Skip to content

To Altruistic RH Bill Supporters: You Got What You’ve Asked For!

April 27, 2011

A few months ago I made two  prescient predictions about the controversial Reproductive Health bill, now euphemistically named Responsible Parenthood bill, that are about to turn into reality in light of the ongoing political development in this country. My first prediction is about the future of the ‘big government’ bill that seeks to make the government the main provider of people’s RH care needs. I predicted in October last year that our politicians in Congress would be forced to make a compromise to ensure the passage of the bill. This is what is happening in the lower house today as the bill’s proponents considered deleting some of the measure’s highly contentious provisions.

In my blog dated October 24, 2010, I stated the following:

If I’m not mistaken, Lagman filed another version of his original bill. But here’s the thing: the whole Congress are going to debate on the issues concerning the bill, and some of these issues include reproductive health,  population, the use of contraception, family planning, regulation of businesses and the medical profession, among others, and they would certainly make a compromise, as they always did whenever they tackled pieces of legislation in the past.

But here are the FACTORS that our lawmakers are going to look at during the debate and deliberation process:

  • The current condition of the country’s economy. Can the government provide all the RH services mentioned in the bill WITHOUT TAXING the people?
  • The bill’s penal and punitive provisions.
  • Are they going to shift the burden to employers, health care providers and others?
  • The country’s budget deficit, tax revenue, or the financial capacity of the government to pursue the intents of the bill.
Now newspaper reports say that the bill’s proponents have agreed to get rid of some of the contentious provisions in order to hasten the approval of the controversial anti-population measure.

Here’s an excerpt of the Philippine Star report:

House Minority Leader and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, one of the main authors of House Bill 4244, wrote to Biliran Rep. Rogelio Espina, chairman of the House committee on population and family relations, on March 15 informing him of some amendments to the measure “in order to preclude misconceptions and protracted debates.”

The chamber resumed plenary debates on the RH bill Wednesday but the discussions are expected to be protracted with at least 50 lawmaker signing up for interpellations. Congress will go on a break starting tomorrow and will resume sessions on May 9.

Lagman listed six amendments to the bill being debated in plenary, including deleting a phrase in Section 13 of the measure that states that local government units should “give priority to family planning work” and replace it with just “help implement this Act.”

The proponents also agreed to add a final provision to Section 16 on mandatory age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education, which shall read: “Parents shall exercise the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education.”

Section 20 on ideal family size “should be deleted in its entirety considering that the norm on ideal family size is neither mandatory nor punitive. Its total deletion will preclude further misinformation and misrepresentation as to the import of the provision,” Lagman said.

“Moreover, its deletion will also underscore freedom of informed choice,” he said.

The bill’s proponents also agreed to delete Section 21 on employers’ responsibility in its entirety, as they now realized that this provision is clearly an abuse and undue expansion of the 134 of the Labor Code.

Lagman understood that “its deletion would obviate further objections and debates.”

The representative also called for the deletion of Section 28(e) of the bill, which states: “Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent and provisions of this Act” since he now realized that it runs counter to constitutionally protected freedom of expression.

My second prediction is about the feared possibility of more and higher taxes. More taxes means more forms of taxation, while higher tax means higher tax rates.

So there’s no reason for the RH bill supporters to cheer the possible passage of the bill since it appears that the measure’s compromised version would affect us all unless there are some people who love to pay more taxes.

In the original version, most of the bill’s promises and goods were to be delivered by employers. But since Lagman and his ilk proposed to delete some of the measure’s contentious provisions, the question that our lawmakers need to answer is: Who will finance them? Well, the taxpayers of course. But what about the punitive provisions against health care providers? It appears that this is not part of Lagman’s six amendments to the bill.

On March 8, I predicted that we should brace ourselves for more and higher taxes.

In a blog article entitled Are You Ready for Higher, More Taxes?, I stated:

We have already crossed the age of heightened progressivism, as more and more statist intellectuals spout some soothing bromidic mantras to fool the people (e.g., sacrifice, common good, greater good, equality, public welfare, pro-poor programs, pro-women, etc.)

Consider this statist think tank called the Philippine Institute for Development Studies that recommends “tax financing” as the only way to achieve the government’s Millennium Development Goals (MDG).

The medium-term targets for 2015 include the following:

  • Potable water and sanitation services for the whole country by 2010, prioritizing 200 waterless municipalities nationwide, and 200 waterless barangays in the NCR;
  • Ensure universal primary education, raising net enrollment rate at the primary level to 93% (from 90% in 2002); raise the cohort survival rate to 78% (from 70% in 2002); raise the secondary school net enrollment rate to 84% (from 58% in 2002);
  • Achieve the MDGs for health such as reductions of infant and under-5 mortality rates, maternal mortality rate, and incidence of malaria and TB; and as well as dissemination ofmodern reproductive health practices;
  • Achieve the MDG target for hunger, i.e. reduce underweight prevalence among school children to 17%.

