Whats so bad about socialism? [Archive]

Cain

9th June 2003, 09:22 AM

Redcoat-

The problem, as I see it, with adopting this sort of system results from the fact that the non-contributing beneficiaries will inevitably outnumber the contributors. This has been (I believe) clearly demonstared in an economic sense in the former Soviet Union. My argument is that the end effects in "micro" socialism (for select services, such as health care) is no different than macro (whole-economy, Soviet-style) socialism - the "takers" eventually outnumber the "givers".

The main problem here is that healthcare, unlike other goods and services in a market economy, is also a public good (tmy mentions education as another example). The benefits of a healthy population have *external* effects beyond those non-contributing beneficeries. The classic example here is a vaccine.

Let me quote an editorial from _New Scientist_ during the whole SARS hoopla:

It looks increasingly as if the virus that causes SARS is not going away. Isolating patients and quarantining their contacts might slow the spread, as it has in Hong Kong and Toronto, but we’ve still to see these measures stop new infections. Most worryingly, as the virus invades poor areas of china and poor countries, containment will become impossible sooner or latter, SARS is coming to a person near you.

There is good news, though. The virus should be vulnerable to a vaccine. We could even develop one in record time. But if past history is anything to go by, the vaccine will then be sold for a high price so the rich get it, and the poor don’t.

It might be a sad old problem but it is one we need to think about now, if not out of a sense of justice then pure self-interest. Every SARS infection is not only a human tragedy, it is an opportunity for a viral evolution. Even if the rich are safely vaccinated, so long as the poor are not the rich will not be safe. As more people succumb, the virus will evolve and the vaccine will fail. SARS anywhere is dangerous for people everywhere.

We failed to stamp out SARS by containing it early. We must now stamp it out with a vaccine. In theory, we can. But if researches create the vaccine., have the drugs companies and governments got the will to get it to where it is needed?

Everyone agrees the government needs to be involved in healthcare to some extent. Free-market assumptions simply do not hold.

Here's another example: imperfect/asymmetrical information.

Understanding how our bodies work, treatments, diagnoses -- all of that requires considerable education. Many people are unknowingly afflicted by a disease or ailment that goes with care until it's too late (e.g. diabetes). Consumers have to rely on trained experts for information.

Here are a few of the problems from Nicholas Barr's excellent text _The economics of the welfare State_ (p. 283):

-Much (though not all) the information is technically complex, so that a person would not necessarily understand the information even if it were available (Cain's note: unlike the technical knowledge required for purchasing a car, which IS available through magazines, the Internet, friends).

-Mistaken choice is costlier and less reversible than with most other commodities.

-An individual generally does not have time to shop around if his condition is actue (contrast the situation with a car repair, which can be left until the car owner has enough information and can afford the repair).

- Consumers frequently lack the information to weigh one doctor's advice against another.

-Health and health care have strong emotive connotations -- for example, ignorance may in part be a consequence of fear, superstitition, etc.

WMT1

9th June 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
In the states "socialism" is this ugly word thats too close to communism. Whats so wrong with having socialist traits in certain areas?

Those traits tend to involve forcing people to pay for things they may not wish to pay for, and did not agree to pay for.

If we have a "right" to education, then why not healthcare.

You don't have a "right" to education. But thanks for demonstrating one of the problems with setting bad precedents. Fostering the belief that you do have a right to these things is one of the unfortunate effects of those socialist traits you're asking about.

plindboe

9th June 2003, 10:01 AM

I'm interested to hear what people have to say about this too. I was considering starting a thread with exactly the same question. I recently had a discussion with a person(right wing republican) who was convinced that socialism was evil. He wasn't able to elaborate on it though, so I don't think he even knew what socialism was. I think the fear/resentment of socialism is a direct result of the American propaganda which thrived during the Cold War.

Peter :)

Tricky

9th June 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Those traits tend to involve forcing people to pay for things they may not wish to pay for, and did not agree to pay for.
I don't wish to nor did I agree to pay for the Iraq invasion. Does that mean Bush is a Socialist?

Originally posted by WMT1
You don't have a "right" to education. But thanks for demonstrating one of the problems with setting bad precedents. Fostering the belief that you do have a right to these things is one of the unfortunate effects of those socialist traits you're asking about.
Technically, no one has a "right" to anything, not even life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If we were living under anarchy, a stronger person (or group) could take any of those things away at any time. The US government is based on the notion that people should have those "rights", and it has set up a system to protect them. I don't think that you would argue that one of the marks of civilization is education. There seems to be a very strong correlation between the level of education in a country and their standards of living. Education appears to be the best way to prevent poverty.

So it is in the interest of the government to provide education for its citizens. A similar (but IMO not as strong) case could be made for health care. Whether you call it a "right" or not is inconsequential. Ask only if it is better for the country as a whole. If you don't believe that having a healthy population is beneficial to you personally, then perhaps you should read Poe's The Masque of Red Death.

Malachi151

9th June 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
In the states "socialism" is this ugly word thats too close to communism. Whats so wrong with having socialist traits in certain areas? For example: health care.

If you made a list of the winner countries of the world wouldnt most of them be socialists.

Well, not only that, but much of what made this country successful over the past 100 years has been socialist policy.

Graduated taxes, free education, Social Security, laboe laws, funding for the arts, etc. Of course people dismiss all that and many don't understand the socialist roots.

The history of these issues is long and complex. The Socialist Party was outlawed in the US in the 1920s.

For a better overview of all this see:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/condition_of_modern_american_soc.htm

and:

http://faculty.washington.edu/gregoryj/cpproject/curwick.htm

People today do not understand the extent to which Marxism has been attacked in America over the past 80 years. People also fail to understand the real goals of socailism, which is why elements of the wealthy American elite and conservatives have attacked it so.

Ultimately socialism is about SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Many wealthy are against this because then they have to be SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE, instead they like to play the card of INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, which absolves them, and ultimately everyone for any responsibility other than to themselves. Tis however is imposible to justify because we live in a society where many, if not most, of our actions effect other people.

Calling for indivual responsibility as a means of not having social responsibility is just tending towards anarchy and might makes right. Its "whatever I can get away with, then I can do".

Yet, these same people want ot present groups from forming to exercise thier might as a group, claiming that we all need to act as individuals, which of course just tips the scales in favor of those individuals with power and wealth.

For example people may say that they are against using the government to regulate labor. But, the government is just a means through which society excersises it will, so if millions of people want a regulation tha is HOW they go about it. To deny these people that ability is denying people to look out for their own interests.

The wealthy elite in this country have a long history of campaigning to promote their own interests and subvert the will of the people. Today it appears that they were winning that war. The war on Socialism is a part of that battle that has been going on for at least 80 years.

tedly

9th June 2003, 10:26 AM

It is highly unlikely that there will be a society with a surplus of doctors, since they control access to treatment. Statistically it has been shown that if you increase the number of doctors you increase the number of treatments. If doctors go on strike the rate of dying goes down ( the death rate is always the same, one per customer) because non urgent surgeries are cancelled, and any surgery carries a risk of death.

So we will have medical treatment rationed in some way; in the US it's by ability to pay, here in Canada it's by what is often called a waiting list, but ideally (and in many real cases),is a triage list. Since we cannot build enough faciliities that all access to all services is instantaneous*, the most severe cases must be treated first. Thus critical cases will be treated immediately, and trivial cases will be treated as resources are available. Over a large number of people this gives rise to an average delay before treatment that for purposes of queuing theory can be called a waiting time, hence a waiting list.

But your position on that list need not be fixed. Andecdotes aren't data, but - my mother needed her hip replaced (her third hence her second on that hip) and was scheduled for a six month wait. The doctors weren't keen to do it because it could easily not work and require an amputation, so she wasn't a high priority. After a month she went for a checkup, and was really shaky on her pins. The doctor walked out, said he was more worried, and wanted to see about rescheduling. One week later she was on the table.

The waiting list is a handy stick to beat hospitals with, but some of the stories out of our "think tanks' ( and there's a whole possible thread on the thinking required to come up with a report when the conclusion is already given) are pretty poorly chosen. One example from a researcher at our Fraser Institute in a letter to the editor went on about his poor neighbour who was on a 6 week wait for a diagnostic MRI to determine the status of something I can't remember. He was forced to go to the US and pay for an MRI which he got the next day. A friend and medical epidemiologist pointed out that one arm of this differential diagnosis was an inoperable tumour, and the other was treatable with antibiotics, so why would you wait even a day to start treatment? Fire in the antibiotics, and let God sort it out.

* Imagine a factory with several hundred employees that literally did not know what tomorrow's workload was.

WMT1

9th June 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Those traits tend to involve forcing people to pay for things they may not wish to pay for, and did not agree to pay for.

Originally posted by Tricky
I don't wish to nor did I agree to pay for the Iraq invasion. Does that mean Bush is a Socialist?

Actually, in attributing a particular characteristic to socialism, I'm not claiming that everything that shares that characteristic is socialist. But if it makes you feel better to call him one, you won't get much of an argument from me. Incidentally, can I count you among those who do not support the argument that one agrees to whatever the government does just by remaining in the country?

Technically, no one has a "right" to anything, not even life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Speak for yourself.

If we were living under anarchy, a stronger person (or group) could take any of those things away at any time.

So, just to pin you down a bit, are you saying that a right does not exist if the ability to exercise it can be abridged? If a woman is raped, and the perpetrator gets away with it, does that mean she didn't have a right not to be raped?

The US government is based on the notion that people should have those "rights", and it has set up a system to protect them.

I don't know what your source is for this, but I don't recall the word "should" being used in conjunction with those rights. In any case, I don't look to the US government for my opinions on such things.

I don't think that you would argue that one of the marks of civilization is education. There seems to be a very strong correlation between the level of education in a country and their standards of living. Education appears to be the best way to prevent poverty.

That may be a good reason to get an education, and maybe even a good argument to use in persuading someone to contribute to the education of others. It's hardly a justification for forcing them to.

So it is in the interest of the government to provide education for its citizens.

Whether that's true or not, the government having an "interest" in doing something hardly equates to a right to do it.

A similar (but IMO not as strong) case could be made for health care.

I hate to break it to you, but you didn't make your case, let alone a "strong" one.

Whether you call it a "right" or not is inconsequential. Ask only if it is better for the country as a whole.

No thanks. You could probably defend some form of institutionalized slavery if that's your only question. Some of us aren't quite so dismissive of the importance of respecting individual sovereignty.

If you don't believe that having a healthy population is beneficial to you personally, then perhaps you should read Poe's The Masque of Red Death.

Since I haven't said it's not beneficial to me personally, what's the relevance?

WMT1

9th June 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151
Calling for indivual responsibility as a means of not having social responsibility is just tending towards anarchy and might makes right. Its "whatever I can get away with, then I can do".

Damn, you do post some incoherent nonsense at times.

The wealthy elite in this country have a long history of campaigning to promote their own interests and subvert the will of the people.

Um ... I'm not one of the "wealthy elite", and I don't consider them to be subverting my will. Do I still count as one of "the people"?

Mike B.

9th June 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by plindboe
I'm interested to hear what people have to say about this too. I was considering starting a thread with exactly the same question. I recently had a discussion with a person(right wing republican) who was convinced that socialism was evil. He wasn't able to elaborate on it though, so I don't think he even knew what socialism was. I think the fear/resentment of socialism is a direct result of the American propaganda which thrived during the Cold War.

Peter :)

I kind of agree with this.
There are many people in the US who like and benefit from government programs (i.e. student loans, social security, etc.), yet would react with horror to the idea that they were socialistic.

Perhaps it is a relic of the Cold War...

Tricky

9th June 2003, 12:01 PM

RedCoat

9th June 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
We have socialized education system. As much as people bitch about it, it has been succsessful in educating the public. Our public colleges attract students from all over the world.

If we have a "right" to education, then why not healthcare. Healthcare is far more important.

If we use education as an analogy, then we already have "socialized healthcare". I will explain my analogy:

First of all, there is no "right" to education, it is a *priviledge*. The government provides *minimal* education to the populace as a service. I would guess the justification for this is that a democratic republic requires a marginally educated populace to function at all.

Beyond the minimal education provided under law (high school until age 18 in most states), if you want to attain a higher education (or a better quality of HS education) you have to pay for it, like any other service. (Our public universities still charge tuition, they are not a complementary benfit of citizenship.) In many cases, you must also prove that you are academically qualified. Thus, minimal education is a gov't provided priviledge, while other forms are more similar to any other good or service. In the case of public universities, the gov't just happens to be one of the sellers in the market.

In healthcare, minimal services are also provided to virtually everybody. 911 dispatches ambulances regardless of who's calling. Emergency rooms still treat people without insurance. The costs of this is simply passed on to the people who *do* pay, hence it is a form of socialism.

As with education, a minimal level of service is provided on the (apparent) justification that it is required to keep society moving along. Greater levels of service become ordinary goods and services.

My opposition to nationalized health care is the result of my suspicion that making it a "free" gov't service will destroy it's quality. (Just in the same way that the quality of "free" public education is, on the whole, abysmal.) The NHS in the UK, from what I'm told, has suffered this type of degeneration in quality.

Need should not trump ownership. Just because someone "needs" something should not dissolve the provider of the good or service from their right to charge for it.

Just my thoughts on the matter - I invite criticism and commentary.

Peace.

Malachi151

9th June 2003, 12:48 PM

Damn, you do post some incoherent nonsense at times.

Um ... I'm not one of the "wealthy elite", and I don't consider them to be subverting my will. Do I still count as one of "the people"?

Sorry it was over your head ;)

No, you are one of the people who has been duped by the wealthy elite into supporting an agenda that isn't even in your own best interest.

Speak for yourself.

Actually what he said was correct.

Rights are a social construct. They are a product of society. Society grants rights. Rights are not intrinsic, despite what the founders may have claimed in order ot sound high and mighty.

A right is not a part of you, a right is not like you eye color, or yoru hiar, etc. All rights are granted to you by society, which is why your rights can change from place to place and day to day.

If we burn the piece of paper that says we all have teh right to free speech then, guess what, we no longer have that right. Even if we dont', if people don't agree to let people excercise free speech, thne there is no free speech.

You have no rights at all naturally, just like every other animals on earth. Rights are a human creation based on our social structure, they are not "god given", they are not natural, they are not intrinsic.

So, just to pin you down a bit, are you saying that a right does not exist if the ability to exercise it can be abridged? If a woman is raped, and the perpetrator gets away with it, does that mean she didn't have a right not to be raped?

What IS a right? What good is a right if it is not upheld? If a woman has the "right" not to get raped, but she does anyway and nothing is done about it, then what good did the "right" do her?

Please define "rights". What are rights? I've always said that rights aren't even real and have little meaning in the first place. All rights are is a social contract that states what other peple are expected to do or not do to you. Its just an expectation and other memebers of society are supposed to honor and attempt to uphold when other people have their "rights" violated.

That may be a good reason to get an education, and maybe even a good argument to use in persuading someone to contribute to the education of others. It's hardly a justification for forcing them to.

Oh well, too bad. That's part of living in a SOCIETY. Its that whole SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. If you don't want to contribute to the education of others then leave society, its that simple, go live in a cave. YOU benefit from the educated existance of others. Why should you reap the benefit of such things w/o contributing to it? Its just you trying to weasel out of responsibility and take advantge of others.

Whether that's true or not, the government having an "interest" in doing something hardly equates to a right to do it.

No, there are some things that every memebr of society benefits from no matter what. As such every member of society that is capable has to pay for those things, otherwise your really stealing from society.

Let's say that you want to opena buusiness and hire a worker that knows how to read and write. If you do that w/o paying taxes then you are stealing from those who have paid to educate our workforce. You're just trying to welch on everyone else's hard work.

I hate to break it to you, but you didn't make your case, let alone a "strong" one.

I hate to break to you that he did, you just didn't get it.

No thanks. You could probably defend some form of institutionalized slavery if that's your only question. Some of us aren't quite so dismissive of the importance of respecting individual sovereignty.

No, see this is what you don't get. Where are the lines to individual sovereignty? The founders of America saw that the right to own slaves was a part of the individual sovereignty. The right for me to make demands of others is my individual soverengnty? Total individuality, as Tricky says, is anarchy, and then no one has any rights at all, its just kill or be killed.

Full "individual soveregnty" is just sayig that its okay for any individual to impose their will on anyone else. Social contracts so no, you can't so whatever you want, WE, and a group restrict your actions to prevent YOU from doing things to US that WE don't want.

And trust me, as much as you complain and moan, if we were to be more complacent with "individual liberty" you would not benefit. Those that would benefit are the economically powerful and the expence of the economically weak. If you are not a billionaire or a multi-millionair, you would be hurt horribly by moving towards more individul liberty. The social contract of government keeps powerful individuals from imposing their will on others.

9th June 2003, 01:14 PM

DialecticMaterialist

9th June 2003, 01:17 PM

The main problem I see is that it is a simplistic and narrow approach to complex problems that require flexibility. This is why pure socialism and pure capitalism inveitably fail.

Now purely socialistic/mostly socialistic countries do have certain strengths: universal healthcarem cheap/efficient public transportation, little to no unemployement, excellent education.

But they fail, compared to capitalist nations in the realm of: luxuries, invention in the field of luxuries, producing more overall wealth and other areas of innovations.

I really can't say why this is for sure. But that's what history, has for the most part shown. I suspect because the government can't take as many risks as a company: it's one thing for a company to lose on a risky venture, it's another thing entirely for the government to do so. Cooperations can also increase wealth with their concern for profit, whereas governments are supposed to be above the profit motive.

Though there is probably a variety of reasons, none of which I'm sure of. (And that nobody can be sure of until the invention of psychohistory perhaps.)

Also there are two attitudes towards socialist programs as I see itL Egalitarian and meritocratic.

I am more meritocratic, which means in what government programs we do have should be used for equal oppurtunity, not just equality no matter your position. It likewise means in what government programs we do have, we should pay on how well people do and reward on the basis of merit in their field.

Also I believe we should tweak the system to reward merit, or what society and ethical scientists deem as admirable/valuable behavior and character. This has the advantage of encouraging behavior society as a whole value most. It also avoids detering gifted people from such pursuits by making them feel ignored/not rewarded at all. I know a person, lets say a teacher, a philosopher, a logician shoud be motivated by their love of their profession/subject, not money. But there is a difference between something being a motivation and deterence. They have to make a living just like everyone else, and if they have to get odd jobs just to make ends meet, while big tobacco gets a free ride: something is not just or right. Unless that is our society has decided it values tobacco more then it does philosophy and education: in which case I believe we need reform.

I also believe we should accord special priveleges with admirabble behavior. I believe eventually we should make it so you have to take tests in order to vote, carry a gun, people that want kids, etc. I believe it absurd that we test something like driving, as a "priveledge" but let two things, far more important in their ramifications and overall effect on society: voting and parenting, just slide. (Notice the difference between right and priveledge is a value judgement). Or we should tax people who have a criminal history more, and those who are upstanding less.

Ultimately I believe in a mixed economy sprinkled with some meritocratic socialism.

This has the value of being flexible, getting the best of both worlds, and advocating certain behavior within the confines of a free market.

Tony

10th June 2003, 07:37 AM

If we have a "right" to education, then why not healthcare.

