Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamisjockey on March 25, 2010, 04:40:00 PM
-
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/obama-in-iowa-three-years-ago-we-made-a-promise-that-promise-has-been-kept.html
"It doesn’t do everything that everybody wants, but it moves us in the direction of universal health care coverage in this country, and that's why everybody here fought so hard for it.” -President Obama, Today.
-
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/obama-in-iowa-three-years-ago-we-made-a-promise-that-promise-has-been-kept.html
"It doesn’t do everything that everybody wants, but it moves us in the direction of universal health care coverage in this country, and that's why everybody here fought so hard for it.” -President Obama, Today.
This was a secret?
-
This was a secret?
Kind of. Before the election he said he was for a single payer Universal system. Now, He keeps saying he's not trying to take over the Health Care system, and that this bill wasn't about universal health care. But then immediately today he reverses and says its intent was to start us towards Universal Health Care.
-
Is it possible that by Universal Coverage, he meant that everyone not covered privately would get govt. coverage?
Or not?
-
It's not about universial coverage. It's real simple. Each according to their need ..........paid for by each that have a work ethic.
YMMV
-
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/obama-in-iowa-three-years-ago-we-made-a-promise-that-promise-has-been-kept.html
"It doesn’t do everything that everybody wants, but it moves us in the direction of universal health care coverage in this country, and that's why everybody here fought so hard for it.” -President Obama, Today.
I don't think this is a bad thing, but I 'm sure most of you disagree with me on THAT topic.
I think Obama is honest when he says "HE" doesn't want to nationalize healthcare, or, more honestly, that he can't do it, even if he wanted to.
HAving said that, I do not support new taxes if/when we do this. There's plenty to cut in the federal budget to more than pay for it.
I'd even support a huge cut in SS benefits in order to accomplish this.
Whatever happens, as long as we can still get private insurance for an increased standard of care (like what happens in Canada and the UK) I'm not terribly worried about it, as long as taxes don't change.
(yeah, I was annoyed that we have new taxes for this reform effort, as I said above, plenty of other garbage can be cut to pay for it.)
-
Kind of. Before the election he said he was for a single payer Universal system. Now, He keeps saying he's not trying to take over the Health Care system, and that this bill wasn't about universal health care. But then immediately today he reverses and says its intent was to start us towards Universal Health Care.
Hmm. If I had to interpret, I would imagine he meant the current bill in its current form is no longer about universal health care...it obviously is not.
I was not aware he ever backed off on wanting a universal, public health care option though. Heck, that is what many of his voters want. I guess I just missed the part where he ever claimed that it was not his overall goal.
-
Universal--except for the Politburo.
How do you say Cadillac plan in Russian?
-
Universal--except for the Politburo.
How do you say Cadillac plan in Russian?
ZIL plan!
-
He's not trying to take over the Health Care System.
He's trying to kill it. Nuke it from orbit. Utterly destroy it.
-
Hmm. If I had to interpret, I would imagine he meant the current bill in its current form is no longer about universal health care...it obviously is not.
I was not aware he ever backed off on wanting a universal, public health care option though. Heck, that is what many of his voters want. I guess I just missed the part where he ever claimed that it was not his overall goal.
He's been very careful to not say Universal coverage for awhile.
And yes, the current bill is about universal coverage. This is the Canadian model. They didn't go single payer overnight. They incrementally chipped away at thier system and rebuilt it as single payer.
-
The key to implementing universal care will be to completely cripple the current system, then yell how the 'free market' has failed us, and then swoop in to save everyone and 'do it right'.
-
I cannot help but wonder how the opinion here might change if you lost your job and your health insurance coverage.
-
I cannot help but wonder how the opinion here might change if you lost your job and your health insurance coverage.
So, if I lose my job and selfishly want to suck at the teat of government, that means it's the best system?
You know there are other means by which we can decouple employment and "health insurance," right?
-
So, if I lose my job and selfishly want to suck at the teat of government, that means it's the best system?
You know there are other means by which we can decouple employment and "health insurance," right?
I don't know about the best, but I certainly believe in the concept of a safety net for society. Most of the rugged individualists here generally do not, though, unless we bring back the Dickensian concept of the workhouse.
I also know that unlike pretty much anyone else here on this board, I actually work in healthcare and I see the consequences of not having adequate insurance and healthcare everyday amongst our uninsured patients. For good or ill, healthcare and the insurance to pay for it is largely linked to employment. Coming up with an alternative to that link, in order to provide for at least some level of healthcare for the uninsured, is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
And mak, if you paid into the system, is it not appropriate that the system be there for you when you need it? Or if you lose your job, will you decline any unemployment, welfare or other government assistance?
-
. . . I actually work in healthcare and I see the consequences of not having adequate insurance and healthcare everyday amongst our uninsured patients . . .
Just out of curiosity, from your experience what percentage of the uninsured seeking treatment would you guess are illegal aliens? 5%? 10%? More?
-
Just out of curiosity, from your experience what percentage of the uninsured seeking treatment would you guess are illegal aliens? 5%? 10%? More?
Here in the Seattle area, it is much lower than in other areas of the country. The healthcare system that I work for also has hospitals and clinics in Southern California, and I bet the percentage is higher there, although I have not seen actual numbers. I suspect that the percentage probably correlates with the overall percentage of illegal aliens in a given area. Many of our illegal aliens in this area are from Canada.
-
I don't believe in a government safety net. Period.
-
I don't know about the best, but I certainly believe in the concept of a safety net for society. Most of the rugged individualists here generally do not, though, unless we bring back the Dickensian concept of the workhouse.
I also know that unlike pretty much anyone else here on this board, I actually work in healthcare and I see the consequences of not having adequate insurance and healthcare everyday amongst our uninsured patients. For good or ill, healthcare and the insurance to pay for it is largely linked to employment. Coming up with an alternative to that link, in order to provide for at least some level of healthcare for the uninsured, is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
And mak, if you paid into the system, is it not appropriate that the system be there for you when you need it? Or if you lose your job, will you decline any unemployment, welfare or other government assistance?
That has been my opinion. The social cost of not having a safety net seems greater than the monetary cost of having one. I don't want to live in a country with no social services or safety nets, and most Americans don't want to either...even if they do hate whatever the socialist evil of the day is. But APS has an unusual concentration of hard core libertarian types.
-
Where's the give-back?
When my mother was in a nursing home--she paid her own way, depleting her savings--I don't remember welfare kids coming around with kind words and baskets of flowers. That would be the LAST thing they'd consider doing.
-
Why must every safety net be managed by the gov? Even then why must every net be managed by the FED gov?
Is it so wrong for the state gov to manage a system if it finds need for one?
Is it so wrong for private groups to donate healthcare to the poor?
Millcreek:
please don't think that I am criticising you, but if you are bothered by poor people's healthcare woes why not offer your services for free on your own time. Or start a group of Dr's ,RN's, PA's, etc that go around helping the poor?
Generosity does not come from the government. It comes from individuals.
-
^^^ I do. And the faith-based healthcare system that I work for provides millions of dollars per year in charity care, much of it uncompensated by anyone, private or government payors.
I am sure that you also donate your time and money to charitable causes too, correct?
-
I cannot help but wonder how the opinion here might change if you lost your job and your health insurance coverage.
I can tell you. Last year, I was adamantly against the Health Care Bill. I lost my job in November, and remained adamantly against it. I am still, nay, even more Adamantly against it, after it was passed. Sucks to be me, so far as healthcare goes, but that's no reason other people should be expected to pay for me. Further, I'd be in favor of health care reform that was actually reform. For example, tort reform. Or stripping of some of the endless reams of paper the government requires health care providers to fill out, which causes them to hire more clerks, which costs me more money.
Having no health care coverage sucks, but bankrupting my grandchildren and destroying 1/6th of our nations economy sucks more.
-
^^^ And yet, you had the safety net of EMTALA. The Federal law requiring hospitals to treat all patients who present to the emergency department, regardless of their ability to pay. This is a major loss of income for most hospitals.
If the choice is dying, removing your own inflamed appendix with a butter knife or going to the local ED, I suspect even the hard-core libertarians may be willing to bend on this just a tad.
-
^^^ And yet, you had the safety net of EMTALA. The Federal law requiring hospitals to treat all patients who present to the emergency department, regardless of their ability to pay. This is a major loss of income for most hospitals.
If the choice is dying, removing your own inflamed appendix with a butter knife or going to the local ED, I suspect even the hard-core libertarians may be willing to bend on this just a tad.
And that is the crux of it, isn't it? One of the main ideas of this health care bill is the fact that people pay for a safety net whether it is 'there' or not. Unless we are literally willing to let broke people die in the street, we *are* paying for universal health care. With that understanding, why not pay the cost up front so we can actually manage it, instead of pretending it doesn't exist while we pay anyway through increased costs of service and higher insurance premiums?
There are at least some on this board who have stated they are willing to live in a society where there is no safety net at all, with the full understanding of what that means. But most people do not, even though the push the ideology.
-
Many years ago, my uncle nearly got his arm cut off in a tractor accident. He had no insurance and he was self employed. He wasn't denied care or given care for free. He used what savings he had and the hospital let him pay off the debt as he could. It took some years, but they got it paid off.
How is that for a safety net? You don't need some wasteful bloated govt program to have a system where people aren't left out in the cold.
-
Now, I think you can make a case for a 'libertarian' idea where the hospitals will take care of you, but you will be bankrupted by their service if you don't have the cash.
Personally, I would rather pay a tax up front and have people in that situation be able to go on with their lives and be productive, rather than have them living under a bridge because they lost their house and car due to an illness while they were uninsured.
But at least that level of Libertarianism is realistic, where as the total removal of all safety nets on health care simply isn't an idea most Americans would even consider.
-
Now, I think you can make a case for a 'libertarian' idea where the hospitals will take care of you, but you will be bankrupted by their service if you don't have the cash.
Personally, I would rather pay a tax up front and have people in that situation be able to go on with their lives and be productive, rather than have them living under a bridge because they lost their house and car due to an illness while they were uninsured.
But at least that level of Libertarianism is realistic, where as the total removal of all safety nets on health care simply isn't an idea most Americans would even consider.
I just wanted to point out the juxtaposition of the statement above with the statement immediately above it. (Reposted below just for clarity:)
Many years ago, my uncle nearly got his arm cut off in a tractor accident. He had no insurance and he was self employed. He wasn't denied care or given care for free. He used what savings he had and the hospital let him pay off the debt as he could. It took some years, but they got it paid off.
How is that for a safety net? You don't need some wasteful bloated govt program to have a system where people aren't left out in the cold.
-
^^^ I do. And the faith-based healthcare system that I work for provides millions of dollars per year in charity care, much of it uncompensated by anyone, private or government payors.
I am sure that you also donate your time and money to charitable causes too, correct?
not all that much, I pretty much wouldn't have a future if I gave away what small part of my pay is discretionary.
Then again I don't complain about the plight of the poor, and I don't handouts (when I did qualify).
I also dont go to the doctor even now that I have insurance. I got sick of them trying to cram prescriptions down my throat, and not being able to provide even the most rudamentary care. Plus the staff still consistently had the compassion of a DMV employee.
Frankly, I don't see what the fuss is all about beyond the gov control/cost issues. I am willing to bet that insurance won't help people like me solve medical problems anyway, because I am not going to the doctor until I am near death or have blood spraying out.
-
Further:
I have no problem with a "social safety net." I would prefer to live in a place where it is administered by private charities so that the deserving may be gleaned from the undeserving.
More importantly, though, I want a "social safety net" not administered by a faceless Federal government that is hundreds or thousands of miles away. Our country was built in such a way that the localities and states should have the most power.
Using a massive federal bureaucracy as a "social safety net" creates perverse incentives, costs more money, is more inefficient, and leads to cruelty by petty bureaucrats simply because they have the power to be cruel.
If you want to screw up your state, put Romneycare in your own state.
But you can't do that because then you don't get the suck the lifeblood out of the productive states.
-
Keep in mind that true, effective health care reform would likely reduce the real cost of health care, not merely control increases. Getting the .fedgov completely out of the picture would be the best solution. (But we know that won't happen.)
Much of the increase in health care costs over the years can be directly attributed to the vast pool of money made available for health care by .gov. If the supply of money for goods or services increases, the cost of those goods and services will increase to absorb that supply of money.
Health care insurance, since it first became available, has itself contributed to the increase in health care costs for the same reason.
-
There are at least some on this board who have stated they are willing to live in a society where there is no safety net at all, with the full understanding of what that means. But most people do not, even though the push the ideology.
It is very easy to be the keyboard commando when you are young, healthy, single and you have memorized your dogeared books by Ayn Rand. It may be a little more difficult when you are older, partnered or have children. I wonder who here has sufficient courage of conviction to have their spouse or child die because of their opposition to any government safety net. I know that I don't.
-
It is very easy to be the keyboard commando when you are young, healthy, single and you have memorized your dogeared books by Ayn Rand. It may be a little more difficult when you are older, partnered or have children. I wonder who here has sufficient courage of conviction to have their spouse or child die because of their opposition to any government safety net. I know that I don't.
Prisoner's dilemma.
Your question is an unfair one. I'd prefer to live in a world where private charity is the solution to the problems you cite. Unfortunately, the government has crowded out private charity. As such, you have the choice of dying or using the broken system.
Calling someone a hypocrit for using a broken system because the broken system destroyed the means they would prefer to use is really unrealistic.
-
It is very easy to be the keyboard commando when you are young, healthy, single and you have memorized your dogeared books by Ayn Rand. It may be a little more difficult when you are older, partnered or have children. I wonder who here has sufficient courage of conviction to have their spouse or child die because of their opposition to any government safety net. I know that I don't.
I don't mean to side step your arguement, but I don't think many people my age can afford children. I know I can't. I have ran the numbers, and it will cost about a decades salary for each child. I can't afford to do that and save for retirement, since I know I won't see a penny of SS. Now I assumed that my average salary per year will be less than the 65-70k range. I think this is reasonable assuming that pay raises will be cancelled out by unemployment periods and inflation. Notice that inflation is ignored on the cost, at least at realistic levels.
I don't think it is unreasonable for me to be more concerned with my future than people who don't have health insurance.
It is really hard for me to feel any kind of personal reaction to your arguement based on those reasons.
-
Prisoner's dilemma.
Your question is an unfair one. I'd prefer to live in a world where private charity is the solution to the problems you cite. Unfortunately, the government has crowded out private charity. As such, you have the choice of dying or using the broken system.
Calling someone a hypocrit for using a broken system because the broken system destroyed the means they would prefer to use is really unrealistic.
Don't you just hate it when reality gets in the way as opposed to the theoretical world of rugged individualism?
-
I don't mean to side step your arguement, but I don't think many people my age can afford children. I know I can't. I have ran the numbers, and it will cost about a decades salary for each child. I can't afford to do that and save for retirement, since I know I won't see a penny of SS. Now I assumed that my average salary per year will be less than the 65-70k range. I think this is reasonable assuming that pay raises will be cancelled out by unemployment periods and inflation. Notice that inflation is ignored on the cost, at least at realistic levels.
I don't think it is unreasonable for me to be more concerned with my future than people who don't have health insurance.
It is really hard for me to feel any kind of personal reaction to your arguement based on those reasons.
Can you afford to not have kids? If your prediction comes to pass and there is no Social Security to at least partially fund your retirement, who will take care of you in your old age? Private charities? Your 401(k)?
For much of the world, their retirement system for the elderly is for them to live with their children.