PIDS, whose source of funding remains unclear, published a study/report entitled “Assessing Development Strategies to Achieve the MDGs in Asia: Philippines”. The statist think tank’s (PIDS) Keynesian “economy-wide computable general equilibrium (CGE) model”, which is founded on the premise that the government must assume the role of a nanny state, identifies the most potential VICTIM for the achievement of the administration’s welfare-state MDG: WE TAXPAYERS!

Since Briones et al. realize that financing increases in government spending through domestic and foreign borrowing and foreign transfer would have a negative impact on the economy, they thus argue that “This [situation] leaves tax financin…g for achieving the MDGs.”

A Manila Bulletin report confirms my forecast after President Noynoy Aquino apparently took back an earlier campaign promise not to impose new taxes during his term. Malacañang said that Aquino’s campaign mantra of “no new taxes” policy  applies only this year.

Here’s an excerpt of the Manila Bulletin report:

While the public can be assured of no additional taxes until the end of the year, Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda said that the imposition of new taxes or higher tax rates will depend on the country’s fiscal position in the remainder of the President’s term.

“I’m not sure if the ‘no new taxes’ policy was for the entire six years (of President Aquino’s term). That was not the promise made. What we are very clear about is there will be no taxes this year,” Lacierda said in a Palace news conference.

“That’s my understanding. We are going through it on a year-to-year basis,” Lacierda added of the imposition of additional taxes during Aquino’s tenure.

In the campaign road to the presidency last year, then Senator Benigno Aquino III promised he would not impose new taxes or increase tax rates if elected president. Aquino, in seeking the votes of Makati Business Club last year, instead vowed he would focus on the campaign against tax evasion and smuggling.

Lacierda, however, explained that the President may reconsider raising taxes in the coming years depending on advice of his economic managers and the “fiscal condition” of the country.

“Right now we are doing okay, so there are no plans right now,” he said. “We have good numbers on revenues and deficit,” he added.

Lacierda declined to comment on the bills seeking higher taxes on alcohol and tobacco supposedly meant to curb the government’s huge budget deficit until the Palace has seen the details. He admitted that it “sounds good” to simplify the multi-tiered system of sin taxes but “we haven’t seen the bill yet.”

Lacierda also said that Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima and Budget Secretary Florencio Abad still have to comment on the proposed legislation on higher sin taxes.

How about text tax?

Like I said before, everything will come from us, taxpayers! The government has no money. It is not a productive agency. The government is the worst parasite in this country. It can only achieve its stated welfare state goals by stealing wealth from the productive and successful. Is this difficult to understand?Like U.S. President Gerald Ford said: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

I hope those who blindly supported this bill and rallied for its immediate passage had the honesty to claim that they also want to pay more and higher taxes. I hope that they wouldn’t pass the burden to those who have the capacity to pay more taxes by calling for an increased tax rates to be imposed on high income earners and businesses. I hope they won’t call for more social sacrifices. Thus, these people should stop complaining about the amount of their mandatory contributions. They should also learn to stop complaining about the many failures of their government since we all know that the government has never been efficient in performing its duties.

To pro-RH bill people let me say this: YOU WON! You asked for all of this, brothers.

48 Comments leave one →
  1. Seluj Albatini permalink
    April 28, 2011 3:38

    Good God! (pun intended) Even that well-known solid bloc, non-trinitarian religious corporation supports the RH Bill. It’s no surprise, since they tend to endorse mostly liberal/collectivist candidates during elections.

  2. GabbyD permalink
    April 28, 2011 3:38

    taxes are gonna rise with or without the RH bill.

    second, MDG does not include “modern” reproductive health practices per se; the idea is to reduce deaths and increase care for the poor.

    but, ok. lets talk some general principles — are you against MDGs? (implicit here is that the govt is central in the achievement of these MDGs)

    • Jackie Tan permalink
      April 28, 2011 3:38

      But first, what do you know about these MDGs and why do you support them?

      • GabbyD permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        i know what the MDGs are. anyone with internet can see what they are.

        are these goals not GOOD goals for a society to have?

        isnt fewer deaths a good thing?

      • jepchupogi permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        @GabbyD

        “are these goals not GOOD goals for a society to have?

        isnt fewer deaths a good thing?”

        I will ask you follow up questions:
        1. At what cost? (who will pay?)
        2. Will you force them to pay?
        3. What if these MDGs somehow disturb their conscience (or equivalent)?

        4. Why stop at free (or at least cheap because of regulation) Reproductive health? Continue on towards other supposed rights in the constitution such as education, add a national food feeding program, have social support for the unemployed, free gas, free toll, centrally planned cities with an architectural theme (whose?) etc…

        If you didn’t notice I added sarcasm.

      • GabbyD permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        which MDGs disturb the conscience? we need to get specific here, as its hard to make progress otherwise.

        are the maternal health goals bad? would anyone say they are bad to have?

      • GabbyD permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        as for 1 and 2, these are important questions.

        but here’s the reality — IF you think these goals are worth achieving, THEN SOMEONE will have to use resources to pay for it.

        the question then is how to minimize these costs. on this we agree then!