We dont have a "right" to education. "Education" has become a mandate.

Cain

10th June 2003, 07:51 AM

WMT1 wrote:

Those traits tend to involve forcing people to pay for things they may not wish to pay for, and did not agree to pay for.

You don't have a "right" to education.

Redcoat:
Need should not trump ownership. Just because someone "needs" something should not dissolve the provider of the good or service from their right to charge for it.

Fine, the same arguments can apply to police protection. Why should the wealthy subsidize a police force disproportionately sent out to impoverished districts that pay much lower taxes (and hardly any by comparison). Well, that's in theory at least; everyone knows response times to Beverly Hills and Bel-Air differ significantly from South Central (even though most homicides are committed here).

Ideally though, everyone pays for their own police protection, and if you can't afford it, well, tough luck. Purchase a gun maybe?

What makes ownership so special and morally off-limits? In other threads I've brought up the issue of legitimate ownership (how it comes to being), especially land ownership, but no one has yet to offer a substantive answer.

We've setup a system where rich people get multiple cosmetic surgeries, and poor people needlessly suffer because they didn't catch an physical condition soon enough.

A doctor's line ought to be determined by need, not ability to pay. It's incredible that we even seriously discuss this point of view in the 21st century.

RedCoat

10th June 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Cain
WMT1 wrote:

Fine, the same arguments can apply to police protection. Why should the wealthy subsidize a police force disproportionately sent out to impoverished districts that pay much lower taxes (and hardly any by comparison)...

What makes ownership so special and morally off-limits? In other threads I've brought up the issue of legitimate ownership (how it comes to being), especially land ownership, but no one has yet to offer a substantive answer.

We've setup a system where rich people get multiple cosmetic surgeries, and poor people needlessly suffer because they didn't catch an physical condition soon enough.

A doctor's line ought to be determined by need, not ability to pay. It's incredible that we even seriously discuss this point of view in the 21st century.

I think that the argument for police protection is the same as the arguement for (minimal) state-provided schooling and (minimal) no-cost health care: it is necessary for society to function. It is true and necessary (but not necessarily fair) that the people with the most money end up funding more than their "share" of the gov't provided services that go out to everyone. This is - in my mind - just a fact of life.

The difference with socialism is that - as I see it - your asking the wealthy to fund more than just a minimal amount to keep society going, you're asking them to make everyone "happy" and make everything "convenient".

The reason ownership trumps need is that, in a capitalist system, you must (for the most part, celebrities and corporate criminals exempted) either work for your money or gamble money in a corporate venture to gain it. In either case, you've earned it. Taking that away because someone else says they need it (but obviously hasn't earned it, since, if they had they wouldn't be asking you to give it to them) is in effect stealing your work.

America provides everybody with opportunities to be successful. Some make use of these opportunities and become wealthy. Others do not.

Regarding the cosmetic surgery: if rich people want to spend their money foolishly, who are we to criticize?

If a doctor's sevices should be administered based on "need", then why stop there? I own two vehicles - a newer car, and an old truck. Someone certainly exists out there without a car. Do I "owe" them one of my vehicles based on their "need"? Of course not. If you start using "need" as your criteria for ownership, then the logical conclusion is that things are only "fair" when everyone has exactly the same things. This doesn't sound like the type of society that would function well.

Just my thoughts - criticism and commentary are invited,

Peace.

Tmy

10th June 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by RedCoat

It is true and necessary (but not necessarily fair) that the people with the most money end up funding more than their "share" of the gov't provided services that go out to everyone. This is - in my mind - just a fact of life.

Peace.

Is that really true? We tend to limit our thinking of services to fire, police and schooling but the government does much more.

For example if you area Richy Rich wealthy business owner you are proabably using the court system more than Poor Joe worker, your delivery trucks use up the roads more than Joe Workers little car, Richys employees use the airports for business travel ona daily basis while Joe may fly once per year, then there's the whole financial infrastructer in place to ensure the safety of Richys assets and investments.

Richy may not have his kids in public school but he is benefiting from many gov't provided services.

RedCoat

10th June 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

Is that really true? We tend to limit our thinking of services to fire, police and schooling but the government does much more.

For example if you area Richy Rich wealthy business owner you are proabably using the court system more than Poor Joe worker, your delivery trucks use up the roads more than Joe Workers little car, Richys employees use the airports for business travel ona daily basis while Joe may fly once per year, then there's the whole financial infrastructer in place to ensure the safety of Richys assets and investments.

Richy may not have his kids in public school but he is benefiting from many gov't provided services.

The statistic that I'm thinking of (and this may be a few years old) is that the top 5% of earners provide 50% of the federal gov't tax income. The lower 50% of earners provide 5% of the tax income.

Assuming that this is still true, then everyone should be thankful that "Richy Rich" (your term) pays his or her taxes.

As a side thought - aren't Richy Rich's trucks providing truck driving jobs for Joe Worker? If Joe Worker doesn't want to drive trucks, why doesn't he start a company to compete with Richy Rich?

Peace.

Cain

10th June 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by RedCoat
[B]

I think that the argument for police protection is the same as the arguement for (minimal) state-provided schooling and (minimal) no-cost health care: it is necessary for society to function. It is true and necessary (but not necessarily fair) that the people with the most money end up funding more than their "share" of the gov't provided services that go out to everyone. This is - in my mind - just a fact of life.

The difference with socialism is that - as I see it - your asking the wealthy to fund more than just a minimal amount to keep society going, you're asking them to make everyone "happy" and make everything "convenient".

Or advocates of a nationalized system could argue that you have a faulty understanding of "minimal." Why bother educating people up to grade 12? Why not 11, or 10, or 9? Why isn't a fifth grade education "minimal"?

A normative conclusion does not follow from a "fact of life." Supposing everyone was given more extensive care than now, and we considered this normal, would the same argument apply?

The reason ownership trumps need is that, in a capitalist system, you must (for the most part, celebrities and corporate criminals exempted) either work for your money or gamble money in a corporate venture to gain it. In either case, you've earned it.

That's an empirical claim that I emphatically disagree with.

Taking that away because someone else says they need it (but obviously hasn't earned it, since, if they had they wouldn't be asking you to give it to them) is in effect stealing your work.

Wealth is not created in isolation by individuals; it's created by society. I do not enjoy a certain standard of living because of my own efforts, nor do you or anyone else. To think otherwise is pure hubris. A teacher in Seattle, Washington makes "earns" more money than a teacher in Managua, Nicaragua, but I hardly doubt the former works much harder than the latter.

America provides everybody with opportunities to be successful. Some make use of these opportunities and become wealthy. Others do not.

It does not afford everyone an equal opportunity (or anything approaching equal opportunity). If one segment of the population has advantages -- inheretance in terms of money or even genes -- then we could hardly say these gains have been "earned" in any meaningful sense.

If a doctor's sevices should be administered based on "need", then why stop there? I own two vehicles - a newer car, and an old truck. Someone certainly exists out there without a car. Do I "owe" them one of my vehicles based on their "need"?

I have a bottle of water sitting on my desk that I do not need to drink, but I'm sure some one somewhere desperately needs it. Does that mean I send it off? The example suffers from distributional messiness and assumes a degree of ownership without argument. It's also relatively trivial compared with healthcare. No one's arguing that people are entitled to vehicle ownership.

Robert Nozick, responding to a famous essay by Bernard Williams on health care, asks if barbers should cut people with long hair because they're in "greater need." Or, he says, should people with two good eyes be forced to donate one of their eyeballs to a blind person.

Or maybe I "need" a beautiful movie star to kiss me.

Built-in assumptions -- assumptions I believe that are unwarranted -- prevent Nozick and others from seeing how ownership over the external world requires greater justification, and how wealth is socially created.

Let me just point out there are at least two separate and distinct arguments one can make for universal health care:

1) it promotes efficiency (market failure arises for reasons mentioned in a prior post).

2) moral reasons: ownership is arbitrary, and (so far) unjustified.

Of course not. If you start using "need" as your criteria for ownership, then the logical conclusion is that things are only "fair" when everyone has exactly the same things. This doesn't sound like the type of society that would function well.

No it doesn't. "Need" probably leads to visibly different outcomes. Some people need to park close to the grocery store because they're handicapped. Others can walk greater distances without much effort.
__________________________________

Federal income taxes only pay attention to one side of the story. Most people actually pay more in payroll taxes (highly regressive) than Federal Income Taxes.

Adapted from my earlier post in a thread titled "tax cuts for the wealthy:

Okay, let's say we have a society consisting of only ten people: one person makes 100,000 dollars a year; the other nine pull down $10,000 per annum. Everyone pays a flat rate of 10% on their income.

$10,000
+$9000
$19,000

Notice that the top 10% still pays more than 50% of the taxes.

I suppose you'd want everyone to shell out the same in dollar amounts (if at all).

The government must provide public goods (non-rival, non-exclusionary) BECAUSE of market failure. Adam Smith recognized this long ago in the case of police, national defense, courts, schools, roads and canals.

Malachi151

10th June 2003, 12:02 PM

As a side thought - aren't Richy Rich's trucks providing truck driving jobs for Joe Worker? If Joe Worker doesn't want to drive trucks, why doesn't he start a company to compete with Richy Rich?

That's the whole point.

If person X has no money to start a business with and person Y has an established business and makes millions of dollars and have money to develop his business than how can person X just start a business and compete? He can't.

The only way he could would be if peron Y is just extremely incompotent.

Furthermore, we know that having large companies is a good thing in mnay ways, so why should we keep saying that if people want to be successful they have to start their own business, when we know that cooperation through coroprations is a good thing.

The solution is to just allow for greater public ownership of corproations and for emplyers to be more fair. We do no good by making a system where everyone is so unfair to the employee that everyone tried to be an employer. Damn, just treat the employees right and share ownership and lets all make some progress.

corplinx

10th June 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

The only way he could would be if peron Y is just extremely incompotent.

All person X has to do is buy 10MB of web space and a book on html. Now more than ever the startup costs of a small business are smaller than ever.

Kodiak

10th June 2003, 12:23 PM

If you ever wanted to see a good idea or program blown to hell, put the federal government in charge of it.

Government is busy enough doing the things demanded of it by the constitution, it has neither the constitutional right nor the ability, really, to run programs that are better left to the individual, or local/city/state authorities.

Socialism works...if you'd rather the government taking care of you than you taking care of yourself.

Where have all the proud, rugged individualists gone? :confused:

Malachi151

10th June 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by corplinx

All person X has to do is buy 10MB of web space and a book on html. Now more than ever the startup costs of a small business are smaller than ever.

Yeah, its just that easy :rolleyes:

That was called the stock market scam of the late 1990s, that bandwagon is overwith.

no one in particular

10th June 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

The solution is to just allow for greater public ownership of corproations and for emplyers to be more fair. We do no good by making a system where everyone is so unfair to the employee that everyone tried to be an employer. Damn, just treat the employees right and share ownership and lets all make some progress. That is a fair statement on a small scale. In Jack Stack’s The Great Game of Business he describes a system of company ownership that, because of Capitalism, works well. At his facility the corporation is owned by the employees. In this system the owners/employees are motivated to achieve because they have a stake in the system on a small scale. They are able to see (through their education/understanding and open-book nature of the business), on a day to day basis, the application of their work and how it effects the operation of the company. If they can see the company failing they can do their part to improve it. Their main motivation, of course, is that if they fail to do their job the company will fail and the employee then have no employment or no income (unemployment aside). Of course since I have not read the book in some time there are issues that I can not respond to in this system, hiring/firing and such.

This, however, is a far cry from being owned by the public at large. Why would the employee continue to produce at a great rate if there was a cushion for him/her to fall onto if the company failed? Why not take the free ride?

Malachi151

10th June 2003, 12:54 PM

If you ever wanted to see a good idea or program blown to hell, put the federal government in charge of it.

First of all socialism does not require that the government do anything other that regulate wages, all work can stay in the private sector.

Secondly, may I refer you to:

http://thomasash.hypermart.net/politicsandsociety/kangas-libeconomicrecord.html

http://thomasash.hypermart.net/politicsandsociety/kangas-govsuccessstories.html

Settling the West: The U.S. government played a vital role in settling the West, including massive land purchases and giveaways, the Homestead Act, the Pony Express, agricultural colleges, rural electrification, telephone wiring, road-building, irrigation, dam-building, farm subsidies, and farm foreclosure loans.

Funding Railroads: In the late 19th century, the government gave away 131 million acres in federal land grants, at enormous cost to itself, to railroad companies to build their railroads. Four of the five transcontinental railroads were built this way. To help them, Congress authorized loans of $16,000 to $48,000 per mile of railroad (depending on the terrain).

Telephone Infrastructure: The early telephone companies couldn't afford to wire communities for telephone service themselves, so they turned to the government for help -- and government funding wired nearly the entire nation.

Eisenhower's Interstate Highway Program: This massive 1950s program paved an entire continent with highways, bringing undreamed of economic change, and allowing the middle class to resettle from the cities to the suburbs.

Rural Electrification: In 1935, only 13 percent of all farms had electricity, because utility companies found it unprofitable to wire the countryside for service. Roosevelt's Rural Electrification Administration began correcting this market failure; by 1970, more than 95 percent of all farms would have electricity.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (New Version): Once a bureaucratic joke, today FEMA has won widespread praise for its response to natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and tornadoes. No private business could wait the long intervals between disasters like FEMA does, or bring relief to entire cities or states.

Human Genome Project: The government provides the money and the organization for this 20-year project, which will give medical science a road-map of the human genetic code. Researchers have already found genes that contribute to 50 diseases.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: This legendary American organization, popularized by the movie Outbreak, isolates and wipes out entire plagues and diseases that strike anywhere in the world. "The CDC," says Dr. James Le Duc of the World Health Organization, "is the only ballgame in town."

The Internet: In the 1960s, the government created ARPANET, which was used and developed by the Defense Department, public universities and other research organizations. In 1985, the National Science Foundation created various supercomputing centers around the country, linking the five largest together to start the modern Internet we know today.

The Federal Reserve System: Using Keynesian policies to expand or contract the money supply, the Fed has completely eliminated the depression from the American economic experience in the last six decades.

Employee Rights: Over strong opposition from business leaders and conservatives in Congress, liberals passed all the laws that workers take for granted today. These include the elimination of child labor, the creation of the 40-hour work week, overtime pay, paid vacations, the minimum wage, workers' compensation, worker's insurance programs, Social Security, organized labor rights and worker safety and health laws.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an alphabetical list of other government accomplishments. It hardly scratches the surface:

AmeriCorps: In exchange for volunteer work in the community, students receive $5,000 credit for college. An IBM study shows that for every dollar invested in AmeriCorps, the return is between $1.60 and $2.60.

Ban on Leaded Gasoline: The oil industry fought this ban tooth and nail. But a few years after the ban, the level of poisonous lead in children's blood fell 37 percent.

Ban on CFCs: The chemical industry initially opposed efforts to ban this refrigerant chemical, which destroys the life-preserving ozone layer. Only government treaties and repeated scientific warnings forced them to change.

Ban on DDT and PCBs: Industry did everything in its power to stop the ban of these highly poisonous pesticides, which devastated wildlife populations. But from 1970 to 1983, the amount of DDT in human body fat fell 79 percent.

Bureau of Economic Analysis: This agency provides all the economic statistics that Congress, the executive branch, the Federal Reserve, the stock and bond markets, private industry and the entire economy depend on to make their analysis. Private industry could never do such an enormous job.

Clean Air and Clean Water Acts: By 1970, three fourths of America's rivers were undrinkable and unswimmable. Air quality in cities contributing to spiraling lung-disease rates. Over industry opposition, these Acts turned the environment around and visibly cleaned both our air and water.

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Each year, products kill 21,700 consumers, injure 28.7 million more, and cost society $200 billion. It would be far worse without this watchdog agency screening 15,000 products a year for safety.

Cooperative Extension Service: The CES gives American farmers the latest and best agricultural information and scientific research. Experts credit it for turning them into the most productive farmers in the world.

Environmental Protection Agency: This agency monitors and controls pollution caused by solid wastes, pesticides, toxic substances, noise, and radiation. It has been in constant conflict with business, because it's usually cheaper for businesses to just dump pollution than treat it.

Federal Aviation Administration: Whatever its shortcomings (which stem from underfunding), the FAA has made our skies far safer than the free market would make them. The FAA not only controls air traffic for safety, but enforces safety regulations (which airliners are constantly trying to skirt to increase profits).

Federal Deposit Insurance Commission: During the Great Depression, a run on banks resulted in 10,000 bankruptcies and over $2 billion in lost deposits. Today, the FDIC insures bank deposits and makes a repeat performance completely impossible.

Federal Home Loans: This agency helps half a million Americans buy homes each year by guaranteeing their mortgages. Without them, millions of first-time buyers would have been denied home loans.

G.I. Bill: One of the most successful programs of all times, the G.I Bill sent an entire army of young men to college after World War II. It proved so valuable that the program continues to this day.

Head Start: This legendary program provides pre-schooling, nutritious meals, medical and dental care and other services to young children in their critical developmental years. More than 200 studies have found that it works.

Meals-on-Wheels: This highly popular program brings hot meals to the doorsteps of elderly people who cannot fix their own or leave their homes. Nearly a million senior citizens alleviate hunger or starvation thanks to this program.

Medicaid: This program provides health care to the elderly, disabled and poor. It covers half of all the people in nursing homes.

Medicare: Before Medicare, half our nation's senior citizens did not have any health care coverage at all. Now 99 percent of them do. Medicare passed in 1965, after one of the largest Congressional battles in history -- fueled, of course, by the insurance industry.

National Aeronautical Space Administration: A classic example of a long-term research and development program that no business could ever afford. Today we have communications, weather and scientific satellites that have revolutionized our daily lives, all thanks to NASA.

National Academy of Sciences: This is the premier scientific body in the United States, comprised of 1,800 of its best scientists. Membership is one of the highest honors of a scientist's career. The Academy's duty is to advise the government on scientific and technical issues, and to help coordinate scientific research in the U.S. It also commissions review panels on controversial issues and often gets to the bottom of them.

National Crime Information Center: This is a centralized federal computer service that provides police and criminal justice organizations with instant information on criminals. It tracks 400,000 wanted persons, and handles 1.3 million inquiries a day.

National Parks: This system oversees 369 national parks comprising 83 million acres. It is one of the most effective -- not to mention popular -- conservation efforts in our nation's history.

National Performance Review/"Reinventing Government": This is Al Gore's ambitious program to computerize and streamline government, borrowing techniques from high-performance private companies. It has already saved $58 billion and cut 200,000 workers, with much, much more to come.

National Weather Service: This agency not only gives you your daily weather reports, but saves the lives and/or livelihoods of pilots, sailors, farmers and those in the paths of destructive storms.

Peace Corps: Created by John F. Kennedy, this program sends 7,000 Americans a year out to developing countries to help them with everything from health care to farming techniques. Even conservatives like it, because the participants provide social, economic and political information to our intelligence agencies.

Police and Criminal Justice System: This may seem obvious, but it's also one of the best examples that government plays a vital role in society, one that could never be privatized. This is one of the best counter-arguments against pure anarchy.

