|
United States7483 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:16 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
What what?
Germany is in much much better shape than the US. It has better economic results, it has much much smaller inequalities, it has better medias, a very efficient social system, an extremely functional democracy. Ok, there are problem with the Euro, but that's completely unrelated to their healthcare since the Eurozone problems don't even come from Germany. And yes, it is absolutely sustainable if your taxation system is not completely stupid. We have had social security in most Europe for 60 years. So don't make it a monstrous danger, it is sustainable.
Now, since when healthcare is an inalienable right? It is since people are not barbarian and selfish enough to think that poor people also have the right to get their arm fixed if they break it rather than dying from gangrene or blood infection. Maybe you find that really original and weird, that society doesn't let someone who has cancer and can't pay for an expensive healthcare die in two month because nobody care to give him chemotherapy?
Maybe for you health is just a product? Maybe for you everything is just a product? After all, Tocqueville said it better:
As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?
Apparently that applies also to human life.
Anyway, have a nice day. I'm getting out of this thread before I hang myself. Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom. When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this. I'd like to hear this laundry list. The fact that most developed countries don't use them is not an argument. The fact that fire spreads is also not an argument because the people who have opted in would be entitled to have their homes protected even if it's not directly their house burning. That would simply be a matter of drawing up the right contract. Also, I don't feel that people should die if they aren't productive enough to survive. I think that they should do everything they can to increase their productiveness or ask for private charity.
Of course 'fire spreads' is an argument, are you ignorant? You want firemen to sit outside a burning house, and somehow manage to keep it from burning the houses of those who pay without putting it out? Do you understand how ridiculous this sounds? Fire isn't exactly something you just 'contain' in an urban environment. This kind of thought process is out of touch with reality. The best way to protect anyone from a fire is to put it out immediately, which stops it from spreading. An opt-in fire department would be either useless, or far more abusable than our current system. Some things, like fire departments and police, provide protection for everyone because it is necessary for society that everyone be protected as best as possible. If you only try to protect some and not others, everyone suffers. This is why it is nearly universally agreed (of course there is some dissent, you are dissenting, but it's nearly universal) that a public fire department is superior.
There's an excellent example of this. In 2010, a fire department in Tenessee did this, refused to put out a fire for someone who had not paid his $75.00 fire fee. The fire spread to a neighbor's home and the fire department then put out the fire on the neighbor's home. The first person's house burned to the ground. The neighbor's home wasn't destroyed, but it suffered fire damage. If the fire department had just put out the fire in the first place, the neighbor would have suffered no damage at all.
There are a bunch of other reasons why opt-in fire departments suck, but most of them are moral ones, and you seem to have a problem with the idea that we should help others who need help.
|
On January 05 2012 08:33 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:16 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom.
When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this. I'd like to hear this laundry list. The fact that most developed countries don't use them is not an argument. The fact that fire spreads is also not an argument because the people who have opted in would be entitled to have their homes protected even if it's not directly their house burning. That would simply be a matter of drawing up the right contract. Also, I don't feel that people should die if they aren't productive enough to survive. I think that they should do everything they can to increase their productiveness or ask for private charity. Of course 'fire spreads' is an argument, are you ignorant? You want firemen to sit outside a burning house, and somehow manage to keep it from burning the houses of those who pay without putting it out? Do you understand how ridiculous this sounds? Fire isn't exactly something you just 'contain' in an urban environment. This kind of thought process is out of touch with reality. The best way to protect anyone from a fire is to put it out immediately, which stops it from spreading. An opt-in fire department would be either useless, or far more abusable than our current system. Some things, like fire departments and police, provide protection for everyone because it is necessary for society that everyone be protected as best as possible. If you only try to protect some and not others, everyone suffers. This is why it is nearly universally agreed (of course there is some dissent, you are dissenting, but it's nearly universal) that a public fire department is superior. There's an excellent example of this. In 2010, a fire department in Tenessee did this, refused to put out a fire for someone who had not paid his $75.00 fire fee. The fire spread to a neighbor's home and the fire department then put out the fire on the neighbor's home. The first person's house burned to the ground. The neighbor's home wasn't destroyed, but it suffered fire damage. If the fire department had just put out the fire in the first place, the neighbor would have suffered no damage at all. There are a bunch of other reasons why opt-in fire departments suck, but most of them are moral ones, and you seem to have a problem with the idea that we should help others who need help.