      • GabbyD permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        the answer to number 4 depends on

        a) what are the goals of the programs
        b) what are the costs.

        we stop when the costs exceed the benefits of the goals.

      • jepchupogi permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        1. At what cost? (who will pay?)
        2. Will you force them to pay?
        3. What if these MDGs somehow disturb their conscience (or equivalent)?
        4. Why stop at free

        “which MDGs disturb the conscience?”
        I didn’t want to be broad here as well, however, being disturbed in conscience (or other factors such as culture) are on a person-to-person basis.

        I say this because MDG is made in the united nations by people in high places, it is a general goal and might not coincide with a country’s religion or culture (ex. middle eastern countries and gender equality) (ex. India’ caste system vs equality in general)

        ———————
        “are the maternal health goals bad? would anyone say they are bad to have?”

        Out of context – you present an end without giving the means. That is why i made the follow up questions.

        1. At what cost? (who will pay?)
        2. Will you force them to pay?

        1. of course someone has to pay, stuff ain’t free

        #2 is actually more important, and addresses the issue of COERCION (remember the word COERCION), if health goals are to be achieved thru the volunteers of many people WITHOUT COERCION (they are free to NOT help, they be labeled as bad people but there is no punishment if they didn’t help) then I say it is good.

        HOWEVER, achieving health programs thru the use of government law, with its COERCIVE powers and PENALTIES for non compliance of DOCTORS and BUSINESSMEN, then i say that goal is UGLY, for its MEANS is UGLY.

        ———————
        “the answer to number 4 depends on
        a) what are the goals of the programs
        b) what are the costs.
        we stop when the costs exceed the benefits of the goals.”

        Logical, however, we must be keen on the cost, means as well as the ends of a project. And yes we also stop when costs outweigh benefits.

      • GabbyD permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        @jep

        ok, this is more interesting….

        “I say this because MDG is made in the united nations by people in high places”. i’d say the opposite… the fact that the MDGs had to pass the test of multilateralism, we know that your objections have been met…

        i.e. ALL countries have acceeded to the MDGs including your counterexamples India and Saudi Arabia.

        in other words, to have made it THIS FAR, it had to have the agreement of people of different cultures; hence its acceptable to them.

        note also — the MDGs are NOT BINDING. hence, if you agreed to it, you need not actually achieve it. indeed, NOT ACHIEVING them is the likely situation in many countries.

        so, we are in agreement — the MDGs are GOOD

      • jepchupogi permalink
        April 30, 2011 3:38

        “the MDGs are NOT BINDING”
        Good, no penalties thus it is not coercive (violence)

        “so, we are in agreement — the MDGs are GOOD”
        Depends on the MEANS of the member countries in achieving the MDGs, if it is violence free, i have no problems with it. However, if violence is involved as a means, no matter how good the ends, it is BAD.

  3. April 29, 2011 3:38

    @ Gabby D

    I have to inform you that you are a socialist… you just don’t know it. You don’t even know how government programs will impact your damn life. Well, talk about a government’s five-year plan… Grow up and THINK!

    http://www.politicususa.com/en/american-socialists

    • GabbyD permalink
      April 29, 2011 3:38

      how is this socialism? recall that socialism is about collective ownership of assets.

      • April 29, 2011 3:38

        Gabby D said: “i know what the MDGs are. anyone with internet can see what they are. are these goals not GOOD goals for a society to have?”

        What makes those MDG “goals” good for society to have?

        He said: “how is this socialism? recall that socialism is about collective ownership of assets.”

        The fact that you don’t know this shows you’re not worthy to be my opponent. Socialism was not invented by Marx. Socialism, which is certainly about collective ownership of all properties, can be about government intervention and regulations.

      • GabbyD permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        first: opponent? did i sign up to fight?

        second: what does socialism mean? if it means “having goals”, then i ask: can you cite any serious scholar of socialism that uses that definition?

      • April 29, 2011 3:38

        @ Gabby D,

        Let me ask you since your answer to my question will determine whether you understand the things you said: “How will the government achieve its MDG goals?”

        Tell me exactly how will the PH government achieve its goals.

      • GabbyD permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        the govt can directly (using its agencies) and indirectly (using incentives/laws to non-govt actors) achieve these goals.

        again, does having a govt with goals mean you are socialist? are all countries socialist?

  4. April 29, 2011 3:38

    Gabby D said: “the govt can directly (using its agencies) and indirectly (using incentives/laws to non-govt actors) achieve these goals.”

    What an epic fail! LMAO! Just like the Cheaper Medicine Act to provide so-called affordable medicines to the poor. Yet the PH lawmakers are now seeing the unintended consequences of their collective insanity, as their law merely benefits the rich and the middle class and not the poor people they intend to serve. For now we begin to see the collapse of the markets due to government intervention and regulations.

    So to whom are these laws aimed at?

    • GabbyD permalink
      April 29, 2011 3:38

      sandali. ikaw naman ang sumagot:

      what is socialism?

      what dont you like about the MDG? the goal itself? or the fact that the intended beneficiaries arent benefited?

      i’m trying to understand what your issue is exactly. then maybe we can understand each other.