Public Libraries: In 1992, America had 15,870 central public libraries and their branches, with nearly 700 million books and serial volumes in circulation. A University of Minnesota/Gallup survey found that 88 percent of all Americans consider public libraries "very important" as an educational support center for students of all ages.

School Lunches and Breakfasts: This program provides low-income kids with a third to a half of their daily nutrition. Since the program began, low-income kids have markedly improved their school performance and attendance. A classic example of how short-term public aid results in life-long individual benefits.

Securities and Exchange Commission: Before this agency was created, insider-trading and deceptive stock dealings ran rampant on Wall Street. The SEC enforces full and honest disclosure of all stock transactions, and fights to curb insider trading.

Social Security: Before 1935, retirement condemned huge numbers of old people to starving in the streets. Social security eliminated this ugly sight by providing them with a pension. Johnson's expansion of Social Security in 1966 reduced senior poverty even more, from 30 to 12 percent.

Student Loans and Grants: In 1993, the major federal student financial assistance programs awarded $25.7 billion in aid to students who could not otherwise afford college. Thanks to this program, it is a student's intelligence and drive -- not money -- that is more responsible for getting him or her through college.

The U.S. Armed Forces: Love 'em or hate 'em, the U.S. Armed Forces have won every war they ever fought. Even in Vietnam, they won the vast majority of their battles.

Where have all the proud, rugged individualists gone?

And this is what you don't get. Capitalism is a self defeting system. Through the process of capitalism all resources become owned and exploited and ownership becomes consolidated. Once that has happned, it then becomes difficult for new growth to take place.

America is about 200 years old, but really if you look at the whole country less than that, more like 150. It was a vast wilderness where it was easy to go out an dgrab resources and get to work. Now it is no longer that way. Over time it will be even less that way. In the 1800s you got off the boat with nothing, hithched a ride west, workedd for a farmer for about 6 months, bought a horse and get and laid claim to free land, found gold on it, then you were rich, maybe you had to kill a few Indians along the way.

You can't do that now. the computer revolution created a new "gold rush", a new boom, but that got grabbed up quick, in like 10 years, not its all populated by the big boys too.

As the economy matures and developed the entry level into the system gets higher and higher. It gets harder and harder to start a business. People become more and more dependant on those who have already achieved success before them.

There is no way around it, except, of course socialism or redistribution of wealth. When America was founded there was no need to redistribute wealth because it was all free for the taking by anyone. Now, it no longer is.

Segnosaur

10th June 2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

That's the whole point.

If person X has no money to start a business with and person Y has an established business and makes millions of dollars and have money to develop his business than how can person X just start a business and compete? He can't.

The only way he could would be if peron Y is just extremely incompotent.

I have to disagree...

There are many ways that a person can create an 'upstart' business. There are 'new' markets that a person can enter, there are banks and venture capitalists willing to invest (probably fewer now after the .com bubble burst, but they still exist.)

And while I don't expect an 'upstart' company to compete immediately with a high-earning established company, there is no reason that they cannot compete in the near future.

Look at the list of the richest people in Forbes magazine... Many are 'self made' millionaires (Gates, Ellison, etc.) Others may have inherited part of their fortunes, but they continue working to make it successful.

corplinx

10th June 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Yeah, its just that easy :rolleyes:

That was called the stock market scam of the late 1990s, that bandwagon is overwith.

You keep rolling your eyes slick. The stock market scam was zero value companies and bad business plans.

There were many entrepreneurs using small web sites to sell anything from pool chemicals to computer parts. I had a case study in business school about a guy who sold pool chemicals. He would browse the latest prices, undercut them, collect orders. At 4pm every day he would go buy a large wholesaler, buy the chemicals and then ship them.

His startup costs were very low. His story is but one of many.

There is nothing more annoying than someone who is ignorant of a subject acting juvenile (rolling their virtual eyes in your case). Perhaps you could find a web forum for reactionary anti-business people so you won't need be bothered with facts?

Cain

10th June 2003, 01:41 PM

Ah, the Horatio Alger fallacy. The notion that everybody can be the exception. It works as well in capitalism as it does in lotteries.-- Mike Huben

A Time poll conducted in the year 2000 showed that 19% of people actually think they're in the top 1%. A further 20% believe they will be there one day.

(A gushing editorial in the WSJ a few months ago cited similar numbers from a then recent Gallup Poll.)

This is just another instance of the Market-God at work. Those who are faithful believers will get rewarded for their piety.

John McMurty draws parallels between market fundamentalism (espoused daily here on the JREF forums) and more typical religious fundamentalism:

A theological doctrine, like a science, is an organized system of ideas which is intended to make sense of reality in terms of the principles it advances. But what distinguishes a fundamentalist theology from a science or other learned discipline is that:

1. It posits an invisible Supreme Ruler whose order of rule and laws are conceived as universal, inevitable, and absolute;

2. This order of rule and its laws are conceived as immutable and inalterable, and any interference in their nature or structure is construed as abhorrent;

3. The Supreme Ruler rewards those who are disciplined in their adherence to this order and its laws, and is unforgiving to those who rebel against, violate, or fail to submit to getting its fundamentals right;

4. Happiness and prosperity are the rewards of the Supreme Ruler, and are distributed to all subjects in proportion to their competitive satisfaction of the order's demands; while poverty, degradation and suffering are the punishments which inevitably befall all peoples of the world who in any way flout, shirk or do not adapt to its order's demands;

5. There are perfect states of equilibrium of the Ruler's eternal order which do not exist and are never attained, but which all the Ruler's subjects must understand as the optimums towards which the system tends if not interfered with by the atheist plans and insubordinations of governments and unbelievers.

6. If necessary sacrifices are made by a society to ensure that its fundamentals are right and in proper adjustment to the Supreme Ruler's re-structuring demands, then prosperity or miracles will transfigure that society by the workings of the Supreme Ruler's invisible hand;

7. Whatever facts of life disaster may seem to contradict the necessity and validity of the Ruler's order of rule only appear to conflict with them, and can always be explained and corrected by more rigorous understanding and application of the order's discipline, austerity and sacrifices;

8. Those who doubt or criticize the perfection of the design of the Ruler, the justice of the order's distribution of goods or punishments, and the global inevitability of the system's rule are repudiators of the only hope for human salvation and prosperity, and are to be known as heretics and subversives;

9. Although denominations and sects may fight among one another to determine and declare what the Supreme Ruler truly prescribes and prohibits to His subjects, they are united in their abomination of all that obstructs, creates barriers to or builds protective walls against the free circulation of His Word and His Laws;

10. Any and all societies, parties or governments which seek to live by any alternative order of social life organization than ordained by the Supreme Ruler are the declared Enemy of the Ruler and of the freedom of humanity, and are to be warred against until expelled from the community of nations and destroyed as the forces of evil.

For each logical space in which the term "the Supreme Ruler" or "the Ruler's order and laws" occurs, substitute the term "the global market" in these logical spaces. In this way, we can test whether and to what extent global market theory and practise fulfils the principles of a fanatical theological doctrine in its underlying structure of belief. Note that "theological" here is being used in a restricted sense. It refers only to an absolutist and vengeful theological doctrine, as distinguished from a theology which construes its God as open to different social orders, and not demanding continuous sacrifices and punishments of those it rules.

I'm sure everyone has a story about a guy they knew in high school, or how a friend's friend became super-rich through his website on the side. And we could find even more people who were "saved" by "Angels" when their car broke down in freezing weather, or the benevolent God who omniously warned someone, through a sign of course, not to board a certain plane. Everyone thinks they're going to become rich for reasons not unlike why they believe they're going to Heaven. The faithful are always rewarded -- eventually. If not, then you're insufficiently pious.

corplinx

10th June 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Cain
I'm sure everyone has a story about a guy they knew in high school, or how a friend's friend became super-rich through his website on the side.

This isn't about hearsay success stories. We are talking about what the internet has done for entrepreneurship. Are the startup costs for a virtual business less than a storefront business?

Yes.

Can a mail/order and internet business make headway against monopoly or oligopoly?

Ask Michael Dell.

The original issue was someone saying that a small businessman can make no headway against a corporate heavyweight. Its an assertion that is pure nonsense and you can find business case after business case refuting that.

Just because it is not likely, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And its certainly no miracle when it does.

DialecticMaterialist

10th June 2003, 02:00 PM

John McMurty draws parallels between market fundamentalism (espoused daily here on the JREF forums) and more typical religious fundamentalism:

Which of course does not hold a candle to some marxist/socialist fanaticism. ;)

Malachi151

10th June 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I have to disagree...

There are many ways that a person can create an 'upstart' business. There are 'new' markets that a person can enter, there are banks and venture capitalists willing to invest (probably fewer now after the .com bubble burst, but they still exist.)

And while I don't expect an 'upstart' company to compete immediately with a high-earning established company, there is no reason that they cannot compete in the near future.

Look at the list of the richest people in Forbes magazine... Many are 'self made' millionaires (Gates, Ellison, etc.) Others may have inherited part of their fortunes, but they continue working to make it successful.

Okay, tell me this. How many new oil companies start up to compete with Exxon, and such? How many new American car companies start up to comepte with Ford and such?

There is no such thing as a self made millionaire, first of all, and secondly those are examples of people taking advantage of new "gold rushes".

Yes, when a new "gold ruch" happens then oppertunity is creates, however that oppertunity depends on some new area opening up that existing wealthy people fail to understand.

That's hardly something to build an economy on, and no way to plan for the future. Let;s see, our plan for the future is that some new thing will happen that people can take advanatge of, maybe, but we have no idea what it is or will be. :rolleyes:

The computer revolution was a kind of fluke. It was born out of the conservatisim of the 1950s, in such a way that those people were not ready to take advantage of new oppertunity because they were conservatives, so when oppertunity came it was liberals ad revolutionary thinkers that took advantage.

IBM failed to capatilize on their position which left the door open for others. Had more compotent people been at IBM there would be no Bill Gates or Michael Dell.

Let's look at Wal-Mart. and all the chains that have sprug up in America creating new wealth. That oppertunity was created out of the liberal economic policy of the 1950s and 1960s that kept big business down. Now that big business have taken over oppertunity is quickly disappearing again. Once Wal-Mart is installed in every city the oppertunity to repeat that type to thing will be gone.

Now, if you want to keep living in a fantasy and believing that our generation (I'm 28) has the same kinds of oppertunities available to it that previous generations had then keep telling yourself that, but the fact is, we don't. The cost of entry into business is getting higher. The computer revolution DID create a brief period of low entry cost, but of course you had to be inot computers, no other fields really had that kind of oppertunity.

DialecticMaterialist

10th June 2003, 03:03 PM

Okay, tell me this. How many new oil companies start up to compete with Exxon, and such? How many new American car companies start up to comepte with Ford and such?

Very true. In major industries which require a lot of infrastructure and little innovation: subways, airports, power plants etc. There really isn't any "competition" because it's too risky to mess up, the market/space is already taken and hard to switch if your a customer("go ahead and use another power plant with new power lines... HA!")
and inertia is the determining factor.

In fact I'd rather not have competition in some of these cases, multiple airports, multiple plants with differing power lines etc.

Perhaps the profit motive keeps them more efficient then a government institute but they can just get around that by fixing prices.

Perhaps I'm not sure Ford should be nationalized, as in the car business there still is competition. But I do believe we should spend more rescouces on public transportation. (Buses and such which should not be competitive.) And that there airlines should be slowly nationalized.

There is no such thing as a self made millionaire, first of all, and secondly those are examples of people taking advantage of new "gold rushes".

Good point. Becoming a self-made millionare is like getting hit by lightning.

Sure it can happen, likewise you can go to hollywood, quite your job and become a celebrity.

But it is unlikely. For every success there are a hundred failures. For every one person that gets ahead of the economic station to which he or she was born, there are probably many more who simply stay there.

That is inpart because there is little equal oppurtunity in some ways.

A rich kid all things being equal will always be ahead of a poor kid: he has better schooling, better access to college, more free time to devote to school, better medical care, lives in a better neighborhood/enviroment with less distractions, may have more encouragement, has better connections/friends of the family etc.

A poor kid by contrast has poorer schooling, has to probably get a job while going to school(giving him or her less time to devote to school, putting him or her at a disadtantage to those who have more time), has to worry about more distractions like gangsters and bullies, has to worry about his/her health problems more, may actually be discouraged by family and peers and has no connections with the business world with which to work with.

The only way a poor kid thus has a chance of entering the rich kids positions is: if he does extraordinarily well, and the rich kid does extraordinarily poorly. Or if the market opens up and someone, one notch below the "richer" kid likewise does extraordinarily poorly.

I'm not saying this is a case for egalitarianism or full socialism. Ultimately we may have to deal with some economic injustice and unfairness for the greater good, that being capitalism does produce a lot more in some areas(helping all by generating so much wealth and innovations).

But this is a case for programs which help increase equal oppurtunity and more socialism.(A mixed economy)

A poor kid will probably always be at a disadvantage, but with better schooling and some government aid perhaps not as much at a disadvantage. He may not be able to be a CEO, but being a respected doctor is probable given he is smart and hard working.

corplinx

10th June 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Okay, tell me this. How many new oil companies start up to compete with Exxon, and such? How many new American car companies start up to comepte with Ford and such?

There is no such thing as a self made millionaire, first of all, and secondly those are examples of people taking advantage of new "gold rushes".

Yes, when a new "gold ruch" happens then oppertunity is creates, however that oppertunity depends on some new area opening up that existing wealthy people fail to understand.

That's hardly something to build an economy on, and no way to plan for the future. Let;s see, our plan for the future is that some new thing will happen that people can take advanatge of, maybe, but we have no idea what it is or will be. :rolleyes:

The computer revolution was a kind of fluke. It was born out of the conservatisim of the 1950s, in such a way that those people were not ready to take advantage of new oppertunity because they were conservatives, so when oppertunity came it was liberals ad revolutionary thinkers that took advantage.

IBM failed to capatilize on their position which left the door open for others. Had more compotent people been at IBM there would be no Bill Gates or Michael Dell.

Let's look at Wal-Mart. and all the chains that have sprug up in America creating new wealth. That oppertunity was created out of the liberal economic policy of the 1950s and 1960s that kept big business down. Now that big business have taken over oppertunity is quickly disappearing again. Once Wal-Mart is installed in every city the oppertunity to repeat that type to thing will be gone.

Now, if you want to keep living in a fantasy and believing that our generation (I'm 28) has the same kinds of oppertunities available to it that previous generations had then keep telling yourself that, but the fact is, we don't. The cost of entry into business is getting higher. The computer revolution DID create a brief period of low entry cost, but of course you had to be inot computers, no other fields really had that kind of oppertunity.

There is only one thing you have proven. You don't know sh*t from shinola when it comes to business. Please shut up because its really embarassing.

Walter Wayne

10th June 2003, 03:16 PM

In Ontario there has been a minor (often exagerated) health care crisis. But a lot of that was caused by a misuse of funs across the government board. With the over spending in the past all areas, including education and health had their funding reduced. The health care and education budgets were not unsustainable on their own, it was waste in all facets of federal and provincial spending that was cost us.

Ontario health care is still extremely good from what I see, but it is not what it use to be. And I and most canadians still prefer our system to that in the U.S. However, if you have lots of money, getting an operation done in the states is a good way to reduce your waiting period regardless of urgency.

One problem the socialist system runs into is the need to be perceived as underfunded. In a private company divisions often make sure to use up their entire budget since having funding left over will surely mean a big cut next year. Same thing in government. If schools say we are getting the exact or more money than we need, and other branches say they are under funded, guess who is getting screwed next year. This is one case where being honest is only beneficial if everybody is.
Edit to add: This is a problem in less socialist regions as well, their are just less branches lying to the government.

Walt

Malachi151

10th June 2003, 03:59 PM

I agreee DM. In fact I don't see the way econmic entrenchment works as a bad thing, I mean its fine that some big business takes control and becomes dominate. I'm okay with that and it creates stability, we don't want major companies coming and going all the time.

Why would a want a world where Ford get's challenged by upstarts, and goes out of business, etc and turnover is high? We don't want that.

The issue is that people have to RECOGNIZE this fact. So many people today just ignore it and act like oppertunity is infinate, when in fact it is not, its finite.

Secondly people also so that if you don't like it you should start your own business. Well fist of all, just assuming that is was easy to start a business that you wanted to, why would we have all these people going out trying to start their own buisiness ONLY BECAUSE they NEED TO in order to get economic justice?

In this case we are sayign that you have to start your own business in order to be successful. Why should that be? Then the purpose of starting a business is not to contribute to society, but in an attempt to keep yorself from getting screwed by society.

The fact is that large companies and such can be very beneficial and the corporate system and big business is a force that can be used for great good and is being used for great good. The problem is when those in control don't let that good be shared by enough people.

Why have a bunch of people being ineffencient trying to make it on their own when we can create so much more with cooperation? The biggest barrier to that has been corporate greed, where they coporations don't share enough of the wealth with people responsible for creating it, so people become unhappy and try to go out on their own.

I mean with as much Marxist rhetoric as I spout, my ideas of solutions are quite reasonable and not really very radical IMO.

The issue is in understanding the flaws in the free-market system, and then simply addressing them. The problem come from people that don't acknowledge the flaws at all, or people that go too far in trying to counteract them.

To me its all about ensureing the oppertunity exists for everyone, and that the fruits of production shared by everyone in society.

When I said that there is no such thing as a self made millionaire I mean there there is NO such thing at all.

Think about it. No person can become wealthy single handedly. It requires a society. If Bill Gates' wealth was soly HIS construction then he could have become equally wealthy in Afganistan or China or the Bahamas. The fact is that he could only do what he did in America though, because the American society was the main thing that built Gate's wealth, not Gates, same goes every every person everywhere that makes money. All wealthy and money is a social construct and a product of society. Individuals contribute to that wealth but its all interdependant. Bill Gates could not sit on some isladn by himself and become the richest man on earth, it was a social process that was dependant on virtualy all of American society to create his wealth, and all our wealth.

Part of the money I make, I make because the police force keeps crime low in my neighborhood, part is because there are roads that have been built that allow travel and commerce, etc, etc. Its all interconnected and inner dependant. I can't make money unless millions of Americans are doing their jobs, and the same goes for everyone, and really its global. That's why there is no self-made millioniare.

Segnosaur

11th June 2003, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Okay, tell me this. How many new oil companies start up to compete with Exxon, and such? How many new American car companies start up to comepte with Ford and such?

First of all, I'm not assuming that some new, upstart company is going to be established that will immediately challenge Exxon or Ford. However, that does not mean that opportunities do not exist... Small resource companies, if they are wise with there searches, can 'strike it big'. A company may not compete with Ford right away, but they can set themselves up as a retailer, or parts manufacturer (something requiring less capital), and expand when opportunities arise.

Or, a company with interests in one area can 'expand' into related fields. Look at the Canadian company Nortel Networks; originally a 'manufacturing' arm of Bell Canada; at one point it actually manufactured sleigh bells...

Even if it isn't easy to start a new automotive company, there are dozens of areas where opportunities do exist, where a company can start small and expand if/when they are successful... retail, software, construction, etc.

Originally posted by Malachi151

There is no such thing as a self made millionaire,

Tell that to Forbes.

