Re:The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income
by nickff on Thursday December 05, 2013 @04:07PM
(#6857246)
dragonwriter>Its both, and "circular" is another word for tautological.
wikipedia>"Circular reasoning differs from tautologies in that the premise is restated as the conclusion in an argument, instead of deriving the conclusion from the premise with arguments, while tautologies states the same thing twice."
dragonwriter>Your argument in support of government healthcare plans being inconsistent with liberty was that they destroyed private healthcare, a claims which, when questioned, required redefining "destroy private healthcare" to just mean that government remains involved in healthcare at the same or greater level.
Earlier on, you stated :
dragonwriter> You seem to be using a strange definition of "usually" -- every OECD country has "some degree of public healthcare" (what the grandparent post suggested support for), and yet most of them have some degree of a private system.
I have been trying to argue (with no apparent success) that the "some degree of private system" is gradually becoming little private or no private system, through a ratcheting up of government intervention, hence the statement that all have increased or kept constant their levels of participation in the healthcare system, and they rarely (if ever) decrease it. If the amount of state participation only ever increases or stays the same, and it increases often, then the government is 'taking over' healthcare.
wikipedia>"Circular reasoning differs from tautologies in that the premise is restated as the conclusion in an argument, instead of deriving the conclusion from the premise with arguments, while tautologies states the same thing twice."
dragonwriter>Your argument in support of government healthcare plans being inconsistent with liberty was that they destroyed private healthcare, a claims which, when questioned, required redefining "destroy private healthcare" to just mean that government remains involved in healthcare at the same or greater level.
Earlier on, you stated : dragonwriter> You seem to be using a strange definition of "usually" -- every OECD country has "some degree of public healthcare" (what the grandparent post suggested support for), and yet most of them have some degree of a private system.
I have been trying to argue (with no apparent success) that the "some degree of private system" is gradually becoming little private or no private system, through a ratcheting up of government intervention, hence the statement that all have increased or kept constant their levels of participation in the healthcare system, and they rarely (if ever) decrease it. If the amount of state participation only ever increases or stays the same, and it increases often, then the government is 'taking over' healthcare.