      • April 29, 2011 3:38

        Gabby D asked: Answer my questions first: to whom are these laws aimed at?

      • GabbyD permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        the answer is “it depends”. it depends on the law/agency/policy.

        in general, it affect people/animals/things that reside within its jurisdiction. furthermore, the people affect the law as well, coz they make the laws, elect the officials that make them, rule on conflicts, etc…

        but the details matter too.

        this is SUPER basic stuff. i dont know why you need me to tell you what the law is aimed at.

        NOW, can you answer mine?

      • jepchupogi permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        @GabbyD

        For the definition of socialism, we can refer to wikipedia’s definition for an indepth explaination.

        For a more casual definition:
        Socialism as the intervention of government in the free market, typically on the production, pricing, allocation, control, banning etc…
        Ex
        cheaper medicines act( control on price, which affects quantity produced)
        RH bill (also price, will affect the supply of doctors in the future)
        CCT (allocation, taxes are bad enough and sometimes tax money supports priorities that you personally don’t)
        ETC…

        We cannot say that a country is socialist or not socialist, rather we look at the DEGREE of socialization, or how regulated an industry is. The more regulated (by tax, laws, penalties) an industry is, the more they are the victim of socialism, the more the beneficiaries benefit (whether they are the intended ones or not), we say that they are more socialized.

        ————————–
        @ Fredrik

        Magulo ka kausap, sa totoo lang.

      • GabbyD permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        jep,

        i consulted wikipedia, it said: “advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production ”

        the examples you cite arent public or common ownership/mgt of production.

        by your casual definition, the mere existence of govt is socialism: “Socialism as the intervention of government in the free market” a govt that exits, can only exist by intervening in the free market.

        the mere existence of govt is socialism? i know of NO SCHOLAR that would argue that.

        do you know of one? how did u come up with your casual definition?

      • April 29, 2011 3:38

        gabby D said: “the mere existence of govt is socialism? i know of NO SCHOLAR that would argue that.”

        Are you trying to imply that a state, in order to comply with the dictionary meaning of socialism, must start as a socialist country? Of course there are degrees of socialism. And there are also many types of socialism. Some of them are as follows:

        1.Market socialism
        2. Social democracy
        3.Democratic socialism
        4. Religious socialism
        5. Christian socialism
        6. Islamic socialism
        7. Irish republican socialism
        8. Fabian socialism
        9 Arab socialism
        10. Eco-socialism
        11. National Socialism (Nazism)

        For instance, Hitler’s National Socialism did not actually nationalize all private properties. It merely regard them as creations of the state. So under Hitler’s socialism, there was no actual public ownership of properties.

        Thus, socialism is essentially about government controls and regulations, which could lead, as in our case, to collectivisation or public ownership of all assets.

      • GabbyD permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        no. i’m SAYING (with certainty) that to be a socialist country, you must FIT a dictionary definition.

        otherwise, whats the use of having a dictionary, a book which contains what words mean.

        but i think those things you list… market socialism, etc… they MEAN something DIFFERENT. they are all DEFINED DIFFERENTLY. in which case, you have to be SPECIFIC –which kind of socialism is the MDGs?

      • jepchupogi permalink
        April 29, 2011 3:38

        “advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production ”

        I want to emphasize 2 things in the definition of wikipedia, and i will explain how i arrive at my casual explaination.

        1. Ownership (full)
        -there are 2 components of FULL OWNERSHIP namely
        a) NAKED OWNERSHIP (ex. your name in a land title, being president of a single proprietorship, your name in a partnership, your name in the list of stockholders in a company)

        b) USUFRUCT – Usufruct is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property (whether yours or another person’s) (whether land, or machine or otherwise)

        -Generally, control over an object; to collect fruits that come from an asset, whether natural (pants that suddenly grow), labor (harvest), or social (rent)

        “management of the means of production” would fall under the usufruct part of ownership (even a high level manager directs production even if he is not a stock holder in a company).

        Full ownership can be observed in a single proprietorship, Owner A owns his business(naked) and able to direct workflow and benefit (usufruct).

        2. Cooperation
        – we usually imagine cooperation as 2 or more people in mutual exchange.
        -in the context of us and an interventionalist law, we comply and COOPERATE, in order to avoid punishment that is attached with that law. (ex.Taxes)

        ————-

        Now we look at a probable law RH bill (as an example), RH bill (for now) requires employers to provide RH services to employees under penalties.

        Let us apply “public or common ownership”

        Indeed, this law IS favorable to the public (at least the beneficiaries, they get RH bill. The Owner/Employer A (Mr. A) is providing RH services (maybe against his will), without the law, Mr. A would not have provided RH services.

        Government directed Mr. A, through the use of law to allocate a part of revenues towards RH services, and exhibits USUFRUCT powers, which is a component of FULL OWNERSHIP. Thus gov’t becomes a part-owner of regulated industries by exercising USUFRUCT powers that FULL OWNERS have.