Have you ever looked at their list of richest Americans? Yes there are some who inherited their money (many of those are active in business and are actively growing their fortunes), but In the top 25 you have Gates, Buffett, Dell, Kluge, Soros... And guess what? Not all of these got rich from the computer industry.

Originally posted by Malachi151

and secondly those are examples of people taking advantage of new "gold rushes".

Yes, when a new "gold ruch" happens then oppertunity is creates, however that oppertunity depends on some new area opening up that existing wealthy people fail to understand.

If you were born 100 years ago, you'd probably be complaining that "There aren't any chances for new buggy whip manufacturers to enter the market".

Guess what? New "gold rushes" happen very frequently... probably every generation gets their own opportunity, some area that did not exist before which becomes available. 100 years ago, it was the automobile. 50 years ago, I'd say it was TV/media. 20 years ago, it was the computer. What the next 'gold rush' will be I don't know (could be biotech)... But I'm 100% sure that SOME unexploited area will come along.

Originally posted by Malachi151

The computer revolution was a kind of fluke. It was born out of the conservatisim of the 1950s, in such a way that those people were not ready to take advantage of new oppertunity because they were conservatives, so when oppertunity came it was liberals ad revolutionary thinkers that took advantage.

IBM failed to capatilize on their position which left the door open for others. Had more compotent people been at IBM there would be no Bill Gates or Michael Dell.

Nope, the computer revolution was not a 'fluke'... it was the result of human advancements in technology making processors fast and cheap enough that they could be used in many products. And as for the 'liberals' taking advantage... remember, IBM (that conservative company) sold a whole mess of PCs back in the 1980s. (The 'revolutionary thinkers' didn't control everything.)

Now, I agree... IBM failed to capitalize on their position... but guess what? It just goes to show... opportunities are available. Or are you assuming that no existing company, anywhere, will ever make a mistake again?

Originally posted by Malachi151

Let's look at Wal-Mart. and all the chains that have sprug up in America creating new wealth. That oppertunity was created out of the liberal economic policy of the 1950s and 1960s that kept big business down. Now that big business have taken over oppertunity is quickly disappearing again. Once Wal-Mart is installed in every city the oppertunity to repeat that type to thing will be gone.

You, ah, do realize that there WERE other department stores before Walmart was ever founded? Walmart was founded in 1962; Sears (for example) existed before it; however, Walmart was able to build its empire from a single store.

Walmart is big, they are everwhere; but that does not make them invincible. They can make mitakes. And it does not mean that some other chain cannot grow from a single store (now) to challenge them in 10 or 20 years.

Originally posted by Malachi151

Now, if you want to keep living in a fantasy and believing that our generation (I'm 28) has the same kinds of oppertunities available to it that previous generations had then keep telling yourself that, but the fact is, we don't.

Well, if you're typical of your generation, then yes, you have fewer opportunities... because you've shown yourself to be a whiny self-important slouch wanting to blame others for their problems.

Frankly, I'm 35 (a "Gen Xer") and I find my generation to be the biggest load of whiners that ever came down the turnpike.

Originally posted by Malachi151

The computer revolution DID create a brief period of low entry cost, but of course you had to be inot computers, no other fields really had that kind of oppertunity.

Rather broad statement... "no other fields"... be careful with absolutes like that... they can come back and bite you.

Lets see.. what other fields... Retail (An uncle of mine started with a single store and ended up with a small chain), construction (my brother in law has basically started his own construction company from scratch; he ain't rich, but he's taken over much of the concrete business in the town he's in), media (friends of my family have created an advertising company from scratch). All successful businesses, all created 'from the ground up'.

(Note... those examples are all Canadian based, but I'm sure others can come up with other examples for the US.)

BillyTK

11th June 2003, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by RedCoat
In healthcare, minimal services are also provided to virtually everybody. 911 dispatches ambulances regardless of who's calling. Emergency rooms still treat people without insurance. The costs of this is simply passed on to the people who *do* pay, hence it is a form of socialism.
Not strictly true. Under your system, the people who *do* pay, pay through medical insurance; the minimal medical system (incl. medicaid) is paid for through taxation, which is the "socialised" aspect. But bear in mind that if you have medical insurance, you are paying for the treatment of others anyway--those have policies with the same company; insurance companies work on the basis that claims for individual treatment costs will never exceed a particular margin of income frm insurance contributions.

Compare this with the British system in which everybody over a certain tax threshold (apart from those who duck taxes with off-shore accounts for instance) pays National Insurance contributions towards the running of the NHS, and have the option to increase their cover with private insurance, which brings me nicely onto my next point; no one system of funding for healthcare works; for instance, the UK uses a system of mostly public funded with a combination of some private- and charitably-funded, and out-of-pocket expenses; the US uses mostly privately funded with some public and charitably-funded with out-of-pocket expenses. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages; for instance, when it comes to terminal care, I'd take the British system any day.

My opposition to nationalized health care is the result of my suspicion that making it a "free" gov't service will destroy it's quality. (Just in the same way that the quality of "free" public education is, on the whole, abysmal.) The NHS in the UK, from what I'm told, has suffered this type of degeneration in quality.
Actually, this is a myth. Bear in mind that prior to the implementation of the NHS in 1942 affordable health care was of poor quality for most people anyway, and it was this situation that led the government of the day to implement a public health care system as the best way to address this. The NHS has been suffering from funding problems practically since its inception, but most of these can be attributed to government idiocy (could we have a state health system but without government interference please?). One of the biggest funding problems is that the NHS is the victim of its own success; the people who benefitted most from its creation have grown old and are now a drain on its resources. But even this is not insurmountable, even without a "soylent green"-style solution ;)
Need should not trump ownership. Just because someone "needs" something should not dissolve the provider of the good or service from their right to charge for it.
But this is problematic wrt to health care; should treatment be withheld simply because the patient is unable to pay for it? What about communicable diseases, or immunisation programmes for instance? Surely it's to everyone's benefit that the individual receives treatment? But let's not forget that the provider is not being denied payment for their services, they're simply not collecting it form the point of delivery of that service.

Cain

11th June 2003, 02:37 AM

The original issue was someone saying that a small businessman can make no headway against a corporate heavyweight. Its an assertion that is pure nonsense and you can find business case after business case refuting that.

Just because it is not likely, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And its certainly no miracle when it does.

Oh sure, the media reminds us of all the "hits" while the "misses" go unmentioned. The fact is ( if I remember correctly), that over 80% of small businesses fail within 5 years.

I'm not even sure how or why you can so glibly invoke the Internet as some kind of great leveler that crashes down the traditional barriers. Even more conventional conservatives ( Dinesh D'Souza, for example) lightly challenging the "casino-economy" (or the perception of a casino-economy). Or we can use Malachi's apropos term "gold rush."

The fact of the matter is that you'll probably fall into the same bracket as your parents in terms of wealth. Most of the mobility, unsurprisingly, takes place for those who are already on the border. Even then, I'm not entirely sure how or why income/wealth mobility compensates for inequality, or has anything to do with healthcare. "Oh, you're supposed to die because you're not rich. You could've been rich -- just like anyone else -- but essentially chose not to. You chose not to work hard."

RedCoat

11th June 2003, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Okay, tell me this. How many new oil companies start up to compete with Exxon, and such? How many new American car companies start up to comepte with Ford and such?

There is no such thing as a self made millionaire, first of all, and secondly those are examples of people taking advantage of new "gold rushes".

I agree - you're not going to make it trying to start another Enron or another Ford. Starting a new company that does the same thing as an existing company, only at higher cost, is a crappy business plan.

Finding a way to deliver a good or service that no one else does, or delivering an existing good or service at a lower price, IS a good business plan.

To take Ford, for example - there are literally thousands of parts in a car. Ford purchases the vast majority of them from suppliers. Finding a way to make one - just one - window switch, or spark plug, or trim screw at a lower cost and then selling it to Ford is an EXCELLENT business plan. Stuff like this happens every day. (I say this based on my experience in the auto industry, so I'm not just making this up.)

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I strongly believe that an entrpeneurial spirit, hard work, and a good business plan will make you successful 99.99% of the time. Complaining about how impossible it is to start a company is a self fulfilling prophecy that never produces anything.

America is great because anybody who has a good idea can make it into a business and make money off of it. I for one would like to keep it that way. Socialism may be great for Europe, and I'm not going to ask them to change, but I'd prefer to keep our system the way it is.

Peace.

Tmy

11th June 2003, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by RedCoat

The statistic that I'm thinking of (and this may be a few years old) is that the top 5% of earners provide 50% of the federal gov't tax income. The lower 50% of earners provide 5% of the tax income.

Assuming that this is still true, then everyone should be thankful that "Richy Rich" (your term) pays his or her taxes.

As a side thought - aren't Richy Rich's trucks providing truck driving jobs for Joe Worker? If Joe Worker doesn't want to drive trucks, why doesn't he start a company to compete with Richy Rich?

Peace.

My post was not meant to begrudge the Rich guy, I just wanted to challenge this accepted notion that Mr. Rich gets little return for his tax dollars while his poor counterpart is supposably rolling in government services.

Another thing, I dont think the wealthy are all business owners. many of them are well paid employees. Starting your own business is not always the best or feasible idea.

WMT1

11th June 2003, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Actually, in attributing a particular characteristic to socialism, I'm not claiming that everything that shares that characteristic is socialist. But if it makes you feel better to call him one, you won't get much of an argument from me.

Originally posted by Tricky
Your implication above was that asking people to pay for something they didn't want is a socialist trait. I am showing that such exhibiting such a trait does not imply socialism.

But that wasn't necessary. I never claimed that exhibiting such a trait always implies socialism, I only said that socialism is something that tends to exhibit that trait. Do you agree or not?

No, I am not implying GWB is socialist, but rather that your characterization of socialist "traits" does not distinguish socialists from non-socialists.

I didn't say it does. You're responding to arguments I haven't made.

Technically, no one has a "right" to anything, not even life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Speak for yourself.

So you think that we have rights, but right to education is not one of them. Who then defines what are "rights"? The government? God? You?

From what I've seen, my assessment of such things is as sound as anyone else's. If you've got some ideas that you think are better, feel free to put'em on the table for discussion. But if all you can come up with is that they are defined by government, it's going to reflect about as much critical analysis as someone saying "because the Bible says so".

If we were living under anarchy, a stronger person (or group) could take any of those things away at any time.

So, just to pin you down a bit, are you saying that a right does not exist if the ability to exercise it can be abridged? If a woman is raped, and the perpetrator gets away with it, does that mean she didn't have a right not to be raped?

My argument is that rights are defined by the law.

Well, legal rights certainly are. Do you simply reject the idea of rights in any broader sense?

If it against the law to rape, then the rapist had no "right" to do so.

Putting that qualifier on it like that is a bit scary. I would argue the rapist had no right to do so, period. Still, I wasn't asking about the rights of the rapist. I was asking about the rights of the victim. Can I take it that, to you, she only has a right not to be raped if the law says so?

We elect people to decide on these "rights" based on how closely they match our own moral codes.

Again, speak for yourself. Some of us vote for people to defend rights, not "decide" them.

And by the way, if what you're talking about is "rights" matching individual moral codes, then doesn't that mean those moral codes must have something to say about "rights" in the first place?

Without law, there are no rights.

Sounds to me like a case of the tail wagging the dog. Some of us are able to conceive of rights independently of what anyone tells us they are, and to formulate opinions about what laws should be, based on those rights, not the other way around. Incidentally, if there are no rights without law, then why bother with law at all?

The US government is based on the notion that people should have those "rights", and it has set up a system to protect them.

I don't know what your source is for this, but I don't recall the word "should" being used in conjunction with those rights. In any case, I don't look to the US government for my opinions on such things.

No, I put the word "should" in there. This is my opinion, so I get to use the words I like.

But you were expressing your "opinion" about what the US government is based on. Do you have anything to support the "opinion" that the US government is based on the notion that people should have those "rights", rather than being based on a recognition that they do have them?

And while you may not look to the US government for your opinions, you assuredly do look to them for your "rights" (assuming you are a citizen of the US).

I may look to them to protect my rights, but not to define them. And sadly, they often end up violating them. That raises an interesting question though. Is it your position that there can be no such thing as a law that violates rights?

I don't think that you would argue that one of the marks of civilization is education. There seems to be a very strong correlation between the level of education in a country and their standards of living. Education appears to be the best way to prevent poverty.

That may be a good reason to get an education, and maybe even a good argument to use in persuading someone to contribute to the education of others. It's hardly a justification for forcing them to.

People are forced to do things (including paying for things) all the time that are deemed (by our laws) to be good for the country.

:rolleyes: Thanks for providing that insightful observation about how things are. I never cease to be amazed at the people (particularly in this forum) who seem to think this has any weight as an argument about how things should be.

You apparently agree with some of them.

Not the part about being forced to pay for things. And if you want to cite any examples of anything I have expressed agreement with, I'll be happy to defend them.

Where you differ from me (and the government) is which things are good for the country (or area, since most of a school's funding comes from local taxes).

No, it's more specific than that. Where I differ from you (and the government) is in the legitimacy of forcing people to pay for things they did not agree to pay for.

So it is in the interest of the government to provide education for its citizens.

Whether that's true or not, the government having an "interest" in doing something hardly equates to a right to do it.

I reiterate: Your rights are defined by the laws.

And I reiterate: Legal rights are, but once again, some of us are able to conceive of "rights" in a broader sense.

Just curious, do you really think we'd be better off if, in all the debate that leads to evolving policy, nobody had ever been able to argue for a "right" that was in conflict with whatever the laws had to say at the time? Specifically, if you had been alive when people were trying to bring an end to slavery, would you have been involved in the debate? And if so, would have been your position, and what would your strongest arguments have been?

And while we're at it, do you have a clear position on the legalization of abortion?

A similar (but IMO not as strong) case could be made for health care.

I hate to break it to you, but you didn't make your case, let alone a "strong" one.

I suppose that is a matter of opinion. Do you want to take it to a vote? ;)

If it'll make you feel more secure in your opinions, go right ahead. Those of us who have put a lot of thought into our views don't need that kind of validation.

Whether you call it a "right" or not is inconsequential. Ask only if it is better for the country as a whole.

No thanks. You could probably defend some form of institutionalized slavery if that's your only question. Some of us aren't quite so dismissive of the importance of respecting individual sovereignty.

Total individual sovereignty is anarchy.

How so?

There must be rules.

I'm pretty sure I haven't argued against having rules.

Governments make the rules, hopefully based on the input of the governed.

And sadly, both the government, and the governed, can get things wrong. Do you agree?

You don't have the "right" to go against those rules when you disagree with them, or if you do, expect to be punished.

Sorry, but the threat of punishment does not mean one does not have the right to violate an unjust law. In keeping with the attempt to pin you down, I'm guessing you don't think a slave had a right to run away, back when there were laws against doing so, right?

If you don't believe that having a healthy population is beneficial to you personally, then perhaps you should read Poe's The Masque of Red Death.

Since I haven't said it's not beneficial to me personally, what's the relevance?

You have certainly implied that you do not wish to pay for it.

Actually, my position has consistently been that nobody should be forced to pay for anything they did not agree to pay for. It helps to understand the difference.

Are you asking to have those benefits for free?

No. If I am to be part of a healthy population, I'm certainly prepared to pay for any medical services I seek. But beyond that, any perceived "benefits" associated with something as general as a "healthy population" are not something that any one entity has any business claiming credit for, let alone sending anyone a bill for.

WMT1

11th June 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151
Calling for indivual responsibility as a means of not having social responsibility is just tending towards anarchy and might makes right. Its "whatever I can get away with, then I can do".

Originally posted by WMT1
Damn, you do post some incoherent nonsense at times.

Originally posted by Malachi151
The wealthy elite in this country have a long history of campaigning to promote their own interests and subvert the will of the people.

Originally posted by WMT1
Um ... I'm not one of the "wealthy elite", and I don't consider them to be subverting my will. Do I still count as one of "the people"?

Originally posted by Malachi151
Sorry it was over your head ;)

Sorry, but your lack of clarity does not equate to something being over my head. If anyone else can decipher the sentence of yours that is the first one quoted above, I invite them to do so.

No, you are one of the people who has been duped by the wealthy elite into supporting an agenda that isn't even in your own best interest.

:rolleyes: Yeah, and I'm sure you're going to be able to back this up as well as you've backed up some of your other claims.

Attention everyone, I think we've found our Jedi Knight for the left.

Speak for yourself.

Actually what he said was correct.

Rights are a social construct. They are a product of society.

And who makes up "society"? If no individual opinion about "rights" has any validity, where does this "product" come from?

Society grants rights.

"Society" is just a collection of individuals. Since there isn't unanimity of opinion on much of anything, which of these individuals are you talking about, and where did they get the authority to determine rights for everyone else?

Rights are not intrinsic, despite what the founders may have claimed in order ot sound high and mighty.

Then you should have no problem understanding that nobody has the "right" to make anyone pay for anything they have not agreed to pay for. Thanks for the help.

And by the way, I couldn't care less about the "founders". You and others I've argued with about stuff like this are the ones who seem to have to rely on the opinions of others to form your own.

A right is not a part of you, a right is not like you eye color, or yoru hiar, etc.

I'm pretty sure I never said it was.

All rights are granted to you by society, which is why your rights can change from place to place and day to day.

Once again, you seem to be confusing the ability to exercise rights with the rights themselves.

If we burn the piece of paper that says we all have teh right to free speech then, guess what, we no longer have that right.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Are you capable of formulating any opinion about anything anyone is entitled to, or deserving of, without it being written down somewhere? If so, please provide an example.

Even if we dont', if people don't agree to let people excercise free speech, thne there is no free speech.

And are you capable of formulating any opinion about anything that anyone might be entitled to, or deserving of, even while they are not allowed to have it?

You have no rights at all naturally, just like every other animals on earth. Rights are a human creation based on our social structure, they are not "god given", they are not natural, they are not intrinsic.

Then let me get your answer to the same thing I'm asking Tricky. If you had been alive when people were trying to bring an end to slavery, would you have been involved in the debate? And if so, would have been your position, and what would your strongest arguments have been?

So, just to pin you down a bit, are you saying that a right does not exist if the ability to exercise it can be abridged? If a woman is raped, and the perpetrator gets away with it, does that mean she didn't have a right not to be raped?

What IS a right?

A just or rightful claim.

Incidentally, why did you bother to post the questions I asked Tricky if you weren't going to answer them?

What good is a right if it is not upheld?

Probably not much. That's why it's a good idea to uphold them.

If a woman has the "right" not to get raped, but she does anyway and nothing is done about it, then what good did the "right" do her?

None. The existence of a right isn't contingent on its being respected in any particular situation. You might want to write that down. If you don't, something tells me it's going to come up again.

Please define "rights". What are rights?

Rightful claims. Didn't we just cover this?

I've always said that rights aren't even real and have little meaning in the first place.

Then you agree that nobody has a "right" to have anything provided for them by government, or anyone else?

All rights are is a social contract that states what other peple are expected to do or not do to you. Its just an expectation and other memebers of society are supposed to honor and attempt to uphold when other people have their "rights" violated.

And when did all the "other members of society" agree to the terms of that "social contract"?

That may be a good reason to get an education, and maybe even a good argument to use in persuading someone to contribute to the education of others. It's hardly a justification for forcing them to.

