Government support is essential to life and liberty

Where no two people are likely to agree.
User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Austin Harper » Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:46 am

xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:I would say that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I would say that life requires air, food, water, clothing, and shelter. To sustain life, health care is required.
I agree that we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Are you also saying you have the right to take what does not belong to you with the excuse that you need it to sustain your life?
I'm not saying I have the right to take it, but Congress has the right to collect taxes. And those taxes are meant to spent for the benefit of the people.
xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:I would say that the government is doing its part already to make all of those things safe through regulations. It doesn't need to supply air, but for people who need help getting food, water, (possibly clothing,) and shelter, it helps. In many countries, it helps with health care for those who need it. The difference is that everyone doesn't need health care all the time. Medical bills can be huge, and so people who can afford it have insurance. But insurance only works if healthy people are covered, too, or the insurance company wouldn't make any money. The point of a national health care system is that everyone is covered and everyone's taxes take the place of insurance premiums.
Except for two crucial details. Unlike insurance premiums, taxes are based on ability to pay, which is a marxist concept. Why should I pay more than you for the same coverage? Secondly, under marxist health care, one does not have choices of insurance plans or even to self-insure.

Thirdly, under marxist health care, I am not allowed to buy better care even if I can afford it. In Canada, for example, many people go to the US to get health care they cannot get in Canada. If every country has the same kind of health care as Canada, that option disappears. If I can afford better health care than government offers, why should I be denied that?
Yes, that is slightly Marxist. You can use the same argument to say that some people pay more for the same protection by the military, or some people pay more to insure clean air by the EPA. We may disagree on whether or not people with higher incomes should pay higher taxes and I don't think either of us will be able to convince the other that they are wrong. Shall we agree to disagree on this point? And I agree that under a socialized health care system there is only one option for health care. I don't think that's a bad thing. Currently US citizens do leave the country for care sometimes. They are welcome to keep doing so if they so desire.
xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
xouper wrote:If the majority said everyone must die by the age of 30, does that make it right? No. Argument ad populum is a fallacy for a reason. It's easy to vote for free stuff when it's the other guy who is paying.
Sorry, but that's how democracy works.
Yes, I know that's how democracy works. But that does not make it right. For example, the majority can vote away the rights of the minority. That's one of the main flaws in democracy, and that's why the US has the Bill of Rights, to limit what the majority can take away from the minority. For example, in the US, should white people be allowed to vote that black people have to sit at the back of the bus? Because, that's how democracy works, according to your argument.
Yes, democracy did allow for discrimination, and that was a terrible thing. But I don't think that's quite a fair argument to use because at that point, the people being discriminated against weren't allowed to vote against that discrimination.
xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
xouper wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:Anywho, it is very possible to have universal healthcare that works decently, and it is not a sinister step towards communism to have such a system.
Free health care is by definition marxism (or communism).
I think the point was that it is not a "sinister step" toward full-on communism.
And I am asking why not? If free health care for everyone is such a good idea, then why not free everything for everyone? If free everything for everyone is not a good idea, then why free anything? That is my point. How do you justify one free thing but not free everything?
I am for every person being guaranteed what they need to live. I think for that reason having socialized programs is a good thing. However, if someone wants to work harder to make more money and have some nicer things, that should be their prerogative. And so I am for capitalism in that way. All out communism is not achievable, but I think a functioning social democracy is. This is a matter or political ideology, so we probably won't agree, but that's ok. We can both keep debating to our hearts' content.
xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
xouper wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote: It's very usual, and for people like me that has grown up under such a system, it is mindboggling that someone would want something else.
Likewise it is mind boggling to me that someone thinks they have a right to my labor to pay for someone else's problem, which is what free health care entails.
That's exactly how health insurance already works, except not everyone is included.
Not so. In the US, health insurance is not mandatory*. Also, in the US, health insurance does not charge according to ability to pay.
Whether health insurance is mandatory or not, every time you pay more into your health insurance premium than you get out, you are paying for someone else's medical expenses. My point was not that you are paying for everyone else, but that you are paying for someone else.
xouper wrote:Footnote: The recent health care law signed by Obama requires everyone to buy health insurance, but that has not yet gone into effect, and it has been ruled unconstitutional by several courts.
I will be interested to see what the Supreme Court rules later this year (or early next year).
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:14 am