        Let’s go further, Mr. A accrues costs because of this re-allocation of resources, and it is eating up profits, he decides to:
        1) lay off some workers or
        2) pass the cost to consumers, raising the price of his products
        Either option, the effect of gov’t usufruct powers thru interventionalist laws continue to exert influence in the decision of Mr. A, making it look like a “partnership” where both partners can influence each other in directing the company.

        On the topic of cooperation, Mr A “COOPERATES” with the gov’t to avoid penalties, akin to a shotgun wedding “cooperation”. Gov’t is also able to have “management of the means of production” even without being naked owners of individual companies

        ————-

        With my breakdown of definitions, and my example, my casual explaination of socialism is justified and stands.

        ————-
        “by your casual definition, the mere existence of govt is socialism: “Socialism as the intervention of government in the free market” ”

        -you nearly got it, but not quite; the existence of government TENDS to go to socialism (for the Philippine context), due to political pulls of groups. they pull gov’t and make their priorities the gov’t priorities using OUR money in exchange for their block votes in next elections.

        Let me ask you:
        1. Do you have priorities to help the poor/marginalized?
        2. If yes, does government priorities reflect your priorities? (think of election year/month that cycles every 6 years)
        3. If yes, Are they efficient?
        4. Would you prefer to use the money taken from you in the form of tax, be used by you to help the poor, in a method that is tailor made to your (and your community’s) interest in the most efficient possible way?
        5. Why treat gov’t as a panacea to problems in society, while NGO and volunteer groups such as Gawad Kalinga (they still do some mistakes though) provides solutions that help communities WITHOUT filing criminal charges against you for tax evasion when you don’t contribute.

        For a proper concept of government, dig through froi’s blog : Proper role of government. I will give you a spoiler: protection of individual rights thru protection from internal threat (police), protection from external threat(army, navy) and adjudication (courts) ONLY.

        For dicussion of Proper role of government, it must be Froi you should talk to, he has better grasp of it than I do

        ————-
        MDGs themselves are ENDS, not MEANS.
        When government implement interventionalist laws in order to shift wealth from the wealthy to those who are not, it then becomes socialism.

  5. April 29, 2011 3:38

    Gabby D said: “again, does having a govt with goals mean you are socialist? are all countries socialist?”

    Well, that’s why you should answer, to whom are those laws you’ve not dared to name AIMED AT?

  6. April 29, 2011 3:38

    “Well, that’s why you should answer, to whom are those laws you’ve not dared to name AIMED AT?”

    LMAO… Your ignorance is really astounding! Good day!

    • GabbyD permalink
      April 29, 2011 3:38

      ha?

  7. GabbyD permalink
    April 29, 2011 3:38

    @jep,

    lets talk about coercion — what does that mean?

    is it, the use of penalties to induce action? are rewards coercion also?

    second, again, ALL govt involves coercion, if by coercion you mean penalties. murder is dealt with by punishment. are we coercing murders not to murder? hence, is this a bad thing?

    • jepchupogi permalink
      April 29, 2011 3:38

      The underlying thought in my posts about coercion is VIOLENCE.
      There are coercion methods that don’t require violence, and that is ok.( will discuss)

      Violence is a no-no, it must not be used against people because it violates their rights, for example:

      Mugger robs you of belongings; violated: right to acquire and dispose of property (without violating the rights of others)

      Murder; violated: Right to life

      These 2 examples involves rights violation thru violence, there fore the perpetrators forfeit some of their rights (ex.Liberty, due to jail), but still have rights like other people (right to 1 phone call, to an attorney, to a speedy trial, to remain silent etc…)

      Example where coercion happens without violence:

      The withdrawal of ads by companies in the show “willing willie” coerces TV5 to shape up its policies on Mr. Revillame. No violation happened because the companies just excercised their right to choose where to spend their ad money.

      —————
      Activity time: Spot the difference…
      Which involves violence

      A)Animal lovers boycotts a product that has been found to use animal testing in its production. Company suffers loss.

      B)Animal lovers torch an outlet where the product is displayed (product that has been found to use animal testing in its production)

      Know the difference…

      —————
      You have reached a nirvana point when you said “ALL govt involves coercion” this is because gov’t has the monopoly on force/violence. This can be observed in interventionalist laws, gov’t makes the first move by making the law, with violence (penalties). Note that the persons affected violated no rights. I have no problem with laws that use violence on people who violated other people’s rights through violence, that is justice.

      For example:
      RH bill forces businessmen to provide RH services to employees.
      RH bill also forces doctors to provide RH services to those who cannot afford

      By not providing RH services (prior to the RH bill), has the businessman violated anyone’s rights? NO, usually these are benefits given as options when companies fight for a valuable recruit like top notchers.But when RH bill is passed it forces businessmen under penalty (violence).

      By not providing RH services (prior to the RH bill) at low prices for those who cannot afford, has he violated anyone’s rights? No, that’s like saying anything that is unaffordable is injustice; there are different tiers of doctors for different purposes, you go to a cheap-o doctor to confirm that you have a cold, while going to high end ones for brain surgury, there is nothing wrong for services to be priced differently, it encourages competition.