-
It is very easy to be the keyboard commando when you are young, healthy, single and you have memorized your dogeared books by Ayn Rand. It may be a little more difficult when you are older, partnered or have children. I wonder who here has sufficient courage of conviction to have their spouse or child die because of their opposition to any government safety net. I know that I don't.
I'm no longer what I consider "young"(I'm 34). I am married, own my home and have a 6 year old daughter. As I stated earlier, I have no job and no health insurance for my family. I am not opposed to a "social safety net", and I do believe emergency medicine may be in fact one of the constitutionally allowed functions of government. Perhaps not.
However, preventative care is not an emergency. Most things people visit the doctor for are not emergencies, and before the government got involved, people payed the doctor themselves. In addition, the knowledge is out there. There are books and guides one can buy which will allow you to treat your family in the case of most common illnesses.
Would it suck to lose your home due to lack of health insurance? Yeah, it would. I had to take a loan out on my home two years ago to pay a medical bill my daughter incurred when we took her to the emergency room(you know, one of those places where they can't turn you away?). She racked up a $12,000 bill faster than we could blink, in part due to the doctor giving her the wrong medicine, a fact we did not realize until far later.
I have sympathy, I have compassion. What I don't have is a belief that the government should make me purchase health insurance. Health care is not a right. It is a service, and someone has to provide it. That someone has to be paid.
It would be a great benefit to me personally, if Congress passed a bill mandating everyone to purchase belly dance lessons from my wife. Not constitutional, though.
There are better ways to solve the health care "problem", than by Congress acting as parents and decreeing that we'll eat our vegetables or go to our room(by "eat vegetables", I mean buy insurance, and by "go to our room", I mean pay a fine/tax).
-
It's a strawman argument to say "If you don't want fed.gov providing universal healthcare you must just be a single, child less, libertarian hypocrite."
-
Can you afford to not have kids? If your prediction comes to pass and there is no Social Security to at least partially fund your retirement, who will take care of you in your old age? Private charities? Your 401(k)?
For much of the world, their retirement system for the elderly is for them to live with their children.
I would have a problem with expecting my children to fund my retirement. I don't think people should have children as a means of income. Also, each generation seems to feel more entitled to other peoples money.
It is probably unreasonable to think mine would be immune. It would then be foolish to expect them to take care of me.
It's a strawman argument to say "If you don't want fed.gov providing universal healthcare you must just be a single, child less, libertarian hypocrite."
I didn't mean to state that, I was trying to say that I perceive bigger problems than a lack of social safety net.
-
It is a service, and someone has to provide it. That someone has to be paid.
Amen. Lord knows that our census is down, and we could use some more paying patients!
-
Personally, I would rather pay a tax up front and have people in that situation be able to go on with their lives and be productive, rather than have them living under a bridge because they lost their house and car due to an illness while they were uninsured.
We have friends that lost their house and car, and they were insured. :O
Turns out there was a maximum dollar amount on their coverage, and the hospital was not at all reasonable about the considerable excess. It was all or nothing, so the hospital got close to nothing. ;/
I've been part-time or unemployed the past five years, and no health insurance in all that time. But I'm still against having the feral guverment manage "health care" =|
When we have had insurance, it was mostly worthless. The last outfit would "pre-approve" something and then refuse to pay for it afterwards. :mad:
-
Just out of curiosity, from your experience what percentage of the uninsured seeking treatment would you guess are illegal aliens? 5%? 10%? More?
At Parkland, Dallas County's public hospital, 16,000 children are born per year. ~9,000 of them are anchor babies born to illegal alien mothers.
There are at least some on this board who have stated they are willing to live in a society where there is no safety net at all, with the full understanding of what that means. But most people do not, even though the push the ideology.
This ^^^ is a thoroughly dishonest re-(mis)statement of folks' arguments. I'd be ashamed to so blatantly "misrepresent" someone's argument in such a manner. But, shame has been driven out of the public square by the self-esteem boosters, who think that everyone (no matter how worthless) has the right to feel good about themselves.
Even those who do not see a role for gov't here have not objected to private charity taking up the slack. Especially since private charity did all the heavy lifting before bloated gov't bureaucrats, who are incentivised to keep people on the gov't teat, shoved them to the side.
Don't you just hate it when reality gets in the way as opposed to the theoretical world of rugged individualism?
Even before Obamacare was passed gov't already fouled the market by pumping in 40% of the dollars. Even this is not enough "safety net" for you?
Pumping that much money into any market will grossly distort it (not to mention the uncounted regs). Gov't dollars pumped into the market inflates the price to all and those who get it worst are those with no insurance. We've seen the same pernicious effect of gov't largess in the higher education market. It is no coincidence that higher ed & health care, two markets awash with gov't money & people who are oh-so-generous with other people's money, are two segments of the economy with rates of inflation that consistently outpace the mean for the economy.
Gov't (taxpayer) money causes outsized inflation, costs rise, than calls for more gov't money ensue.
-
It is possible to have a second-tier health care system--clinics, new HMOs--designed to deal with the truly indigent (if they are citizens). It wouldn't need to cost a trillion dollars, two trillion, and radically modify the entire working system. What most Americans opposed to ObamaCare object to is the concept of EQUALIZED EVERYTHING, that people who have not contributed to the system are somehow entitled to the same care as those who have. Obama is The Great Leveler, and it doesn't take a genius to see where all of this leading us on every level. First health care, then mortgage forgiveness? What else will be so charitably forgiven?
-
What this all comes down to, for me, is the profanation of the concept of compassion. It is going to kill us.
-
..never mind
-
That has been my opinion. The social cost of not having a safety net seems greater than the monetary cost of having one.
What about the social cost of having "safety nets"? What about the chronically dependent and shiftless, who WOULD NOT BE AROUND without such things? There is an entire household in my extended family which affords a house(manufactured, but quite large and VERY nicely appointed) and a tall three-car garage/shop with a neato project car, on nearly an acre - on one modest income and *six* disability checks(all collectors are ambulatory, able people of at least average intelligence - the "disability" seems to be some sort of anxiety disorder which afflicts them all). There's apparently even some money left over for illegal drugs(not marijuana). All considered, they live better than my wife and I do, except for the drugs.
Are they the exception - or the rule?
Is it righteous to support their behavior(I should say "enable")?
It is very easy to be the keyboard commando when you are young, healthy, single and you have memorized your dogeared books by Ayn Rand. It may be a little more difficult when you are older, partnered or have children. I wonder who here has sufficient courage of conviction to have their spouse or child die because of their opposition to any government safety net. I know that I don't.
What an arrogant, shitty thing to say. That's roughly equivalent to the line that conservatives want poor people and minorities to die... except even more personally accusatory. I am five years married, with a child due this September. I think about these things, and conclude that my child would have a better life as my child than as society's ward.
And so what if I dog-ear my copy of Atlas Shrugged? If I find Rand's philosophy or views to be agreeable, and I find they work when applied to my life, that's my business. I don't see anybody minimalizing what you believe in.
Can you afford to not have kids? If your prediction comes to pass and there is no Social Security to at least partially fund your retirement, who will take care of you in your old age? Private charities? Your 401(k)? For much of the world, their retirement system for the elderly is for them to live with their children.
Are we to infer that you do plan on Social Security being around later? Seriously asking.
To answer your question, though, I'd call it terrifically irresponsible to hope that your children will be able to pay for your retirement and old age, although at this point it looks as if they're a better bet than the government would be. You're not supposed to spend all your money then freak out when you can't work anymore and the checks stop coming; you save some, invest some, etc. so that you don't have to wash dishes to pay for old-people meds :p 401(k) and all that is great, but it's in no way enough for the average person.
What most Americans opposed to ObamaCare object to is the concept of EQUALIZED EVERYTHING, that people who have not contributed to the system are somehow entitled to the same care as those who have. Obama is The Great Leveler, and it doesn't take a genius to see where all of this leading us on every level.
I have to disagree. The largest reason I'm distrustful of the healthcare bill - and I'm sure I'm not alone in this - is that it has been drafted by people who prove again and again that they are not worthy of trust. Report after report has come out about this state, that company, this union, getting a special deal. Costs keep changing. It was passed with zero approval from one party(even the pretenders, RINOs if you like) and dissent within another(the party in majority!). Everything points to one conclusion: nobody knows what's written on the 2695 pages that do not contain his or her sweetheart deal. I actually think more people would be OK with it if they could believe that it truly would provide equal care to everyone.
-
What an arrogant, shitty thing to say. That's roughly equivalent to the line that conservatives want poor people and minorities to die... except even more personally accusatory. I am five years married, with a child due this September. I think about these things, and conclude that my child would have a better life as my child than as society's ward.
Do you seriously think that wanting your kid to be happily raised by you somehow guarantees that that is what will happen? Do you really think that people who end up using the government funded safety net simply didn't want safety and security badly enough?
What an arrogant, <expletive avoided> thing to say.
-
Do you seriously think that wanting your kid to be happily raised by you somehow guarantees that that is what will happen?
No, I don't think *wanting* anything guarantees it will happen. I think I, being the person most interested in my own child's success, am more likely to make wise choices for his health and upbringing than a bureaucrat who is wholly uninterested in his life or death. I think the present system is not a good solution because it is wasteful, overly bureaucratic and encourages expensive CYA practices - but I know a universal-coverage system is not a good solution because it will be wasteful and overly bureaucratic, and being a government program it just will not work as advertised.
Do you really think that people who end up using the government funded safety net simply didn't want safety and security badly enough?
Nope. I think that people who use the government funded safety net either made bad choices or had bad luck. We learn from making bad choices. As for bad luck... well, it happens. That's what family and friends are for; nobody wants to see an every-man-for-himself anarchy, but the faceless government is not an efficient solution - cashing a check from DES kind of makes you forget that the money came from your neighbors.
I do think that private charity, either individual or organized, would be more effective simply because it would not allow the huge amount of graft and abuse that our present system invites. I seriously doubt that the situation I described would be permitted to continue if the safety net were administered by a local church or charity, or family members. Just as stockholders are interested in their investments, those who donate or volunteer would certainly prefer to see their money and efforts go to those who truly need, rather those who simply prefer not to work. On the other hand, when it's somebody else's money to begin with, who cares?
What an arrogant, <expletive avoided> thing to say.
How? Am I arrogant in trusting myself over others? More arrogant than those who would tell me they know better than I do? More arrogant than someone who says you can either see things his way or be a hypocrite?
Look, what I'm trying to get to is that our society is moving toward the abolition of accountability. If you remove consequences of bad choices, you remove the incentive to make good choices. I don't believe I'm arrogant for saying that - I have made stupid choices and squandered great opportunities in my life. Once I grew up, I learned that I have to do things for myself if I want to succeed.
And if I want to succeed in life, I need to get some sleep so I can be productive at work =)
-
BReilly:
What about the social cost of having "safety nets"? What about the chronically dependent and shiftless, who WOULD NOT BE AROUND without such things?
That's roughly equivalent to the line that conservatives want poor people and minorities to die... except even more personally accusatory.
Huh. It does kind of sound like you want the chronically dependent and shiftless to die.
-
BReilly:
Huh. It does kind of sound like you want the chronically dependent and shiftless to die.
"Would not be around" does not mean "would perish from the earth", and I think that was pretty clear. You make it sound like government handouts are the only possible solution, without which some people will simply wither away and die.
I want the chronically dependent and shiftless to be forced to pay their own way. The truly needy will be taken care of by private and church charity, and I have no prejudice against them. Americans already donate more of their own money than any other nation anyway.
-
This ^^^ is a thoroughly dishonest re-(mis)statement of folks' arguments. I'd be ashamed to so blatantly "misrepresent" someone's argument in such a manner. But, shame has been driven out of the public square by the self-esteem boosters, who think that everyone (no matter how worthless) has the right to feel good about themselves.
Even those who do not see a role for gov't here have not objected to private charity taking up the slack. Especially since private charity did all the heavy lifting before bloated gov't bureaucrats, who are incentivised to keep people on the gov't teat, shoved them to the side.
Dump all forms of public health care assistance. Let people be whatever they want to be. If they can't afford to pay for the decisions they make in life (eating too much, smoking, drinking too much...), then let them die. Life is a bitch.
Mhmm. Why would private charities step in more than they do now, or did in the past? If my 80 year old grandmother falls and breaks a hip and ends up with a 100k hospital bill, exactly what charity is she supposed to go to? Or is it her fault she doesn’t have a nest egg of a couple million?
I dunno man. If private charities were a viable alternative to a government safety net, I don’t think a government safety net would have ever been created. Oh yea, evil socialist conspiracy right?
-
Mhmm. Why would private charities step in more than they do now, or did in the past? If my 80 year old grandmother falls and breaks a hip and ends up with a 100k hospital bill, exactly what charity is she supposed to go to? Or is it her fault she doesn’t have a nest egg of a couple million?
I dunno man. If private charities were a viable alternative to a government safety net, I don’t think a government safety net would have ever been created. Oh yea, evil socialist conspiracy right?
Really?
It doesn't require an evil socialist conspiracy, it requires stupid people who don't understand incentives, moral hazard and adverse selection.
It requires stupid people who think they can, from Washington, better decide who needs charity than the people at the point handing out the charity.
It requires stupid people who think that despite losing the "war on poverty" for 40 years, we can make it better with MORE government control.
A conspiracy isn't necessary when human stupidity has no bounds.
-
I don't know about the best, but I certainly believe in the concept of a safety net for society. Most of the rugged individualists here generally do not, though, unless we bring back the Dickensian concept of the workhouse.
I believe in the concept of safety nets, too. I just think the people who want them should provide them for themselves.
It's certainly possible for people to buy their own insurance (and pay a price commensurate with the risk they represent) so that they don't have to rely on an employer. It's also possible to provide yourself disability insurance, save up some cash against unforeseen events like a layoff, and so forth. And we could even buy our own unemployment insurance too, if only the government hadn't monopolized that particular market.
Aside from stuff like fighting wars and running a post office, there isn't much that the government can do for us that we can't do better ourselves.
Sad to say, it's been so long since we've really taken care of ourselves without needing government that many of us don't even remember it's possible.
-
Pumping that much money into any market will grossly distort it (not to mention the uncounted regs). Gov't dollars pumped into the market inflates the price to all and those who get it worst are those with no insurance. We've seen the same pernicious effect of gov't largess in the higher education market. It is no coincidence that higher ed & health care, two markets awash with gov't money & people who are oh-so-generous with other people's money, are two segments of the economy with rates of inflation that consistently outpace the mean for the economy.
Gov't (taxpayer) money causes outsized inflation, costs rise, than calls for more gov't money ensue.
Don't forget the housing market inflation caused by Freddie and Fannie and regulations against sane lending pushed by guys like Barney Frank.
-
Since many people here in this thread believe that the current system of "safety nets" are broken, I would be interested to see your thoughts on a better system. And not just by saying that neighbors, private charities or family should take the place of the current system.
What are your specific points in terms of client selection, deciding on an equitable distribution of resources, where the resources would come from to assist those in need, client monitoring and client assistance. How do you decide, in a legal, equitable and moral manner, who gets help and who does not?
-
Really?
It doesn't require an evil socialist conspiracy, it requires stupid people who don't understand incentives, moral hazard and adverse selection.
It requires stupid people who think they can, from Washington, better decide who needs charity than the people at the point handing out the charity.
It requires stupid people who think that despite losing the "war on poverty" for 40 years, we can make it better with MORE government control.
A conspiracy isn't necessary when human stupidity has no bounds.