Again, that's simply a matter of drawing up the right contract which would provide you protection, even if it isn't your house on fire, in that any fire that threatens your property would be put out.
It's not that I'm against the idea of helping people. I'm against the idea that people's need can be held as a gun pointed towards the productive.
|
I think that's exactly my problem with so many of these libertarian arguments. It sounds more like the point is to punish those making decisions you disapprove of, rather than actually helping out other human beings.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:31 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:25 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 08:13 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
[quote]
As opposed to what exactly?
The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse.
[quote]
Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that.
US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this. The thing you are too biased to understand is this: if healthcare were NOT socialized in the manner it is in the US, it would be significantly cheaper, and your minimum wage worker would most likely be able to afford the private health care that he needed. In the event that he couldn't afford it, he could appeal to the kind-heartedness of individuals like Ron Paul and get it for free, as charity. Now, say that minimum wage worker decides to go out and spend the money he has on Meth or heroine. He then gets sick and can no longer afford health care. Do you really think this person should be entitled to healthcare that comes from the pocket of someone who is responsible? If you do, you really need to take a step back and look at the big picture.
So we should, as a society, hope that enough people will be kind hearted to those who can't afford health care so that they don't suffer?I never said someone who spends money on meth or heroine deserves health care, I don't know how you leapt to the exact opposite logical end of the spectrum. What a weird leap. I'd re-write the entire health care system myself, first thing to go would be malpractice lawsuits: get rid of those and everything gets WAY cheaper. Malpractice would be a criminal offense, not a civil one, and people would take out private insurance for proceedures. One of the deals with my system is that everyone has the option to buy cheap health care, and have it provided for them if they can't afford it, but if they can afford it and choose not to, hospitals aren't obligated to help. As for why that doesn't work with fire departments, it's pretty simple: externalities. Yes along with the fact that when you don't socialize or subsidize health care, it is much more efficient and most people would actually be able to afford it. If they do suffer, that is unfortunate but we shouldn't start stealing from people as a response. As for the externalities of fire, that is simply a matter of drawing up the right contract which will protect you even if it's not your property that is directly on fire.
It's not just a matter of drawing up the right contract, there are serious logistical issues involved. You can't just 'stop' fire from spreading while allowing it to burn. Containment is an incredibly difficult feat, especially in an urban environment
Where's your evidence that unsubsidized health care is cheaper and more efficient? Are you considering equity and the social value of everyone having health care? Less people get sick when everyone has health care (contagious illnesses get taken care of faster and are less likely to spread, as well as negative externalities when people get sick, like missing days from work).
You're incredibly naive if you think people can just appeal to charity for help if they need it and that the system would work like that. I have no idea where you got the idea that taxing people is 'stealing'.
|
On January 05 2012 07:37 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:33 Evotroid wrote:On January 05 2012 07:19 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
I would say that liberalism is much worse than any social healthcare but thats just my opinion.
The Fed gave 1.2 trillion dollars to banks during the crisis in 2008 at 0,01% to save them, while countries have to borrow banks money at 9% interest when they are in crisis.
Our world is ruled by the monetary system and they can get away with anything they want. We have to take them down and it's the only solution cause they arnt going to stop by themselves.
Giving people too much liberty is just insane. And that dosnt apply only for banks.
And about healthcare.. Ye, only in the US people would argue that its bad. Cause you know, helping people is just bad :/
Cant understand the mentality of you guys but I guess its just different culture. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing. On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world. I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism. How is it capitalism? In capitalism the banks who fcked up would be fckd up, and only the competition who did better survived, and not the ones who were deemed important by the state. Not even crony. Crony capitalism is not capitalism in any way. Crony capitalism and capitalism are two completely independent things.