      • April 29, 2011 3:38

        You argue well, Jep. Kudos! Since we go by reality, it is only reality that these confused statists attempt to negate and deny.

      • April 29, 2011 3:38

        You nailed it, Jep! Nobody- not even the most acclaimed leftist intellectual in this shit-hole country- can ever refute your arguments. They can only be refuted by dishonest means, e.i., misrepresentation, strawman arguments, context-dropping, etc.

        No, from what I see, your arguments are not merely libertarian (in the classical sense), they are essentially Objectivist! Thanks!

    • GabbyD permalink
      April 30, 2011 3:38

      ok, here, you say that: “I have no problem with laws that use violence on people who violated other people’s rights through violence, that is justice.”

      i assume also, you dont mind agencies that deal with violence on people, and these include all law enforcement, possibly the military, the courts and govt lawyers that provide services for the poor.

      ok. now, obviously, the criminal justice system is NOT the only activity of govt.

      the govt does many other things. lets talk about traffic. there are officers, infra that implement traffic laws. we dont even need to just talk about traffic — merely owning a car requires telling the govt, and might require other things, such as a car with working brakes and lights. these are all regulated.

      lets talk about public transportation. the system in place is that private companies can register their cars on specific routes, charge fees that the regulator allows, etc.

      is any of this coercion? i suppose its “yes”. isnt there a right to private property? if so, then ALL of these abridges them.

      thats just one activity. but we can describe this activity under a general concept called “externalities”. the govt steps in when there are gains to cooperation in actions and standards.

      often cooperation requires trade-offs because not everyone gains from cooperation, either relatively or even in absolute terms. so this, “cooperation” requires people to follow, even tho they didnt want to initially.

      • jepchupogi permalink
        April 30, 2011 3:38

        “i assume also, you dont mind agencies that deal with violence on people, and these include all law enforcement, possibly the military, the courts and govt lawyers that provide services for the poor.”

        IMPORTANT: I do not mind these agencies dealing out violence WHEN THEY ARE RETALIATORY in nature, meaning some entity violated some other’s rights, then these agencies may now use violence on the violator.

        As a general rule, even these agencies are prohibited from exercising the first violence against us.

        —————

        “ok. now, obviously, the criminal justice system is NOT the only activity of govt.”

        I posted what the proper role of government is: “protection of individual rights thru protection from internal threat (police), protection from external threat(army, navy) and adjudication (courts) ONLY”

        May I also point out my emphasis on ONLY, and let me define only : solely; exclusively;no more than; merely.

        So by my and Froi’s definition of proper role of gov’t, it has no business meddling in any economic industry. It doesn’t even have a legislative function to make interventionist laws.

        —————-

        Let us talk about traffic: the gov’t is not needed in a transportation industry, the things you describe: LTO, MMDA, Towing services, impounding, roadworks and its maintainance are a government monopoly, meaning government has the sole right to operate, approve the works above. They may subcontract the works like build to transfer (BOT) schemes, but in the end gov’t will own and operate.

        I will propose another system for transportation in which gov’t is not involved:

        1) roads
        – a population in a small town can group together and pitch in to hire a company to make the roads (even BOT schemes). The advantage of this is that the community can tailor make the road with consideration to the future population and housing boom (or bust) when the road is made, no more gov’t TAKING your land for road expansion because centrally planned roads are now too narrow. (gov’t law says it will compensate for land, but it will be appraised low, and you get payment in a long future). If ever a mistake is made, it would be less probable to happen, and road widening projects will be based on mutual trade, not force. Tolls, or epass with load can be used as gradual payment to the company that built the road.

        2) cars
        -parts of the cars are the auto makers call, they can make cheap-o cars with lots of defects, but will lose customers on bad rep, accidents will happen in the fist few months, for sure, but after that, the auto company will be blasted to oblivion.
        -Standards, and consumer protection does not need the gov’t, private consumer groups, such as blogs or society of X can rate a product, blog about it, and it will not just be one, it will be many, so customers can cross check a product before buying. Unless the customer is lazy.
        -standards of checking evolves for each group, and must include a wide array of checks in order to be visited (in web sites) more frequently, Ad revenues will roll in if they are comprehensive and just in judging. However, they will lose customer trust if they are biased. Thus objectivity and neutrality are incentivized.

        3)licensure (persons, Autos)
        -Driving schools and Insurance companies can team up in licensing persons and Autos
        -for persons, driving schools instruct, train, screen and grade driving students (high grades, low grades, failures), the students then get a report card, and a diploma from the school.
        -for these students, they will go to an insurance company to get their license, they will be assesed of risk, and pay an amount (yearly?) for their license, the premium may change depending on demerits they incur during collisions, accidents (due to human error)

        -for autos plate numbers,giving a plate to a car (model) would require a study of risk (consumer groups will help) on how safe the car is, the plate will be paid for (yearly?) and yearly checkup may be required to renew the plate thus,reducing mechanical accidents and breakdown; old cars may incur higher premium costs, thus eventually forcing these cars to be impractical to use due to costs and thus be phased out.

