This is, ultimately, why I expect that most federal systems beyond a certain scale will fail: because the federated, without counterbalancing factors like "national unity" or "the barest sense of shame," will use, and then abuse, the federal safety net at the expense of everybody else. (See yesterday's arguments of "well, why should SALT be deductible?"--where states more impacted by SALT deductible reductions generally pay in more despite their increased state and local taxes.)

At that point, I expect that the collapse of the federated will necessitate federal and state conglomeration. I don't have a good idea on what timeline we will collectively realize this, though.

Actually, are you saying that doing away with the federal system altogether is the only sane approach (or letting it fail and not re-instantiating it)? If so, I think I agree

That requires a certain level of callousness. If New York State got universal health care (for instance), I'd be happy—but I would still push for it to be supported at a national level, so that people in other states could benefit.

Why not instead work toward universal health care in New York, and then invite people to move there? Then you get to help people, but you aren't being tyrannical against the people that don't want universal healthcare.

Like I said, that requires a certain level of callousness.

If so, then I think you're being consistent but I would also suggest that you look into the history of colonialism and how many of the residents of the countries under rule felt about it (Gandhi did a lot of writing on this for example).

If not, how do you avoid being labeled "callous" using your own standard? Do you not care about the people in other countries as well?

Colonialism and health care aren't the same thing, though—colonialism was an attempt to exploit other people for your own profit, the point of spreading universal health care would be to let people have better medical treatment at more affordable prices. There is actually a difference between good things and bad things.

> If not, how do you avoid being labeled "callous" using your own standard? Do you not care about the people in other countries as well?

Well, the simplest metric would be this: that there's no political body that someone in another country and I both belong to.

This is a significant over-simplification. There was an element of this, but it was also broadly understood to be "civilizing" lesser cultures and bringing them into modern standards. There were quite a few arguments put forward that it was the compassionate thing to do. One could make a case that cultures who reject universal healthcare are uncivilized, therefore we should go in and force them to become enlightened like us.

> There is actually a difference between good things and bad things

That's quite the straw man, and also seems to pre-suppose that there is objective morality, or objective good and bad, and that the viewpoint you have arrived at is the only objectively correct view.

> there's no political body that someone in another country and I both belong to

It sounds like you are saying "it's too hard or complex" because they are different political bodies (please correct me if I misunderstand you here) so it's not worth doing. If you truly cared, would it not be worth taking over their political body to force them to be more compassionate to their people?

Perhaps another thought, what if someone in a heavily Christian southern state, who knows that they have the truth of Jesus Christ on their side (i.e. they are certain of their morally superior position), decides that New York is immoral and calloused for permitting abortion. Would you support them working at a federal level to ban it nationwide? Surely they believe not doing so is callous. How do you argue against that?

By the way, thanks for the conversation. I love being able to talk to people with different viewpoints :-)

Yes, I'm sure there were plenty of colonizers who thought they were doing the right thing, but there were plenty who did not, who had no concern about the lives of the people they destroyed through slavery and genocide. The fact that some of them might have had good intentions in midst of all the death and oppression doesn't change what they did.

> One could make a case that cultures who reject universal healthcare are uncivilized, therefore we should go in and force them to become enlightened like us.

I'm not sure what you mean by "force" here—are you talking about slavery or genocide? Military takeover?

Or do you mean something like "show them the results, and convince them it's a good idea"?

> seems to pre-suppose that there is objective morality, or objective good and bad, and that the viewpoint you have arrived at is the only objectively correct view

That's also a straw man. You don't need to believe in a single objectively correct view to decide that "affordable medicine" is better than "400 years of brutal oppression". If my ruler can't determine which of two lines is longer when they're less than 1mm different, that doesn't mean it can't determine that a 2cm line is shorter than a 10cm line.

> It sounds like you are saying "it's too hard or complex" because they are different political bodies (please correct me if I misunderstand you here) so it's not worth doing.