*sigh*
Your entire point seems to rest on the idea that if we have any government interference, we have communism. I'm sick of hearing about how all our problems can be fixed by making sure the government does nothing, just like I am sick of people on the other side saying anything a private company does is evil by default. Obviously you need social safety nets and obviously you need incentives to perform. Show me a society that has operated at your ideal level and I'll show you why most people wouldn't want to live there. Has there ever been a society that operates in your ideal?
You didn't answer my questions, either.
-
*sigh*
Your entire point seems to rest on the idea that if we have any government interference, we have communism. I'm sick of hearing about how all our problems can be fixed by making sure the government does nothing, just like I am sick of people on the other side saying anything a private company does is evil by default. Obviously you need social safety nets and obviously you need incentives to perform. Show me a society that has operated at your ideal level and I'll show you why most people wouldn't want to live there. Has there ever been a society that operates in your ideal?
You didn't answer my questions, either.
I think you missed mak's point. You seem to assume the rasion d'etre for the government safety nets is to keep people safe, that the reason they were created was because there existed no safety before the government stepped in to create it.
Mak has pointed out several reasons why this reasoning is likely false.
I could point out several more non-safety-related reasons for the government safety nets, including vote-buying and power-grabbing.
-
Obviously you need social safety nets
No, that's not obvious at all.
At the very least, we don't need can do better than having safety nets on the national level.
At the not-so-least, we could let private organizations supply the safety nets.
-
Let me toss, my $.02 since I have an incurable disease, and have (against my will) become a partial ward of the state.
One of the first things I would change is having employer provided health insurance. I should be able to choose my own with the ability to choose from a menu of optional coverages, much like car insurance.
When I went to work for my last employer I selected disability and term life insurance coverage. Mrs. Scout works for a large health insurance company, we went with her employer provided coverage, since the plan offered by my employer was the EXACT SAME policy that she could get for much less per month then I, we went with her coverage.
At the point I told my boss I needed frequent periodic time-off (via FMLA) to receive and recover from Chemo, he told me to have my doc fill out the insurance company disability form. I spent 6 months getting Short-term disability (Company paid) and then 6 months of Long Term from the Disability Insurance provider (No it's not the Duck company). Buried in the fine print of the LTDI is something to the effect of "After a year, we're going to do our damnedest to pawn you off onto Social Security and we damned well expect you to cooperate." Well I've "cooperated". :angel: However it's not my fault forms didn't get mailed in on time, I couldn't help traffic that made me late for my hearing, etc, etc, etc.
Finally despite all my "cooperation", this past January the .gov finally gave in and "approved" me for SS and Madicare.
I farking hate it.
As I stated many times to my "Case Manager", I have a contract with your company, not the government.
Even if I didn't have insurance, I would rather workout terms with my docs and the hospitals then take .gov money and deal with their BULLSH!TE.
-
Mhmm. Why would private charities step in more than they do now, or did in the past? If my 80 year old grandmother falls and breaks a hip and ends up with a 100k hospital bill, exactly what charity is she supposed to go to?
Does your grandmother not have insurance? I know mine does and I'm very glad for it, because last year around Thanksgiving she fell and broke her wrist. Kind of a big deal for an 87-year-old woman living alone in an old two-floor house in Massachusetts. Her insurance, paid for out of the savings that my grandfather kept so that they could retire(quite modestly), fully covered the costs of her treatment and recovery.
What if she didn't have insurance though? Why would that concern you at all?
Or is it her fault she doesn’t have a nest egg of a couple million?
In America today, if you retire without a huge chunk of money in the bank, you're not really "retiring", you're quitting work and hoping that nothing serious happens to you medically, and that your savings and social security payments are enough to pay your bills. You either failed to save responsibly, or you planned to live off of others, or you plain had bad luck and, say, lost half your worth in a housing market crash.
The first two situations could reasonably be called willfully negligent, and in the third situation, everybody else is probably hurting as badly due to the same market crash.
If, however, you spend and save wisely like your parents(hopefully) told you to, you'll probably be alright. Like most anything else, retirement costs money.
I dunno man. If private charities were a viable alternative to a government safety net, I don’t think a government safety net would have ever been created. Oh yea, evil socialist conspiracy right?
Existence is not proof of validity. I'm not calling you stupid, and I know what you're getting at, but to say that a government program, of all things, is worthy and necessary simply because it exists is just not the way to make a point in this company :)
Also, I have specifically included both organized and individual charity in my responses. A neighbor can help a neighbor, and that's still charity, even though it's not a big nonprofit. I bring that up because you keep mentioning private charities, but you neglect to consider the possibilities of the individual or community level.
*sigh*
Your entire point seems to rest on the idea that if we have any government interference, we have communism. I'm sick of hearing about how all our problems can be fixed by making sure the government does nothing, just like I am sick of people on the other side saying anything a private company does is evil by default. Obviously you need social safety nets and obviously you need incentives to perform. Show me a society that has operated at your ideal level and I'll show you why most people wouldn't want to live there. Has there ever been a society that operates in your ideal?
It's still not obvious why we need government-administered social safety nets, and what more incentive need there be than personal gain or profit?
No society has ever operated at my ideal level. The 19th-century U.S. came close, with the obvious(but clearly necessary to mention) exclusion of slavery and general racial injustice, foreign involvement, etc.
I fully admit that life might suck in the libertarian utopia of my dreams - certainly it would be difficult - but we can be confident from history that socialist experiments don't go well.
Can you provide an example of a society operating at your ideal level? I don't mean that sarcastically; I would be interested in seeing something you'd consider even close to ideal.
-
Let me toss, my $.02 since I have an incurable disease, and have (against my will) become a partial ward of the state.
One of the first things I would change is having employer provided health insurance. I should be able to choose my own with the ability to choose from a menu of optional coverages, much like car insurance.
When I went to work for my last employer I selected disability and term life insurance coverage. Mrs. Scout works for a large health insurance company, we went with her employer provided coverage, since the plan offered by my employer was the EXACT SAME policy that she could get for much less per month then I, we went with her coverage.
At the point I told my boss I needed frequent periodic time-off (via FMLA) to receive and recover from Chemo, he told me to have my doc fill out the insurance company disability form. I spent 6 months getting Short-term disability (Company paid) and then 6 months of Long Term from the Disability Insurance provider (No it's not the Duck company). Buried in the fine print of the LTDI is something to the effect of "After a year, we're going to do our damnedest to pawn you off onto Social Security and we damned well expect you to cooperate." Well I've "cooperated". :angel: However it's not my fault forms didn't get mailed in on time, I couldn't help traffic that made me late for my hearing, etc, etc, etc.
Finally despite all my "cooperation", this past January the .gov finally gave in and "approved" me for SS and Madicare.
I farking hate it.
As I stated many times to my "Case Manager", I have a contract with your company, not the government.
Even if I didn't have insurance, I would rather workout terms with my docs and the hospitals then take .gov money and deal with their BULLSH!TE.
AMEN! I cannot adequately describe in words how much I share your feelings, friend.
-
@BB and Fistful:
That is pretty much my point...neither one of you can show me a working example of what you advocate, past or present. The think that made me leave the libertarian movement was the realization that it was almost pure theory. You want everything privatized, but the reason we have most federal programs is because there was a gap in something the private sector was doing, or some sort of problem. This discussion is a good example...no-one wants the fed to run it, but most people don't want to go back to health care circa 1800AD. You can't just say you hope private charities and such will take care of the problem when those organizations have never taken care of the problem at the scale we are talking about.
I have a huge soft spot for libertarianism, it is one of the reasons I am on this forum. My problem is practicality and actual implementation. I'm not willing to gamble the future of a nuclear superpower on something that has never been done. It also doesn't hurt that I don't feel the moral outrage at socialism that seems to pop up here so often, and I don't have any emotional attachment to the constitutionalism type movements either. I'm not interested in perfect, I am interested in the best we can do right now, for the most people.
-
...neither one of you can show me a working example of what you advocate, past or present.
Dude, read some history. Your posts demonstrate no understanding of what occurred & why various events occurred, just acceptance that "something was wrong or the gov't wouldn't have acted." Such an acceptance of benevolence, competence, and omniscience on the part of gov't is what one expects of a subject, and is not to be praised in a citizen.
People had medical care before the gov't shoved all the fraternal orgs & charities aside and inflated the cost. Most paid for it out of pocket. Some paid for it over time, if it was a large bill. Some had help from fraternal organizations in which they had previously invested time, effort, & money. Some had help from charity and still others were treated at the multitude of church-affiliated hospitals, which existed to serve the poor.
For example, before any of the "safety net" was erected, my grandfather was a Moose (http://www.mooseintl.org/public/default.asp) and squared away plenty of his brothers. And they helped him out when he had hard times. It sure worked for him & his, and they were nothing special, just farmers. They also helped my grandmother in her last years, after my grandfather died.
I'd think a little Alexis de Tocqueville would be a fine place to start to understand just how Americans forged bonds with one another in America.
...the reason we have most federal programs is because there was a gap in something the private sector was doing, or some sort of problem.
Or because the statists wanted more clients of the state and fewer people who have no need of the state. A man who can stand on his own two feet (sometimes with the help of neighbors) is a man who doesn't need a meddling gov't and who is a threat to that gov't and to statists, generally.
...I don't have any emotional attachment to the constitutionalism type movements either.
Some of us took oaths from which we have yet to be released. Some understand that a gov't that does not hew to the COTUS is a gov't of men and one sure to lead to tyranny, given (here is the h-word again) history's lessons.
-
Dude, read some history. Your posts demonstrate no understanding of what occurred & why various events occurred, just acceptance that "something was wrong or the gov't wouldn't have acted." Such an acceptance of benevolence, competence, and omniscience on the part of gov't is what one expects of a subject, and is not to be praised in a citizen.
People had medical care before the gov't shoved all the fraternal orgs & charities aside and inflated the cost. Most paid for it out of pocket. Some paid for it over time, if it was a large bill. Some had help from fraternal organizations in which they had previously invested time, effort, & money. Some had help from charity and still others were treated at the multitude of church-affiliated hospitals, which existed to serve the poor.
For example, before any of the "safety net" was erected, my grandfather was a Moose (http://www.mooseintl.org/public/default.asp) and squared away plenty of his brothers. And they helped him out when he had hard times. It sure worked for him & his, and they were nothing special, just farmers. They also helped my grandmother in her last years, after my grandfather died.
I'd think a little Alexis de Tocqueville would be a fine place to start to understand just how Americans forged bonds with one another in America.
Or because the statists wanted more clients of the state and fewer people who have no need of the state. A man who can stand on his own two feet (sometimes with the help of neighbors) is a man who doesn't need a meddling gov't and who is a threat to that gov't and to statists, generally.
Some of us took oaths from which we have yet to be released. Some understand that a gov't that does not hew to the COTUS is a gov't of men and one sure to lead to tyranny, given (here is the h-word again) history's lessons.
I’m not seeing an example of a working society that supports your ideals, all I am seeing is anecdotes about the good old days, along with some fun throwing around, ‘statist’, the hint that I am ignorant, the assumption that I am claiming socialism=utopia, and another hint that anyone who disagrees with your stance about the Constitution is anti-American.
If you feel your position has evidence behind it, show it to me. Show me why people were healthier/happier/more wealth is generated/whatever in a society that exists or has existed, that follows your political philosophy. I would love to be convinced that libertarian utopia is possible.
Early America? Early United Kingdom? What time period? Somewhere else?
-
I’m not seeing an example of a working society that supports your ideals, all I am seeing is anecdotes about the good old days, along with some fun throwing around, ‘statist’, the hint that I am ignorant, the assumption that I am claiming socialism=utopia, and another hint that anyone who disagrees with your stance about the Constitution is anti-American.
If you feel your position has evidence behind it, show it to me. Show me why people were healthier/happier/more wealth is generated/whatever in a society that exists or has existed, that follows your political philosophy. I would love to be convinced that libertarian utopia is possible.
Early America? Early United Kingdom? What time period? Somewhere else?
I may not like your stance, but you are very good at debating. =)
-
I may not like your stance, but you are very good at debating. =)
You mean throwing out assumptions and then asking people to prove them wrong?
Yeah, that's a great "debating" tactic.
-
You mean throwing out assumptions and then asking people to prove them wrong?
Yeah, that's a great "debating" tactic.
No, he's actually debating. Again, while I don't agree with him, he's asking for proof one way or the other; both sides, at this point, are simple referencing anecdotes. ;)
-
No, he's actually debating. Again, while I don't agree with him, he's asking for proof one way or the other; both sides, at this point, are simple referencing anecdotes. ;)
Asking for proof while not documenting his own claims is more than a little hypocritical, no?
For example:
I dunno man. If private charities were a viable alternative to a government safety net, I don’t think a government safety net would have ever been created. Oh yea, evil socialist conspiracy right?
He just assumes the government must have stepped in because charities weren't doing the job.
Then asks that we prove him wrong.
Either he offers evidence to support his position or he accepts this is a theoretical debate. He doesn't get to make theoretical claims and then shoot down others position as "merely theoretical claims."
-
I would love to be convinced that libertarian utopia is possible.
Neither libertarian nor socialist utopia is possible.
You either believe that humans have a right to direct their own affairs and utilize the fruits of their labors as they see fit, or you believe that someone else should own all or part of their persons and their productivity.
-
Neither libertarian nor socialist utopia is possible.
You either believe that humans have a right to direct their own affairs and utilize the fruits of their labors as they see fit, or you believe that someone else should own all or part of their persons and their productivity.
We have a winner. =D
-
Neither libertarian nor socialist utopia is possible.
You either believe that humans have a right to direct their own affairs and utilize the fruits of their labors as they see fit, or you believe that someone else should own all or part of their persons and their productivity.
I agree 100% with your first statement. Where I part ways is your second statement, which indicates the same black and white mentality that I am tired of. I believe libertarianism has a place and socialism has a place. An ideal system is a mix, not an either or, the trick is deciding what your priorities are, then giving and taking until you get to some sort of equilibrium that the majority can live with. Politics.
Rather than plagiarize an acquaintance, I'll just quote him since he sums up my feelings more poetically than I do.
Personally, I believe the only system that has any merit at all is one that incorporates elements of several political philosophies, without elevating any of them as the answer to all of life's problems. The fundamental problem is that utopia is impossible, and it's also impossible to agree on what ought to be the biggest goal of a government. Do we want to eliminate poverty? We can do that, but with wealth redistribution comes a certain unavoidable unfairness. Some people really do work harder than others, and it doesn't feel fair to work so hard without also making a lot more money.
We can say the same kind of thing about any societal goal. You want this? Ok, but you have to sacrifice some of that. The only solution that makes any sense is to hybridize the government such that some things are socialized while others remain largely unregulated by the government. Prevent abject poverty as best you can. Allow people to create their own rewards if they want to elevate their standards of living, but don't let them create an unsustainable income gap. Encourage small businesses by preventing enormous businesses from using predatory market tactics, but don't regulate so heavily that it becomes impossible to grow. Etc, etc...
As several have said, there's no existing political philosophy which, taken to an extreme, allows this kind of pluralism.
@PTK: I imagine you won’t get many people here to agree with you, haha.
-
Asking for proof while not documenting his own claims is more than a little hypocritical, no?
For example:
He just assumes the government must have stepped in because charities weren't doing the job.
Then asks that we prove him wrong.
Either he offers evidence to support his position or he accepts this is a theoretical debate. He doesn't get to make theoretical claims and then shoot down others position as "merely theoretical claims."