        -the plate will indicate from which insurance company it came from, and in times of accidents, people will know who to claim from.

        -This setup will prevent risky drivers from passing in the driving school, preventing them from driving at all.
        -Insurance companies are the 2nd deterrent, high premiums on low scores will deter risky drivers.
        -a merit system encourage safe driving so people can save on costs, and thus safer roads.
        -if there are forgeries, the person can be blacklisted.
        -lots of driving schools and auto insurance companies will pop-up
        -Competitive prices in terms of low price, convenience or benefits will arise.
        -no fixers, convenience will be a major factor in persuading you to avail, thus, you will be well taken care of, unlike in LTO

        4) No need for police, traffic lights and their maintainance
        -If you notice, people are more careful on intersections with broken or no street light, with the street light, some drop their safety because the light is ‘green’ without considering other drivers.
        -I am banking on this psych to justify the needlessness of enforcers and traffic lights. the demerit system is enough.

        5) public transport (jeep, bus, ferries, airlines, train)
        – driver groups (JODA, TODA) will not disappear, their political pull will.
        -most of the risky drivers will disappear due to the driving schools and insurance companies.
        -these groups are free to price their services, and will go for tiering and differentiation (branding) to charge higher (ex. good cushions, brand new jeep/bus, mini TV) or compete by charging lower (less cushions, no air con) which will cater to different needs/wants of customers.
        -they will not be able to charge insanely high, there will be alternative transpo, and each one of them has incentive to lower prices to get customer.

        6) public transpo (taxi, tricycles)
        -person-person negotiation, based on length, traffic and other factors.
        -basically pitting them against each other and getting the lowest bidder.
        -they will not be able to charge insanely high, there will be alternative transpo, and each one of them has incentive to lower prices to get customer.

        NOTE: NO GOV’T IS INVOLVED IN THIS PLAN.

        “the system in place is that private companies can register their cars on specific routes, charge fees that the regulator allows, etc.
        is any of this coercion? i suppose its “yes”. isnt there a right to private property? if so, then ALL of these abridges them.”

        Yes it does violate the right to choose because gov’t managed transpo is a monopoly, there is simply no alternative to choose from, it essentially limits our choices

        If you attempt to be another licensure for people and cars, the gov’t will deem you as a forger, a threat etc… But i presented above is a clear and organized system without the gov’t interfering in public transpo.

        —————

        EXTERNALITIES

        externalities are very subjective, to a smoker, smoke coming from cigarettes is a + externality (or a non-issue) while to a non-smoker, it is a – externality.

        and these subjective externality can happen all around us without being known.

        ex. I see you well kempt, shaved, and in a suit; i feel bad (- externality) because i have a bad hair day. However your lady friend gets + externality because you are a boyfriend to be proud of.

        now imagine your day, when you got pissed off by a jeep that cut you in traffic, bad wine, great sex, good game, dota, my post, froi’s blog etc…

        The thing is that a single situation/item can generate both + and – externalities, and it has ripple effect in the 2nd 3rd 4th 5th etc… degree. Now, if the government is omnicient enough to compute the maximum + effect of externalities for each they, then they are welcome. If they cannot, then they shouldn’t meddle in another person’s affairs

        Ex. A company makes X, and generates pollution
        -externalities
        people in vicinity
        air/water
        employees
        corporate responsibility

        +externalities
        X will be cheaper
        more money for R&D of X
        etc…

        It must be the call of managers whether to do something about the pollution and considering factors such as consumer fedback, price of x, profit, employee turnovers, brand name etc…

        Was the gov’t omniscient enough to compute that controlling this company will net + effect even in the 2nd 3rd 4th 5th etc… degree? (No)

        Is the gov’t flexible enough to change course (the law) to generate maximum benefit (No, they go through debates, and people who benefit from the restriction will oppose and lengthen the debate while managers, through the market system will respond immediately on the losses by changing corp image, loering prices etc…)

        Then why should the gov’t exert usufructory powers over the company?

        —————

        Everyone wins in mutual trade

        ex: you buy meat from a butcher
        The butcher considers you peso more valueable than his meat inventory being sold to you
        You think that the price of meat is bargain (as opposed to current price of other foods)
        Both WIN

        Ex. you buy a pencil
        your php 10 actually saved you labor that will take you to make the pencil, namely:
        Getting graphite for the lead
        chopping wood for the body
        Mining metals to hold the eraser/body
        Extracting rubber for eraser
        Combining all of them into a pencil

        Not to mention the tools you need to assemble them, you will need a lot more materials for those too.

        You can use this logic for all other items (Ipad, TV, Cars etc) and services (fixing cars, plumbing), you win because you save the time and energy in making/doing it yourself, and the providers considers you peso to be more valuable to the than the service/product they sell.

        Losses happen due to miscalculation, asymetric infos, which was not factored in during the decision process.

        Ex. you found out butcher B sells meat less a day later! but you bought the meat from butcher A!