Oh well, too bad. That's part of living in a SOCIETY.

So, can I take it that this is your way of countering any potential criticism of society, or just the particular criticisms you don't agree with, and for which you can't come up with anything better?

Its that whole SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

If there are no rights, where do you get the idea that there is any actual "social responsibility"? You just seem to be making up the rules as you go along.

If you don't want to contribute to the education of others then leave society, its that simple, go live in a cave.

Wow, great argument. It seems awfully close to "support socialism, or you don't belong in a society". Come to think of it, it's not that far removed from "love it or leave it" either. It's obvious you've put a lot of thought into this.

Incidentally, would you feel differently if my opinion on this point happened to be the prevailing view of society? If the majority felt that such contributions should be completely voluntary, should that majority still have to go live in caves? And if not, should those who support making people pay for the education of others have to do so?

YOU benefit from the educated existance of others. Why should you reap the benefit of such things w/o contributing to it?

I do contribute to it. I do so when I go to work every day, to earn money to pay for the goods and services from which I "benefit".

And if I were not being taxed, I would be more than happy to contract with the government to pay for services from which I believe I would benefit. But that should be my call, not yours, and not the government's.

Its just you trying to weasel out of responsibility and take advantge of others.

First, just to remind you, you haven't established any such "responsibility" in the first place.

Moreover, regardless of what I might be willing to pay for, what I will not do is support forcing payment from my neighbor without his consent. If you do support such force, well, that would be one of the things wrong with socialism. And in case you were wondering, it's also what makes my position the superior one.

Whether that's true or not, the government having an "interest" in doing something hardly equates to a right to do it.

No, there are some things that every memebr of society benefits from no matter what. As such every member of society that is capable has to pay for those things, otherwise your really stealing from society.

First, you seem to be responding to something other than the comment I was making.

Moreover, stealing what? "Benefit" is a purely subjective assessment, not a specific product or service. Sorry, but such characterizations as the "stealing" thing are particularly laughable, coming from someone who supports taxation.

Let's say that you want to opena buusiness and hire a worker that knows how to read and write. If you do that w/o paying taxes then you are stealing from those who have paid to educate our workforce.

Nonsense. I wasn't the one who made them do so in the first place. As soon as you identify who did, that's where you're going to find that the actual stealing took place. Again, you seem quite confused when it comes to the area of assessing responsibility.

You're just trying to welch on everyone else's hard work.

Actually, no, I'm paying someone for their skills. They can charge me whatever they like, and if I don't like the price, I'll either look elsewhere, or do without.

I hate to break it to you, but you didn't make your case, let alone a "strong" one.

I hate to break to you that he did, you just didn't get it.

:rolleyes: What a surprise that you'd think so. So, what do you think was his strongest argument?

No thanks. You could probably defend some form of institutionalized slavery if that's your only question. Some of us aren't quite so dismissive of the importance of respecting individual sovereignty.

No, see this is what you don't get. Where are the lines to individual sovereignty? The founders of America saw that the right to own slaves was a part of the individual sovereignty.

That's nice, but again, I don't much care what they thought. But since you brought it up, were they right? And if not, why not?

The right for me to make demands of others is my individual soverengnty?

Uh, no. It would be something more along the lines of the right not to submit to the demands of others. If you're this confused, you should probably refrain from comments like "No, see this is what you don't get".

Total individuality, as Tricky says, is anarchy, and then no one has any rights at all, its just kill or be killed.

I didn't argue for "individuality", I'm arguing for respect for individual sovereignty. And with regard to that, your characterization would be flawed, because it involves clear violations of someone's sovereignty, so whatever you're talking about, it's clearly not total individual sovereignty. Bringing things like "anarchy" into the conversation only further demonstrates your confusion.

Full "individual soveregnty" is just sayig that its okay for any individual to impose their will on anyone else.

Wow, you're even more confused than I thought. It would be just the opposite - that is, it is not okay to impose your will on anyone else, because that would be violating their sovereignty. Did you think this through at all before posting?

Social contracts so no, you can't so whatever you want,

I'm not sure what this means, but if you're saying people can't do whatever they want, I'm pretty sure I've never said otherwise.

WE, and a group restrict your actions to prevent YOU from doing things to US that WE don't want.

And where have I argued for doing anything to you that you don't want? As usual, you're not making much sense.

And trust me, as much as you complain and moan,

Is this just your way of trying to make legitimate criticisms that you can't refute seem less valid than they are?

if we were to be more complacent with "individual liberty" you would not benefit.

You might just be right about that. Not everyone bases their politics on self-interest.

Those that would benefit are the economically powerful and the expence of the economically weak.

Well, duh. If people have been having their property and earnings confiscated, and then such a practice comes to an end, it kinda figures that those who have been having the most taken from them would benefit the most, and those who have been accustomed to benefitting from that practice would benefit the least if it stops. Did you really think you had a point here?

If you are not a billionaire or a multi-millionair, you would be hurt horribly by moving towards more individul liberty.

Since I am neither, I guess it would be too much to hope for to expect you to explain the foundation for this conclusion, clearly and concisely?

The social contract of government keeps powerful individuals from imposing their will on others.

:rolleyes: And here it is again. The good old "social contract" can always be counted on when you've got nothing else, right? Of course, your characterization doesn't exactly tell the whole story. That particular "social contract" doesn't keep a powerful majority from imposing its will on others, does it?

WMT1

11th June 2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
You don't have a "right" to education. But thanks for demonstrating one of the problems with setting bad precedents. Fostering the belief that you do have a right to these things is one of the unfortunate effects of those socialist traits you're asking about.

Originally posted by jj
Ok, taking it at face value there, tell me...

Do you think that there is any value for a 60 year old person in paying taxes to educate college students?

Do you think there is any value in a 20 year old mean-young-conservative paying for heathcare for the 60 year old person?

There might be, but what is important is that it's not my call to make for them, in either case. In a free society, the value of something is a determination that belongs with whoever is footing the bill, and the choice should be theirs.

Whatever value someone might find in paying for the education of a complete stranger may be insignificant compared to applying their resources to the education of their own kids. It should be up to them to decide who benefits from what they have earned. Similarly, if they think their best "health care" value is to apply all such resources to the health care of their own parents, or to anyone else in their own life, that should be their call as well. And the imposition of a different choice on them is the moral equivalent of stealing from them.

Let's leave rights out of it, which, if either, of the above, are good long-term investments?

Again, what matters is whether the person doing the investing thinks they are the best investment. It's not my place to decide that for anyone else. Nor is it yours. This is one of those things that tends to get overlooked among people who favor socialism, and confusion over where the decision rightfully belongs is one of the problems with it.

WMT1

11th June 2003, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Cain
Fine, the same arguments can apply to police protection.

Sounds good to me.

Why should the wealthy subsidize a police force disproportionately sent out to impoverished districts that pay much lower taxes (and hardly any by comparison).

You might want to ask someone who's wealthy. Speaking for myself, I would probably have no objection to paying for the services of a reliable police force that charged people based on income or something. And if I became wealthy, I can't imagine that I would suddenly have a problem with doing so.

Ideally though, everyone pays for their own police protection, and if you can't afford it, well, tough luck. Purchase a gun maybe?

Well, I don't know that I'd consider that to be the ideal situation, but if you can't afford it, and can't get someone else to pay for it, a gun might be a good temporary measure until you can.

What makes ownership so special and morally off-limits?

I don't know if this question is directed to me (you quoted me in your post), but you might want to ask someone who has claimed that ownership is "morally off-limits", whatever that means.

In other threads I've brought up the issue of legitimate ownership (how it comes to being), especially land ownership, but no one has yet to offer a substantive answer.

I'm open to suggestion. Whaddaya got?

We've setup a system where rich people get multiple cosmetic surgeries, and poor people needlessly suffer because they didn't catch an physical condition soon enough.

Sounds like a good reason to try not to be poor. Incidentally, would you prefer a system in which rich people could not get "multiple cosmetic surgeries"?

no one in particular

11th June 2003, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Attention everyone, I think we've found our Jedi Knight for the left.
Hey! I called dibs on this claim in this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869937394#post1869937394) thread!

Tmy

11th June 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Sounds like a good reason to try not to be poor. Incidentally, would you prefer a system in which rich people could not get "multiple cosmetic surgeries"?

I know Im goingto sound like some treehugger hippee but reading these posts I get the feeling that lots of people believe that the poor simply choose to be poor. That they would be well off if they werent so lazy. All theyhave to do is work hard, start a business and they'll be OK.

I find that rather simplistic and unfair. Thats like saying "Gee If the rich dont like the amount they pay in taxes, just give all your money away and become poor. Then you wont be paying those taxes you complain about."

True some people embrace poverty but for the most part people are "poor" for a variety of reasons that may not be so controlable.

11th June 2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

There is no such thing as a self made millionaire, first of all, and secondly those are examples of people taking advantage of new "gold rushes".

.

I am and I know several and it is not and you have no idea what you are talking about. You sound a bit like a bitter wage slave.

KelvinG

11th June 2003, 08:13 AM

What I'm learning in this thread is that the US is much more a socialist country than I originally thought.
Interesting.

KelvinG

11th June 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Cain
Maybe we don't have a universal healthcare system, and maybe we spend a higher percentage of GDP on healthcare than our cowardly neighbors to the north, but goddamn, at least we have the greatest, biggest, most fantastical military in the history of the world.

Just out of curiosity Cain, why does having universal healthcare make Canada cowardly?
I'm not understanding your reasoning here.

BillyTK

11th June 2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG

Just out of curiosity Cain, why does having universal healthcare make Canada cowardly?
I'm not understanding your reasoning here.

Clue: irony ;)

Kodiak

11th June 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151
First of all socialism does not require that the government do anything other that regulate wages, all work can stay in the private sector.

Are you saying socialism doesn't call for government ownership, management, and control of the means of production and the distribution and exchange of goods?!? :confused:

Tricky

11th June 2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

But that wasn't necessary. I never claimed that exhibiting such a trait always implies socialism, I only said that socialism is something that tends to exhibit that trait. Do you agree or not?
I do not agree. You said that socialism tends to exhibit such traits. You did not say "socialism and other things" exhibit such traits. You have singled out socialism. I can only comment on the things you have said, not on the things you have not said.

I didn't say it does. You're responding to arguments I haven't made.
I respectfully disagree. I think most readers would take your comments to be an attempt to characterize socialism. If your intention was otherewise, it was certainly not clear.

From what I've seen, my assessment of such things is as sound as anyone else's. If you've got some ideas that you think are better, feel free to put'em on the table for discussion. But if all you can come up with is that they are defined by government, it's going to reflect about as much critical analysis as someone saying "because the Bible says so".
From what I've[/i] seen, your assesment of such things is not too good. We can both put our ideas on the table, but who decides when we disagree? My answer is "the government" (judges, etc.). Can you give me a direct answer to this question?

Well, legal rights certainly are. Do you simply reject the idea of rights in any broader sense?
In this context, yes. What you are calling "rights" I call morality. If you are arguing that there are certain moral concepts on which most of us agree, I would say that is true. However, they are not "rights" until they are codified.

Putting that qualifier on it like that is a bit scary. I would argue the rapist had no right to do so, period. Still, I wasn't asking about the rights of the rapist. I was asking about the rights of the victim. Can I take it that, to you, she only has a right not to be raped if the law says so?
Yes, I thought I would simplify it instead of taking the convoluted path you did. It should be obvious that If the law says rape is illegal, then she had the "right" not to be raped. If there is no law forbidding rape, then she has no such rights.

Again, speak for yourself. Some of us vote for people to defend rights, not "decide" them.
You can't defend them until you have decided what they are. Otherwise, how would you know what to defend?

And by the way, [u]if what you're talking about is "rights" matching individual moral codes, then doesn't that mean those moral codes must have something to say about "rights" in the first place?
Now you're getting it! Yes, of course moral codes have everything to do with rights. But within the US, there are many moral codes, but everybody (or at least most people) have the same rights. How do you decide which bits of various moral codes go into deciding what is a "right"? Do I need to repeat it to you?

Sounds to me like a case of the tail wagging the dog. Some of us are able to conceive of rights independently of what anyone tells us they are, and to formulate opinions about what laws should be, based on those rights, not the other way around. Yes, and others of us have independantly conceived a different set of "rights" which conflict with yours? Hmmm?

[QUOTE][B]
If there are no rights without law, then why bother with law at all?
ROTFL. This is one for somebody's sig line!:D

But you were expressing your "opinion" about what the US government is based on. Do you have anything to support the "opinion" that the US government is based on the notion that people should have those "rights", rather than being based on a recognition that they do have them?
I'd say our whole legal system supports my opinion. Here's an example that is currently in the news. Two men are caught engaging in consensual sex. Texas law says they are criminals and have no right to do this thing. They go through the legal system and (hopefully) wind up having the right to consensual sex. Voila! A brand new right, courtesy of the government.

Now you tell me. Is there a "right" to practice homosexuality? At what age does this "right" begin (i.e., what is the age of consent)? Who decides?

I may look to them to protect my rights, but not to define them. And sadly, they often end up violating them. That raises an interesting question though. Is it your position that there can be no such thing as a law that violates rights?
I ask again (expecting no answer), Who defines them? What if people disagree?
As the case above shows, since laws conflict from place to place, so do rights. Certainly there are laws that violate my moral code.

:rolleyes: Thanks for providing that insightful observation about how things are. I never cease to be amazed at the people (particularly in this forum) who seem to think this has any weight as an argument about how things should be.
And I am constantly amazed that some people are not able to fathom such arguments. I have thought I made it clear that I think our representative system of government is how it should be. It ain't perfect, but it works pretty well, certainly much better than having every individual decide on their own "rights". Was that clear enough for you?

Not the part about being forced to pay for things. And if you want to cite any examples of anything I have expressed agreement with, I'll be happy to defend them.B]
Pardon me. I made the unwarrented assumption that there were some things you thought the US government was justified in asking you to pay for. If you tell me this is not true and that you believe there should be no tax whatsoever, then I will retract the statement. Otherwise, my statement that you agree with some government spending was correct, even if it didn't cite particulars.

[B]
No, it's more specific than that. Where I differ from you (and the government) is in the legitimacy of forcing people to pay for things they did not agree to pay for.
You agree to pay for them when you agree to abide by the laws of this country (consider it a clause of your contract with America ;)). You are free to try to change how the government spends money.

And I reiterate: Legal rights are, but once again, some of us are able to conceive of "rights" in a broader sense.
And some of you are certain thay their conception of "rights" should apply to all. Well excuse me if I decline to accept your conception of rights. When you become a Supreme Court justice, you will have much broader power to make such conceptions reality.

Just curious, do you really think we'd be better off if, in all the debate that leads to evolving policy, nobody had ever been able to argue for a "right" that was in conflict with whatever the laws had to say at the time? Specifically, if you had been alive when people were trying to bring an end to slavery, would you have been involved in the debate? And if so, would have been your position, and what would your strongest arguments have been?
I would say that based on the current morality shared by most of the country, the "right" of slaveowners to have slaves should be ended and the "right" of people to live free of slavery in the US should be codified. If you want to get down to my personal morality, it is as simple as the Golden Rule. I wouldn't want to be a slave, therefore it would be immoral for me to own slaves.

But morality was not always this way. Many people felt that slaves were less than human, and it was no more immoral to own slaves than to own cattle. Maybe someday the PETA people will sway the morality in this country to where we have no "right" to eat animals (as many of them currently claim). I hope not.

And while we're at it, do you have a clear position on the legalization of abortion?
I do, but I feel it would derail the topic of this thread.

If it'll make you feel more secure in your opinions, go right ahead. Those of us who have put a lot of thought into our views don't need that kind of validation.
Oh, I am quite sure that you would be secure in your self-evaluation, regardless of what others say. You stated that I had not made my case. I disagree. Who decides? Is this like your idea that whatever you conceive are "rights" are automatically so?

How so?
Under "total individual sovereignty", if I conceive it is my "right" to own your land, then I may act on that "right" as I have conceived it. You would have a different set of "rights", then we would soon have a battle in which one of us would probably die. Whoever was the strongest would decide "rights". I call that anarchy. What do you call it?

I'm pretty sure I haven't argued against having rules.

You have argued that the government has no "right" to make certain rules. It appears that you think there should only be rules if you agree with them. Wake up to the real world, sunbeam.

And sadly, both the government, and the governed, can get things wrong. Do you agree?
Of course. That is why I try to change them when they conflict with my personal morality. I don't claim, though, that my conception of morality is perfect. No, I haven't said that you do. You seem to beleive in some absolutes, though. I do not.

Sorry, but the threat of punishment does not mean one does not have the right to violate an unjust law. In keeping with the attempt to pin you down, I'm guessing you don't think a slave had a right to run away, back when there were laws against doing so, right?
If he did, he was violating the "rights" of the owner by stealing his property. I know that this is horrendous by our current moral code, but as I say, these things change. In barbarian days, it was the "right" of conquering invaders to rape the women. Those rights no longer exist (in most places).

Actually, my position has consistently been that nobody should be forced to pay for anything they did not agree to pay for. It helps to understand the difference.
And it is my position that you agree to accept the rules of the government under which you live, therefore, you did agree to pay for whatever the government decides to spend money on.

No. If I am to be part of a healthy population, I'm certainly prepared to pay for any medical services I seek. But beyond that, any perceived "benefits" associated with something as general as a "healthy population" are not something that any one entity has any business claiming credit for, let alone sending anyone a bill for.

Well, then you are free to get out and support your position. If enough people agree with you, then your "rights" will change.

RedCoat

11th June 2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Ed

I am and I know several (self made millionaires) and it is not and you have no idea what you are talking about.

I agree completely. I am not a self-made millionaire, but I know several, and I firmly believe that I will make it there.

Hard work and a good idea can get you there. Complaining about what other people have and how life is so hard doesn't accomplish anything.

There seems to be a belief among the unsuccessful that the successful got that way without any effort. While I can't speak for everyone out there, I can say from my personal experience that:

- Studying hard in high school when you'd rather be goofing off is hard, but it will get you in to a good college.

- Doing well when you attend a good college and take a challanging curriculum is hard.

- Paying for college is hard.

- Interning, doing extra-curricular stuff, and studying all to polish your resume to land that first job out of college is hard.

- Once you get a good job, working there is generally hard.

- Going to grad school while working full time is hard.

- Getting a better job or a promotion during a recession is hard.

- All of this is both possible and worth it.

- Complaining that you're not as wealthy as you'd like to be is easy.

I don't mean for this to sound hostile. I'm just trying to express that if you *really* want to make it (financially / professionally / etc.) it can be done. The opportunities are there, and you don't need a trust fund, an inheritance, or winning the lottery to make it.

Peace.

Tmy

11th June 2003, 08:53 AM

Hey Red,

Wouldnt your little formula for successs work just as good (if not better) in a socialist country? For example wh universal health care you can still stay in school even if youve had a health issue. Where as in the states you can be derailed from the succsess plan if you have to deal wh an unexpected health problem that you are unable to pay for.

Cain

11th June 2003, 01:26 PM

Just out of curiosity Cain, why does having universal healthcare make Canada cowardly? I'm not understanding your reasoning here.