I guess I assumed that was common knowledge. Should I start quoting Roosevelt and social security? There are two choices (There might be more, if there are feel free, I don’t have anything riding on this, it is off the cuff!): 1) These programs were put in place because of a (edit: perceived need, since you can argue whether it was really needed or not) need. 2) Socialist conspiracy to bring down the little man. If you are down the rabbit hole far enough that your answer is 2 I think we are beyond the point of debate, aren’t we?
Again, I don’t want to live in the America that existed before any government social programs existed. I’m sorry but I really don’t. You aren’t going to have much luck convincing mainstream people that they want to either.
And if you want evidence, just ask for it. Here’s the thing: I can show you working, socialist societies that I wouldn’t mind living in….including America. Every first world country in the world is socialist to one degree or another. Simple fact. I don’t feel the need to defend every single detail of ‘socialism’ because that is not the point. My point is simply that socialism is a part of modern society, has been a part of society, and will continue to be a part of modern society, and the world has not imploded yet. If you want to convince me that ‘socialism’ is evil and we would all be better off without it, you’ve got a heck of a burden of proof you need to justify because you are staring down almost every facet of modern first world existence. A large part of the burden is showing me a society that operates under the principles you advocate, so I can see whether or not I would like to be involved in that society.
-
@BB and Fistful:
That is pretty much my point...neither one of you can show me a working example of what you advocate, past or present.
Neither can you. As far as I can tell, by "working example" you mean a place with no govt. social spending and private charities fill every need. Of course, no such place exists. But it is equally clear that govt. safety nets also fail this test. The question is whether they actually increase suffering (and I believe they often do) and whether they are morally permissible (and I'm not so sure they are).
The think that made me leave the libertarian movement was the realization that it was almost pure theory. You want everything privatized, but the reason we have most federal programs is because there was a gap in something the private sector was doing, or some sort of problem. This discussion is a good example...no-one wants the fed to run it, but most people don't want to go back to health care circa 1800AD. You can't just say you hope private charities and such will take care of the problem when those organizations have never taken care of the problem at the scale we are talking about.
You presume that government has a responsibility to fill in the gaps left by private efforts. Why?
You also presume that government social programs are effective in alleviating poverty and other "social injustices." Why?
It also doesn't hurt that I don't feel the moral outrage at socialism that seems to pop up here so often.
So government programs that impoverish vast numbers of people, while curtailing their liberties, cause you no moral outrage? You think this is a good thing? =| It seems to me like a moral failing, along with a lack of enlightenment, but whatever. Let me just say that, as a working-class person, and someone who is that close from falling into poverty, I am not yours to take care of. You don't know what my needs are, and you have no business "taking care" of me. Thank you.
-
Here’s the thing: I can show you working, socialist societies that I wouldn’t mind living in….including America. Every first world country in the world is socialist to one degree or another. Simple fact. I don’t feel the need to defend every single detail of ‘socialism’ because that is not the point. My point is simply that socialism is a part of modern society, has been a part of society, and will continue to be a part of modern society, and the world has not imploded yet. If you want to convince me that ‘socialism’ is evil and we would all be better off without it, you’ve got a heck of a burden of proof you need to justify because you are staring down almost every facet of modern first world existence. A large part of the burden is showing me a society that operates under the principles you advocate, so I can see whether or not I would like to be involved in that society.
Yet vast numbers of people in these socialist nations (like America) live in poverty, with social problems like domestic violence, sexual abuse, drug addiction, lack of education, chronic unemployment and incarceration. And most of these are the people living in urban centers of the socialist safety net, governed by those most sympathetic to socialism, and most likely to be the recipients of socialist "aid." Don't tell me the world hasn't imploded. Tell that to the people living in your socialist paradises. =(
Now run off and find us a first-world, socialist nation (like America) that "works." =)
-
If it's examples we're talking here, maybe the socialists can show even one example of an effective, viable, sustainable social welfare system.
And if it's examples we're looking at, let's look at the vaunted War On Poverty. We've been fighting this war for 50 years now. We've spent uncounted trillions of dollars. We've sacrificed the liberty and the wealth of the younger generations on the alter of socialism. We've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at the problem of poverty, just as the socialists say we should.
Has poverty been eliminated yet?
How long do we have to watch and wait before declaring the obvious, that the socialist approach isn't working and should be abandoned? Is 50 years enough, or do we have to wait another 50, 100, 200 years before we recognize the reality that's staring us right in the face? How much are we expected to lose before we put this insanity away?
Socialism doesn't work. It hasn't worked in the US. It hasn't worked in Europe. It failed spectacularly in Russia, the place where socialism was embraced most strongly.
So, name for me a good example of socialism succeeding. I dare you.
And in response, I offer the example of the United States (up until the failed New Deal and the Great Society experiments) as a gleaming example of the alternative to socialism. Liberty and individualism worked for as long as we were willing to use them.
-
So, name for me a good example of socialism succeeding. I dare you.
"What have the Romans ever done for us, huh?!"
=D
-
And if it's examples we're looking at, let's look at the vaunted War On Poverty. We've been fighting this war for 50 years now. We've spent uncounted trillions of dollars. We've sacrificed the liberty and the wealth of the younger generations on the alter of socialism. We've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at the problem of poverty, just as the socialists say we should.
And what was our exit strategy for that war, anyway?
-
And what was our exit strategy for that war, anyway?
Increased spending.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks a lot like a nail.
-
And what was our exit strategy for that war, anyway?
I suggest unconditional surrender =D
-
And what was our exit strategy for that war, anyway?
I definitely think it's time to pull out...
-
I definitely think it's time to pull out...
Saying things like that leaves one open to jokes about one's father and "pulling out". ;)
(Yes, childish, but it's one of those jokes I very dearly love)
Also, agreed with both of the above - "war on N", be it poverty, drugs, etc., are all bunk and need to be stopped immediately.
-
nt. My point is simply that socialism is a part of modern society, has been a part of society, and will continue to be a part of modern society, and the world has not imploded yet.
No.
We do not know what will happen.
You may want to persuade me that socialism is forever, but I see no reason why this is so. Both in America and in European countries, statist programs are sometimes cut or abolished, activities previously illegal are legalized, state-owned industries privatized. Owning gold used to be illegal. It's true that over the last seventy years, statists/socialists have won many of the battles of the war of ideas, if you will.
But this does not mean they will continue winning. In fact, there exists plenty of evidence that the tide has begun to turn around the 1980's. Even this so-called triumph of Progressivism they call 'health care reform' isn't that much of a triumph.
Worse yet, your argument is a logical fallacy. Either this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_necessity), or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition), but either way not really logical. :D
-
You may want to persuade me that socialism is forever, but I see no reason why this is so. Both in America and in European countries, statist programs are sometimes cut or abolished, activities previously illegal are legalized, state-owned industries privatized. Owning gold used to be illegal. It's true that over the last seventy years, statists/socialists have won many of the battles of the war of ideas, if you will.
But this does not mean they will continue winning. In fact, there exists plenty of evidence that the tide has begun to turn around the 1980's. Even this so-called triumph of Progressivism they call 'health care reform' isn't that much of a triumph.
Worse yet, your argument is a logical fallacy. Either this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_necessity), or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition), but either way not really logical. :D
MB, you are 100% correct in your instinct that socialism can not last forever. Maggie Thatcher saw it from the non-empirical common-sensical side and pronounced, "Sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
Well, back in the 1940s an economist (whose name I can't place at the moment) determined that socialism was unsustainable. He had studied Germany from Bismark's implementations of socialism on through the UK's growing socialist state a well as France. He determined that the greater costs imposed on producers caused producers to have fewer children and spend money on maximizing their current comfort. The result being a population that not only no longer grows as socialist ponzi schemes must, but the most productive classes are the classes hardest hit, leaving disproportionate numbers of the less-capable. Think Detroit on a continental scale.
There are two ways a socialist system can end up. First, is excising the worst socialist bits to allow the system to soldier on longer. The more socialism excised, the longer the system exist. The other way is that of Weimar Germany, Greece today, Argentina several times this century: a systemic collapse, as reality catches up and bites the system in the ass.
Which is yet another reason to oppose socialism, as it will cause worse problems than it will solve.
-
>Or if you lose your job, will you decline any unemployment, welfare or other government assistance? <
I've spent many times unemployed, and have never taken any government money.
Not. Once.
Either my wife was working, or family helped out.
I don't currently have insurance. And I'm looking at $5K in dental bills for needed work. My FIL is helping me get a loan to take care of the problem (and start getting my credit fixed).
Don't tell me that gooberment is "needed" for this stuff.
-
There are two ways a socialist system can end up. First, is excising the worst socialist bits to allow the system to soldier on longer. The more socialism excised, the longer the system exist. The other way is that of Weimar Germany, Greece today, Argentina several times this century: a systemic collapse, as reality catches up and bites the system in the ass.
I think Britain is a great example of how a socialist system can 'soldier on' - but they've not excised the welfare state. They've given it a more efficient form - allowing them to make far more money, and in the long term, to actually afford more welfare.
The only way for the system to end is for an alternate ideology to take hold, and this is only happening very slowly. (Although I am sure we're both doing what we can to accelerate the process).
-
@Fistful and Headless:
All I am seeing now is, "The current examples of socialism are not perfect." and then you point out specific flaws.
I'll avoid quoting myself, but needless to say I have covered that argument in this thread. In fact, I wrote about your arguments specifically, before they were even written.
You don't have to convince me that there is a lack of perfect, utopian, socialist societies. I would agree. You have to convince me that a non-socialist society would be *better* than all forms of government that currently emply socialism. The only examples I have seen have been in fiction.
-
MB, you are 100% correct in your instinct that socialism can not last forever. Maggie Thatcher saw it from the non-empirical common-sensical side and pronounced, "Sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
Well, back in the 1940s an economist (whose name I can't place at the moment) determined that socialism was unsustainable. He had studied Germany from Bismark's implementations of socialism on through the UK's growing socialist state a well as France. He determined that the greater costs imposed on producers caused producers to have fewer children and spend money on maximizing their current comfort. The result being a population that not only no longer grows as socialist ponzi schemes must, but the most productive classes are the classes hardest hit, leaving disproportionate numbers of the less-capable. Think Detroit on a continental scale.
There are two ways a socialist system can end up. First, is excising the worst socialist bits to allow the system to soldier on longer. The more socialism excised, the longer the system exist. The other way is that of Weimar Germany, Greece today, Argentina several times this century: a systemic collapse, as reality catches up and bites the system in the ass.
Which is yet another reason to oppose socialism, as it will cause worse problems than it will solve.
So you can demonstrate a political and economic system that will never fail, even over hundreds of years?
-
So you can demonstrate a political and economic system that will never fail, even over hundreds of years?
Ahhhh, excellent. We have the "in the long run, we're all dead" argument reappearing.
Welcome back to life, Mr. Keynes.
I mean, after all, who cares if we screw our children, they can just deal with our mess. (After all, that's what we've been doing for 60 years.)
-
The formicary.
-
Ahhhh, excellent. We have the "in the long run, we're all dead" argument reappearing.
Welcome back to life, Mr. Keynes.
I mean, after all, who cares if we screw our children, they can just deal with our mess. (After all, that's what we've been doing for 60 years.)
"My theory works great because your theory is not perfect." =|
This is like the God of the gaps argument applied to politics.
-
I'm out for a bit though. I would be overjoyed if one of you swinging the fiery rhetoric would go back and re-read some of what I wrote, try to anaylze it without being offended, and see if you can give me a real answer to the question I have been asking. I'll sum it up:
"Can you show me actual evidence of why Libertarianism is better than every socialist system currently in use?"
I'll see about a response in a day or two, if the thread makes it that long.
-
I'm out for a bit though. I would be overjoyed if one of you swinging the fiery rhetoric would go back and re-read some of what I wrote, try to anaylze it without being offended, and see if you can give me a real answer to the question I have been asking. I'll sum it up:
"Can you show me actual evidence of why Libertarianism is better than every socialist system currently in use?"
I'll see about a response in a day or two, if the thread makes it that long.
http://www.heritage.org/index/
-
"Can you show me actual evidence of why Libertarianism is better than every socialist system currently in use?"
Better at what?
-
"My theory works great because your theory is not perfect." =|
This is like the God of the gaps argument applied to politics.
And you've been using it, too, so please dismount the high horse.
I'm out for a bit though. I would be overjoyed if one of you swinging the fiery rhetoric...[condescending language continues]
"Can you show me actual evidence of why Libertarianism is better than every socialist system currently in use?"
I'll see about a response in a day or two, if the thread makes it that long.
:laugh: Dude. We've all seen this before. Someone comes in here to face down the rigidly ideological conservatives with their "fiery rhetoric." Said person puts on airs of objectivity, reason, calm, balance, etc. When your backward and oppressive ideas cause disgust and revulsion, you call it "fiery rhetoric."
Again, get off the high horse. You are not tall enough to ride it. I will let you know when you reach that level. No declarations of gratitude are necessary. You're welcome.
It has come to my attention that I was rude. Rude, because I failed to be properly emotional or "fiery," so that you could rest safely in the belief that you are wiser and calmer than I. Thus: :mad: ;/ :mad: [barf]
I hope that helps.
-
@Fistful and Headless:
All I am seeing now is, "The current examples of socialism are not perfect." and then you point out specific flaws.
No, not merely the current examples. Every example I know of, past or present, is fatally flawed.
Now, we've done what you've asked, presented examples of successful, superior systems built on the principles of liberty and individualism. It's your turn to put up or shut up. Name for us your sterling examples of successful socialist systems.
-
Before someone else asks it, I will:
"If limited government is so good, why doesn't everyone who wants limited government move to Somilia?"
And I'll answer: Somalia, even though it's a failed state, free enterprise still finds a way to function
Here's a great paper on the issue:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/328217/How-Does-Somalias-Private-Sector-Cope-without-Government
-
"If limited government is so good, why doesn't everyone who wants limited government move to Somilia?"
Because liberty and anarchy are not the same thing.
-
In Somalia free enterprise means I trade you my sister for an AK-47. Freedom isn't anarchy; it isn't license either.
-
Somalia isn't an anarchy.
-
No, but then neither is anywhere else. Tribal warlords, no?
-
No, but then neither is anywhere else. Tribal warlords, no?
Some combination of tribal warlords, feudalism, and, amazingly, a democratic Republic (one that controls 30% of Somalia's territory and runs a sort of semblance of elections where leaders actually change rather than being "elected" for life as is the custom of that continent").
-
"If limited government is so good, why doesn't everyone who wants limited government move to Somilia?"
Well, maybe because it's on the other side of the globe, it's a completely different culture, I already own land here, etc....
;/
-
"If limited government is so good, why doesn't everyone who wants limited government move to Somilia?"
The People who wanted limited government did move. Across the globe. Over 200 years ago to this place called America. And the folks who want to suck the tit of limited government until it grows into socialism followed them. IMO. The tit suckers can move, or stay here long enough and be moved against their will. Folks have almost had enough.
-
http://www.heritage.org/index/
I'm confused Mak, how does the index show anything positive for your argument? Or am I misunderstanding something?
@Fistful: Ok then, thanks for answering my question in a constructive manner.
@Micro: Overall system. If you can show it is better at anything though yuo consider positive, I would be interested to hear about it though. Naturally, the problem is different people prioritize different things and my interests might not match yours so we might not agree on what an 'ideal' world is.
@Nitro: I would not be silly enough to bring up failed states, I try to avoid making straw man arguments when they are that easy to shoot down :P
-
I'm confused Mak, how does the index show anything positive for your argument? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Look for the correlation between economic freedom and economic prosperity...