        Tough shit, but you still save on labor and energy of making it yourself.

  8. April 29, 2011 3:38

    Gabby D said: “no. i’m SAYING (with certainty) that to be a socialist country, you must FIT a dictionary definition. otherwise, whats the use of having a dictionary, a book which contains what words mean.”

    That’s the horrible orwellian trick of the socialists to evade responsibility and unimpeachable reality. The Maoists claim that China is not full socialism because of its little bit of market economy.

    FYI, the dictionary definition of socialism does not include POLITICAL EVALUATION. It merely gives us an idea of what socialism is. It does not define whether it admits different types of socialism or not. Thus, it is the responsibility of the critical thinkers to determine whether a particular system is to be described as or called socialism. Why? It’s because if we go by the strict dictionary definition of socialism, then only North Korea and partly China fit its standard definition. Thus, countries like Cuba and Venezuela can always claim they’re a free country and their oppression of their own people are being done in the name of freedom and social progress, although they obviously subscribe to socialism.

    That mentality is called evasion by definition.

    What I’m saying is that if we go directly by the dictionary definition of socialism, then 99 percent of the world is a free society and the remaining 1 percent is socialism.

    May I ask you: Does the dictionary give a political evaluation of the word socialism?

  9. Anonymous permalink
    April 30, 2011 3:38

    This one takes the cake! Now we are supposed to oppose the RH bill for tax reasons! What a joke… Of all the things the government wastes its money on the RH bill would actually be money well spent and is likely to provide the best return on investment the country has ever seen. Please also do not forget the many international grants and aid the PH will get when it finally makes this long overdue program a reality. Its mystifying why people like this guy even get ‘air time’ in the media in the first place…

    • May 1, 2011 3:38

      This comment takes the cake. Full of BS!

  10. May 1, 2011 3:38

    I just hope this bill would end to positive result.

  11. Melocoton permalink
    May 1, 2011 3:38

    If there were more of us, wouldn’t individual people have less value since we have so much of it available?

  12. darwin permalink
    May 12, 2011 3:38

    I am neither pro nor anti RH Bill as I have taken a different stance on the issue. For me, it just wasn’t simply being pro or anti. One of the inconsistencies that I see is that the government pushing for the RH yet in reality, we can see that they are doing the opposite. Take for example the number of births a person is entitled for Philhealth coverage. It used to be that a member is entitled to be covered by Philhealth for 2 live births. In recent years, it has been increased to 4. And now last I heard, they are planning to increase it to 6. In my opinion, the benefit should only be limited to 1 person. If a woman is single, her entitlement is only for 1 per person. For married couples, entitlement should for 2 if both spouses are Philhealth members. As a Philhealth member, why should I pay for the coverage of other people who breed like rabbits? And it should be that premiums should be based on the number or dependents.

    The problem here is that government service in healthcare, education and other services are being burdened heavily by large spending. As result of our huge population, we all are getting bad service. And who pays for all these? The taxpayers.

    Isn’t it annoying that we are paying for the welfare of those who breed like rabbits but contribute little to government coffers as if we owe them something just because they poor? And don’t you think it’s unfair that tax exemptions are given based on the number of dependents a person has? And if you are the poor schmuck who is single and has no dependents has to pay higher taxes than those people that burden government spending with their huge families?

    What if, we have a system of collecting income taxes that is the exact opposite of what we have now. The less dependents you have, the less taxes you pay. You pay the government in taxes for every child that you bring into this world until they join the workforce. If your children does not go to a public school, you can file it for tax exemption. If your family did not avail of government services in health care, you can file it for exemption. So that those who use government services the most are the ones paying for it. It rewards people with lesser taxes by reproducing less. So they can spend the money they save elsewhere to better themselves and contribute better to the economy. So they can better send their children to private schools and ease dependence on public education. So they can send their family members to private hospitals and ease the burden of public health service.

    I think this solves some of the conflicts of those pro and anti RH Bill. It does not go in violation of ones religious beliefs. It just simply makes people pay for what they burden the government.

    The problem with many of both the Pro and the Anti’s is that they want to shove their beliefs into the throat of others

    • May 12, 2011 3:38

      As for your tax exemption, the right term is tax credit.

  13. Juan Galdo permalink
    May 12, 2011 3:38

    @darwin
    “The problem with many of both the Pro and the Anti’s is that they want to shove their beliefs into the throat of others.”

    There’s nothing wrong with that so long as they don’t initiate the use of force and/or violate the rights of other people.

Trackbacks

  1. Filipino Freefarting Hippies for Palamunin Culture « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Filipino People Need Jobs, Not RH! « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. PNoy’s Malthusian/Marxist Economist: ‘PH must manage its population and decrease its dependency rates’ « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. Chain Smoker Pnoy’s ‘Christmas Gift’: A Dangerous Trojan Horse for Welfare Dictatorship « THE VINCENTON POST
  5. To Altruistic RH Bill Zombies: You Got What You Asked For! | VINCENTON BLOGVINCENTON BLOG

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: