[ExI] Private and government R&D [was Health care in the USA]

[Mirco Romanato]

Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto:
> 2009/7/1 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>:


> I didn't intend that there be such a distinction between "good" and
> "feel-good". What I meant was that private businesses generally only
> do anything in order to make a profit, and only occasionally donate to
> charity etc. because they think it's the right thing to do.

Well, governments how much often than private entities do something
selflessly and how often do something selfishly?
I would support that the large majority of what government do is to last
more and become more powerful.

>> And they would not give because they are interested in "feel good"
>> without actually pay the price of being good.
> 
> But I strongly support being taxed for these positive purposes,
> because I see this as fairer and more efficient. Charity is fickle,
> demeaning for the recipient, and ineffective. I see people who want to
> abolish all public services as selfish and evil, since you started the
> name-calling.

Well, you started to wonder if you are evil in another post. I only want
 support your insight. One try to be supportive and no one appreciate it.
Usually people doing evil thing think they are doing right things.
So, yes, maybe I'm evil and I don't understand it.

>> I never found anyone that claimed to had paid more taxes on purpose to
>> give more money to the government.

> No, and I try to minimise the taxes I pay even though I support
> taxation in principle.

The sentence could be better wrote as:
I try to minimize the taxes I pay even though I support taxation of
others in principle. The caveat being that if they try to minimize the
taxes they pay they are bad people and if you do, you are not.

There is not something like "minimize" the taxes one pay.
Or one pay all the taxes he owe to the government or he is a tax-evader.

> The choices are:
> (a) everyone pays tax;
> (b) everyone pays tax except me;
> (c) no-one pays tax
> 
> My selfish preferred option is (b), but obviously that isn't going to
> happen. Second best is (a). I would probably be financially better off
> under (c), but I see that as morally wrong and would not support it.
> (I would feel guilty about (b) as well, but at least it would do
> little harm to the rest of the population, unlike (c)).

So without your taxes you believe multitudes would starve, be illiterate
and die of easily curable diseases?
But you would refuse to donate if no one forced you to pay taxes.

Where is the difference from being forced to finance a war you don't
want finance?
Or, maybe, finance a program on ID, prayer services or gladiatorial games.

Mirco