Austin Harper wrote:
xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:I would say that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I would say that life requires air, food, water, clothing, and shelter. To sustain life, health care is required.
I agree that we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Are you also saying you have the right to take what does not belong to you with the excuse that you need it to sustain your life?
I'm not saying I have the right to take it, but Congress has the right to collect taxes. And those taxes are meant to spent for the benefit of the people.
Now we're covering old ground. Congress does not have the right to collect taxes. They have permission granted by the people, which can be revoked at any time. If they collect too much tax or spend it against the wishes of too many people, Congress might quickly find it no longer has that permission.

Congress only has the "right" to collect tax because a "majority" have voted to permit it. But if the people do not have the right to take what does not belong to them -- and I claim they do not have that right -- they also do not have the right to have Congress act as their proxy to do what they as individuals do not have the right to do.

A question I asked previously which you never answered, does Congress have the right to tax 100 percent and redistribute it according to its own idea what benefits the people?
Austin Harper wrote:. . . I agree that under a socialized health care system there is only one option for health care. I don't think that's a bad thing.
In general, and also in this particular case, I think monopolies are a very bad idea.
Austin Harper wrote:
xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
xouper wrote:If the majority said everyone must die by the age of 30, does that make it right? No. Argument ad populum is a fallacy for a reason. It's easy to vote for free stuff when it's the other guy who is paying.
Sorry, but that's how democracy works.
Yes, I know that's how democracy works. But that does not make it right. For example, the majority can vote away the rights of the minority. That's one of the main flaws in democracy, and that's why the US has the Bill of Rights, to limit what the majority can take away from the minority. For example, in the US, should white people be allowed to vote that black people have to sit at the back of the bus? Because, that's how democracy works, according to your argument.
Yes, democracy did allow for discrimination, and that was a terrible thing. But I don't think that's quite a fair argument to use because at that point, the people being discriminated against weren't allowed to vote against that discrimination.
Then perhaps a better example is the recent vote in California stripping gay people of their right to marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... %282008%29

That is a clear example of the majority taking away the rights of a minority. You say that's how democracy works, and I say that does not make it right. Likewise, just because a majority vote for free health care does not make it right.
Austin Harper wrote:
xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
xouper wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:Anywho, it is very possible to have universal healthcare that works decently, and it is not a sinister step towards communism to have such a system.
Free health care is by definition marxism (or communism).
I think the point was that it is not a "sinister step" toward full-on communism.
And I am asking why not? If free health care for everyone is such a good idea, then why not free everything for everyone? If free everything for everyone is not a good idea, then why free anything? That is my point. How do you justify one free thing but not free everything?
I am for every person being guaranteed what they need to live.
I disagree. In my opinion, property rights supersede anyone's needs. Just because someone needs food to live does not give them the right to take food from someone else without their consent. And there is no way "every person being guaranteed what they need to live" can work without violating someone's property rights.
Austin Harper wrote:Whether health insurance is mandatory or not, every time you pay more into your health insurance premium than you get out, you are paying for someone else's medical expenses. My point was not that you are paying for everyone else, but that you are paying for someone else.
Which is irrelevant to my point that health insurance is voluntary and market driven (or should be). Marxist health care is neither.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nessie » Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:37 am

In the UK we have the Marxist NHS and capitalist health care companies such as BUPA and Nuffield Hospitals. Various members of my family and myself have used the NHS and paid for health care privately. The NHS have also paid for people to go abroad and get treatment. So our health care is a mix, showing you can cherry pick from more than one way of doing things to get the best solution.