-
@Fistful: Ok then, thanks for answering my question in a constructive manner.
Could you please stop acting like you're in charge of the discussion?
-
Look for the correlation between economic freedom and economic prosperity...
I agree, I just didn't imagine you or anyone here would be pushing any of those countries as any kind of positive example, since most of them are more socialist than America. Usually I'm the one bringing these nations up as working examples of heavily socialist nations with strong economies. They are perfect examples of the kind of mixed economic and social policy I tend to advocate (not all of them though, and none are my ideal since I can find things wrong with all of them, and I don't want to live in Singapore!). Heck, most (all?) of them have government run health care, which is what got this thread started.
@Fistful: I'm glad you are contributing more constructive input, it really helps to convince me that your arguments and philosophy of governance are sound and reasonable.
-
It's hard to claim socialism/collectivism works when the socialist countries make both extremes of that list.
There is no doubt in my mind that collectivism/socialism can work, in some countries for at least a little while.
Here is the question we should be asking:
Can America practice socialism effectively, without drastically changing the fundamentals of our country, our role as hegemony, and our economy?
The answer, in regard to healthcare, is no. Then the question becomes, will changing any of these three item cause harm?
I believe the answer is yes. I think it would cause irrevocable harm to ourselves, and temporarily the world, if we pursue socialism to any significant degree.
-
It's hard to claim socialism/collectivism works when the socialist countries make both extremes of that list.
There is no doubt in my mind that collectivism/socialism can work, in some countries for at least a little while.
Here is the question we should be asking:
Can America practice socialism effectively, without drastically changing the fundamentals of our country, our role as hegemony, and our economy?
The answer, in regard to healthcare, is no. Then the question becomes, will changing any of these three item cause harm?
I believe the answer is yes. I think it would cause irrevocable harm to ourselves, and temporarily the world, if we pursue socialism to any significant degree.
To me it seems like the fact that socialist systems are on both ends shows, clearly, that governments and economies are more complex than the argument that usually happens when the word ‘socialism’ pops up on this board. Reality is always a mixed system, and that has been my point, consistently.
America is already socialist (and we even have social healthcare already through Medicare/Medicaid), so I disagree with the assessment that socialist healthcare in America will cause irrevocable harm to our nation and the world, especially when other nations have practiced it and suffered no greater ill effect than our current system. Obviously nothing is perfect.
However, “this is the question we should be asking” actually is the correct way to ask the question. The correct way is to pick an issue and discuss the nuts and bolts ramifications of it, because that can actually be a constructive debate. Simply saying, “Socialism=bad, freedom=good” doesn’t help anyone.
What is my goal for the nation? How does socialism impact that goal? Can America practice a greater degree of socialism? Will it change our nation in a fundamental way? Will these changes be good or bad? Why?
So you have some of my (probably not appreciated :) ) respect for approaching the debate in a superior way.
-
Simply saying, “Socialism=bad, freedom=good” doesn’t help anyone.
Simply saying, "racism=bad, equality=good" - equally useless?
-
For socialist programs to work without becoming insolvent, the funding must come from somewhere.
It is easy for countries to spend all of their tax revenue on welfare programs when the US will "keep the peace." A significant portion of the UN revenues come from the US.
Please do note that I am not discounting foreign contributions as worthless. Bottom line is if America cuts these funds, other countries will have to fill the void to keep the world at peace.
This is where the temporary harm to the world comes into play.
The socialist programs in America are quickly approaching inslovency, using them as a model of socialism working in America is rather foolhardy.
I point to the healthcare system on native American reservations as an example of how well our government works for these programs. The point is that for most American social programs that work, I can find one that is marginalized, underfunded, or on the verge of failure. If they can't even get the smallest minority group in the country a proper socialist program, what makes anyone think they can handle the whole country?
The US government was not designed to operate in a manner to properly run socialist programs. People will just keep on voting themselves a pay raise. Hence the fundalmental transformation.
The fact is that for these programs to work they need to be funded in a sustainable way.
This means higher taxes (on a smaller economy), less military spending (probably starting with all foreign spending), and a shift in the way the federal government works.
-
I disagree with the assessment that socialist healthcare in America will cause irrevocable harm to our nation and the world, especially when other nations have practiced it and suffered no greater ill effect than our current system.
I'm not sure where you think the money is going to come from, especially considering that the USSA is already hopelessly in debt ???
I'm no fan of our current military empire, but those "other nations" are at some point going to have to provide for their own defense after the coming collapse of the USSA ;)
-
The correct way is to pick an issue and discuss the nuts and bolts ramifications of it, because that can actually be a constructive debate. Simply saying, “Socialism=bad, freedom=good” doesn’t help anyone.
I hope I'm not the only one who notices what is going on here.
In case you missed it, he's asserting that clinging to liberty "doesn't help." The only way to judge the question is to see how well a socialized system delivers health care, without asking whether it would be right for it to do so.
In other words, the American conviction that places a premium on freedom is bad. His (anti-American) conviction that the poor must be "helped," even at the expense of freedom, is silently assumed.
We each have a right to moral presumptions; let's just recognize what they are. Let us also recognize that some ways of "improving" America are inherently destructive of it.
-
In other words, the American conviction that places a premium on freedom is bad. His (anti-American) conviction that the poor must be "helped," even at the expense of freedom, is silently assumed.
Questions of freedom, liberty and the willful disregard/destruction of our Constitution aside, I find it personally insulting to assume the poor need "help" from the government to survive. At the age of 21, I was rendered homeless in the middle of the night due to a mudslide. I had no education beyond high school, but by the age of 24, I acquired my first mortgage. At 29, I sold that house and paid off a 1700 square foot home. This previous November, through a foolish mistake I made and some unethical behavior by my employer, I became unemployed in an exceptionally depressed area. I view this as an opportunity, rather than a reason to wail and gnash my teeth and moan about how unfair life is. Rather than cry about how those dirty rich people should help me out, I'm pulling myself up by my bootstraps and making money any way I can.
This is America. Anyone who has the will to make it, and intelligence above moron level, can do so. Period, full stop. We have no need of further government "help".
-
This is America. Anyone who has the will to make it, and intelligence above moron level, can do so. Period, full stop. We have no need of further government "help".
Is that what I've been missing? Shucks.
-
I hope I'm not the only one who notices what is going on here.
In case you missed it, he's asserting that clinging to liberty "doesn't help." The only way to judge the question is to see how well a socialized system delivers health care, without asking whether it would be right for it to do so.
Well, of course. You need to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it!
And Fjolnirsson, I don't know whether you recently added the Ron Paul line to your signature or it until now escaped my attention, but it made me lol. :)
-
Frankly, I don't care how successful the nation is or not. Socialism ignores the individual's freedom, and that is morally unjust. I'd rather be poor and free than morally bankrupted by a society that drains off the hard work of the wealthy so that poor people can get free stuff. Its ridiculous, and any argument about the social good is mealy mouthed mush.
-
This is America. Anyone who has the will to make it, and intelligence above moron level, can do so. Period, full stop. We have no need of further government "help".
The intelligence level isn't the biggest obstacle there even, it's the sheer amount of laziness that is going to be their downfall.
I can forsee in the coming collapse that riots and looting is going to be so commonplace that most people won't bat an eye.
There will be the mentality of "How dare those people prepare with food and water in advance, I should have some of what he did for himself."
I watched last night as this kid waited for me to get past his line of sight so he could throw a trash bag at a dumpster. Not *in* the dumpster, but at it. Now in all fairness, it was raining, and he would have had to walk a whole FIFTEEN feet to across to the top of the *open* dumpster, but instead chose to throw it from the side of the building.
He saw me coming around the garage area, and was about to toss it, but waited for me to get past the line of sight.
What's even worse is that the placement of the dumpster is actually *below* the level of the grass hill, so the kid could have simply walked a few damn feet and dropped it right in.
That's what we're going to be fighting against.
-
Frankly, where I live, when the garbage is within 10 meters of the dumpster, I call it a victory.
-
the identity thieves thank you. [tinfoil]
-
the identity thieves thank you. [tinfoil]
I have a heavy duty shredder :angel:
-
that beats my free one any day of the week. [popcorn] GG greenstamps (http://www.greenpoints.com). :lol:
greenstamps (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1940/whatever-happened-to-green-stamps) [tinfoil]
-
Simply saying, “Socialism=bad, freedom=good” doesn’t help anyone.
Horse shat.
Saying freedom is good helps anyone who values freedom. In a sane world, that would mean everyone.
Since when its it government's job to "help" people? When did "help" become the most important criteria for judging good government vs bad government?
If you want me to accept your arguments in favor of socialism, you'll first have to prove that you're starting from sound premises.
-
…
I agree, we should do everything we can to remain solvent. Again, I never said I think American economic and social policies are perfect, they are flawed just like all other systems. Many things need to change and I would love to see America have far less debt, simply for stability and also for our long term chances of dealing with China.
I simply reject the notion of Jamis and Fistful that socialism is inherently and objectively ‘evil’. To me, good and evil are about their effect on humans. If a society can make a political system work and it matches their goals, then it works. It doesn’t go further than that. Jamis would rather everyone be ‘free’ and totally miserable than ‘unfree’ and insanely happy. I wouldn’t. (And I am not saying socialism is inherently good either. If anyone things that is what I am saying they have not been paying attention.)
Fistful’s post is an excellent example, in which he is horrified that I might actually base my political opinions on evidence instead of a iron adherence to modern conservative American political culture’s zeitgeist. If being American means I need to pick a thread of political thought and defend it zealously without having any evidence then America is doomed.
Personally, I think this isn’t even about politics. This is about core methodology for making decisions. On one side is dogma and intuition and on the other is rationality and empiricism. Example:
When I say socialism isn’t totally evil I say, “I think you need safety nets as well as economic and personal freedom. Look here, this is a socialist society that I would like to live in, their people are relatively happy and their society is relatively stable. They do not cause undue harm to others.” When I ask people to show me why their opinion is valid I get, “Because it is immoral to be anything else.” Or “Because other systems aren’t perfect.” Or “Because it makes me feel bad to think about it.”
For me, that isn’t good enough. It was for a while, but then I decided the way to determine truth needed to be something more objective and less subjective. I’ve asked multiple times for evidence that their political theories are superior to all other working political systems in the world. I am willing to be convinced.
(I know there are actually theorists out there who could give a persuasive argument for libertarianism, just like there are for communism, anarchism and every other ism. But we aren’t even at the point where alternate ideas can be discussed in a logical way.)
-
I simply reject the notion of Jamis and Fistful that socialism is inherently and objectively ‘evil’.
Do you agree that slavery is inherently evil?
When I say socialism isn’t totally evil I say, “I think you need safety nets as well as economic and personal freedom. Look here, this is a socialist society that I would like to live in, their people are relatively happy and their society is relatively stable. They do not cause undue harm to others.” When I ask people to show me why their opinion is valid I get, “Because it is immoral to be anything else.” Or “Because other systems aren’t perfect.” Or “Because it makes me feel bad to think about it.”
Economic/personal freedom and socialism are mutually exclusive. Unless your safety nets are entirely voluntary (i.e. not socialist) then you cannot have full economic/personal freedom.
You seem like a smart guy. I ask that you think some of this stuff through a little better. Ask yourself, does a man's life belong to himself, or does it belong to others? If you vcan answer that question correctly, then all of the rest falls into place based on rationality, logic, and objectivity.
-
Just how much of another's wealth am I now entitled to appropriate for my own use in this brave new America?
-
Do you agree that slavery is inherently evil?
If you want to start a thread about objective morality go right ahead and I'll jump in feet first. However, we've danced that dance before and it would be enourmously derailing to this thread to get into it now.
-
Just how much of another's wealth am I now entitled to appropriate for my own use in this brave new America?
The amount agreed upon by the voters of this country. Was that a trick question?
-
That's about all I have time for today, I'll poke my head in again in a day or two, probably Monday at the latest.
-
Jamis would rather everyone be ‘free’ and totally miserable than ‘unfree’ and insanely happy.
I personally cannot fathom how a person can be truly free and not happy, or how a person can be unfree and happy. Unless you want to count brain-washed North Koreans as happy.
-
Do you agree that slavery is inherently evil?
If you want to start a thread about objective morality go right ahead and I'll jump in feet first. However, we've danced that dance before and it would be enourmously derailing to this thread to get into it now.
Derail the thread? Are you kidding me?
This question is the entire point of this thread! Do you not understand that?
-
Not a trick question, but the answer shows the lack of regard for property rights and liberty.
How a government respects (or disrespects) the citizens wealth, money (property) is directly related to how much that government respects personal liberty.
There is no liberty or freedom without strong property rights.
The health care law adds an entitlement at the cost of the loss of true liberty. It will have to be paid for through the power of taxation. High rates of taxation are the opposite of strong property rights.
-
If you want to start a thread about objective morality go right ahead and I'll jump in feet first. However, we've danced that dance before and it would be enourmously derailing to this thread to get into it now.
Derail the thread? Are you kidding me?
This question is the entire point of this thread! Do you not understand that?
I dunno, mell's sounds like the sort of (a/im)morality that would be just fine with slavery & torture, just as long as the majority said it was AOK to do harm to the other citizens in the minority. Also would be fine with positive & negative eugenics, with majority approval.
-
I, myself, very rarely deal in absolutes. I also believe that foreign system specifics are beyond my sphere of knowledge. I have never been anywhere besides America, it is not my place to say a British system is inherently evil.
Countries routinely cook the books on their statistics, making direct objective comparisons using mathmatics nearly impossible without new datasets.
So instead I am forced to look at observable history. Correlation still does not equal causation, however I do not believe that the freedom of the world has nothing to do with quality of life. Human beings live better in developed countries than ever before, even if one accounts for many third world countries.
I see a trend of more freedom=better quality of life, and I have to make the subjective judgement that more freeddom is probably better than less. Eventually everyone has to make some subjective decision.
I also see a trend of more government=less freedom=less quality of life. I am not saying that a national healthcare system is inherently evil, but I think that if a system passes massive debt to unborn people, it is inherently unfair at the least. This HCR law isn't funded, or else it wouldn't need four years of increased taxes before it takes effect.
Further, Americas experiments with socialism have or are failing. I see no evidence that America can have such a system, evil or good, as designed.
For America to have a national health care system something else needs to be sacrificed. Now who is to say that sick people deserve more than retired? Or people who would be in a war zone with out America, do they deserve more?
The bottom line is that no one is qualified to make such judgements. The free market has shown us that it will place resources the most efficiently (read not perfectly), although it may or may not need a little help from the government.
-
I dunno, mell's sounds like the sort of (a/im)morality that would be just fine with slavery & torture, just as long as the majority said it was AOK to do harm to the other citizens in the minority. Also would be fine with positive & negative eugenics, with majority approval.
All in favor of making mellestad the official APS slave boy, vote 'aye'.
-
I don't think it's in the spirit of this board to call someone the "official APS slave boy".
I do disagree with him on the slavery discussion here. When you're forced to work to benefit someone other than yourself, you're a slave to that person or persons. It can be argued that you can opt not to work, but then you have to choose between having nothing to eat and nowhere to live, or to become one of the welfare recipients who are represented by the "masters."
The area where the slavery comparison isn't strong is ownership. The government doesn't own me per se, although it owns or controls more and more of my life and the fruits of my labor. It doesn't yet own me to the point where I can't flee, though.