You missed the small title above: Guns versus Butter. There's also an element of sarcasm present :)

Tricky

11th June 2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by RedCoat

I agree completely. I am not a self-made millionaire, but I know several, and I firmly believe that I will make it there.

Hard work and a good idea can get you there. Complaining about what other people have and how life is so hard doesn't accomplish anything.

...snip...
I don't mean for this to sound hostile. I'm just trying to express that if you *really* want to make it (financially / professionally / etc.) it can be done. The opportunities are there, and you don't need a trust fund, an inheritance, or winning the lottery to make it.

I very much admire your work ethic and hope you achieve your goals, though being rich has never been a goal of mine. However, I would be willing to bet that in the "millionaires club" the number of "self-made millionaires" is far less than the "family millionaires". That is not to say that no family millionaires work hard and invest smartly, but it is certainly true that not all of them do.

For example, I know of one wealthy scion who used his daddy's money and connections to start several businesses, all of which were failures. He then used daddy's money and connection to buy into a professsional baseball team just months before his daddy's connections got the taxpayers to fund a new stadium for that team. This corporate welfare greatlly improved his investment (lent by daddy). In case you haven't figured it out, that scion is George W. Bush.

If you were given a million and lost it, RedCoat, do you think someone would give you another million to try again?

KelvinG

11th June 2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Cain

You missed the small title above: Guns versus Butter. There's also an element of sarcasm present :)

Oops! So I did.
Carry on.:)

11th June 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151

That's the whole point.

If person X has no money to start a business with and person Y has an established business and makes millions of dollars and have money to develop his business than how can person X just start a business and compete? He can't.

The only way he could would be if peron Y is just extremely incompotent.

Your contention is nonsensical drivel. The fact that you see it this way is a sure indicator that you will never be an entrepeneur.

Your answer to the question that you raised was "He can't" BUZZZZZZZZ ... Wrong answer. What you meant was "I have neither the cleverness nor the will nor the balls to do this"

The person who will excel will say "watch me". Actually that is wrong. They would say nothing and just do it.

Also, the person that relies on a competitors incompetance for their own success is a self loathing dullard and doomed from the gitgo.

BillyTK

12th June 2003, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Are you saying socialism doesn't call for government ownership, management, and control of the means of production and the distribution and exchange of goods?!? :confused:

Yes; whilst governmental control is often the most expedient way of implementing socialist policies, there's nothing in socialism that inherently calls for governmental control.

BillyTK

12th June 2003, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Under "total individual sovereignty", if I conceive it is my "right" to own your land, then I may act on that "right" as I have conceived it. You would have a different set of "rights", then we would soon have a battle in which one of us would probably die. Whoever was the strongest would decide "rights". I call that anarchy. What do you call it?
Minor point, but I'd call that lawlessness, rather than anarchy; anarchy is the absence of centralised authority or heirarchy, based on the idea that society can be organised without the use of coercive power. People still have rights which they exercise as a matter of internalised (self-)governance.

Saying that, I've got to acknowledge that the popular understanding of anarchy is of disorder, and it's possible to argue that attempts to implement anarchy would result in lawlessness and disorder.

Otherwise, carry on there, you're doing a fine job! ;) :D

RedCoat

12th June 2003, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

However, I would be willing to bet that in the "millionaires club" the number of "self-made millionaires" is far less than the "family millionaires".

This is actually not the case. Based on a book a read a few years ago, in the US an overwhelming majority of millionaires are self-made.

Incidentally (and I'm trying to remember these statistics from a book a few years ago, so I might be off by a few decimal points) most US millionaires also had 2.9 grade point averages in high school, scored something like 1100 on the SAT, and a decebt portion never attended college. Most in the millionaire category were professionals, executives, and business owners. The business owners were the wealthiest category of the three.

If I can find the book I'll post the title / author if anybody's interested.

Peace.

Kodiak

12th June 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Yes; whilst governmental control is often the most expedient way of implementing socialist policies, there's nothing in socialism that inherently calls for governmental control.

Could you give me a working example?

Cain

12th June 2003, 08:37 AM

This is actually not the case. Based on a book a read a few years ago, in the US an overwhelming majority of millionaires are self-made.

I sincerely hope that book was not The Millionare Next Door.

Anyway, who sets out to become a millionare? That seems like a small, petty, self-absorbed goal.

Tmy

12th June 2003, 08:59 AM

I was going to avoid this semantics arguement but what tyhe hey.

There is a "right" to education. Check your state constitution. Many of them include a right to a public education.

Lyle Beaudoin

12th June 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by jayrev
I don't have any statistics to back this up, and I don't know how much is propaganda, but in the US we often hear of health care crises in nations with socialized health care systems such as long waiting periods for health care, obsolete technology, and people coming to the US to have medical procedures that aren't available to them in their contries. I would like to see responses from those who live in nations with socialized health care. How long do you have to wait for medical procedures? Do you think the care you get is adequate? How does the increase in taxation required to implement such a system compare with the cost of health insurance in the US?

Edited to add: Would such a system also require a change to the Malpractice laws?

I'll try to keep this short:

How long one waits depends on the procedures. I had to wait months for optional day surgery to remove a ganglion from my wrist. It was no big deal, I didn't mind waiting. The operation was trivial.

I was treated for a busted spleen within minutes, but the surgeons wanted me immobilized for a couple of days to see if the bleeding stopped on its own. I was on the table four hours after the decision to operate was made. From the ambulance arriving to me being in Acute Care took about 20 minutes. After two hours in Acute Care, I was in a hospital room. As I said, there was a four hour stretch between the decision to operate and the operation itself.

Hitting the ground that hard can do other things to a body beside bust the spleen. Months after my surgery I had an ultrasound performed to see if there was something more subtle going on on the other side. I had to wait perhaps ten days for that. If I'd been incapacitated or suffering from serious abdominal pains, I'd have gone to a hospital and had it done immediately, but the attacks are getting weaker and are pretty intermittent. Ten days was perfectly acceptable to me.

So far, I have no beefs with waiting times. If I were told I had to wait a year for a liver transplant or something I might feel differently.

However, I wasn't taken to the closest hospital. I was taken to the third facility on the list. The first two emergency rooms weren't taking customers. At 1:00 pm on a Wednesday in high summer. That's not right.

The care I got was adequate. Many of the doctors and nurses who came to my room on their rounds thought the surgery and epidural were both excellent, in fact. Everything else was inadequate, though. Little things like a wheelchair would've been nice. So would a motorized bed, since my abs were totally useless and that makes it difficult to sit up. A toothbrush would've been nice as well.

These are the results of the Klein regime. The standards of care and treatment are still high, but the rest is suffering. I see it in lack of wheelchairs and such, but it affects wages and benefits and other things invisible to patients as well.

Alberta's healthcare system isn't a nightmare by any stretch, but it is suffering. Not because the system is inherently flawed, but because our version of Dubya isn't interested in seeing it function as much as he is in paying off the provincial debt in record time so he looks good (which he won't). All in all, I like our system but not how it's being run at the moment. Even so, it still works.

I don't know about relative costs, sorry. I can tell you that I pay, in addition to annual taxes, $42/month in insurance premiums. This covers everything crucial, and some options; just as an example, they may cover an eye exam but not pay for the glasses, that sort of thing. Group coverage, if we have it, would pay for the glasses. Provincial premiums covered my entire splenectomy adventure with the exception of a $300 ambulance ride and $12 worth of Darvon-N. I've never shopped around for an American HMO (why should I?), but I have a feeling you'd pay more for the same deal. And some HMO suit would tell you which doctors may or may not treat you based on something to do with money. How ridiculous is that?

I don't know anything about malpractice suits here other than the fact that hospitals, not individual staff members, are sued. This keeps the cost of malpractice insurance, and therefore the amount the doctors have to charge the province for their services, down. As I understand it.

BillyTK

13th June 2003, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Could you give me a working example?

Of how there's nothing in socialism that inherently calls for governmental control? Umm.. I don't understand your question--it's probably the "two nations divided by a common language" factor :D

Shane Costello

13th June 2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK:
Yes; whilst governmental control is often the most expedient way of implementing socialist policies, there's nothing in socialism that inherently calls for governmental control.

AFAIK government control, particularly government control of key industries and services, is a cornerstone of socialism. It was certainly a cornerstone British Labour party policy until Tony Blair came along with his "Third Way". Social Democracy is a little different from socialism, which might be what you're thinking about. IIRC correctly there isn't any state ownership of industries in Germany, despite the SDP being one of the dominant political parties. The same is true in Sweden I think.

BillyTK

13th June 2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Cain
What makes ownership so special and morally off-limits? In other threads I've brought up the issue of legitimate ownership (how it comes to being), especially land ownership, but no one has yet to offer a substantive answer.

This is something that I've wondered about too; the only explanations I've found are either utilitarian (that property rights are a good thing, which justifies their existence) or the Lockean idea of property-ownership being a natural right, which is also kind of utilitarian in origin, and depends on a problematic polarity between nature and society. My feeling is that property-rights are so intrinsic to capitalist society, it's really difficult to find a position to evaluate property rights without constantly referring back to capitalism. And it makes my head hurty! ;) :)

BillyTK

13th June 2003, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

AFAIK government control, particularly government control of key industries and services, is a cornerstone of socialism. It was certainly a cornerstone British Labour party policy until Tony Blair came along with his "Third Way".
Centralisation and governmental control is not a cornerstone of socialism, as much as a "means to an end", which is what I meant by "most expedient way of implementing socialist policies"
Social Democracy is a little different from socialism, which might be what you're thinking about. IIRC correctly there isn't any state ownership of industries in Germany, despite the SDP being one of the dominant political parties. The same is true in Sweden I think.
It's a good point you raised about traditional (or ethical) socialism ending at Tony Blair's "Third Way", which is certainly closer to Social Democracy in nature. I guess the problem of discussing socialism is that, apart from general agreement on a few guiding principles (liberty, fraternity, and equality--and even then, there's some disagreement on what those mean and how they should be implemented), it's a broad view with much disagreement on what goals can be achieved and the best way to achieve them. Which for me, is what makes it fun! ;)

Kodiak

13th June 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Of how there's nothing in socialism that inherently calls for governmental control? Umm.. I don't understand your question--it's probably the "two nations divided by a common language" factor :D

I was asking for a working example of socialism that didn't rely on government control, as you suggested wasn't necessary...

Don't worry about it though, you and Shane about covered it. :)

WMT1

13th June 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Your implication above was that asking people to pay for something they didn't want is a socialist trait. I am showing that such exhibiting such a trait does not imply socialism.

Originally posted by WMT1
But that wasn't necessary. I never claimed that exhibiting such a trait always implies socialism, I only said that socialism is something that tends to exhibit that trait. Do you agree or not?

Originally posted by Tricky
I do not agree. You said that socialism tends to exhibit such traits.

Yes, and I just acknowledged as much in the statement you quoted in your own damn post! What I did not say, at any point, was that everything that exhibits such traits is socialist. And this has already been pointed out, more than once.

You did not say "socialism and other things" exhibit such traits.

I also did not say that socialism was the only thing that exhibits such traits.

(Dude, do you really talk like that? If you were describing your new red car to someone, would you say "my new car and other things are red"?)

You have singled out socialism.

:rolleyes:

Okay, pay close attention.

Tmy asked "Whats so wrong with having socialist traits in certain areas?"

And I responded "Those traits tend to involve forcing people to pay for things they may not wish to pay for, and did not agree to pay for."

Now, is it your position that my response was the same as claiming that everything that involves "forcing people to pay for things they may not wish to pay for, and did not agree to pay for" is, by definition, a socialist trait? If so, your logic is a little like responding to someone who claims that a dog is an animal as if they had claimed all animals were dogs.

I can only comment on the things you have said, not on the things you have not said.

Apparently not. You seem to have a knack for doing the latter, because that's all your point here amounts to.

No, I am not implying GWB is socialist, but rather that your characterization of socialist "traits" does not distinguish socialists from non-socialists.

I didn't say it does. You're responding to arguments I haven't made.

I respectfully disagree. I think most readers would take your comments to be an attempt to characterize socialism.

Nice attempt to create the impression of having a point, but nothing I've said is inconsistent with it being an attempt to characterize socialism. Unfortunately, keeping your rather absurd point on life support depends on something more specific than that - the idea that I said that everything that shares the trait in question qualifies as socialist.

If your intention was otherewise, it was certainly not clear.

It was not otherwise, so your point is irrelevant. You're pissing in the wind here. No wonder you have so much difficulty recognizing who's winning a debate.

So you think that we have rights, but right to education is not one of them. Who then defines what are "rights"? The government? God? You?

From what I've seen, my assessment of such things is as sound as anyone else's. If you've got some ideas that you think are better, feel free to put'em on the table for discussion. But if all you can come up with is that they are defined by government, it's going to reflect about as much critical analysis as someone saying "because the Bible says so".

From what I've seen, your assesment of such things is not too good.

I'm not surprised. As one who lets government do your thinking for you, I can understand why you'd find independent thinking a little confusing.

In any case, if my assessment of such things is "not too good", then how about identifying the 2 or 3 best examples of "rights" that I'm wrong about, and we can take a closer look?

We can both put our ideas on the table, but who decides when we disagree? My answer is "the government" (judges, etc.). Can you give me a direct answer to this question?

Just depends on what you're asking. Anyone can "decide" something. So, if all you're asking is who gets to impose their decisions on others, then I'd agree with your answer. But that's just about who has the power, and has no actual bearing on whether their decisions are the right ones.

I was thinking I had already asked you this, but I can't find it anywhere, so maybe it was someone else. Are you capable of formulating any opinion about anything anyone is entitled to, or deserving of, without regard to what government has to say about it? If so, please provide an example.

And incidentally, why the superfluous question about a "direct answer"? You don't really want to suggest that you've got anything on me in terms of answering questions directly, do you?

My argument is that rights are defined by the law.

Well, legal rights certainly are. Do you simply reject the idea of rights in any broader sense?

In this context, yes.

My question didn't limit the context. Please try answering the question I asked. And in the future, you should probably think twice before posting any implications about anyone else's ability to answer a question directly.

What you are calling "rights" I call morality.

So, where I'd say someone has a right to do something, you'd say they have a "morality" to do something? :confused:

If you are arguing that there are certain moral concepts on which most of us agree, I would say that is true.

I'm pretty sure I haven't addressed this one way or the other.

However, they are not "rights" until they are codified.

What are you basing this conclusion on?

If it against the law to rape, then the rapist had no "right" to do so.

Putting that qualifier on it like that is a bit scary. I would argue the rapist had no right to do so, period. Still, I wasn't asking about the rights of the rapist. I was asking about the rights of the victim. Can I take it that, to you, she only has a right not to be raped if the law says so?

Yes, I thought I would simplify it instead of taking the convoluted path you did.

Um ... which is more convoluted, answering a question directly, or answering something other than what was asked?

It should be obvious that If the law says rape is illegal, then she had the "right" not to be raped.

That's funny, I was kinda thinkin' it should be obvious that she had a right not to be raped, regardless of what the law says.

If there is no law forbidding rape, then she has no such rights.

Thanks for continuing to demonstrate which of us has a greater respect for individuals' dominion over their own bodies.

Some of us vote for people to defend rights, not "decide" them.

You can't defend them until you have decided what they are. Otherwise, how would you know what to defend?

Not a problem. I do know what they are, so knowing what needs defending isn't a problem for me. The problem is that others are confused about such issues, and will apparently swallow up whatever their government tells them.

And by the way, if what you're talking about is "rights" matching individual moral codes, then doesn't that mean those moral codes must have something to say about "rights" in the first place?

Now you're getting it!

Okay, now you're slipping into that good old pattern of unwarranted sarcasm/condescension to cover for the weakness of your position.

Yes, of course moral codes have everything to do with rights. But within the US, there are many moral codes, but everybody (or at least most people) have the same rights. How do you decide which bits of various moral codes go into deciding what is a "right"?

Again, not a problem. Those bits of various moral codes that have to do with respecting other people's dominion over their own lives and property, as long as they're not violating anyone else (or their property), is a pretty solid test. The rest of it should be left out of lawmaking. But since you said "From what I've seen, your assessment of such things is not too good", I'm sure you've got a better answer. I can't wait to hear it.

Do I need to repeat it to you?

I'll count this as the #2 entry in the "unwarranted sarcasm/condescension" department.

Without law, there are no rights.

Sounds to me like a case of the tail wagging the dog. Some of us are able to conceive of rights independently of what anyone tells us they are, and to formulate opinions about what laws should be, based on those rights, not the other way around. Incidentally, if there are no rights without law, then why bother with law at all?

ROTFL. This is one for somebody's sig line!:D

And yet amazingly, coming up with a "direct answer" proved to be too much of a challenge for you. I'll count this as #3.

And what you should probably find at least a little embarrassing is that the premise of the question you're commenting on is based on your statement "Without law, there are no rights".

But you were expressing your "opinion" about what the US government is based on. Do you have anything to support the "opinion" that the US government is based on the notion that people should have those "rights", rather than being based on a recognition that they do have them?

I'd say our whole legal system supports my opinion.

:rolleyes: What a surprise that the legal system would support the opinion of someone so prone to drawing his opinions from the legal system.

Here's an example that is currently in the news. Two men are caught engaging in consensual sex. Texas law says they are criminals and have no right to do this thing.

And those of us capable of thinking independently of what government tells us can reach the conclusion that the Texas law is, you know, wrong.

They go through the legal system and (hopefully) wind up having the right to consensual sex.

Why "hopefully"? If you don't think they have the right to begin with, why should you care whether the law gets overturned?

Voila! A brand new right, courtesy of the government.

Nope. Long overdue recognition of a right. Try and keep up.

Now you tell me. Is there a "right" to practice homosexuality?

Of course, as long as it's all consensual. Individual sovereignty and all that.

At what age does this "right" begin (i.e., what is the age of consent)?

Probably about the time someone has the actual desire to engage in such activity.

Who decides?

I'm okay with each individual deciding that particular issue for himself.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but if it has something to do with making the point that there are areas of uncertainty, such as the boundaries of parental authority, or the age at which full rights should be recognized, let me save you some time. Consider that point agreed to. That does not warrant turning one's ability to think over to government officials, especially on points that are more clear, such as the right of peaceful adults to run their own lives.

And while you may not look to the US government for your opinions, you assuredly do look to them for your "rights" (assuming you are a citizen of the US).

I may look to them to protect my rights, but not to define them. And sadly, they often end up violating them. That raises an interesting question though. Is it your position that there can be no such thing as a law that violates rights?

I ask again (expecting no answer), Who defines them? What if people disagree? As the case above shows, since laws conflict from place to place, so do rights. Certainly there are laws that violate my moral code.

Damn, there is soooo much wrong with this response. Let's break it down a bit.

"I ask again (expecting no answer)"

There is no basis for such a remark, of course, since you weren't asking a question that had previously been ignored, and since my record of responding directly to comments and questions about the things I've posted is as solid as anyone's, including yours.

In fact, it is particularly ironic since, in this very same response, you yourself failed to provide a simple, straightforward answer, to the yes/no question that I asked. But thanks for revealing once and for all the level of honesty we're dealing with, and demonstrating that you're more concerned with fostering a certain impression than winning a point honestly.