Hardly independent. It's what you get when you apply the capitalism pipe dream to the real world and real people. In the real world, whoever gets ahead and gets in a position of power will look to assume control and bend or break all the rules necessary to eliminate any present or future competition.
And without control mechanisms, there are no means to effectively stop them from doing that.
|
On January 05 2012 08:29 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:27 aksfjh wrote:On January 05 2012 08:13 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
[quote]
As opposed to what exactly?
The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse.
[quote]
Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that.
US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this. The thing you are too biased to understand is this: if healthcare were NOT socialized in the manner it is in the US, it would be significantly cheaper, and your minimum wage worker would most likely be able to afford the private health care that he needed. In the event that he couldn't afford it, he could appeal to the kind-heartedness of individuals like Ron Paul and get it for free, as charity. Now, say that minimum wage worker decides to go out and spend the money he has on Meth or heroine. He then gets sick and can no longer afford health care. Do you really think this person should be entitled to healthcare that comes from the pocket of someone who is responsible? If you do, you really need to take a step back and look at the big picture. If there is already a problem where people can't afford health care as it is, what makes you think that taking more away from them will make it any easier to afford? It's not like there is a group of doctors in every city saying, "if only people didn't have Medicare and Medicaid, then I could treat them for free!" I might disagree that a pure free market would make things better, but you clearly don't even understand the concept. edit; The argument is that healthcare would cost less if you didn't have all the government regulation in the insurance and health industries.
The essential problem with that argument is that it is unproven, and that our empirical reality so far suggests differently. I'm inclined to agree that we have never seen a truly free market healthcare system, or true free market capitalism in any sector for that matter.
That said, I don't think it is unfair to say that countries (and world systems) that have moved closer to free markets have seen increases in economic inequality. I have nothing against free markets, but they only work if you have an equal playing field. If you don't have an equal playing field but instead start with historical, social and economical inequality, free markets only seem to aggravate the problem not fix it.
Completely free markets would be the institutionalization of existing inequalities (think current north-south relations), and unless there's some genius plan to fix those first, I'd prefer any other system including our current one.
(Next to the moral objections I have to a system with the sole goal of accumulating as much wealth as possible, which is simply a difference in political opinion that won't be resolved.)
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:42 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:29 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 08:27 aksfjh wrote:On January 05 2012 08:13 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
[quote]
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this. The thing you are too biased to understand is this: if healthcare were NOT socialized in the manner it is in the US, it would be significantly cheaper, and your minimum wage worker would most likely be able to afford the private health care that he needed. In the event that he couldn't afford it, he could appeal to the kind-heartedness of individuals like Ron Paul and get it for free, as charity. Now, say that minimum wage worker decides to go out and spend the money he has on Meth or heroine. He then gets sick and can no longer afford health care. Do you really think this person should be entitled to healthcare that comes from the pocket of someone who is responsible? If you do, you really need to take a step back and look at the big picture. If there is already a problem where people can't afford health care as it is, what makes you think that taking more away from them will make it any easier to afford? It's not like there is a group of doctors in every city saying, "if only people didn't have Medicare and Medicaid, then I could treat them for free!" I might disagree that a pure free market would make things better, but you clearly don't even understand the concept. edit; The argument is that healthcare would cost less if you didn't have all the government regulation in the insurance and health industries. The essential problem with that argument is that it is unproven, and that our empirical reality so far suggests differently. I'm inclined to agree that we have never seen a truly free market healthcare system, or true free market capitalism in any sector for that matter. That said, I don't think it is unfair to say that countries (and world systems) that have moved closer to free markets have seen increases in economic inequality. I have nothing against free markets, but they only work if you have an equal playing field. If you don't have an equal playing field but instead start with historical, social and economical inequality, free markets only seem to aggravate the problem not fix it. Completely free markets would be the institutionalization of existing inequalities (think current north-south relations), and unless there's some genius plan to fix those first, I'd prefer any other system including our current one. (Next to the moral objections I have to a system with the sole goal of accumulating as much wealth as possible, which is simply a difference in political opinion that won't be resolved.)