-
The amount agreed upon by the voters of this country. Was that a trick question?
Yep, nothing like being able to vote to screw over your grandchildren... that can't vote.
"But it's ok, we VOTED on it before you were born, honey. Now shut up and get back in the salt mine."
-
“I think you need safety nets as well as economic and personal freedom. Look here, this is a socialist society that I would like to live in, their people are relatively happy and their society is relatively stable. They do not cause undue harm to others.”
“I think you need gun control as well as economic and personal freedom. Look here, this is a gun-free society that I would like to live in, their people are relatively happy and their society is relatively stable. They do not cause undue harm to others.”
-
Arguing a moral point with someone who does not believe in objective morality is pointless, since they by definition have no moral standard. They "do what works" or what "feels good" and thus have no concern for good or evil. Because to them, such concepts are merely notions we kind of make up as we go along.
-
Just how much of another's wealth am I now entitled to appropriate for my own use in this brave new America?
The amount agreed upon by the voters of this country. Was that a trick question?
Right over his head.
Fistful’s post is an excellent example, in which he is horrified that I might actually base my political opinions on evidence instead of a iron adherence to modern conservative American political culture’s zeitgeist. If being American means I need to pick a thread of political thought and defend it zealously without having any evidence then America is doomed.
No. fistful's post is an excellent example, in which he is horrified that you would treat your fellow citizens as subjects to be managed, in order that you might think they are "happy." Being American means that we treat human beings as persons with dignity, and a right to self-determination. It means that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
That is to say, Americans believe in certain moral ideas. That's what we are.
But we aren’t even at the point where alternate ideas can be discussed in a logical way.
Precisely. I offer you no evidence, because you (not I) do not yet understand what to do with it. You do not understand the difference between logic and your own moral presuppositions. You presume that to alleviate poverty is a higher goal of government than to safeguard the citizens' basic right to be let alone to enjoy whatever property he does have. This is a moral dogma of yours, yet you treat it as an axiom we must all recognize as self-evident. Another dogma would be the idea that govt. is responsible for making society "work."
Personally, I think this isn’t even about politics. This is about core methodology for making decisions. On one side is dogma and intuition and on the other is rationality and empiricism.
Ah, I see the problem is much deeper for you. Your thinking will remain shallow and disconnected from actual life, until you realize that all "rationality" is founded on what you call dogma. The two are separate, but the former is of little use without the latter.
Don't worry, just stick with me. I'll get you to that high horse one of these days.
-
Arguing a moral point with someone who does not believe in objective morality is pointless, since they by definition have no moral standard. They "do what works" or what "feels good" and thus have no concern for good or evil. Because to them, such concepts are merely notions we kind of make up as we go along.
I actually believe in objective morality to a degree. As long as my idea of morality doesn't take from another person, how can it be wrong? But, thier idea of objective morality thinks that you can take from another person...therein lies the rub I guess....
Precisely. I offer you no evidence, because you (not I) do not yet understand what to do with it. You do not understand the difference between logic and your own moral presuppositions. You presume that to alleviate poverty is a higher goal of government than to safeguard the citizens' basic right to be let alone to enjoy whatever property he does have. This is a moral dogma of yours, yet you treat it as an axiom we must all recognize as self-evident. Another dogma would be the idea that govt. is responsible for making society "work."
Well put!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I actually believe in objective morality to a degree. As long as my idea of morality doesn't take from another person, how can it be wrong? But, thier idea of objective morality thinks that you can take from another person...therein lies the rub I guess....
I think you mean "subjective" morality there JJ...
-
Subjective, objective, it's really all the same, right? :lol:
-
Subjective, objective, it's really all the same, right? :lol:
Much as I hate to admit it, I think fisty has won this thread. :lol:
-
That would all depend on your perspective.
-
However, “this is the question we should be asking” actually is the correct way to ask the question. The correct way is to pick an issue and discuss the nuts and bolts ramifications of it, because that can actually be a constructive debate. Simply saying, “Socialism=bad, freedom=good” doesn’t help anyone.
Do you want us to look at individual issues, as you say above, or complete systems, as you say below?
Being that there is neither a true libertarian society these days nor anything particularly reminiscent of the government outlined by our Constitution, there is no state to offer as an example. There are, however, myriad examples of socialist or communist nations(USSR, Argentina etc) and programs(Social Security, Medicare etc.) which either have collapsed or are in the process of collapsing under the weight of their own corruption.
Also, saying "I never said it's perfect" every time we throw out an example(examples for which you continue to ask) doesn't count as debate.
I simply reject the notion of Jamis and Fistful that socialism is inherently and objectively ‘evil’. To me, good and evil are about their effect on humans.
Socialism has the effect of taking from one human what he has created, through his own time and effort, and giving it to another human who has not invested time or effort. Even in my libertarian paradise, that's called theft, which is both evil and criminal.
On an aside, I believe that without objective standards, there can be neither good nor evil. Outcome, "effect on humans", is not an indicator of goodness, i.e. the end does not justify the means.
If a society can make a political system work and it matches their goals, then it works. It doesn’t go further than that. Jamis would rather everyone be ‘free’ and totally miserable than ‘unfree’ and insanely happy.
I, personally, would rather live my life trying to be something than die without a chance to be anything, but that's an emotional response. Might be dogmatic, too; you'll tell me if it is.
I wouldn’t.(And I am not saying socialism is inherently good either. If anyone things that is what I am saying they have not been paying attention.)
But you do seem to be saying that, at least you're saying that it's more less inherently evil - therefore more inherently good - than anything else that's been presented. e.g., "I am interested in the best we can do right now, for the most people."
Clearly you think that socialism does the best for the most people, else you wouldn't be here arguing in its favor. From that and what I quoted above, it's probably fair to say that you believe that "good" is a guaranteed non-negative result for everyone. I disagree. While that may be "good" for the dependent, it is not so good for those who had to work that much harder not only to support the dependent, but to pay the government bureaucrat to pay the dependent.
Fistful’s post is an excellent example, in which he is horrified that I might actually base my political opinions on evidence instead of a iron adherence to modern conservative American political culture’s zeitgeist. If being American means I need to pick a thread of political thought and defend it zealously without having any evidence then America is doomed.
Personally, I think this isn’t even about politics. This is about core methodology for making decisions. On one side is dogma and intuition and on the other is rationality and empiricism. Example:
When I say socialism isn’t totally evil I say, “I think you need safety nets as well as economic and personal freedom. Look here, this is a socialist society that I would like to live in, their people are relatively happy and their society is relatively stable. They do not cause undue harm to others.” When I ask people to show me why their opinion is valid I get, “Because it is immoral to be anything else.” Or “Because other systems aren’t perfect.” Or “Because it makes me feel bad to think about it.”
For me, that isn’t good enough. It was for a while, but then I decided the way to determine truth needed to be something more objective and less subjective. I’ve asked multiple times for evidence that their political theories are superior to all other working political systems in the world. I am willing to be convinced.
Then stop dismissing our arguments as dogmatic and intuition-based and start giving examples of how giving individual liberty the benefit of the doubt somehow fails the individual(or society as a whole, for that matter).
The main fault, morality aside, of socialism is that it depends on people to be virtuous. It depends on the production of the able, it depends on the unproductive or disabled to consume only what they truly need, it depends on the fair allocation of production by the government. As soon as the producers find out that initiative and ambition do not bear fruit, or the "safety net" creates a full-time dependent class, or corrupt people get into positions of power, it starts downhill. Do you agree?
Consider the alternative - small government and economic liberty. Those who produce keep more of their earnings; confiscatory taxation does not discourage production. Those who choose to leech off society will have no means to profit by it; such safety nets as the profit-driven private sector would create(which it has, see the insurance industry) would not tolerate free riders. Such government corruption as would exist would have a necessarily smaller impact on the individual; if the Congress doesn't have a third of your income to spend, and if deficit spending is legally forbidden, they can't exactly commit "generational theft". Do you agree?
-
This response is ridiculously large, but I don’t want anyone to think I’m ignoring them.
I’m going to number some of these, since I might refer to them again below for other posters.
Economic/personal freedom and socialism are mutually exclusive. Unless your safety nets are entirely voluntary (i.e. not socialist) then you cannot have full economic/personal freedom.
You seem like a smart guy. I ask that you think some of this stuff through a little better. Ask yourself, does a man's life belong to himself, or does it belong to others? If you vcan answer that question correctly, then all of the rest falls into place based on rationality, logic, and objectivity.
1. This applies only if your political theory is black and white. You’ve just stated that socialism=evil and freedom=good. Your argument is only a valid premise if any socialism=total control by the state and freedom=total lack of control by the state. America, right out of the gate, was not totally free. No nation is, was or will be, barring real sci-fi stuff where an individual can be self sufficient.
So, it is difficult (impossible, like the conversation with fistful) to even discuss this unless there is a realization that things are not black and white. The more socialism you have, the more freedom you give up and the more freedom you have the fewer services or safety nets are available. There is always a balance. This discussion here though regarding socialism is a strawman.
I personally cannot fathom how a person can be truly free and not happy, or how a person can be unfree and happy. Unless you want to count brain-washed North Koreans as happy.
See #1. If your argument is that any government control over citizens makes you unfree, fine, but you’re doomed to a life of disappointment.
Derail the thread? Are you kidding me?
This question is the entire point of this thread! Do you not understand that?
2. See #1. If being taxed for a government service (socialism) is comparable to human slavery, we can’t have a productive discussion because you are rejecting even a minimal social contract. I suppose you could invent a system where people lived in anarchy until they signed an actual contract with the government…that might be an interesting idea for a book, but it isn’t going to work as a system of government any time soon.
Not a trick question, but the answer shows the lack of regard for property rights and liberty.
How a government respects (or disrespects) the citizens wealth, money (property) is directly related to how much that government respects personal liberty.
There is no liberty or freedom without strong property rights.
The health care law adds an entitlement at the cost of the loss of true liberty. It will have to be paid for through the power of taxation. High rates of taxation are the opposite of strong property rights.
3. I know what you meant, I was kind of being flippant, and I suppose I should limit that. See #1 and #2. Again, your argument only works if you reject, in total, the idea that taxation can exist for any purpose. If you accept that taxation can exist, and citizens can vote to alter the social contract of their own society, then we are back to politics and are moving away from an argument based on some kind of objective morality that states, “Socialism=evil, freedom=good”
I dunno, mell's sounds like the sort of (a/im)morality that would be just fine with slavery & torture, just as long as the majority said it was AOK to do harm to the other citizens in the minority. Also would be fine with positive & negative eugenics, with majority approval.
4. I’m pierced through the heart, I’ll go torture my slaves for some comfort.
Really though, you could also start a thread about objective morality too, and we could discuss that idea on its own, then you could see what I really think. Of course, then you wouldn’t be able to snipe at my political opinion by calling me an advocate of torture and slavery, so that might not be something you want.
I see a trend of more freedom=better quality of life, and I have to make the subjective judgement that more freeddom is probably better than less. Eventually everyone has to make some subjective decision.
I also see a trend of more government=less freedom=less quality of life. I am not saying that a national healthcare system is inherently evil, but I think that if a system passes massive debt to unborn people, it is inherently unfair at the least. This HCR law isn't funded, or else it wouldn't need four years of increased taxes before it takes effect.
Well, now this is the crux of it for me….see, America is not at the top of the metrics for any measure of quality of life, by any system. None. We aren’t the richest per capita, we aren’t the healthiest per capita, we aren’t the best educated, we don’t have the lowest crime levels, we don’t have the most press freedom, we don’t manage our money the best, we aren’t even the happiest. Just google, “Quality of life” and see reports from multiple sources with multiple methods for all sorts of topics and you will see that America is not in the top ten on most of them.
Most of the top ten are far more socialistic than America. Does that mean socialism is good? No. It means you can have a system of government that utilizes socialism to some degree and still be successful, stable and happy.
All in favor of making mellestad the official APS slave boy, vote 'aye'.
See #4
I do disagree with him on the slavery discussion here. When you're forced to work to benefit someone other than yourself, you're a slave to that person or persons. It can be argued that you can opt not to work, but then you have to choose between having nothing to eat and nowhere to live, or to become one of the welfare recipients who are represented by the "masters."
See #2
Yep, nothing like being able to vote to screw over your grandchildren... that can't vote.
"But it's ok, we VOTED on it before you were born, honey. Now shut up and get back in the salt mine."
See #2. Now we are back to details. I don’t want to bankrupt my children either, so we agree!
Did you have any response to the stuff previous about the E.D.I.? I would like to see if that has changed your opinions at all. Do those examples make socialism more palatable to you, or does it simply tell you that socialism might not be linked to economic freedom like you thought it was?
Arguing a moral point with someone who does not believe in objective morality is pointless, since they by definition have no moral standard. They "do what works" or what "feels good" and thus have no concern for good or evil. Because to them, such concepts are merely notions we kind of make up as we go along.
Sticks and stones….See #4.
…That is to say, Americans believe in certain moral ideas. That's what we are.
…
Most of your points are addressed above somewhere. This one is new though, sort of. So, Americas share moral values, and those values are listed in the Declaration of Independence. Ok. Where does it say, “The right to avoid taxation for government services.”? Taxes for government services, including health care, originate from the congress critters that Americans vote for (and they can choose other congress critters). So since the government has power to tax citizens, does that mean the Constitution is in contradiction with the Declaration of Independence?
Precisely. I offer you no evidence, because you (not I) do not yet understand what to do with it. You do not understand the difference between logic and your own moral presuppositions. You presume that to alleviate poverty is a higher goal of government than to safeguard the citizens' basic right to be let alone to enjoy whatever property he does have. This is a moral dogma of yours, yet you treat it as an axiom we must all recognize as self-evident. Another dogma would be the idea that govt. is responsible for making society "work."
Actually, I don’t think the government has a higher goal to do that. I believe the citizenry can direct the government towards that goal though, as they obviously have throughout American history. See #3.
I actually believe in objective morality to a degree. As long as my idea of morality doesn't take from another person, how can it be wrong? But, thier idea of objective morality thinks that you can take from another person...therein lies the rub I guess....
This I will agree with. Now we are back to square one, but with the possibility of realizing there is a difference of opinion that is resolved by citizens. Politics. If you hold your idea to be iron-clad and unshakable then we can’t talk so see #3.
Do you want us to look at individual issues, as you say above, or complete systems, as you say below?
Being that there is neither a true libertarian society these days nor anything particularly reminiscent of the government outlined by our Constitution, there is no state to offer as an example. There are, however, myriad examples of socialist or communist nations(USSR, Argentina etc) and programs(Social Security, Medicare etc.) which either have collapsed or are in the process of collapsing under the weight of their own corruption.
Also, saying "I never said it's perfect" every time we throw out an example(examples for which you continue to ask) doesn't count as debate.
As long as I can show working examples of socialistic states, I believe it is a valid method for debate. To take your tact, I would argue against pure capitalism by pointing out any example of a failed state or program that utilized capitalism. However, that would be dishonest and meaningless to this debate so I don’t do that. Does that make sense?
Socialism has the effect of taking from one human what he has created, through his own time and effort, and giving it to another human who has not invested time or effort. Even in my libertarian paradise, that's called theft, which is both evil and criminal.
On an aside, I believe that without objective standards, there can be neither good nor evil. Outcome, "effect on humans", is not an indicator of goodness, i.e. the end does not justify the means.
See #3 for the beginning and #4 for the rest.
I, personally, would rather live my life trying to be something than die without a chance to be anything, but that's an emotional response. Might be dogmatic, too; you'll tell me if it is.