I think that if the Marxist way is more efficient, better and sustainable over the capiatlist solution then it makes sense to do it that way. Hence you can have free health care, but not free food for all and it is not a contradiction.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Austin Harper » Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:49 am

xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:I'm not saying I have the right to take it, but Congress has the right to collect taxes. And those taxes are meant to spent for the benefit of the people.
Now we're covering old ground. Congress does not have the right to collect taxes. They have permission granted by the people, which can be revoked at any time. If they collect too much tax or spend it against the wishes of too many people, Congress might quickly find it no longer has that permission.
Agreed, they have the permission of the people, not an innate right. That was an error in wording on my part. And the people do have the right to revoke that permission from Congress.
xouper wrote:Congress only has the "right" to collect tax because a "majority" have voted to permit it. But if the people do not have the right to take what does not belong to them -- and I claim they do not have that right -- they also do not have the right to have Congress act as their proxy to do what they as individuals do not have the right to do.
I disagree with you on this. The government is meant to act in the best interests of all people, and in such a role it has more power than individuals. I don't have the right to apprehend someone for murder, charge them with a crime, weigh the evidence, and sentence them. But the government does. This is I think another point where we disagree philosophically.
xouper wrote:A question I asked previously which you never answered, does Congress have the right to tax 100 percent and redistribute it according to its own idea what benefits the people?
Theoretically, yes. However, I don't think that is likely to happen. And I think you can tell that I am quite left-leaning politically, but I'm not suggesting that.
xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:Yes, democracy did allow for discrimination, and that was a terrible thing. But I don't think that's quite a fair argument to use because at that point, the people being discriminated against weren't allowed to vote against that discrimination.
Then perhaps a better example is the recent vote in California stripping gay people of their right to marriage.

That is a clear example of the majority taking away the rights of a minority. You say that's how democracy works, and I say that does not make it right. Likewise, just because a majority vote for free health care does not make it right.
Yes, this is a better example. And I do agree that democracy can produce bad results.
xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:I am for every person being guaranteed what they need to live.
I disagree. In my opinion, property rights supersede anyone's needs. Just because someone needs food to live does not give them the right to take food from someone else without their consent. And there is no way "every person being guaranteed what they need to live" can work without violating someone's property rights.
I'm not saying "I need a potato, give me your potato." I'm saying that if one person has 100 potatoes and another person is starving, the guy with 100 potatoes should can afford to give one up.
xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:Whether health insurance is mandatory or not, every time you pay more into your health insurance premium than you get out, you are paying for someone else's medical expenses. My point was not that you are paying for everyone else, but that you are paying for someone else.
Which is irrelevant to my point that health insurance is voluntary and market driven (or should be). Marxist health care is neither.
And I'm saying it shouldn't be market driven. It should be available to everyone based on need. I don't think we are ever going to agree on this point.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:06 am

Austin Harper wrote:
xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:I am for every person being guaranteed what they need to live.
I disagree. In my opinion, property rights supersede anyone's needs. Just because someone needs food to live does not give them the right to take food from someone else without their consent. And there is no way "every person being guaranteed what they need to live" can work without violating someone's property rights.
I'm not saying "I need a potato, give me your potato." I'm saying that if one person has 100 potatoes and another person is starving, the guy with 100 potatoes should can afford to give one up.
I disagree that the cost is only one percent so that "every person being guaranteed what they need to live".

More importantly, I disagree that the guy with 100 potatoes should be forced to give up any of his potatoes. Maybe he needs them all as insurance that his own family won't go hungry

On the other hand, I've had spare "potatoes" for most of my life and I have sometimes given them away when it seemed like a good thing to do. I assume I don't need to list all my charitable works to make my point here. Just don't come to my door with a gun and demand your annual potato as if that was your right. If you ask nicely, I might give you one, though.
Austin Harper wrote:
xouper wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:Whether health insurance is mandatory or not, every time you pay more into your health insurance premium than you get out, you are paying for someone else's medical expenses. My point was not that you are paying for everyone else, but that you are paying for someone else.
Which is irrelevant to my point that health insurance is voluntary and market driven (or should be). Marxist health care is neither.
And I'm saying it shouldn't be market driven. It should be available to everyone based on need. I don't think we are ever going to agree on this point.
I suspect you are correct, we will not likely agree.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nessie » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:38 am