"Who defines them?"

In the absence of anyone ever having come up with anything better, I'm okay with my definitions, thanks. It's pretty close to that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing - basically, individuals own themselves, and have the right to run their own lives, including decision-making control over their own honestly acquired property/earnings, all as long as they don't violate the equal rights of others in these areas.

"What if people disagree?"

If they disagree significantly with what I just described, then I'd say they don't have a great deal of respect for other people, and probably don't have any business having much of a say in how things are for everyone else anyway.

If you're talking about disagreements over the finer points of determining whether the rights I've described have been violated, I'd say putting together the right kind of government could be a useful tool for resolving those issues - not the same thing as looking to government as the source of rights.

"As the case above shows, since laws conflict from place to place, so do rights."

The "case above" didn't show that. It only showed that laws conflict from place to place, and that some of those laws can violate rights.

"Certainly there are laws that violate my moral code."

That's nice, but it's not what I asked. Once again, is it your position that there can be no such thing as a law that violates rights? (Yes or no will suffice).

People are forced to do things (including paying for things) all the time that are deemed (by our laws) to be good for the country.

:rolleyes: Thanks for providing that insightful observation about how things are. I never cease to be amazed at the people (particularly in this forum) who seem to think this has any weight as an argument about how things should be.

And I am constantly amazed that some people are not able to fathom such arguments.

You're giving yourself way too much credit. It's not an argument. It's an observation of the status quo. If it counted as an argument, how could anyone ever argue for change? Someone else could always simply say "but this is the way things are, so you're wrong".

I have thought I made it clear that I think our representative system of government is how it should be.

You did. So what? Merely pointing that out does not suddenly turn every comment about the status quo into an argument. And specifically, simply pointing out that ...

"People are forced to do things (including paying for things) all the time that are deemed (by our laws) to be good for the country"

... has absolutely no weight as an argument that anyone should be forced to pay for anything, which is how you seemed to be using it. It would be refreshing if you could actually manage to come up with an argument to support your position that does not fall into the category of "this is the way things are". Constantly relying on this is a sign of just how poorly thought out your position actually is.

It ain't perfect, but it works pretty well, certainly much better than having every individual decide on their own "rights".

Actually, it does not work nearly as well as it should, and the fact that you think it works "pretty well" is an indication of just how low you've set the bar.

And whether it works better than "having every individual decide on their own 'rights'" is irrelevant, since that's not something I've argued for.

Was that clear enough for you?

And here we have #4. This one is particularly unwarranted, since you seem to be trying to pass off non-arguments as arguments, and then using this question to try to make it appear as if the fault somehow lies with the person pointing that out to you.

(Cont.)

WMT1

13th June 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Pardon me. I made the unwarrented assumption that there were some things you thought the US government was justified in asking you to pay for.

I might, if "asking" was what they would do. But it's not, is it? You might become clearer on this stuff if you would try to keep these distinctions in mind.

If you tell me this is not true and that you believe there should be no tax whatsoever, then I will retract the statement.

Fair enough. I'm okay with "no tax whatsoever".

Otherwise, my statement that you agree with some government spending was correct, even if it didn't cite particulars.

Once again, I don't have a problem with government spending, I have a problem with government financing that spending through confiscation of anyone's property or earnings without their consent.

No, it's more specific than that. Where I differ from you (and the government) is in the legitimacy of forcing people to pay for things they did not agree to pay for.

You agree to pay for them when you agree to abide by the laws of this country

Um ... I didn't agree to abide by the laws of this country in the first place, I abide by the laws either to avoid jail, or because I would make the same choices anyway. But I love it when you guys have to rely on these absurd leaps about what constitutes agreement. To any self-respecting skeptic, it only makes your position look that much more ridiculous. How refreshing it would be if someone could manage to defend this stuff without resorting to such nonsense.

(consider it a clause of your contract with America ;)).

Get back to me if you were at all serious with this comment.

You are free to try to change how the government spends money.

Isn't that a little like telling a slave he is "free" to try to convince his owner to give him his freedom?

I reiterate: Your rights are defined by the laws.

And I reiterate: Legal rights are, but once again, some of us are able to conceive of "rights" in a broader sense.

And some of you are certain thay their conception of "rights" should apply to all.

Can you identify anything I've claimed as a "right" that should not "apply to all"?

Well excuse me if I decline to accept your conception of rights.

Your loss. You can either learn from your mistakes, or stubbornly cling to them.

When you become a Supreme Court justice, you will have much broader power to make such conceptions reality.

:rolleyes: Yeah, and those who mistake commentary about power as an argument about merit are often the same ones who try to pass off mere observations about the status quo as arguments for supporting it.

Just curious, do you really think we'd be better off if, in all the debate that leads to evolving policy, nobody had ever been able to argue for a "right" that was in conflict with whatever the laws had to say at the time? Specifically, if you had been alive when people were trying to bring an end to slavery, would you have been involved in the debate? And if so, would have been your position, and what would your strongest arguments have been?

I would say that based on the current morality shared by most of the country, the "right" of slaveowners to have slaves should be ended and the "right" of people to live free of slavery in the US should be codified.

Your earlier comment about a "direct answer" just gets funnier and funnier. In case you didn't notice, I specifically made reference to "if you had been alive when people were trying to bring an end to slavery", I didn't ask about anything "based on the current morality shared by most of the country".

If you want to get down to my personal morality, it is as simple as the Golden Rule. I wouldn't want to be a slave, therefore it would be immoral for me to own slaves.

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

That's it? The "Golden Rule" thing? Your response to my question about your "strongest arguments" is that you'd be out there defiantly proclaiming that slavery should come to an end because "I wouldn't want to be a slave"?

And if you have no rights (other that what government tells you, of course), how is your not wanting to be a slave sufficient to make owning slaves "immoral"? I'm guessing you probably wouldn't want to be an animal either, and if so, does that mean you think owning animals is immoral?

But morality was not always this way. Many people felt that slaves were less than human, and it was no more immoral to own slaves than to own cattle.

Were they right?

And while we're at it, do you have a clear position on the legalization of abortion?

I do, but I feel it would derail the topic of this thread.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd want to go near that one.

Oh, I am quite sure that you would be secure in your self-evaluation, regardless of what others say.

Nonsense. That security has been reinforced by what others have had to say, in particular the ridiculous arguments made by those who disagree.

You stated that I had not made my case. I disagree. Who decides?

Who decides what? You think you've made your case, and I don't think you've even come close. So what's the point of your question?

Is this like your idea that whatever you conceive are "rights" are automatically so?

:rolleyes: Your misrepresenting my position, of course. It has nothing to do with being "automatically so". It has to do with having withstood the scrutiny of years of debate. Nobody has ever managed to come up with a better concept of rights. Remember, your concept of them still allows for the right to jail people for consensual sexual activity, or even to own slaves, or to commit rape, if that's what those in government decide. My concept of rights does not.

Total individual sovereignty is anarchy.

How so?

Under "total individual sovereignty", if I conceive it is my "right" to own your land, then I may act on that "right" as I have conceived it. You would have a different set of "rights", then we would soon have a battle in which one of us would probably die. Whoever was the strongest would decide "rights". I call that anarchy. What do you call it?

I see no need for calling it anything. But what is more to the point is whether it is consistent with the term you were using, which was "total individual sovereignty". And whatever else it might be, what you described is certainly not that, since someone's sovereignty is being violated. Such a clumsy attempt to make a point about it only further reveals your confusion about such things.

There must be rules.

I'm pretty sure I haven't argued against having rules.

You have argued that the government has no "right" to make certain rules. It appears that you think there should only be rules if you agree with them.

Do you know anyone who thinks there should be rules they disagree with? At the very least, I certainly think any rules that are going to apply to everyone should reflect the principles I described. But that's a far cry from not believing in any rules at all. And what matters is who can do the best job of defending their ideas about what the rules should be.

Wake up to the real world, sunbeam.

I'll count this as #5. The "real world" monition is another classic that people defending the status quo tend to think passes for an argument in support of it.

And sadly, both the government, and the governed, can get things wrong. Do you agree?

Of course. That is why I try to change them when they conflict with my personal morality.

Actually, I try to change them when they violate individual rights. Beyond that, I wouldn't dream of trying to use the force of law to impose my "personal morality" on others.

And by the way, if you acknowledge that they can get things wrong, then what makes you think they can't also get things wrong about rights?

Sorry, but the threat of punishment does not mean one does not have the right to violate an unjust law. In keeping with the attempt to pin you down, I'm guessing you don't think a slave had a right to run away, back when there were laws against doing so, right?

If he did, he was violating the "rights" of the owner by stealing his property.

And if you had been alive then, you would be okay with this? After all, using your own logic, any arguments you might try to make for change could be trumped with ... well, basically, with what you just said. So how would you counter it? Any chance you could find anything stronger than that "Golden Rule" thing?

I know that this is horrendous by our current moral code, but as I say, these things change.

I don't know who you're talking about when you say "our current moral code", but I don't need to rely on groupthink, or look to anyone else's "code", to know that it was horrendous then, too. But thanks for continuing to demonstrate how dependent your own views are on the prevailing winds.

In barbarian days, it was the "right" of conquering invaders to rape the women. Those rights no longer exist (in most places).

And to some of us, they never have, anywhere. Such activity was a violation of rights.

Actually, my position has consistently been that nobody should be forced to pay for anything they did not agree to pay for. It helps to understand the difference.

And it is my position that you agree to accept the rules of the government under which you live, therefore, you did agree to pay for whatever the government decides to spend money on.

Yes, you've already demonstrated quite clearly that, like so many others, you have no shame when it comes to making absurd leaps about what constitutes someone else's agreement, in order to rationalize your poorly thought out views. The only thing about it that surprises me is the frequency with which it occurs in this forum.

No. If I am to be part of a healthy population, I'm certainly prepared to pay for any medical services I seek. But beyond that, any perceived "benefits" associated with something as general as a "healthy population" are not something that any one entity has any business claiming credit for, let alone sending anyone a bill for.

Well, then you are free to get out and support your position.

Um ... that's sort of what I'm doing. Sadly, you're a perfect demonstration of the problem with this. There are far too many people who don't formulate their opinions any better than you have, who have never really applied any critical analysis to them, and who are extremely resistant to re-evaluating them, especially if any significant change in views might mean breaking away from the comfort of the herd. They usually just end up covering for the weakness of their position by making comments about the "real world", or saying stuff like ...

If enough people agree with you, then your "rights" will change.

:rolleyes:

WMT1

13th June 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
I was going to avoid this semantics arguement but what tyhe hey.

There is a "right" to education. Check your state constitution. Many of them include a right to a public education.

If this is what you think makes something a "right", then why did you bother asking "If we have a 'right' to education, then why not healthcare"?

Tmy

13th June 2003, 08:41 AM

OK forget the whole "RIGHT" thing.

I was just asking that if something like education can be provided my the government for the good of all then why not do the same with health care. At least I think thats what I meant. That was many posts ago.

Cain

13th June 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

This is something that I've wondered about too; the only explanations I've found are either utilitarian (that property rights are a good thing, which justifies their existence) or the Lockean idea of property-ownership being a natural right, which is also kind of utilitarian in origin, and depends on a problematic polarity between nature and society. My feeling is that property-rights are so intrinsic to capitalist society, it's really difficult to find a position to evaluate property rights without constantly referring back to capitalism. And it makes my head hurty! ;) :)

You're absolutely right.

One justification is the Lockean conception kind of Utilitarian because it prescribes a limit on private property- that "there is as good and enough left over for others." The whole "ooh, I mix my labor with the land," has always appeared arbitrary, and besides, it has troubling implications for present day ownership (the United States was taken over by force).

Of course, I suppose they can always fall back on the good ol' Utilitarian argument. But then that means they have no principled argument against universal healthcare. If we have private property to maximize happiness, then there's nothing inherently wrong about redistributing wealth and resources to create a system that treats diseases for everyone.

It's better to just ignore the problem altogether. What legitimizes private property? Are you a Communist or something? Who cares?

Shane Costello

13th June 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Cain:
The whole "ooh, I mix my labor with the land," has always appeared arbitrary, and besides, it has troubling implications for present day ownership (the United States was taken over by force).

So has every other country on earth. Britain was first occupied by Celts, who were conquered by the Romans, who were replaced by the Anglo-Saxons, who lost most of the country to the Danes, before the Normans invaded and subjugated the lot of them. My own ancestors were Norman adventurers who ended up in the west of Ireland and seized themselves a nice spread of land. That was 800 years ago, and we've been here ever since.

But then that means they have no principled argument against universal healthcare. If we have private property to maximize happiness, then there's nothing inherently wrong about redistributing wealth and resources to create a system that treats diseases for everyone.

In an affluent society where obesity (www.news.wisc.edu/view.html?get=8176)and sedentary lifestyles (www.health.state.mo.us/balance/bal_v1-1_obesity.htm) are responsible for a lot, if not most of our helath problems then a serious moral objection to universal healthcare can be raised, IMO. Should the reasonably active of us who try and eat well and eschew bad habits like tobacco have our wealth redistributed to people who smoke, drink eat and sit their way to poor health?

Take the case of George Best (www.observer.co.uk/2001review/story/0,1590,624149,00.html), one time professional footballer (soccer) of note, now more well known as a professional washed up drunk. In this part of the world in particular it's a typical turn of events, people drinking themselves to death despite medical advice. Should their be a moral obligation on the rest of us to finance their healthcare? Can a moral case for universal helathcare be made in a society where ill-health is caused by the conscious actions of individuals?

It's better to just ignore the problem altogether. What legitimizes private property? Are you a Communist or something? Who cares?

Private property is legitamized by rule of law, the same thing that illegitamizes murder, rape etc.

Cain

13th June 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
[B]

So has every other country on earth. Britain was first occupied by Celts, who were conquered by the Romans, who were replaced by the Anglo-Saxons, who lost most of the country to the Danes, before the Normans invaded and subjugated the lot of them. My own ancestors were Norman adventurers who ended up in the west of Ireland and seized themselves a nice spread of land. That was 800 years ago, and we've been here ever since.

Oh certainly; practically all land has been stolen at one point in time or another.

I'm fond of quoting Herbert Spencer here:

“…Time,” say some, ‘is a great legaliser. Immemorial possession
must be taken to constitute a legitimate claim. That which has
been held from age to age as private property, and has been
ought and sold as such, must now be considered as irrevocably
belonging to individuals.” To which proposition a willing assent
shall be given when its propounders can assign it a definite
meaning. To do this, however, they must find satisfactory answers to such questions as -- How long does it take for what was originally a wrong to grow into a right? At what rate per annum do invalid claims become valid? If a title gets perfect in a thousand years, how much more than perfect will it be in two thousand years? -- and so forth. For the solution of which they will require a new calculus.

When (and how) does an illegitimate claim grow into a legitimate one?

In an affluent society where obesity (www.news.wisc.edu/view.html?get=8176)and sedentary lifestyles (www.health.state.mo.us/balance/bal_v1-1_obesity.htm) are responsible for a lot, if not most of our helath problems then a serious moral objection to universal healthcare can be raised, IMO. Should the reasonably active of us who try and eat well and eschew bad habits like tobacco have our wealth redistributed to people who smoke, drink eat and sit their way to poor health?

That certainly represents one end of the spectrum, but what if a health complications stem from uncontrollable causes? Tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy foods could be taxed to recover some of the costs. Or maybe a society can choose not to cover a person who willingly smokes herself to death, that's fine (and creates a strong incentive against smoking). Where does responsibility begin and end? Suppose I'm driving along the freeway and choose not to wear a seat-belt. I should've known the dangers, and, okay, society has a reasonable claim against covering my costs. But suppose I am wearing my seatbelt and get struck by another driver (her fault entirely). Well, I clearly knew there were dangers driving. And so on.

On efficiency grounds alone, though, a universal healthcare system is desirable. I do not use police protection. I've never called the cops or needed the cops for anything (so far). But the taxes I pay have gone to local law enforcement. Similarly, private health care is just another area tha market doesn't handle adequately (in part for reasons mentioned several posts back).

Private property is legitamized by rule of law, the same thing that illegitamizes murder, rape etc.

That's not a good argument at all. If the law said murdering black people was okay, would it suddenly be okay? The law derives from ethical principles, beliefs. There's simply never been a good argument for private property (Utilitarian justifications notwithstanding). The state cannot just legitamize X by decree. A prior rationale is necessary. Authority and power are not self-justifying. But few people bother asking these critical questions, and those vested in the system rarely answer. The government says so; just take their word for it -- and change the subject, please.

Malachi151

13th June 2003, 04:09 PM

I do not use police protection. I've never called the cops or needed the cops for anything (so far).

Are you seroius?

So you dont think that your tax dollars goign to the poic helps you at all? Do you think that if the police went away all around the country tomorrow that you would not negatively be effected in any way? You use the police every second of every day. Thier presence keeps law and order. You are benefiting from police when they arrest crimals, you dont ahev to call them specifically for you to be getting your money's worth. In fact you get much more than your money's worth from the police, we all do, unless you think it would be more cost effective for you to defend your property with your own money in a state of anarchy, and that you could still have a nice job, etc in a country with no law enforcement?

Shane Costello

13th June 2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Cain:
When (and how) does an illegitimate claim grow into a legitimate one?

Good question. IMO it depends on whether you see legitimacy having a moral or legal basis. If the latter then legitimacy of ownership is conferred by recognition of said ownership by an enforceable legal framework. The former is more problematic. Establishing illegitimacy is the problem.

That certainly represents one end of the spectrum, but what if a health complications stem from uncontrollable causes?

Depends on the patient and their ability to pay. I'm not arguing for no government spending on health, rather against universal healthcare. Is Bill Gates entitled to free healthcare? Again, healthcare spending is always going to be a finite resource. Is it moral or practical to allow billionaires "free" healthcare?

Tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy foods could be taxed to recover some of the costs.

Tobacco and alcohol already are in this part of the world. The problem is that in a relatively affluent society people are willing to pay the added cost. As well as that I'm not inclined to believe that giving the government more money (www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11761&highlight=This+might+make+you+feel) is the solution.

Or maybe a society can choose not to cover a person who willingly smokes herself to death, that's fine (and creates a strong incentive against smoking).

In which case you don't have universal healthcare.

Where does responsibility begin and end? Suppose I'm driving along the freeway and choose not to wear a seat-belt. I should've known the dangers, and, okay, society has a reasonable claim against covering my costs. But suppose I am wearing my seatbelt and get struck by another driver (her fault entirely). Well, I clearly knew there were dangers driving. And so on.

There are dangers to driving a car. Hence motor insurance. Insurance companies make a buck by being careful about the small print on their policies and on paying out claims. Careful drivers are rewarded with no claims bonuses etc, while more reckless ones are penalised in the form of higher premia. In this country third party motor insurance is obligatory.

On efficiency grounds alone, though, a universal healthcare system is desirable.

How is this demonstrable in a society where helath problems arise to conscious lifestyle decisions?

I've never called the cops or needed the cops for anything (so far). But the taxes I pay have gone to local law enforcement.

The main reason you haven't needed to call the cops is because you live in a society with enforceable laws to protect individual security and safety. The fact you haven't directly required police assistance doesn't mean that your taxes went to waste. Quite the opposite in fact.