Since people make fine lives in nations utilizing socialism, I don’t agree with your premise. If you think you cannot make a good life without total economic and personal freedom, see #1, #2, #3.
But you do seem to be saying that, at least you're saying that it's more less inherently evil - therefore more inherently good - than anything else that's been presented. e.g., "I am interested in the best we can do right now, for the most people."
Clearly you think that socialism does the best for the most people, else you wouldn't be here arguing in its favor. From that and what I quoted above, it's probably fair to say that you believe that "good" is a guaranteed non-negative result for everyone. I disagree. While that may be "good" for the dependent, it is not so good for those who had to work that much harder not only to support the dependent, but to pay the government bureaucrat to pay the dependent.
No, that isn’t what I am saying. I’m saying every valid system has both, and pure freedom is not an option for a nation. Since I can point to nations I would not mind living in that use more socialism than America, I don’t feel you can say that more socialism = doom. “Socialism” isn’t specific enough to make any kind of blanket statement. See #3.
Then stop dismissing our arguments as dogmatic and intuition-based and start giving examples of how giving individual liberty the benefit of the doubt somehow fails the individual(or society as a whole, for that matter).
I don’t want to live in America circa 1776. I like the Interstate highway system, I like public radio, I like fire codes and food safety regulation, etc. My life, today, is better than the life of people 150 years ago. Unless you can show me a working example of how your proposal is better, I’m not going to take it on faith that things will be better by turning social and economic reality upside down.
The main fault, morality aside, of socialism is that it depends on people to be virtuous. It depends on the production of the able, it depends on the unproductive or disabled to consume only what they truly need, it depends on the fair allocation of production by the government. As soon as the producers find out that initiative and ambition do not bear fruit, or the "safety net" creates a full-time dependent class, or corrupt people get into positions of power, it starts downhill. Do you agree?
Consider the alternative - small government and economic liberty. Those who produce keep more of their earnings; confiscatory taxation does not discourage production. Those who choose to leech off society will have no means to profit by it; such safety nets as the profit-driven private sector would create(which it has, see the insurance industry) would not tolerate free riders. Such government corruption as would exist would have a necessarily smaller impact on the individual; if the Congress doesn't have a third of your income to spend, and if deficit spending is legally forbidden, they can't exactly commit "generational theft". Do you agree?
The same thing could be said of Libertarianism, because you are assuming private organizations would take care of things and the powerful would not take advantage of the weak. At least with socialism (or any government system that is not economic laissez-faire) there is a way to establish a somewhat independent watchdog to mediate the needs and wants of citizens.
It is imperfect, but I shudder to think of what a modern mega corporation could accomplish without any kind of regulation or oversight. That does not mean total government control though; I have stated before that a good system of governance balances protection and safety with incentives and risk.
You cite the insurance industry as an example of private industry safety nets, but that is an enormously regulated industry. I think your example works if you assume a certain size of society, but again, I don’t see how a small government can stand up to a corporation that literally has more money than the government of the native land. To argue otherwise I’ll be back to asking for examples of nations with non-regulated industries that work well. Again, regulation doesn’t spring out of the ether, it usually has a reason behind it. Again, is it perfect? No.
-
Balag? Really? I'd say that isn't my nic, but I guess that's all subjective innit?
I wasn't saying anything insulting, merely making an observation about objective vs subjective morality.
-
See #1. If being taxed for a government service (socialism) is comparable to human slavery, we can’t have a productive discussion because you are rejecting even a minimal social contract. I suppose you could invent a system where people lived in anarchy until they signed an actual contract with the government…that might be an interesting idea for a book, but it isn’t going to work as a system of government any time soon.
Mellestad, there's a difference between being taxed for a government service (defense, roads, air traffic control, etc) and being taxed to pay for another person's living expenses, home, car, mortgage, etc.
-
Gentlemen, mellestad loves his socialism. He's unlikely to change his mind, given how he's dancing all around the arguments you've put forth without really addressing anything in a substantial fashion. Maybe it's time to cut your rhetorical losses.
-
I don't think it's in the spirit of this board to call someone the "official APS slave boy".
Fair enough. We have basic standards to uphold. Decency and respect for others and whatnot.
That begs a question, though. We aren't willing to vote anyone into slavery even just for pretend, but mellestad has no such scruples. What's to prevent him from voting to enslave you or me?
-
Gentlemen, mellestad loves his socialism. He's unlikely to change his mind, given how he's dancing all around the arguments you've put forth without really addressing anything in a substantial fashion. Maybe it's time to cut your rhetorical losses.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fduty_calls.png&hash=3c523f50141bd6146835af46974e72f60d9a1f01)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fduty_calls.png&hash=3c523f50141bd6146835af46974e72f60d9a1f01)
Annnd, Balag Balog wins the thread!
-
http://article.nationalreview.com/430816/if-we-europeanize-europe-is-in-trouble/jonah-goldberg
If We Europeanize, Europe Is in Trouble
We can’t become Europe unless someone else is willing to become America.
By now you may have heard: America is on its way to becoming another European country.
Now, by that I do not mean that we’re moving our tectonic plate off the coast of France or anything, but rather that a century-long dream of American progressives is finally looking like it might become a reality. The recently passed health-care legislation is the cornerstone of the Europeanization of America. And to pay for it, the White House is now floating the idea of imposing a value-added tax (VAT) like the ones they have throughout most of Europe.
In the egghead-o-sphere, there’s been an ongoing debate about whether America should become more like Europe. The battle lines are split almost perfectly along left-right lines ideologically. Liberals like Europe’s welfare states, unionized workforces (in and out of government), generous benefits, long vacations, etc. Conservatives like America’s economic growth, its dynamism and innovation.
From what I can tell, everyone agrees that you can’t have Europeanization without European-size governments. Hence, America’s government outlays (pre-Obama) have tended to hover around 20 percent of GDP (the average of the last 50 years), while Europe’s are often more than twice that. In France, government outlays are nearly 55 percent of GDP. In 2009, the bailout and the Obama budget sent America’s government outlays to 28 percent of GDP, but that should decline a bit over the next decade, unless Democrats have something else in mind.
To be fair, liberals insist conservatives are wrong to think that Europeanizing America will necessarily come at any significant cost. New York Times columnist and Princeton economist Paul Krugman says that, in exchange for only a tiny bit less growth, Europeans buy a whole lot of security and comfort. Economists such as Stanford’s Michael Boskin say Europeans have a standard of living about 30 percent lower than ours and are stagnating. Others note that the structural unemployment rate in Europe, particularly for young people (it’s over 20 percent in many countries), is socially devastating.
Obviously, I’m in the conservative camp. But I think the debate misses something. We can’t become Europe unless someone else is willing to become America.
Look at it this way. My seven-year-old daughter has a great lifestyle. She has all of her clothes and food bought for her. She goes on great vacations. She has plenty of leisure time. A day doesn’t go by where I don’t look at her and feel envious of how good she’s got it compared to me. But here’s the problem: If I decide to live like her, who’s going to take my place?
Europe is a free-rider. It can only afford to be Europe because we can afford to be America.
The most obvious and most cited illustration of this fact is national defense. Europe’s defense budgets have been miniscule because Europeans can count on Uncle Sam to protect them. Britain, which has the most credible military in NATO after ours, has funded its butter account with its gun account. As Mark Steyn recently noted in National Review, from 1951 to 1997 the share of British government expenditure devoted to defense fell from 24 percent to 7 percent, while the share spent on health and welfare increased from 22 percent to 53 percent. And that was before New Labour started rolling back Thatcherism. If America Europeanizes, who’s going to protect Europe? Who’s going to keep the sea lanes open? Who’s going to contain Iran — China? Okay, maybe. But then who’s going to contain China?
But that’s not the only way in which Europeans are free-riders. America invents a lot of stuff. When was the last time you used a Portuguese electronic device? How often does Europe come out with a breakthrough drug? Not often, and when they do, it’s usually because companies like Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline increasingly conduct their research here. Indeed, the top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single country combined. We nearly monopolize the Nobel Prize in medicine, and we create stuff at a rate Europe hasn’t seen since da Vinci was in his workshop.
If America truly Europeanized, where would the innovations come from?
Europhiles hate this sort of talk. They say there’s no reason to expect America to lose its edge just because we have a more “compassionate” government. Americans are an innovative, economically driven people. That’s true. But so were the Europeans — once. Then they adopted the policies they have today and that liberals want us to have tomorrow.
Let me highlight the salient point:
Europe is a free-rider. It can only afford to be Europe because we can afford to be America.
-
Gentlemen, mellestad loves his socialism. He's unlikely to change his mind, given how he's dancing all around the arguments you've put forth without really addressing anything in a substantial fashion. Maybe it's time to cut your rhetorical losses.
I'm not interested in changing his mind. I just want to ride the high horse as much as he does, just for sport. =)
-
I'm not interested in changing his mind. I just want to ride the high horse as much as he does, just for sport. =)
The O2 seems a bit thin up there. Best no linger.
[As an aside, I'd like to remark that super/subscripts rock, as does strikeout text. Every board should implement it.]
-
O2 RLY?
-
As long as I can show working examples of socialistic states, I believe it is a valid method for debate. To take your tact, I would argue against pure capitalism by pointing out any example of a failed state or program that utilized capitalism. However, that would be dishonest and meaningless to this debate so I don’t do that. Does that make sense?
I don't agree that it would be dishonest or meaningless to address individual programs, since a whole lot of individual programs are what make up an individual's interactions with government(a system). You advocate mixing socialist ideas with libertarianism with the goal of achieving a balance, so why not discuss the systems under which socialist principles have already been applied to America?
I mainly wanted to point out that there is no way to argue when you say "show me a modern society based on liberty" and brush off our examples as irrelevant.
No, that isn’t what I am saying. I’m saying every valid system has both, and pure freedom is not an option for a nation. Since I can point to nations I would not mind living in that use more socialism than America, I don’t feel you can say that more socialism = doom. “Socialism” isn’t specific enough to make any kind of blanket statement. See #3.
Fair enough, then. I personally would not wish to live in France, England, Switzerland or the like. If you think you'd be happy within those systems, cool, but I wouldn't.
I don’t want to live in America circa 1776. I like the Interstate highway system, I like public radio, I like fire codes and food safety regulation, etc. My life, today, is better than the life of people 150 years ago. Unless you can show me a working example of how your proposal is better, I’m not going to take it on faith that things will be better by turning social and economic reality upside down.
Those are not valid examples, nor are they(excluding public radio) socialistic, at least they weren't conceived that way. The highway system is like public utilities - it's fair to say that road construction is one of the things that the private sector would not do particularly well. Fire codes, food safety regulations, highways, etc. are all results of advances in science and technology.
The interstate highway system is a logical, beneficial, and pretty cost-effective solution which benefits everyone pretty much equally. Federal transportation funding is now such a big stick and a football for Congress that it's hard to say much about it, though.
Fire codes, another idea hatched in the spirit of improving general public safety. Talk to a building contractor and find out how much time(and therefore money) he has to spend making sure he's in compliance every time building codes change. Talk to the auto shop owner who gets a "friendly" pop-in visit from the fire-and-security company down the road, who call in the Fire Marshal when he says he'll use another, cheaper company to certify his extinguishers. These kinds of things become clubs wielded by the compliance industry(which has power through the state). That's beside the point, but it does relate to my whole corruption argument.
Food regulation has been pretty benign, although one might argue that things might improve more if we stopped subsidizing our own production and started penalizing China for sending us melamine in our baby formula and Mexico for sending E. Coli in our tomatoes. Go local, indeed.
Have you, by the way, read anyone here calling for the abolition of highways, fire codes and food safety regulation? No. What we're complaining about is paying for someone else's hybrid-car subsidy, or paying a private company $550 to RETAIN ON FILE a plan(which I drew) of my shop detailing locations of chemicals etc. so that I can comply with fire codes and not be shut down, or paying for reduced or free lunches for the kid with a Blackberry in the pocket of his A&F jeans.
The same thing could be said of Libertarianism, because you are assuming private organizations would take care of things and the powerful would not take advantage of the weak. At least with socialism (or any government system that is not economic laissez-faire) there is a way to establish a somewhat independent watchdog to mediate the needs and wants of citizens.
I am equally concerned that the "weak" not take advantage of the "powerful".
My needs are my responsibility. What government-funded watchdog can we depend on to protect the rights of citizens?
It is imperfect, but I shudder to think of what a modern mega corporation could accomplish without any kind of regulation or oversight. That does not mean total government control though; I have stated before that a good system of governance balances protection and safety with incentives and risk.
I would love to see what a mega-corporation would accomplish without any kind of regulation or oversight.
-
What's to prevent him from voting to enslave you or me?
He/they already have =(
-
I would love to see what a mega-corporation would accomplish without any kind of regulation or oversight.
It becomes a surrogate .gov with Constitutional or Bill of Rights type limits.
-
It becomes a surrogate .gov with Constitutional or Bill of Rights type limits.
Well... I was thinking more along the lines of efficiency, product innovation and the like. I kinda knew that was not the best way to phrase what I meant to say, but I can't stand when people take the corporations-kill-babies-unless-government-stops-them approach. Incidentally, your reply makes me think of a Gibson novel(Mona Lisa Overdrive, I think) about some team of mercenaries assisting some top-level scientist in "defection" to another megacorp :lol: Has a business entity ever actually become so powerful it eclipses a government(in the real world, not some backwater tribal state)?
-
Well... I was thinking more along the lines of efficiency, product innovation and the like. I kinda knew that was not the best way to phrase what I meant to say, but I can't stand when people take the corporations-kill-babies-unless-government-stops-them approach. Incidentally, your reply makes me think of a Gibson novel(Mona Lisa Overdrive, I think) about some team of mercenaries assisting some top-level scientist in "defection" to another megacorp :lol: Has a business entity ever actually become so powerful it eclipses a government(in the real world, not some backwater tribal state)?
Some people would suggest that oil tycoons and such run the US.
-
Some people would suggest that oil tycoons and such run the US.
and yet the opec member countries are great democracies that should never be challenged on anything. [tinfoil] it's really baffling ???
-
That was kind of disappointing. But oh well. All I will say is that if you are not willing to accept a evidence based approach for politics, there is no way to resolve conflict between parties.
Besides, I *have* changed my political opinion before, and I have laid out my requirements to change it again. I don't see how I could be more honest or open to argument without having my brains leak out.
@Monkey: I agree, but that is an oversimplification of the debate we've been having isn't it? Otherwise that reframes the debate from socialism to a debate purely over welfare.
@Rocket: What arguments are those?
@Mak: Any response on the economic development index question I asked?
I don't agree that it would be dishonest or meaningless to address individual programs, since a whole lot of individual programs are what make up an individual's interactions with government(a system). You advocate mixing socialist ideas with libertarianism with the goal of achieving a balance, so why not discuss the systems under which socialist principles have already been applied to America?
I mainly wanted to point out that there is no way to argue when you say "show me a modern society based on liberty" and brush off our examples as irrelevant.
Well no, you can argue specific points and that is fine. I just meant you can't say, "Socialism=bad" by pointing out specific examples of failed (real or not) socialist programs. Again, I can point to failed capitalist programs or successful socialist states. Since there are thousands of each, it isn't productive or honest to paint either broad system with specific programs cherry picked by either side.
That is the problem though, I'm not seeing positive examples for your side, just negatives. If I say A is bad, B is good my standard of proof needs to be higher than A has X wrong with it and nothing else.