If free health care (where such is provided by and run by the state and is paid for by taxation) is Marxist, then does that not mean the US armed forces are Marxist?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by OutOfBreath » Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:41 am

*sigh* point by point is it?
Well here goes:
xouper wrote:Then why not have food stamps for everyone. If you argue that everyone should have free health care then why not also free food for everyone?
Because the main focus should be on everyone getting food, secondly how everyone is to get it. And food is very variable as to what people eat, and people want different things. It is thus easier to ensure a minimum of income. Unlike food and other choice resources, people rarely go to their doctor and ask to only get half-healed, as they don't really need the use of their right foot anyway. From the consumer's standpoint, they all want exactly the same, to be healthy.

You could also have a private system of health care with government stepping in for the down and outs, but empirical comparisons show that such systems on the whole cost more (if you add together money spent private and public), and covers less people sufficiently. Believe it or not, I am not in favour of state distribution of everything, it's just some things work out easier and better that way.
If the majority said everyone must die by the age of 30, does that make it right? No. Argument ad populum is a fallacy for a reason. It's easy to vote for free stuff when it's the other guy who is paying.
Dramatic, aren't we.
I am just pointing to empiry from many countries that shows where such systems are in place, they are also largely popular. It is an indication that perhaps it isn't such a disaster to have such a system. When it also can be showed to be cheaper and with better coverage than the private system (check WHO stats), it's rather win-win-win isn't it?
Free health care is by definition marxism (or communism).
If so, marxism is rampant all over the world in just about every country outside the US/Canada. Just because the idea for this system and some of the ideology behind is marxist inspired, doesn't make the countries in question marxist. And since these systems have been in place for a very long time, it doesn't seem to encourage a general slip towards total marxism either.
Likewise it is mind boggling to me that someone thinks they have a right to my labor to pay for someone else's problem, which is what free health care entails.
Not a fan of solidarity are you? That's fine, but large majorities all over the place are. It can be argued that the higher the solidarity between people, the better the society. But, I know, north american libertarian who won't ever agree to anything like that.
The same argument applies to food. Hunger does not check your insurance status either. Every argument you make for free health care also applies to food and housing. If free health care is such a good idea, then why not also free food and housing?
Are you pretending we do nothing to alleviate hunger etc in our countries? This is what unemployment benefits, social benefits, municipal housing etc are all about. The point is merely that for health care (as for defense), the track record of having a single system paid for by the state is very good. Further, if I dont have food, I dont eat. If I dont treat my disease, then you may get it too. Sortof how you can't defend yourself from a chinese invasion house by house.

The argument for a universal system is pragmatic and based on a history of working. Cheaper, better coverage and improved public health, while at the same time removing one of the biggest worries of the population. I see only wins here, but then, I dont have the ideological prejudice that anything organized through the public is by definition poorly planned.

At the end of the day, it's up to each country and it's people whether they want such a system or not. I just maintain that having such is not a step towards fullblown communism (but neither a step towards libertarian utopia of course), it has a track record of working quite decently, and it is grossly popular everywhere it has been implemented. You may still choose not to want one. It's up to you and the political majority of yoour country.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:49 pm

Nessie wrote:If free health care (where such is provided by and run by the state and is paid for by taxation) is Marxist, then does that not mean the US armed forces are Marxist?
That's a reasonable question, and the answer is clearly "No."

There is an additional criteria that shows why free health care is Marxist and armed forces are not. Marxism says, "From each according to ability, to each according to need." Free health care fits that. The military does not. Free health care is a personal service provided to individuals according to their need. To say it another way, free health care is a redistribution of money from those who have it to those who need it. The armed forces is not a redistribution of money from those who have it to those who need it.




* Edited to clarify an ambiguity.
Last edited by xouper on Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14506
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by JO 753 » Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:01 pm

It iz to most uv the soljrz. Alot uv young guyz join up bekuz they cant find work.