Similarly, private health care is just another area tha market doesn't handle adequately (in part for reasons mentioned several posts back).

Please refresh. In the meantime here's some more info about the serious (www.observer.co.uk/nhs/story/0,1480,896686,00.html) shortcomings (http://society.guardian.co.uk/privatehealthcare/story/0,8150,677570,00.html) with state sponsored universal healthcare.

Cain

13th June 2003, 11:50 PM

Re: Police analogy

Malachi wrote:
Are you seroius?

No, of course not. Police protection is a public good, and though I have not directly called the police and had them coming running to my immediate, the indirect benefits are still real. The same applies to other public goods: education, health care, national defense...

IMO it depends on whether you see legitimacy having a moral or legal basis. If the latter then legitimacy of ownership is conferred by recognition of said ownership by an enforceable legal framework. The former is more problematic. Establishing illegitimacy is the problem.

I do not think your moral-legal distinction works here. We can use homosexuality as an example. Many Christians believe same sex relationships offend God, and are therefore immoral. In the past, and to a lesser extent today, there laws have treated homosexuals inequitably. These laws do not exist in a vacuum; they're derived from a moral code. We can easily imagine a government that says homosexuals ought to be executed for their crimes - i.e. sexual relations with a person of the same gender. That's the law -- no question. Is it legitimate? No, not if legitimate means "logical" or "rational" or "justified." Another moral principle, contrary to the belief espoused by many Christians, might tell us, "Hey, if they're not harming anyone else, then the law has no business interfering in personal relationships, homosexual or otherwise." Yeah, I suppose the government can do whatever it pleases, but that certainly doesn't make it right. An argument -- a justification -- is necessary. I've yet to see anything of the sort in this regard for private property. Why does someone have to demonstrate the illegitimacy? The burden of proof rests with the person arguing on behalf of a power or authority (in this case the state's authority to section off a plot of land and say, "this belongs to X.")

I guess I could attempt to demonstrate illegitimacy, but no argument has been proffered.

Depends on the patient and their ability to pay. I'm not arguing for no government spending on health, rather against universal healthcare. Is Bill Gates entitled to free healthcare? Again, healthcare spending is always going to be a finite resource. Is it moral or practical to allow billionaires "free" healthcare?

And the same argument can be made for police protection, or the right to a lawyer, or anything else. Bill Gates can afford a private security force (and I'm sure he has one), but that does not invalidate his claim to state resources. Bill Gates, if charged with a crime, has the right to a public defender (and so on).

But the first sentence of this paragraph intrigues me: Are you suggesting that if a person lacks the ability to pay for medical attention stemming from an uncontrollable cause then the state must bear the costs?

In which case you don't have universal healthcare.

Splitting hairs. You just wouldn't have coverage in the case of an illness resulting from their conscious self-destructive habit. If a smoker gets struck by a car, or gets his leg broken in a viscious assault, he'd still be entitled to care. Possible complications arise when these things happen in combination. Suppose a person gets struck by a car and she'd ordinarily heal fine, but because of a life-long habit of smoking, there will be added costs. Which is why I don't think it's really so offensive if smokers, alcoholics, and fat people receive care.

How is this demonstrable in a society where helath problems arise to conscious lifestyle decisions?

Australia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Germany and a number of other countries currently have healthcare costs per person about half of the United States. I've been to a couple of these countries, particularly Germany. I know they smoke (and some think, for some weird reason, that smoking has been outlawed in the United States). I know the Germans drink (boy do they drink). All of these countries have lower rates of infant mortality and a comparable life-span. As mentioned earlier, Canada spends a lower percentage than the U.S.

Over 40 million people are currently uninsured. That's not exactly a good thing.

Shane Costello

14th June 2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Cain:
An argument -- a justification -- is necessary. I've yet to see anything of the sort in this regard for private property. Why does someone have to demonstrate the illegitimacy? The burden of proof rests with the person arguing on behalf of a power or authority (in this case the state's authority to section off a plot of land and say, "this belongs to X.")

In a democracy that authority is derived from the people, and restrained by constitutional safeguards. Both of these have evolved over time. Personally speaking I keep receipts for the personal property I buy and my family have deeds to our land and house. As to the moral standing for this I'd argue we've as much moral right to it as all the other previous generations who fought for it and stole it. I couls also point out that we actually work it, as did previous generations of the family, as opposed to the previous owners, who benefitted from their propreitorship while others did the actual work.

And the same argument can be made for police protection, or the right to a lawyer, or anything else. Bill Gates can afford a private security force (and I'm sure he has one), but that does not invalidate his claim to state resources. Bill Gates, if charged with a crime, has the right to a public defender (and so on).

Bill Gates undoubtedly spends quite a bit on his personal security. OTOH I wouldn't feel comfortable with Bill running part of the courts system, nor should he absolve himself from being subject to the laws of the land because his bank balance is a lot healthier than the average Joe. In fact Bill made enough money to spend on private security because he benefitted from a society with enforceable laws that allowed him invest and innovate, safe in the knowledge the fruits of his labourr would be safeguarded by the justice system. Capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Rather it requires a minimum of regulation to thrive. Hence taxpayers money should be spent on the police and judicial system.

But the first sentence of this paragraph intrigues me: Are you suggesting that if a person lacks the ability to pay for medical attention stemming from an uncontrollable cause then the state must bear the costs?

Probably. I've never argued that the state shouldn't divert resources to healthcare. I just believe they should be targetted to those most in need. The occurence of uncontrollable causes is minimal compared to controllable causes.

Splitting hairs. You just wouldn't have coverage in the case of an illness resulting from their conscious self-destructive habit. If a smoker gets struck by a car, or gets his leg broken in a viscious assault, he'd still be entitled to care. Possible complications arise when these things happen in combination. Suppose a person gets struck by a car and she'd ordinarily heal fine, but because of a life-long habit of smoking, there will be added costs. Which is why I don't think it's really so offensive if smokers, alcoholics, and fat people receive care.

You're obscuring my point. If a smoker is struck by a car or assaulted, then smoking has absolutely nothing to do with their sudden ill health. In these two scenarios they could probably sue to recover the cost of their medical costs.

Which is why I don't think it's really so offensive if smokers, alcoholics, and fat people receive care.

Neither do I. It's just that I fail to see why the rest of us should shoulder the costs of other people's poor lifestyle choices.

Australia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Germany and a number of other countries currently have healthcare costs per person about half of the United States. I've been to a couple of these countries, particularly Germany. I know they smoke (and some think, for some weird reason, that smoking has been outlawed in the United States). I know the Germans drink (boy do they drink). All of these countries have lower rates of infant mortality and a comparable life-span. As mentioned earlier, Canada spends a lower percentage than the U.S.

And boy, is Germany in a desperate state.A stagnant economy, (www.no-euro.com/mediacentre/dossiers/display.asp?IDNO=1183) Unemployment at crisis levels (www.no-euro.com/mediacentre/dossiers/display.asp?IDNO=1160) and a lack of business confidence and innovation (www.no-euro.com/mediacentre/dossiers/display.asp?IDNO=1205) all caused by interventionist government policies a.k.a. socialism mean that Germans are facing serious problems with paying for their healt system.

What's wrong with socialism? Look at Germany.

Cain

15th June 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
[B]

In a democracy that authority is derived from the people, and restrained by constitutional safeguards. Both of these have evolved over time. Personally speaking I keep receipts for the personal property I buy and my family have deeds to our land and house. As to the moral standing for this I'd argue we've as much moral right to it as all the other previous generations who fought for it and stole it. I couls also point out that we actually work it, as did previous generations of the family,

Your personal circumstances, the details of which I am not at all familiar (culture, history, government), is an unpersuasive.

as opposed to the previous owners, who benefitted from their propreitorship while others did the actual work.

That's capitalism. I see no reason why you would point this out (unless you're arguing land is acquired via a combination of one's labor). But even then difficulties arise.

Bill Gates undoubtedly spends quite a bit on his personal security. OTOH I wouldn't feel comfortable with Bill running part of the courts system, nor should he absolve himself from being subject to the laws of the land because his bank balance is a lot healthier than the average Joe.

The last part of this sentence works on another level in relation to healthcare: why should Bill Gates benefit from all types of treatment while others lack basic care?

In fact Bill made enough money to spend on private security because he benefitted from a society with enforceable laws that allowed him invest and innovate, safe in the knowledge the fruits of his labourr would be safeguarded by the justice system. Capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Rather it requires a minimum of regulation to thrive. Hence taxpayers money should be spent on the police and judicial system.

Again, people who advocate a universal healthcare system make identical arguments on identical grounds.

Probably. I've never argued that the state shouldn't divert resources to healthcare. I just believe they should be targetted to those most in need. The occurence of uncontrollable causes is minimal compared to controllable causes.

Again, I see little to disagree on. "Most in need" clearly conflicts with "effective demand"- i.e. how the market rations medicial resources.

You're obscuring my point. If a smoker is struck by a car or assaulted, then smoking has absolutely nothing to do with their sudden ill health. In these two scenarios they could probably sue to recover the cost of their medical costs.

If anything it makes a stronger point against universal care because it introduces very real aggravating circumstances.

Neither do I. It's just that I fail to see why the rest of us should shoulder the costs of other people's poor lifestyle choices.

Again, we could the same for people who choose to drive on the highway, go rock-climbing, or live in poor neighborhoods with high crime.

And boy, is Germany in a desperate state.A stagnant economy, (www.no-euro.com/mediacentre/dossiers/display.asp?IDNO=1183) Unemployment at crisis levels (www.no-euro.com/mediacentre/dossiers/display.asp?IDNO=1160) and a lack of business confidence and innovation (www.no-euro.com/mediacentre/dossiers/display.asp?IDNO=1205) all caused by interventionist government policies a.k.a. socialism mean that Germans are facing serious problems with paying for their health system.

First, German does not practice socialism; it's a capitalist welfare state. Secnod, leaf through all the business publications from the early eighties and we hear the same kind of dire, chicken-little predictions (or go back even further to Hayek's most celebrated work, _The Road to Serfdom_). The buearu of Labor is notorious for underestimating unemployment here. A ten year budget surplus projected at 5.6 trillion dollars has been converted into a 4 trillion dollar deficit. Poverty rates, infant mortality, and the number of Americans lacking health insurance is staggering. Why harp on Germany, anyway? What about Norway or any of the other countries that ranks higher than the United States according to the UN development index?

Malachi151

15th June 2003, 07:24 PM

No, of course not. Police protection is a public good, and though I have not directly called the police and had them coming running to my immediate, the indirect benefits are still real. The same applies to other public goods: education, health care, national defense...

I think think you could be since you're usually on the ball :)

Shane Costello

16th June 2003, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Cain:
Your personal circumstances, the details of which I am not at all familiar (culture, history, government), is an unpersuasive.

See if I care. Fact is that's our land, our property, and nothing you say is going to persuade me that there's anything immoral about it. Juwst wondering, but where do you live? A rented tent? Where did you grow up? And have you any viable alternative to private property?

That's capitalism. I see no reason why you would point this out (unless you're arguing land is acquired via a combination of one's labor). But even then difficulties arise.

It was anything but capitalism. Tenants weren't allowed by law to buy their land until the latter part of the 19th century, regardless of their abilit to buy. What difficulties are you talking about?

The last part of this sentence works on another level in relation to healthcare: why should Bill Gates benefit from all types of treatment while others lack basic care?

Easy. If Bill Gates takes care of his own healthcare, more government funds can be directed to those most in need.

Again, people who advocate a universal healthcare system make identical arguments on identical grounds.

Nonsense. It's highly desireable that those who can pay for their healthcare. It is highly undesireable that anyone buys justice. Healthcare can be a commodity, justice never should be.

Again, I see little to disagree on. "Most in need" clearly conflicts with "effective demand"- i.e. how the market rations medicial resources.

How is there a clear conflict. People who can finance their own healthcare should be obliged to, with government funds and charitable organisations taking up the slack. Whatever you think about the iniquity of the market it's a fact that healthcare still has to be paid for. It simply isn't "free". It's a question of finding the most efficnet way of financing it.

First, German does not practice socialism; it's a capitalist welfare state

Capitalist welfare = social democracy. Not exactly the same as socialism, but still having an emphasis on the redistribution of income and interventionism in the market place.

Secnod, leaf through all the business publications from the early eighties and we hear the same kind of dire, chicken-little predictions (or go back even further to Hayek's most celebrated work, _The Road to Serfdom_).

I posted facts, not predictions. Who said what when I was in diapers is moot to what is actually happening now.

The buearu of Labor is notorious for underestimating unemployment here.

Says who?

The OECD standardized unemployment rates (www.oecd.org/pdf/M00030000/M00030784.pdf) suggest that German unemployment has been about twice that of the US for quite some time.

Poverty rates, infant mortality, and the number of Americans lacking health insurance is staggering.

Evidence?

Why harp on Germany, anyway?

Because you were there, and I wanted to inform your perceptions with some facts.

What about Norway or any of the other countries that ranks higher than the United States according to the UN development index?

Norway is interesting, a small country with loads of oil. This has allowed it avoid the problems facing other countries.

WMT1

16th June 2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Cain
Yeah, I suppose the government can do whatever it pleases, but that certainly doesn't make it right.

Thank you!

An argument -- a justification -- is necessary. I've yet to see anything of the sort in this regard for private property. Why does someone have to demonstrate the illegitimacy? The burden of proof rests with the person arguing on behalf of a power or authority (in this case the state's authority to section off a plot of land and say, "this belongs to X.")

If the burden of proof rests with the person arguing in behalf of a power or authority, does that also apply to the state's "authority" to secure funding by confiscating property or earnings?

BillyTK

16th June 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Cain

You're absolutely right.

One justification is the Lockean conception kind of Utilitarian because it prescribes a limit on private property- that "there is as good and enough left over for others." The whole "ooh, I mix my labor with the land," has always appeared arbitrary, and besides, it has troubling implications for present day ownership (the United States was taken over by force).
If I make this land mine by use of force--which is to say I mixed my labour with this land--then what is to stop someone else from taking my land by mixing their labour with it? Or even using other forms of force (and labour)? How do I guarantee my claim to it? If I use force to defend my claim, is it simply a case of the greatest force wins? It makes the idea of rights of ownership troubling unless there's a greater force--than I or my challenger can muster-- to act as guarantor for my rights.

Of course, I suppose they can always fall back on the good ol' Utilitarian argument. But then that means they have no principled argument against universal healthcare. If we have private property to maximize happiness, then there's nothing inherently wrong about redistributing wealth and resources to create a system that treats diseases for everyone.
Hold on, but what about--nope, you're right, dammit! ;)

It's better to just ignore the problem altogether. What legitimizes private property? Are you a Communist or something? Who cares?
Well, colour me communist then! :D

Cain

16th June 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
See if I care. Fact is that's our land, our property, and nothing you say is going to persuade me that there's anything immoral about it.

Then I see no reason to continue. As a final note, though, I'd only say that your private ownership lacks moral justification.

Juwst wondering, but where do you live? A rented tent? Where did you grow up? And have you any viable alternative to private property?

Southern California. Apartment. Southern California. There are alternatives to the current regime.

It was anything but capitalism. Tenants weren't allowed by law to buy their land until the latter part of the 19th century, regardless of their abilit to buy. What difficulties are you talking about?

Hold on a second. Contextually, you mentioned the prior land owners as having *less of a claim* than you. I find it curious that you would fault prior laws as prohibiting the sale of these seemingly illegitimate titles. Finally, you wrote, "previous owners... benefitted from their propreitorship while others did the actual work."

That's capitalism. There's nothing inherently wrong (according to capitalism), contrary to what's implied, with a capitalist benefitting from the labor of others. Or let's just imagine share-croppers so poor that they couldn't purchase the land if they wanted to (the post-civil war south is a historical example). Such structures would be even worse, but they're still capitalistic.

Easy. If Bill Gates takes care of his own healthcare, more government funds can be directed to those most in need.

This makes no sense; the resources a universal healthcare system provides to Bill Gates would probably be equal to (or even less than) the average person.

Nonsense. It's highly desireable that those who can pay for their healthcare. It is highly undesireable that anyone buys justice. Healthcare can be a commodity, justice never should be.

For reasons mentioned earlier, healthcare makes a poor commodity. None of the ordinary free-market assumptions hold (barrier to entry, perfect information (asymmetries in information alone undermines the structure), a small number of providers, and so on). If you're making the argument on economic grounds, then it fails.

How is there a clear conflict. People who can finance their own healthcare should be obliged to, with government funds and charitable organisations taking up the slack. Whatever you think about the iniquity of the market it's a fact that healthcare still has to be paid for. It simply isn't "free". It's a question of finding the most efficnet way of financing it.

Agreed. The primary question, though, is whether or not government can provide universal care in principle. Libertarians, conservatives, and others usually say "no." They allege that such a regime "confiscates" their property, which is immoral.

The OECD standardized unemployment rates (www.oecd.org/pdf/M00030000/M00030784.pdf) suggest that German unemployment has been about twice that of the US for quite some time.

Europe has almost always had higher unemployment rates (partially, again, becasue of the way my government estimates unemployment. We have one of the highest prison populations in the world (it might be the highest), and none of those two million (or whatever the figure) people counts as unemployed. Prisons don't come cheap, either. We could send a person to Harvard for the same costs).

Evidence?

This requires little to no investigation. The 40 million uninsured, at least here in the States, is well known.

For comparisons on infant mortality and poverty consult the CIA world factbook:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

And a comparison between JUST the US and JUST Germany is completely arbitrary. Why not compare Scandnavian countries, the biggest offenders social democracy (Germany is technically corprotist anyway). Or the Netherlands, or all of Western europe.
Why even place so much emphasis on unemployment? Japan has a lower unemployment than the United States, for example. Does that mean it has a more sound economy? Of course not.

Norway is interesting, a small country with loads of oil. This has allowed it avoid the problems facing other countries. [/B]

Undoubtedly a critical factor. But again, for the sake of a meaningful comparison, we can look at the natural treasures of the United States: five percent of the world's population occupying approximately seven percent of its land; over 15 percent of the world's copper and cadium reserves; over 20 percent of its reserves of coal, lead, zinc. Not to forget fertile cropland. (Source: Stephen Gardner, _Comparative Economic Systems_).

And let's not fail to mention all of the middle-eastern countries sitting on far more oil.

According to the UN's development index the United States ranks sixth in the world.

http://www.ehaab.com/sixth.jpg

If the burden of proof rests with the person arguing in behalf of a power or authority, does that also apply to the state's "authority" to secure funding by confiscating property or earnings?

It depends on how you wish to justify property, wmt. If we say private property is a social institution defined and governed by a government to maximize happiness, then there's nothing wrong (in principle) with taking it for Utilitarian purposes. If you say private property is a natural right, nearly absolute, and completely free from government interference under all but the most extreme circumstances, then that requires an argument. A justification. If that justification holds up, if you have a good reason, then of course the government (or anyone) cannot "confiscate" it.

My government forcibly seized land from the Natives. I am a direct beneficary from genocidal actions. No conservative today complains about land "stolen" from the Indians. As George Bernard Shaw said, "the government that steals from Paul to pay Peter can always count on the support of Peter."