This statement hits the nail precisely on the head.
|
I wish most of the Americans here had an even remote idea of what socialism is. Obama would be centre right by most European governmental standards, and your society is further right than Poland, Ireland, and Greece, the most right wing of the EU states
|
On January 05 2012 08:25 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:13 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On January 05 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:
I find it kinda funny that people are arguing that socialist states are doing well right now. With a few exceptions, most of the socialist states are drowning in debt due to the unsustainability of their social programs given their demographics. As opposed to what exactly? The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse. On January 05 2012 03:32 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
Healthcare is a service provided by an individual. You can't have a "RIGHT" to what someone else does/provides, it violates his personal freedom.
When the government gets involved in anything it results in things being more expensive, and lower quality, it creates deficits, waiting lines, half-assed service, and etc. None of these things occur in a healthy free market, because it's unsustainable to have a business model in which you're delivering an inferior, but more expensive service... Unless of course you're getting government contracts lol. Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that. US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this. The thing you are too biased to understand is this: if healthcare were NOT socialized in the manner it is in the US, it would be significantly cheaper, and your minimum wage worker would most likely be able to afford the private health care that he needed. In the event that he couldn't afford it, he could appeal to the kind-heartedness of individuals like Ron Paul and get it for free, as charity. Now, say that minimum wage worker decides to go out and spend the money he has on Meth or heroine. He then gets sick and can no longer afford health care. Do you really think this person should be entitled to healthcare that comes from the pocket of someone who is responsible? If you do, you really need to take a step back and look at the big picture. So we should, as a society, hope that enough people will be kind hearted to those who can't afford health care so that they don't suffer? I never said someone who spends money on meth or heroine deserves health care, I don't know how you leapt to the exact opposite logical end of the spectrum. What a weird leap. I'd re-write the entire health care system myself, first thing to go would be malpractice lawsuits: get rid of those and everything gets WAY cheaper. Malpractice would be a criminal offense, not a civil one, and people would take out private insurance for proceedures. One of the deals with my system is that everyone has the option to buy cheap health care, and have it provided for them if they can't afford it, but if they can afford it and choose not to, hospitals aren't obligated to help. As for why that doesn't work with fire departments, it's pretty simple: externalities.
My apologies. I think your health care system would be significantly better than the one we currently have, I just took your comment about me letting people "lie back and die" if they can't afford it as an assumption you wanted socialist healthcare.
Regarding your first question, I think yes. If we took the number of moral outrages in this thread as an example, it seems that most people are either one of two things: Actually kind-hearted enough to help those who need healthcare; or someone who likes to pretend that they are kind-hearted enough to help those who need healthcare.
The idea that you don't think people would donate to charities (of their own free will) to help those poor individuals who needed help implies to me you have a lack of faith in humanity and the general good will that people have. I personally believe that if it was necessary, people would donate to support the well-being of others. Some reasons it doesn't happen so much currently is because it is already taken care of (albeit involuntarily) and our economy is pretty terrible.
|
I'd also love to hear about how deregulating everything just instantly fixes it. It seems like such a cop out answer. We deregulate some programs, and if it didn't work it's because we didn't deregulate them enough. I just find it absurd to think that (especially in the case of health care where people's lives and quality of life are on the line) that any institution aiming to *make a profit* will end up arriving at solutions that actually benefit people's lives.
Here's what actually happens when you let companies just set whatever prices they want: Old woman's prescription costs increased 15 fold at 2 weeks notice
Sure the corporation that exists solely to negotiate prices between insurance companies is making record profits, but a 70 year old woman suddenly can't afford the drugs that allow her to walk.
Was it government regulation that failed her too? I seriously just don't get all this free market talk. This is how I picture all of you saying that it simply "isn't free enough" regarding a free market system:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 05 2012 08:41 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:37 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 07:33 Evotroid wrote:On January 05 2012 07:19 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
I would say that liberalism is much worse than any social healthcare but thats just my opinion.
The Fed gave 1.2 trillion dollars to banks during the crisis in 2008 at 0,01% to save them, while countries have to borrow banks money at 9% interest when they are in crisis.
Our world is ruled by the monetary system and they can get away with anything they want. We have to take them down and it's the only solution cause they arnt going to stop by themselves.
Giving people too much liberty is just insane. And that dosnt apply only for banks.
And about healthcare.. Ye, only in the US people would argue that its bad. Cause you know, helping people is just bad :/
Cant understand the mentality of you guys but I guess its just different culture. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing. On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world. I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism. How is it capitalism? In capitalism the banks who fcked up would be fckd up, and only the competition who did better survived, and not the ones who were deemed important by the state. Not even crony. Crony capitalism is not capitalism in any way. Crony capitalism and capitalism are two completely independent things. Hardly independent. It's what you get when you apply the capitalism pipe dream to the real world and real people. In the real world, whoever gets ahead and gets in a position of power will look to assume control and bend or break all the rules necessary to eliminate any present or future competition. And without control mechanisms, there are no means to effectively stop them from doing that.
The control mechanism are what allow them to do that. If the government didn't have the power to regulate, subsidize and bailout, there would be no reason to buy politicians. The control mechanism we need against companies using the government to eliminate their competition isn't government regulation on the market, it is regulation on the government. Regulation on the government would take the form of a constitution as well as the vigilance of the people.
Explain to me how government regulation of the market prevents companies from eliminating competition in any unfair way? If that isn't what you believe, what is your problem with capitalism?
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:50 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:25 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 08:13 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 08:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 05 2012 07:55 ryanAnger wrote:On January 05 2012 04:15 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 04:11 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 04:08 dafunk wrote:On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote:On January 05 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
[quote]
As opposed to what exactly?
The United States aren't better off then Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland or Germany in terms of public debt. The entire 'west' is currently running up unsustainable debts, with nothing that seems to suggest that more 'socialist' countries are doing worse.
[quote]
Yet some 'european'-style (semi-)public healthcare systems are more efficient then the US private equivalent. Riddle me that.
US healthcare isn't private, it's also semi-public. Which maybe the worst thing possible, it's basically the public sector healthcare forcing the private sector to raise prices, and lower quality in order to stay in business.
Plus you can actually make the choice as a democratic country that certain things, like healthcare, are an actual right. To do so or not is a political choice, not an economic law. It is very possible that that comes at a slight economic cost, yet a country and it's population might be fine with that because it raises the standard of living for those that deserve it most. If society just lets the people at the bottom rot away, then who exactly is society for?
That's a dangerous road to tread. In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. Also, how do you determine who "deserves" it most? The society doesn't let people at the bottom rot away in a free market, because the market competes both for labor, and customers, it competes for labor by increasing wages, or providing benefits, or providing safe working environments, and it competes for customers by lowering prices and improving quality. It is when the government gets involved, and creates sanctions in form of licenses, requirements that make the deliverance of a service more expensive that the prices go up and the quality goes down. And it is only when the government creates labor laws which drastically increase the cost of employing people in a way that serves little to no benefit for the employees themselves, that the wages go down, and people start getting fired to get under the quotas. Stop with the "it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare" bullsh!t. You cant do whatever you want, and sometimes you're forced to do things you dont want to do. Some people are forced to defend people during a trial that cant pay cause everyone has the right to get someone defending you. Does that mean that we have to remove this right too ? So here's a scenario: A man makes a good amount of money, say even more than a doctor, but doesn't want to get health insurance at all, instead he goes out and spends all that money on lottery tickets... Then he is in need of healthcare for whatever reason, but didn't pay for insurance which could have easily afforded, and doesn't have any type of savings, which in a free market would also be a viable way to ensure your ability to receive healthcare... So should the government grab a random doctor, who's already completely booked helping other people that DID think ahead to save or invest in health insurance and tell him to operate? It's that same scenario why opt-in fire protection services don't work. When it comes to insurance against a low risk, high cost accident, it either has to be mandatory or not exist at all. Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die. (Not you in particular, of course, just people in general.) You're kidding right? Opt-in fire departments don't work for a laundry list of reasons. Notice how no advanced country on earth makes use of opt-in fire departments? But seeing as how you feel that people should just lie back and die if they can't afford to buy everything they need on a regular basis, perhaps it's not worth considering your opinion on this. The thing you are too biased to understand is this: if healthcare were NOT socialized in the manner it is in the US, it would be significantly cheaper, and your minimum wage worker would most likely be able to afford the private health care that he needed. In the event that he couldn't afford it, he could appeal to the kind-heartedness of individuals like Ron Paul and get it for free, as charity. Now, say that minimum wage worker decides to go out and spend the money he has on Meth or heroine. He then gets sick and can no longer afford health care. Do you really think this person should be entitled to healthcare that comes from the pocket of someone who is responsible? If you do, you really need to take a step back and look at the big picture. So we should, as a society, hope that enough people will be kind hearted to those who can't afford health care so that they don't suffer? I never said someone who spends money on meth or heroine deserves health care, I don't know how you leapt to the exact opposite logical end of the spectrum. What a weird leap. I'd re-write the entire health care system myself, first thing to go would be malpractice lawsuits: get rid of those and everything gets WAY cheaper. Malpractice would be a criminal offense, not a civil one, and people would take out private insurance for proceedures. One of the deals with my system is that everyone has the option to buy cheap health care, and have it provided for them if they can't afford it, but if they can afford it and choose not to, hospitals aren't obligated to help. As for why that doesn't work with fire departments, it's pretty simple: externalities. My apologies. I think your health care system would be significantly better than the one we currently have, I just took your comment about me letting people "lie back and die" if they can't afford it as an assumption you wanted socialist healthcare. Regarding your first question, I think yes. If we took the number of moral outrages in this thread as an example, it seems that most people are either one of two things: Actually kind-hearted enough to help those who need healthcare; or someone who likes to pretend that they are kind-hearted enough to help those who need healthcare. The idea that you don't think people would donate to charities (of their own free will) to help those poor individuals who needed help implies to me you have a lack of faith in humanity and the general good will that people have. I personally believe that if it was necessary, people would donate to support the well-being of others. Some reasons it doesn't happen so much currently is because it is already taken care of (albeit involuntarily) and our economy is pretty terrible.
Most people fall into the latter (like to pretend they'd help), but the main issue is one of scope. The bottom 50% of the earners in the United States control a measley 2% of the total wealth. Only the super rich have the capacity to make a real difference in a problem of this scale, and they'd have to give up a very large amount of what they have to help. It's pretty clear that they aren't interested, unless we're talking about Warren Buffett or Bill Gates (their money is going to the Gates Foundation when they die, to help eliminate disease on this planet, which doesn't even go towards the problems we're discussing). I don't have the means to afford everything I need, and make a noticeable difference. It's NIMBY syndrome, everyone knows we need to help, but nobody wants to be the one to do it.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:53 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:41 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 07:37 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 07:33 Evotroid wrote:On January 05 2012 07:19 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
I would say that liberalism is much worse than any social healthcare but thats just my opinion.
The Fed gave 1.2 trillion dollars to banks during the crisis in 2008 at 0,01% to save them, while countries have to borrow banks money at 9% interest when they are in crisis.
Our world is ruled by the monetary system and they can get away with anything they want. We have to take them down and it's the only solution cause they arnt going to stop by themselves.
Giving people too much liberty is just insane. And that dosnt apply only for banks.
And about healthcare.. Ye, only in the US people would argue that its bad. Cause you know, helping people is just bad :/
Cant understand the mentality of you guys but I guess its just different culture. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing. On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world. I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism. How is it capitalism? In capitalism the banks who fcked up would be fckd up, and only the competition who did better survived, and not the ones who were deemed important by the state. Not even crony. Crony capitalism is not capitalism in any way. Crony capitalism and capitalism are two completely independent things. Hardly independent. It's what you get when you apply the capitalism pipe dream to the real world and real people. In the real world, whoever gets ahead and gets in a position of power will look to assume control and bend or break all the rules necessary to eliminate any present or future competition. And without control mechanisms, there are no means to effectively stop them from doing that. The control mechanism are what allow them to do that. If the government didn't have the power to regulate, subsidize and bailout, there would be no reason to buy politicians. The control mechanism we need against companies using the government to eliminate their competition isn't government regulation on the market, it is regulation on the government. Regulation on the government would take the form of a constitution as well as the vigilance of the people. Explain to me how government regulation of the market prevents companies from eliminating competition in any unfair way? If that isn't what you believe, what is your problem with capitalism?