Fair enough, then. I personally would not wish to live in France, England, Switzerland or the like. If you think you'd be happy within those systems, cool, but I wouldn't.
And that is fine. We can disagree and still have a productive political process under those terms. Then it becomes a question of who in the country wants to move towards what system and politics ensue, like it is supposed to.
Those are not valid...
Actually, I have heard people talk about abolishing any government service beyond defense. It comes up fairly often here.
I am curious now though, what is your definition of socialism? It seems to be different from some others on this board, and it might help both of us to be clear about terms. On this board the word socialism tends to be applied to any government program that steps over an arbitrary line decided by the poster, and on this board I use it in the same way. In your examples you seem to be picking and choosing what is good and bad ad-hoc. That is fine, but it doesn't address the general point, it only addresses specific programs.
To me it seems like an argument for my side, at the root of it, because you accept that there are some things the government does better than private industry, often for the benefit of society as a whole. Once you do that you've accepted some level of socialism and then we just need to debate specifics, through the political process.
That is one of my major gripes with the way this debate often takes place, everything is arbitrary and no-one agrees on what is properly libertarian and what isn't. I've personally spoken with people who say roads and utilities would be taken over by private industry without any problems and so should be kept out of government power.
To me you have two options in the larger debate. 1) Full freedom, possible exception for defense spending and everything else is left to states or local governments. 2) Government power is decided by the voters and their representatives. As I said above, the problem with this middle-road libertarianism is there is some sort of objective right and wrong about this program or that program but even on this board no-one agrees about what crosses that arbitrary line, so you can't resolve conflict.
I would love to see what a mega-corporation would accomplish without any kind of regulation or oversight.
Ok, look how large companies behave before they are broken up by monopoly courts. Without regulation a successful company can be too big for a free market competitor to fight. Say we're talking about Wal-mart, if they had zero regulation. How in the world would anyone fight a 400 billion per year company if they 'went bad'? Even with the regulation we have now they already wipe out the business community of small towns they enter. You couldn't compete, you couldn't undercut their prices, you couldn't out-advertise, they could make it impossible for you to get good locations...businesses can't fight them now. I dunno man, right now Wal-Mart has the 26th(22nd if you go by the CIA world factbook) highest GDP of any country in the world, double that of Israel(202 billion in 2008). You don't think they could leverage that to do whatever they wanted in an unregulated world? I don't know if people really realize the scale of a modern mega corp (you might, I'm not saying you don't).
I'm not anti-corporate, not at all, but you can't have mob rule and you can't have corporate oligarchy either. There has to be some sort of system for arbitration between the 'classes' of a society that is in some way neutral (or at least looks like it is).
Honestly I don't think we have much to debate in this specific thread. My point has simply been socialism!=bad in some objective way. From your posts, I think you would accept that if phrased in a way that didn't set off your socialism alarm. We can argue about specifics all day long and we'll agree on some things and disagree on others...that is fine. I'm not out to convince anyone (right now) that some specific program is good or bad, I just want the acknowledgment that mixed systems are a reality. I don't think most posters are accepting that as a valid point, or that it is even my argument, but you might. Past that I don't care, I'm not interesting in a mega-thread going through the yay and nay of random government programs that I'm probably not qualified to debate anyway.
I appreciate that you took the time to write a thoughtful reply.
-
Whether socialist states have failed or not isn't the real issue (all though almost all western socialist states are failing now, incluidng the US). The real issue is do individuals have rights over the state, and do individuals have rights to retain thier own earnings? You either believe that the state has unending power to tax and spend, or you don't.
-
British East India Company stood in place of fed.gov for a while, didn't it?
-
Hey mellestad, now that your back do you mind answering my question about whether slavery is inherently evil?
-
That's not how it works. Mellestad asks the questions. The rest of us answer.
Or at least that was my impression, since he never responded to a lot of things I said.
-
Well then, while he's at it he can answer you, too.
=)
-
Hey mellestad, now that your back do you mind answering my question about whether slavery is inherently evil?
I've said I will if you start a new thread about objective morality, I was fairly clear about that and I stated that multiple times.
That's not how it works. Mellestad asks the questions. The rest of us answer.
Or at least that was my impression, since he never responded to a lot of things I said.
I also said to point out anything I failed to respond to. If I have not covered a question of yours, then follow up so I can answer. The fact that I've spent a considerable amount of time on this discussion should make it clear that I am not avoiding debate.
-
I've said I will if you start a new thread about objective morality, I was fairly clear about that and I stated that multiple times.
The question is germane to this thread, so a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer here would suffice, no need for other threads. You could answer the question here quicker and easier than by creating a new thread or by explaining why you won't answer here. As it is, it sounds like you're trying to avoid the issue.
So, is slavery evil/wrong?
-
Whether socialist states have failed or not isn't the real issue (all though almost all western socialist states are failing now, incluidng the US). The real issue is do individuals have rights over the state, and do individuals have rights to retain thier own earnings? You either believe that the state has unending power to tax and spend, or you don't.
I've been clear in my opinion on this point...as long as citizens can vote for the representatives that are making these decisions, it isn't 'the state' that is making the choice, it is the citizens. The citizens are free to change the way the government functions when they can muster the political power to get their way.
Citizens, collectively, most certainly do have a right to retain their own earnings. If you want individuals to be able to make that call at will, you can't be born into any sort of social contract that involves taxation.
As far as I know, the only way for a citizen of any nation to break off their native social contract (well, without commiting a crime) is to emigrate. I would be curious to know of how a system would be set up any othe way and remain viable.
-
The question is germane to this thread, so a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer here would suffice, no need for other threads. You could answer the question here quicker and easier than by creating a new thread or by explaining why you won't answer here. As it is, it sounds like you're trying to avoid the issue.
So, is slavery evil/wrong?
I think it does deserve a thread, and I'm not going to start it because it is more likely to survive if someone else makes it. You could title it, "A Question for Mellestad on Objective Morality". A yes or no answer is not enough and I know what you would do with either soundbite. This isn't a msm 'news' show. :P
-
I've been clear in my opinion on this point...as long as citizens can vote for the representatives that are making these decisions, it isn't 'the state' that is making the choice, it is the citizens. The citizens are free to change the way the government functions when they can muster the political power to get their way.
You must not have noticed that Congress just passed a major health care bill that 3/4 of the people opposed.
;)
-
I think it does deserve a thread, and I'm not going to start it because it is more likely to survive if someone else makes it. You could title it, "A Question for Mellestad on Objective Morality". A yes or no answer is not enough and I know what you would do with either soundbite. This isn't a msm 'news' show. :P
Yes or no?
Simple question, simple answer. Quit dodging.
-
as long as citizens can vote for the representatives that are making these decisions, it isn't 'the state' that is making the choice, it is the citizens
Yeah, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for supper...
-
You must not have noticed that Congress just passed a major health care bill that 3/4 of the people opposed.
;)
And if the people are still riled up in the next election cycle, they can vote those villians out, can't they? And the saints they vote in can repeal it and make the federal government do whatever they want. All you need is enough political power to accomplish that. This is a Republic, not mob rule democracy. You know that.
Also, saying 3/4 of the citizenry opposed it is an oversimplification, and 3/4 certainly do not oppose it now. Depending on how you cheat and lie about the statistical data, support for the bill is and was between 45-55%, mostly along party lines. You can show a >50% disapproval of the bill, but only if you count the Democrats who think it failed because it did not go far enough and grant universal coverage. We can quote polls at one another if you want, that should be productive.
@slavery: I've said my bit on that, you can accuse me of dodging all you want, I am clearly open to discussing the issue in proper context. That is the last response I'll make to your request in this thread, feel free to have the last word.
-
Yeah, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for supper...
I know that is a clever quip of indeterminate origin, but since that is the basic nature of a democratic system do you have any suggestions on how to divide political power without that danger? We're just back to the same argument where you say libertarianism is better than anything else and I ask for proof.
There will always be haves and have nots, no matter what your system is.
-
Yes, but in a democracy the have nots get to vote to steal from the haves. [barf]
-
I know that is a clever quip of indeterminate origin, but since that is the basic nature of a democratic system do you have any suggestions on how to divide political power without that danger?
That tees it up perfectly...
I'll let someone else knock it out of the park.
=D
-
Yes, but in a democracy the have nots get to vote to steal from the haves. [barf]
And the haves typically hold far greater political power per capita than the have nots, so some sort of balance is achieved, and political change is slowed down dramatically by those checks and balances.
-
That tees it up perfectly...
I'll let someone else knock it out of the park.
=D
Yes, someone please explain how you build a functional government (that you would support) without democracy.
-
Yes, someone please explain how you build a functional government (that you would support) without democracy.
Do you truly not understand what it is in our system of government that constrains the unbridled will of the people (or of the peoples representatives)?
=|
-
Do you truly not understand what it is in our system of government that constrains the unbridled will of the people (or of the peoples representatives)?
=|
If you have a point to make about the original quote, just make it and save us all some time.
Edit: And yes, I understand fully no-one here is arguing that democracy should be abolished, but pithy quotes don't help and I was trying to get the original poster to commit to something more substantial.
Second Edit: I'm out, I'll respond when I wander back around.
-
The piece of the puzzle you're missing is the fact that the electorate is not the supreme law of the land in this country, the constitution is. The constitution defines what the government (i.e. the people, via their elected representatives) may and may not do.
You seem to think that whatever the voters want is A-OK, that the very act of voting for something makes it legit. Well, no. Hell no! There are some things you can't vote into law. Quite a lot of things, thankfully.
The constitution is the difference between real liberty and those two wolves and the lamb voting on dinner. It's a darned good thing, given that we're all the lamb at one time or another.
The constitution is the biggest impediment to statism we have. I assume that's why people of your political stripes always seem eager to ignore it, or dance around its limitations, or redefine it into meaninglessness.
The constitution is why we can't vote for inherently evil things like slavery. That's one of the reason I wanted to get you on record as being against slavery. The fact that you couldn't bring yourself to condemn slavery as evil makes me wonder about your true intentions.
But if you can't condemn slavery, howsabout murder? Should the electorate be allowed to vote on murdering certain segments of the population (perhaps, say, people who post on internet message boards under names beginning with 'm')? Would such an act by the electorate be inherently evil?
If you can answer that question honestly, and then reason through all of the implications, then you'll understand why none of us here can tolerate socialism or any other form of tyranny or oppression.
-
What can change?
Especially when 50% of households did not pay income tax and over 40%'of that got money back in the form of a hand out. Approaching over half the population not paying income taxes and reliant on hand outs, that is a mob rule voting block.
-
The piece of the puzzle you're missing is the fact that the electorate is not the supreme law of the land in this country, the constitution is. The constitution defines what the government (i.e. the people, via their elected representatives) may and may not do.
You seem to think that whatever the voters want is A-OK, that the very act of voting for something makes it legit. Well, no. Hell no! There are some things you can't vote into law. Quite a lot of things, thankfully.
The constitution is the difference between real liberty and those two wolves and the lamb voting on dinner. It's a darned good thing, given that we're all the lamb at one time or another.
The constitution is the biggest impediment to statism we have. I assume that's why people of your political stripes always seem eager to ignore it, or dance around its limitations, or redefine it into meaninglessness.
The constitution is why we can't vote for inherently evil things like slavery. That's one of the reason I wanted to get you on record as being against slavery. The fact that you couldn't bring yourself to condemn slavery as evil makes me wonder about your true intentions.
But if you can't condemn slavery, howsabout murder? Should the electorate be allowed to vote on murdering certain segments of the population (perhaps, say, people who post on internet message boards under names beginning with 'm')? Would such an act by the electorate be inherently evil?
If you can answer that question honestly, and then reason through all of the implications, then you'll understand why none of us here can tolerate socialism or any other form of tyranny or oppression.
Ah, I see, like how our constitution banned slavery in the beginning? Oh, wait... :P
Your argument only makes sense if you make the assumption that the constitution bans any form of socialism. You say it does (I assume), and the supreme court (for a long time) has said it doesn't. So get the political power together to elect presidents and congress critters who are willing to put in supreme court justices who will overturn everything you don't like. This isn't rocket science, and I don't see how you added anything new to the basic debate, all you did was raise the emotional stakes of your initial argument, say, by saying socialism is one slippery slope away from state sponsored murder, among all the other appeals to emotion in your post.
Once again we are back to the point where you are flatly asserting that your political views are objectively, moraly, true, this time by appealing to a minority opinion of a source of authority, the constitution. And how do we resolve this difference of opinion? Politics and representative democracy.
-
Are we past the point of productive debate here? Should we just let the thread die?
-
We could just re-name it the "Mellestad/HTG argument thread".
-
HTG was just saying that the American form of government places beau-coup obstacles in the way of pure democracy.
Your argument only makes sense if you make the assumption that the constitution bans any form of socialism.
Actually, the Constitution does not specifically empower the national govt. to enact socialist policies. This should be enough to settle the issue. Unfortunately, the very anti-democratic Supreme Court has not so ruled. You are correct, in that a large enough super-majority can ultimately override even the Constitution itself, but that is not very democratic, either.
Ah, I see, like how our constitution banned slavery in the beginning? Oh, wait... :P
Not relevant.
Are we past the point of productive debate here? Should we just let the thread die?
I believe I told you earlier that the time for debate is over. If so, I'm glad we now agree.
-
We could just re-name it the "Mellestad/HTG argument thread".
I think I'll bow out, I've said my bit and explained my position, others have said their bit. We've been circling for a couple pages without saying anything new. At this point either observers have accepted the validity of a mixed social and economic system, or they have rejected it in favor of a pure social and economic system. I've done my best to be clear and give and honest argument.
I imagine I could be baited by fistul for at least another thousand posts though, so I'll have to go cold turkey on him =)
@HTG: I'd still like to see that thread on objective morality someday, if people are polite I'll drag that one out till a week after Ragnarok.
Edit: @Mak: I'd still like to see a response on the economic development index stuff. I don't want to fight, I'm honestly curious. PM me if you would rather go that route.
-
I know that is a clever quip of indeterminate origin, but since that is the basic nature of a democratic system do you have any suggestions on how to divide political power without that danger?
Some old white guys came up with a pretty good solution a couple hundred years ago.
Too bad we're not following it anymore =(
-
I've done my best to be clear and give and honest argument.
You "best" is pretty weak.
:P
From my perspective it doesn't look like you've been at all honest or open in this debate. You throw out your points and expect us to take them seriously, and then you turn around and completely ignore, sidestep, or dismiss any countervailing points the rest of us make to you.
@HTG: I'd still like to see that thread on objective morality someday, if people are polite I'll drag that one out till a week after Ragnarok.
If you want such a thread, go start one. I'm not interested in any long-winded interpretations form you on objective morality. I just want to know if you're ok with slavery or not.
-
You "best" is pretty weak.
:P
From my perspective it doesn't look like you've been at all honest or open in this debate. You throw out your points and expect us to take them seriously, and then you turn around and completely ignore, sidestep, or dismiss any countervailing points the rest of us make to you.
If you want such a thread, go start one. I'm not interested in any long-winded interpretations form you on objective morality. I just want to know if you're ok with slavery or not.
I have to ask. Can you give me specific examples of where I failed to answer a question, or ignored a response?
I've disagreed with many people's points, but I don't think I've ignored, avoided or sidestepped anything in this debate (besides your slavery derail attempt). Since I've made a specific request for people to keep me honest in this debate, I would appreciate a specific acusation so I can resolve it.
Put your money where your mouth is Headless. (Haha, you don't have a mouth. You're headless!)