Not that it is, or isn't worth doing—just that it's a very different thing. Is it too hard or complex? Well, it's certainly a lot harder and more complex. Too hard or complex, I have no idea.

> If you truly cared, would it not be worth taking over their political body to force them to be more compassionate to their people?

That sounds like one of those foolish "if you could go back in time to kill Hitler" thought exercises. And it has the same answer—if you could do that, then you could also stop him without killing him.

Similarly, if you wanted to convince people that more affordable access to health care is a good thing, you don't need to take over their country.

> what if someone in a heavily Christian southern state, who knows that they have the truth of Jesus Christ on their side (i.e. they are certain of their morally superior position), decides that New York is immoral and calloused for permitting abortion. Would you support them working at a federal level to ban it nationwide?

I'm not sure if you've been reading the news lately, but that's what they've been doing. So they're definitely not waiting for my permission.

> Would you support them working at a federal level to ban it nationwide? Surely they believe not doing so is callous. How do you argue against that?

I'm not sure why I would need to—yes, they think it's a lot worse than callous. Them being convinced of their morally superior position doesn't mean that I am convinced of their morally superior position.

> Or do you mean something like "show them the results, and convince them it's a good idea"?

Good question, I think our disagreement may actually come down to how we view the definition of "force".

I did mean the former (military/police force). I think the latter is the best (and only moral) way to get things done (winning hearts and minds). But where we may differ is that I believe even democratic laws are force because they are ultimately enforced by police agencies at the barrel of a gun (or threat of imprisonment).

So I don't really see a philosophical difference in imposing universal healthcare at a federal level on a State (pick any conservative state for example) who doesn't want it, or invading another country militarily and forcing them to do it. Both result in the imprisonment or death of people who refuse to be assimilated.

That's why I argue for doing it at the lowest level possible, such as New York State or even better maybe NY City. If somebody wants to "opt out" they can move, which isn't a great solution, but it's certainly easier to move out of the city or state than to move out of the country.

Then at the same time we can evangelize for universal healthcare and demonstrate with our own state that it can work. Once it's proven, I bet many other states would adopt it as well. This extends beyond healthcare IMHO to almost every other facet of law.

Huh, interesting. Well, how about this: let me off you a 2-for-1 deal. You get to strike 2 laws of your choice off the books, in exchange for 1 military invasion of your state. Federal laws, state laws, hell maybe you really don't like your hamlet's zoning regulations, whatever. Your choice. In exchange for... let's say, 10 years of Iraq-style military invasion & occupation (the US invasion of Iraq, I mean, not Iraq's invasion of Kuwait). We've been there for over 15, but 10 is a nice round number. 1-for-1 is a wash, sure, I get that, but 2-for-1 seems like a good deal. What 2 laws would you pick?

> Once it's proven, I bet many other states would adopt it as well. This extends beyond healthcare IMHO to almost every other facet of law.

Interesting—so you think that the objections to universal health care are that people don't think it'll work?

The people who are convinced of this are the people who stand to benefit from it. People who rely on benefits that require a large population to support them (for example, Social Security and Medicare) will want to have a large population supporting them. But that means one-size-fits-all has to be imposed on that large population. If people could choose whether or not to contribute to those benefit programs, many would choose not to, which would decrease the available benefits.

The hyperbolic example is "the only place that won't tax me is this deserted island, so peace boys, it's just me and my money over here." Feels a bit unlikely doesn't it?

There are places with truly nominal taxes already (Saudi Arabia for one), so why aren't all our rich people ... there in one big pile already?

This is a purely a priori argument, and ignores the manifest reality of the distribution of fantastically wealthy individuals in some of the highest-tax jurisdictions in the world.

Ah, I've always wondered why there aren't any rich people in New York or California. I guess this explains it.

I totally agree with this BTW. That's in part why I made my comment in the first place. I don't want to see massive taxes federally and I actually left California because of the crazy laws / taxes.