And if Marxizm iz redistribution frum thoze who have money to thoze who dont, wut do you call redistribution frum thoze who dont hav any money to thoze who dont need any more?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:01 pm

OutOfBreath wrote:*sigh* point by point is it?
Well here goes:
Yeah, I understand your sentiment about having to do that, so -- although I could respond point by point -- I will not do that and instead merely say that I do not accept any of your arguments, nor am I guilty of the things you allege. I do not expect we will ever agree on these issues, since apparently we come from different ideologies. Which ideology is more prejudiced than the other also remains in dispute.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:39 pm

JO 753 wrote:It iz to most uv the soljrz. Alot uv young guyz join up bekuz they cant find work.
True, but not relevant to the question at hand. The US military does not take everyone who wants to join. If a person does not meet minimum qualifications, the military will not take them. The needs of the military always come first. Also, the military has only a limited number of jobs. Those facts disqualify it as Marxist.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:35 am

So the NYPD, LAPD etc must be Marxist as you pay your taxes, only those who need the police use them and you will find that poor people are more likey to be the victims of crime than the wealthy, so use them more, so there is a redistribution there.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6188
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Tom Palven » Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:43 am

JO 753 wrote:It iz to most uv the soljrz. Alot uv young guyz join up bekuz they cant find work.

And if Marxizm iz redistribution frum thoze who have money to thoze who dont, wut do you call redistribution frum thoze who dont hav any money to thoze who dont need any more?
Wud dat be like a monarky or a oligarky or Congriss?
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11974
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:25 am

Tom-Palven wrote:
JO 753 wrote:It iz to most uv the soljrz. Alot uv young guyz join up bekuz they cant find work.

And if Marxizm iz redistribution frum thoze who have money to thoze who dont, wut do you call redistribution frum thoze who dont hav any money to thoze who dont need any more?
Wud dat be like a monarky or a oligarky or Congriss?
Capitalism
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:43 am

Nessie wrote:So the NYPD, LAPD etc must be Marxist as you pay your taxes, only those who need the police use them and you will find that poor people are more likey to be the victims of crime than the wealthy, so use them more, so there is a redistribution there.
:roll:

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:20 am

Roll your eyes all you want, the police fits your criteria as set out in post #288 ;)
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:50 am

Nessie wrote:Roll your eyes all you want, the police fits your criteria as set out in post #288 ;)
No it doesn't. Your characterization is faulty and incomplete. You have listed some of the similarities between free health care and the police, but I'll wager that if you really wanted to, you can also find the ways that the police are not the same as free health care and thus do not fit the Marxist model..

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by OutOfBreath » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:24 am

xouper wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:*sigh* point by point is it?
Well here goes:
Yeah, I understand your sentiment about having to do that, so -- although I could respond point by point -- I will not do that and instead merely say that I do not accept any of your arguments, nor am I guilty of the things you allege. I do not expect we will ever agree on these issues, since apparently we come from different ideologies. Which ideology is more prejudiced than the other also remains in dispute.
Okeydokey.
Just pointing out that it works, and the societies that have it aren't more oppressive than the ones that don't.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14506
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by JO 753 » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:28 am

Tom-Palven wrote:Wud dat be like a monarky or a oligarky or Congriss?
Black hole capitalizm. Money starts accumulating in bigger & densr globz until finally it starts sucking in everything - the whole system collapsez.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6188
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Tom Palven » Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:16 am

JO 753 wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Wud dat be like a monarky or a oligarky or Congriss?
Black hole capitalizm. Money starts accumulating in bigger & densr globz until finally it starts sucking in everything - the whole system collapsez.
How does one explain the great rise in the US standard of living during the golden age of the robber barons? Seems to me the stagnation going on now is due to the command economics advanced by Lord Keynes, and black hole Keynesianism. Seems most of todays's robber barons are quasi-governmental like Cheney and his ilk in the General Atomics/Northrop Grumman-type black hole military-industrial-congressional complex, with the Fords, Edisons, Bill Gateses and Steve Jobses few and far between. I think that the former could correctly be labelled fascists, and the latter capitalists.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11306419 ... tract.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11974
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:41 pm

