This may be unpopular to say, but this is pretty demonstrably false.
Perhaps you've not heard of the free rider problem?
This is completely wrong. You have no rights except those guaranteed you by your fellows in a collective agreement. 'Rights' are exactly those things that the collective threatens us against violating in others.
Consider: if it's up to me to violently defend my 'rights' individually, then I am free to decide literally anything is my right. But the things your neighbors will fight others for on your behalf, these are your rights.
> the truth is that nobody is in a better position to determine how your income should be spent than you
Also plain wrong. How much of your income would you have chosen to spend on network protocol research in the late 1970s? Or on growing mold in dishes in 1910? We are much better at these decisions collectively.
FWIW, conflating conservatism and libertarianism is a mistake. There's some incidental overlap, just like there is between libertarianism and liberalism, but that's pretty much the extent of it.
Are you against that as well?
Yes, of course. Basically, if the word "force" is involved, it's wrong. Come up with a way to collectively fund infrastructure that's voluntary and I'm all for it. But if your idea needs force / violence to be executed, then, well, maybe it isn't such a good idea after all.
Regardless, this idea you have - that governmental "force", or any kind of institutional force that suppresses your individual will, is some kind of ultimate evil - seems very misguided. The laws of biology and physics will override your will and force you to degenerate and die. Micro-organisms will force you to cough up blood and die. Wild animals will force you to give up your flesh and die. Collective human institutions are the only things that have successfully imbued individual humans with an order of magnitude more power and more rights than our primitive ancestral conditions would allow. Many of these human institutions are also abusive, however there doesn't seem to be an alternative to forming collective human institutions that require forced large-scale group efforts if we want to actually not die of malaria all the time.
I'll stick with civilized societies thankyouverymuch.
No, that is not my worldview, not in the slightest.
For example, government doesn't force me to obey the law; I do it voluntarily. They don't force me to pay my bills, not shoot my neighbor, and pay my taxes. I do all that voluntarily.
EDIT: I don't follow Hacker News' rules and norms because I'm afraid of being banned, but because I respect the other people here, respect that there need to be rules, and respect our hosts' authority and need to make them. It's something (almost) all learn as children; it's healthy social interaction.
Most people are responsible members of their communities. The concept of force applies only to a very few.
That sounds like the IRS's shtick about income taxes being "voluntary". From a technical perspective, these decisions are under duress, under threat of legal repercussion, even if you find that choice agreeable and would act in the same way without the law involved.
I'm not sure what this means. I'm aware of the theoretical argument.
The great majority obey the law because they want to. The threat of jail is actually minor; you can get away with quite a bit.
No, it applies to everybody. That you, by happenstance, voluntarily do something that somebody is trying to coerce you into doing does not negate the threat of force.
Your position might change one day when your circumstances change, and then the seemingly benevolent government that you put your faith in may well show its teeth. But those teeth are always lurking, even if they're just out of sight.
Yes you don't do those things because you will be sent to prison. Is it going to be Ok to send Bobby to prison because he didn't want to cover Suzi's medical bill?
No, I don't do them because I don't want to, and because I respect group decisions. I want to pay my bills; I don't want to rip off other people. I don't shoot my neighbor because I'm not a sociopath and like normal, healthy people I very much don't want to do it. I pay my taxes because we took a vote and I respect that and want to do my share. etc.
You can get away with a lot and not go to jail. That's not what determines most people's behavior.
I would definitely welcome a unitified health care system in California.
So you assert, as if this were universally accepted.
I assert being bankrupted or killed for want of affordable, accessible healthcare is a violation of my most fundamental rights, and strips me of agency and dignity as a human being.
How is being bankrupted a violation of your rights? If anything, it would seem that it's the opposite, as it's your creditors who lose something that you had committed to repay them, no?
affordable, accessible healthcare
You have the right to purchase as much health-care as you can, based on some balance between what you want and can afford. But on what basis do you assert that the world owes you health-care? In the absence of any other system, would you say that it's OK to stick a gun in the face of a doctor and command her to treat you for free? Are you entitled to medical care to the point that your "right" trumps the rights of others to avoid coercive force?
No, I wouldn't force a doctor to work for free at gunpoint. That's why even single-payer systems pay doctors to willingly work within national healthcare systems.
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have substantially more historical support here in the US than your asserted right not to be taxed for anything.
This premise is not as self evident as you believe.
Absolutely not. Pretty much any question that starts with "should the government force ..." can be answered "no". You earned your income, it's yours and it should be up to you how to spend it.
Using force / aggression (aka the government forcing you to do something) is a violation of your most fundamental rights, and strips you of your agency and dignity as a human being. And while the end may sound noble ("everybody should have free health care") the truth is that nobody is in a better position to determine how your income should be spent than you, and nobody other than you has any standing to decide what kind of charity (if any) you should engage in.
Rather than stealing from Bobby to pay for Suzy's health-care, it would be better to enact policies that A. reduce the cost of health-care, and B. encourage general economic welfare, job creation, etc., such that both Bobby and Suzy can pay for their own health-care from the get-go.