Imperfect information, what you're talking about can't work and never will. One of the prerequisites for a free, competive market is perfectly symmetrical information, so that everyone can make appropriate decisions. Regulations are what prevent people from being taken advantage of by asymmetrical information. I bet you're one of those people who don't think that insider trading is rampant too.
|
|
|
United States7483 Posts
The man is a scum bag, what do you want? He also wants to arrest judges who make controversial decisions.
|
On January 05 2012 08:50 ryanAnger wrote:
The idea that you don't think people would donate to charities (of their own free will) to help those poor individuals who needed help implies to me you have a lack of faith in humanity and the general good will that people have. I personally believe that if it was necessary, people would donate to support the well-being of others. Some reasons it doesn't happen so much currently is because it is already taken care of (albeit involuntarily) and our economy is pretty terrible.
Even if that was the case (and it's really not something you can prove), it's the very idea of charity as primary means of social aid is flawed in many ways.
When you depend on other people's "good will", you're essentially a second class citizen. You're not free. You can easily be exploited and controlled by those whose good will you depend on. They would pretty much own you.
When you have a guaranteed minimum level of social security, it isn't something you are given because somebody feels like it, it is something that is your right by law. You don't depend on anyone's good will, the state ensures that you can live a life with dignity worthy of a human being, and nobody can control you by denying or conditioning the money you're getting.
|
On January 05 2012 07:28 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
I would say that liberalism is much worse than any social healthcare but thats just my opinion.
The Fed gave 1.2 trillion dollars to banks during the crisis in 2008 at 0,01% to save them, while countries have to borrow banks money at 9% interest when they are in crisis.
Our world is ruled by the monetary system and they can get away with anything they want. We have to take them down and it's the only solution cause they arnt going to stop by themselves.
Giving people too much liberty is just insane. And that dosnt apply only for banks.
And about healthcare.. Ye, only in the US people would argue that its bad. Cause you know, helping people is just bad :/
Cant understand the mentality of you guys but I guess its just different culture. Why do you call liberalisim bad (I'm assuming you mean it in the classical sense) then proceed to describe the results of crony "capitalism" which is the opposite of classical liberalism? Also, I'm Canadian and I'm completely against socialized health care. The only reason that so many Canadians believe in it is because it is hammered into their heads during school that it is something that is good and that we should be proud of it.
You're against Canadian health care because you can't accept that there are some socialist systems that achieve better economies of scale than their private free market counterparts. Considering that all the socialist systems of health care are more efficient (deliver more services to the dollar) than the private counterparts, you're against efficiency. Please tell me why why your opinion should hold any weight when you seek to destroy superior and better systems and replace them with something worse off?
|
Opt-in fire departments DO work, people just bitch about it. There is nothing immoral with providing a service to some and not others, even if that might be a life or death situation. Everyone feels so entitled to everything these days. It is primarily YOUR responsibility to make sure you stay alive and have the things you need. If you don't choose to even meet the basic requirements for survival in todays society, perhaps it's for the best that you die.
What callousness. What indifference. I guess you don't think morality is what benefits the well-being of other people? Yes, it is absolutely amoral to do such things, especially when such systems have been devised that are perfectly able to provide for everyone.
If your argument would be like "Well people would be charitable and provide for those not able to" then it would be fine. That's perfectly moral. But what you're suggesting is absolutely amoral, and not really what libertarians are suggesting anyway. Libertarianism doesn't have to be callous and indifferent to suffering like you're suggesting.
Even if that was the case (and it's really not something you can prove), it's the very idea of charity as primary means of social aid is flawed in many ways.
When you depend on other people's "good will", you're essentially a second class citizen. You're not free. You can easily be exploited and controlled by those whose good will you depend on. They would pretty much own you.