Tom-Palven wrote:
JO 753 wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Wud dat be like a monarky or a oligarky or Congriss?
Black hole capitalizm. Money starts accumulating in bigger & densr globz until finally it starts sucking in everything - the whole system collapsez.
How does one explain the great rise in the US standard of living during the golden age of the robber barons?
The union movement, among other things. How does one explain the great rise in the Russian standard of living between the Revolution and Glasnost?
Seems to me the stagnation going on now is due to the command economics advanced by Lord Keynes, and black hole Keynesianism.
Do you actually know anything at all about Keynsian economics? It sounds like all you know is the propaganda of his detractors. Keynes likely would have been appalled by the Bailout Package.
Seems most of todays's robber barons are quasi-governmental like Cheney and his ilk in the General Atomics/Northrop Grumman-type black hole military-industrial-congressional complex, with the Fords, Edisons, Bill Gateses and Steve Jobses few and far between. I think that the former could correctly be labelled fascists, and the latter capitalists.
You neglected to mention the entire financial sector in the fascist section. :mrgreen:

I'm a capitalist too, Tom. When I had my own business, I was a member of several professional organizations. There were many fine people there. There were also many not-so-fine people; people who would eat their own grandmothers, gnarly bits and all, if they thought there was money in it.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6188
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Tom Palven » Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:26 pm

Oleg wrote: "Do you actually know anything at all about Keynsian economics? It sounds like all you know is the propaganda of his detractors."

Fook me, Oleg, I didn't even know until recently that Lord Keynes had any other detractors besides myself, and, as far as I know, the attack on macroeconomics in general originated with this humble poster.
Last edited by Tom Palven on Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:26 pm

OutOfBreath wrote:
xouper wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:*sigh* point by point is it?
Well here goes:
Yeah, I understand your sentiment about having to do that, so -- although I could respond point by point -- I will not do that and instead merely say that I do not accept any of your arguments, nor am I guilty of the things you allege. I do not expect we will ever agree on these issues, since apparently we come from different ideologies. Which ideology is more prejudiced than the other also remains in dispute.
Okeydokey.
Just pointing out that it works, . . .
Depends on how you define "works". There is more than one way to measure that. In order to have free health care, something else must be given up. There is no free lunch. And I do not mean just money in this context. Deciding which tradeoffs one is willing to make is a function of one's ideology.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:32 pm

xouper wrote:
Nessie wrote:If free health care (where such is provided by and run by the state and is paid for by taxation) is Marxist, then does that not mean the US armed forces are Marxist?
That's a reasonable question, and the answer is clearly "No."

There is an additional criteria that shows why free health care is Marxist and armed forces are not. Marxism says, "From each according to ability, to each according to need." Free health care fits that. The military does not. Free health care is a personal service provided to individuals according to their need. To say it another way, free health care is a redistribution of money from those who have it to those who need it. The armed forces is not a redistribution of money from those who have it to those who need it.




* Edited to clarify an ambiguity.
Free policing is a personal service provided to individuals according to their need. So that way it is a redistribution of money from those who have it to those who need it. The wealthiest are less likely to live in and suffer from high levels of crime, the poor are.

A state run police force is Marxist according to you.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by OutOfBreath » Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:36 pm

xouper wrote: Depends on how you define "works". There is more than one way to measure that. In order to have free health care, something else must be given up. There is no free lunch. And I do not mean just money in this context. Deciding which tradeoffs one is willing to make is a function of one's ideology.
Indeed. I have never claimed any free lunches. Universal health care is not free, but paid for and provided in a rather efficient way compared with the alternatives. It requires a little dash of solidarity, but frankly, it's pretty much the same structure as insurance. And police. And defense. And pretty much anything public in nature.

