Inherent to any definition of slavery is that you do not have any freedoms, particularly the freedom to leave. You DO have the freedom to leave Canada.

Inherent to any definition of theft is that you receive no good or service out of losing your money. Taxation is part of being a citizen and is required of being a citizen. There are certain perks to being a citizen, e.g. health care, eligibility for unemployment/welfare, access to emergency services, access to judicial services, protection from unlawful citizens and foreign invaders, free education, etc...

Did you forget having to get their permission and paying them so you can leave? Besides, this isn't me rebelling against Canada; I'm trying to argue that governments are inefficient and that mankind would be better of without it.



Theft is theft. I can't steal your car and give you an apple for it, can I? It's my money and I should be able to spend it as I see fit.

Because the MAJORITY of the people in their local ridings voted for that person to represent that riding or community. The MAJORITY of people make a decision who will serve all people.

You want me to explain why I don't support slavery...? Taxation is theft. Theft is evil. Governments are therefore evil. I do not support evil and so do not support governments. I support freedom and believe that it provides the best environment for advancement.



That's still slavery. If nine out of ten people wanted the tenth guy to toil for them all day and night, it is still wrong regardless of whether or not the majority want it.

This guy is ridiculous.

This is TERRIBLE logic.

Even assuming your two premises are true (1. that taxation is theft and 2. that theft is evil; 2 is undoubtedly true, but 1 is debatable), for this logic to be sound, governments would have to do one thing and one thing only: tax people. Unless you want to argue that doing something evil makes you evil. But that would be flawed because the government also does good things, so the government must also be good.

I posted distractors like those (jokes really) just to see how you'd respond to them. You responded to only the distractors and not at all to my actual arguments. This gives me reason enough to end this discussion. I like having legitimate discussions even when I completely disagree with a person, but you're not capable of having a legitimate discussion.

I'm out.

I only responded to the distractors because you seemed to think I was a troll.

You're forced to pay for health care so that it's there when you need it, and because other people need it too. Don't try and go back to the whole "Well we should privatize it and then have charity take care of the other people" because you already tried and that didn't work. On utilitarian grounds (which is the basis for much of government in itself and government's powers) that's perfectly reasonable.

You get to choose the person who works for you, that person represents you and your interests, and if they do well, you re-elect them. If they don't, they're not re-elected. If they really screw up, they're charged, arrested, or impeached.

I agree that government-run health care is inefficient, and I believe both Matt and I would accept a dual-health care system where people who could afford private health care could go there, but the public system would still exist for those who could not afford the private model. That would be the best balance between both interests.

There are several similarities. They both use coercion, provide "security" in exchange for money, provide (inefficient) services and both will imprison or kill you if you do not follow their rules. Not to mention they both have rival gangs and force you to fight for them.



As long as there is a demand for it (and I'm sure there will never be a time when there is no demand for healthcare), there will always be a supply. Again, I shouldn't be forced to pay for the needs of others.



Why didn't it work? Because you believe humans are so vile that they wouldn't help their fellow man if they believed that the person truly needs it? You can't use the current amount of "needy" people because our current system is heavily abused with the government paying people to be poor. Without the government subsidizing poverty (and when you subsidize something, it increases), the amount of people in poverty will inevitably decrease. Will there be absolutely no poverty at all? No. But it will surely decrease as I'm sure everyone here can attest to knowing someone who abuses social welfare programs.



What if nobody represents my interests? If you can show me a place on the globe where there is a truly free market without government intervention, I'll move there once I can get "permission" from the government to leave.



I'm assuming we, as citizens, will still be forced to pay ridiculous amounts to support those who cannot afford private healthcare?



Like I said, I'm not trying to be a badass rebel. Canada is one of the best out of the current choices, but that doesn't mean we should all settle when there is room for improvement.



That severally limits our freedom. Why not be able to choose from one of the many private services? You can choose the service that best meets your needs and if they do something you do not condone, you can take your business elsewhere. You can relate this to the freedom to choose between one of the many private insurance services rather than being forced to go with whatever the government chooses.