I don't understand. Right now we have public charity (like welfare and medicaid), and all he's suggesting is private charity. It's basically the same kind of idea, but rather than people being forced to pay, you would be expected to pay. I don't see how that changes the situation that significantly.
|
On January 05 2012 08:39 Haemonculus wrote:
I think that's exactly my problem with so many of these libertarian arguments. It sounds more like the point is to punish those making decisions you disapprove of, rather than actually helping out other human beings.
Its funny because the anti-libertarians are the ones who want to punish people for exercising their individual rights. They want to put people who get caught smoking weed too many times in jail to serve ridiculous overlengthy sentences. They allowed lobbyist groups to shut down Online Poker in the United States even though it is a perfectly legitimate past time in other NATO countries such as Canada, the UK.
The current way of thinking says that you need to criminalize prostitution, even though many women choose of their own free will to go into prostitution because it can make them more money than doing some other forms of onerous work that they'd rather not do.
When it comes to heavy handed punishments against people who are exercising freedoms that don't hurt anyone else, the current regime is much worse than a libertarian one.
|
On January 05 2012 08:53 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:41 Talin wrote:On January 05 2012 07:37 OsoVega wrote:On January 05 2012 07:33 Evotroid wrote:On January 05 2012 07:19 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 04:41 Jalle wrote:On January 05 2012 04:09 ParasitJonte wrote:On January 05 2012 03:56 dafunk wrote:
I would say that liberalism is much worse than any social healthcare but thats just my opinion.
The Fed gave 1.2 trillion dollars to banks during the crisis in 2008 at 0,01% to save them, while countries have to borrow banks money at 9% interest when they are in crisis.
Our world is ruled by the monetary system and they can get away with anything they want. We have to take them down and it's the only solution cause they arnt going to stop by themselves.
Giving people too much liberty is just insane. And that dosnt apply only for banks.
And about healthcare.. Ye, only in the US people would argue that its bad. Cause you know, helping people is just bad :/
Cant understand the mentality of you guys but I guess its just different culture. See this is the problem. So many are completely ignorant about liberalism. Are you actually suggesting that banks getting free money is a liberal policy? A part of being for liberty? Why do you even post. Liberalism in the american context (liberal => left-wing) is not the same as "vanilla" liberalism. Yes I know, it's confusing. On teamliquid, liberalism retains the original meaning of the word, and as it is used in Europe and other places in the world. I don't think giving away free money to banks is very progressive/democrat either. It's just crony capitalism. How is it capitalism? In capitalism the banks who fcked up would be fckd up, and only the competition who did better survived, and not the ones who were deemed important by the state. Not even crony. Crony capitalism is not capitalism in any way. Crony capitalism and capitalism are two completely independent things. Hardly independent. It's what you get when you apply the capitalism pipe dream to the real world and real people. In the real world, whoever gets ahead and gets in a position of power will look to assume control and bend or break all the rules necessary to eliminate any present or future competition. And without control mechanisms, there are no means to effectively stop them from doing that. The control mechanism are what allow them to do that. If the government didn't have the power to regulate, subsidize and bailout, there would be no reason to buy politicians. The control mechanism we need against companies using the government to eliminate their competition isn't government regulation on the market, it is regulation on the government. Regulation on the government would take the form of a constitution as well as the vigilance of the people. Explain to me how government regulation of the market prevents companies from eliminating competition in any unfair way? If that isn't what you believe, what is your problem with capitalism?
There would be no reason to buy politicians because there would be no NEED to buy the politicians.
You're so obsessed with the power that the government has, but that power won't go away with the government. It's just the government that will lose power, but the power itself will just get replicated, except that it will now be controlled directly by private interest instead of via a proxy.
Nobody wants competition, and nobody wants to play fair. These are two constants of human nature that make the idea of free market unsustainable for a long term. One way or the other, the market will stop being free at some point (and in a market-driven society all the other freedoms will go away with it).
This is why the society must move towards becoming less of a game (competition), and more of a system where law keeps everyone with power in check with mechanisms that prevent anyone and anything from gaining too much power (wealth).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/It_100a6a_663520.jpg)