A little solidarity gets us all a better deal overall, instead of constantly worrying over coverages and having to deal with a jungle of companies that provide the same services. Some things just works with a public approach. Infrastructure, defense, law enforcement, and I'll also add education and health care. In the latter two, there may well be room for private supplements, but both works the best with a solid, basic public system in the bottom. Having these things in place will make society more likely to be meritocratic in nature, by reducing the effects of heredity and levelling the playing field for a greater participation from all layers of society.

But, it seems you value freedom in the sense of "noone tells me what to do" above a well-functioning society that provides a decent level of welfare to most of it's people. We will probably not agree. But there it is.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:12 pm

OutOfBreath wrote:
xouper wrote:Depends on how you define "works". There is more than one way to measure that. In order to have free health care, something else must be given up. There is no free lunch. And I do not mean just money in this context. Deciding which tradeoffs one is willing to make is a function of one's ideology.
Indeed. I have never claimed any free lunches. Universal health care is not free, but paid for and provided in a rather efficient way compared with the alternatives. It requires a little dash of solidarity, but frankly, it's pretty much the same structure as insurance. And police. And defense. And pretty much anything public in nature.

A little solidarity gets us all a better deal overall, instead of constantly worrying over coverages and having to deal with a jungle of companies that provide the same services. Some things just works with a public approach. Infrastructure, defense, law enforcement, and I'll also add education and health care. In the latter two, there may well be room for private supplements, but both works the best with a solid, basic public system in the bottom. Having these things in place will make society more likely to be meritocratic in nature, by reducing the effects of heredity and levelling the playing field for a greater participation from all layers of society.

But, it seems you value freedom in the sense of "noone tells me what to do" above a well-functioning society that provides a decent level of welfare to most of it's people. We will probably not agree. But there it is.
We are now just repeating ourselves. I do not accept your arguments and allegations. We seem to have different core values and thus are not likely to agree.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:13 pm

I am with Dan on this. I also think that the arguments that free health care is Marxist just goes back to American paranoia about the Red Threat.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:14 pm

Nessie wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nessie wrote:If free health care (where such is provided by and run by the state and is paid for by taxation) is Marxist, then does that not mean the US armed forces are Marxist?
That's a reasonable question, and the answer is clearly "No."

There is an additional criteria that shows why free health care is Marxist and armed forces are not. Marxism says, "From each according to ability, to each according to need." Free health care fits that. The military does not. Free health care is a personal service provided to individuals according to their need. To say it another way, free health care is a redistribution of money from those who have it to those who need it. The armed forces is not a redistribution of money from those who have it to those who need it.
Free policing is a personal service provided to individuals according to their need. So that way it is a redistribution of money from those who have it to those who need it. The wealthiest are less likely to live in and suffer from high levels of crime, the poor are.

A state run police force is Marxist according to you.
Not according to me. That is your interpretation, not mine.

I refer you again to my previous answer why your argument is flawed.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 69#p259269" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:19 pm

Well we are in agreement that we shall disagree.

Do you want a police who make you pay per investigation like your health care system makes you pay for treatment?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:20 pm

Nessie wrote:. . . I also think that the arguments that free health care is Marxist just goes back to American paranoia about the Red Threat.
That's a clever but ill-advised argumentum ad hominem. I confess I'm surprised you would stoop to the level of trying to discredit my position by accusing me of paranoia. In my case, at least, you would be mistaken.

In any case, this is not supposed to be about me personally, so please do not psychoanalyze my value system.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:28 pm

Nessie wrote:Do you want a police who make you pay per investigation like your health care system makes you pay for treatment?
That is only a small part of what the police do. It is not a good argument to cherry pick the similarities and ignore the ways the police are not like free health care, and thus not Marxist.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:39 pm

I forgot to acknowledge this point:
OutOfBreath wrote:I have never claimed any free lunches.
True, you have not claimed that. It was not my intention to imply otherwise. I apologize.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14506
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by JO 753 » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:47 pm

Tom-Palven wrote:How does one explain the great rise in the US standard of living during the golden age of the robber barons?
Teknology doing wut its suppozed to do - make life better.

