement faster than a human.

You are forgetting (or not caring) about individual choice and the 9th Amendment of the Constitution, which is the manifesto of natural rights.

You have no right to force your will onto another individual.

The idea that we must sacrifice ourselves for the betterment of the common good and the individual does not exist for his own sake is slavery. All of this is contrary to the ideals of personal and economic liberty and it belongs in the dust bin of history. If you want to practice altruism, do it in your personal life, but let others live their lives the way they see fit.

If you come into my house and steal my money, it's theft. But if you have government legalize it, it's somehow ok?

So, is providing universal healthcare an appropriate role for the government?
Absolutely not.

If so, how would that be so different in principle from taxing you to pay the fire chief's salary?
A "universal" healthcare plan would be federally funded. Where as a fire chief would be funded by county or local government. These two issues aren't even close to being the same.

You are talking about spending several hundred billion dollars or more as opposed to maybe $50,000.

Paying for anything that isn't specifically mandated by the Constitution is theft because it breaks the public trust. That is what the Constitution is...it's a fiduciary trust between the citizens and the government. Once government begins to usurp more powers that aren't mandated by the Constitution, that is when the citizens need to take action...it is our right "to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The only purpose of government is to protect individual rights and to adhere to it's limits in the Constitution. I'm sure you follow the mold of that fascist, FDR, so I'm sure that the individual means nothing to you.

I'm not arguing for federally funded universal healthcare. I'm just saying that there's a continuum between what you would want as the bare minimum government, and what a liberal might want to see government doing.

You haven't given any arguments why publicly funded health insurance (through state or local governments if that makes you happy) is different *in principle* from a publicly funded fire department. If the government didn't provide a fire department, maybe churches would organize and fund volunteer fire brigades! The difference in dollar amounts is a difference in degree, not a matter of principle. The question of whether public funding of healthcare is good policy is a separate issue; I thought we were talking about governmental legitimacy (you equated taxation with stealing and paying taxes with being enslaved), not policy.

And as you've brought up the ninth amendment, what about healthcare and privacy and education and other *individual* rights that the government could be legitimately in the business of safeguarding?

It seems that the only individual right that you really care about is the right to hold on to your cash.

There is no right to healthcare. There is no right to privacy. There is no right to education. There is no right to welfare.

The ONLY rights that exist under the Constitution are life, liberty, and property. I have a right to not have my life infringed upon (in the most literal sense), a right to not have my liberty infringed upon, and a right to not have my property, including my money, infringed upon.

The things mentioned above (healthcare, education, etc) are nice to have, but when the government becomes involved and forcibly takes my property (money) so that others can have their supposed "rights," there is something seriously wrong.

There is no right to privacy.
I disagree with that.

Healthcare is not a natural right. Education should not a be a function of government, as it is not mandated by the Constitution. Privacy is a natural right.

You don't have a right to healthcare anymore than you have a right to a car or a drivers license.

What liberals want is to take away the right of the individual to make his own decisions and to live as he sees fit.

It seems that the only individual right that you really care about is the right to hold on to your cash.
My money is my property. I earned it and I should reap the benefits of it. If I choose to donate it to a cause that I believe in, it should be a personal choice, not a predetermined choice made by legislators. There are causes that I support, but I'd rather do it on an individual basis, then have a corrupt entity like government take control of my money.

I care about individual rights across the board, both on the personal and economic side. I don't believe you can legislation morality on personal issues nor do I believe that you can do it on economic issues.

You haven't given any arguments why publicly funded health insurance (through state or local governments if that makes you happy) is different *in principle* from a publicly funded fire department.
It's a stupid premise.

Government should play as little role in the everyday lives of it's citizens as possible. That's consistent with the views minarchism.

I'm beating a dead horse, I've said this stuff in other comments. I'm not going to keep going around over the same thing.

Jason, it was unfair of me to imply that you don't respect individual rights in general. I apologize.

When you keep saying one can't legislate morality, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that one cannot/should not try to use the government to change people's moral views, or the morality of their behavior? Or do you mean that the purpose of the government should not be to advance any moral agenda, however benign ?

I really don't think liberals want to do what you say they want to do. They may want the government to take more of your property than you think is right, and regulate corporations (which I don't believe should have the same rights as people) more than you'd like, but as for your personal liberties and decisions you are welcome to them. (They're not Republicans, after all.)

They may want the government to take more of your property than you think is right...
That is my biggest issue with them.

...regulate corporations (which I don't believe should have the same rights as people)...
I don't believe corporations should be regulated except via the market and their shareholders. Now if they pull an "Enron," that's a different story, they need to be held accountable.

I also don't believe that they should be treated as individuals.

Do you mean that one cannot/should not try to use the government to change people's moral views, or the morality of their behavior?
Yes. Individuals should be left to govern themselves in what is supposed to be a free society, unless they are violating another individual life, liberty or property.

Or do you mean that the purpose of the government should not be to advance any moral agenda, however benign ?
Government shouldn't get involved in anyone's personal life, be it sexual life or economic life.

They're not Republicans, after all.
True, but I don't believe Democrats are any better than Republicans.

I appreciate the apology.