The problem I'm talking about iz the rich finding wayz to grab a bigger share uv the wealth than everybody else. Not by working harder, but by getting unfair advantages.
Seems to me the stagnation going on now is due to the command economics advanced by Lord Keynes, and black hole Keynesianism.


No. Its bekuz most people don't have much spare money. Many are deciding wich billz to not pay every month.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:58 pm

xouper wrote:
Nessie wrote:Do you want a police who make you pay per investigation like your health care system makes you pay for treatment?
That is only a small part of what the police do. It is not a good argument to cherry pick the similarities and ignore the ways the police are not like free health care, and thus not Marxist.
OK, so you you also have to pay for the police to

- attend your road accident
- sort out your neighbour dispute
- search for your missing child
- feed you if you get arrested and locked up
- to go to court to give evidence, having already paid them to investigate a crime you reported
- to guard, watch and patrol where you live and work

etc etc.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by OutOfBreath » Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:38 pm

xouper wrote:We are now just repeating ourselves. I do not accept your arguments and allegations. We seem to have different core values and thus are not likely to agree.
Indeed we do. I'll hang up my boxing gloves if you do too.
*must refrain from closing remark*
Phew. Made it.
I forgot to acknowledge this point:

OutOfBreath wrote:
I have never claimed any free lunches.

True, you have not claimed that. It was not my intention to imply otherwise. I apologize.
Not at all. We're cool. :)

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

t m jones
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:14 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by t m jones » Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:38 pm

Alot of the confusion lies with a populace devoid of the concept of wealth. Money is an economic tool, it acts as a store of wealth. Wealth has to be created, things and services must be produced through thought and labor. Government 'money' is either appropriated wealth or "printed money" devoid of actual wealth.

Nabarun Ghoshal
Regular Poster
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:49 pm
Custom Title: In Search of Truth
Location: Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nabarun Ghoshal » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:12 am

I'm sorry I was too busy to participate for a few days but I am happy to see the discussion going. There is some confusion regarding the distribution of social wealth. The confusion is due to a misunderstanding of the status of socialism, (which the USSR and the so called "communist" countries had to some extent achieved) and communism that is yet unknown in its physical form. Here I refer to Emil Ludwig's interview with Stalin (an old literature again).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Ludwig

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14506
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by JO 753 » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:09 am

t m jones wrote: Wealth has to be created, things and services must be produced through thought and labor.
The problemz start wen people begin getting more money than the work they do iz worth. The GoPs like to point to the many nonproductive poor people who get welfare and the liberalz like to point at the rich who produce nothing, yet gobble up a big % uv the wealth being generated.

And in between thoze 2 extreemz, the entire system iz rotten with unfair recompensation and inequality. Why duz a typical lawyer, for example, get 400$ per hour for a service that nobody really wants and will ad zilch to the general wealth, while a tool maker will be lucky to get 25$ per hour wile making stuff that can help generate billionz uv dollarz?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by xouper » Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:08 am

JO 753 wrote:The problemz start wen people begin getting more money than the work they do iz worth.
If the transaction is voluntary, why is there a problem?
JO 753 wrote:Why duz a typical lawyer, for example, get 400$ per hour for a service that nobody really wants
Because some people do want the service else they wouldn't buy it.
JO 753 wrote:. . . while a tool maker will be lucky to get 25$ per hour wile making stuff that can help generate billionz uv dollarz?
The answer to your question is the law of supply and demand.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nessie » Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:54 pm

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:The problemz start wen people begin getting more money than the work they do iz worth.
If the transaction is voluntary, why is there a problem?

Government is needed to make sure that is the case as there are too many people who will happily rip others off.
JO 753 wrote:Why duz a typical lawyer, for example, get 400$ per hour for a service that nobody really wants
Because some people do want the service else they wouldn't buy it.

There is also an issue of restricting the supply of some services to bump up prices, governments can prevent excesses of competition stifling.
JO 753 wrote:. . . while a tool maker will be lucky to get 25$ per hour wile making stuff that can help generate billionz uv dollarz?
The answer to your question is the law of supply and demand.

Which can produce unwanted extremes and governments can protect people from that.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.