So the next time someone steals, I'll simply be more efficient and take the law into my own hands. Yeah, that'll work.
Your welcome to, I won’t advice that you do, but if it is your desire I can’t stop you. Ofcause, it is a false choice. You don't have the choice to take the law into your own hands, if it involves punishing your neighbour. If you think you do, I'm sure your police service will disavow you of that notion quite quickly.
You still don't seem to understand the concept that no one is entitled to the product another's labor, whether that be tomatoes, widgets, or health care.
No, I understand the notion; I just understand that the real world is incompatible with it.
How exactly have you paid Einstein for his work on relativity, or Archimedes of Syracuse and Pythagoras of Samos for their labors? Newton? You benefit nightly and daily for these men’s labor. You have ‘no written entitlement’, but in all practical regards you are entitled to them, simply by living in the society you are part off.Birds flock together, because it decreases the chance that any one individual will be predates. Sure, it sucks for the individual that is, but it is still a very successful defence mechanism.
Providing national immunisation programs is more effective than private Vaccination, because the higher the level of herd immunity the more effective the program at preventing those immunised from getting ill.
Black and white principles are rarely useful in the real world.
And charity does work, quite well. Far more efficient than the government model. I asked why you don't take ownership for the orphan that you demand I care for. You didn't answer. There's the problem with your argument: if it is so very important to you, why are you not doing it? No, instead you need someone with a big stick to make sure that I do what you want me to . . . nope, not gonna happen. I have a child, and he's my priority, not an orphan that even the leftists don't want to take care of. Charity has existed for thousands of years, and works quite well.
Fine, your right, it isn’t your responsibility to provide for the orphan, but it isn’t my responsibility either. As a result, I will match my charitable donation to the orphan to yours, and anyone who provides for him is a fool. Why should they care, I mean, really the urge to altruism is genetic trick, likely build upon something similar to Kin selection. The Orphan doesn’t share that much of my unique genetic identiy, so f&~! him, I won’t let you leave me carrying the burdon, in this game of charitable prisoners dilemma.
But what happens to the child?
Years ago, soldiers were forced to fight. In the United States, it was called the draft. Turns out that conscription isn't the optimal way to create a good military. But the left still insists that we use force to pay for others' health care (among other things).
You use force to pay for the military, why isn’t that wrong, if paying for health care is. You dance around this issue so delicately, it is like watching a pond skater, dancing on the film of surface tention, hoping it won’t fall though.
And you don't "pay less" for health care. Someone else is paying the cost. You get fantastically high taxes, and demand that those with more pay even higher taxes without benefit to them, and you end up with a government model that denies medicine to people. What do I get? Far better emergency services, better outcomes of chronic conditions, and the best thing: freedom to choose my medicine.
Look, simple figures from 2007.
UK health spending: 8.4% of GDPUSA health spending: United States (16.0%) of GDP
Average UK health spending/capita: $2992
Average USA health spending/capita: $7290
We pay less, our system is more efficient. Better out comes, for lower cost.
Yes, our taxes are high, but it isn’t the health service that makes them so.
Oh, and we still have the freedom to choose our medicine, within the NHS and in the private sector in england, and abroad. You are, on this point, simply wrong. I can’t stress this enough, we pay less for health care and get better outcomes.
Have you noticed that your arguments rely on the assumption of force? In your ideal society, it seems like an individual isn't allowed to do what is best for himself, instead being subservient to whoever wields the biggest stick. In my perfect society, there is no big stick.
If this statement is true, it is also true of you. You have exactly the same choices I have with regards to paying for policing and military service. You can pay, or you can emigrate. You have still not said why this choice is more acceptable, than having the same choice to pay for healthcare.
Ofcause, the difference is I understand it is a choice I have made to live in this society where you don’t seem to understand that you can choose other societies if you wish too.
No one has the right to the product of another's labor. If you believe that you do have the right to it, you believe that slavery is justified. Sorry, that flies in the face of hundreds of years of liberal thought. I can't explain it to you in any simpler manner. You do not have the right to take the tomatoes in my garden, and you do not have the right to force me to give tomatoes to my neighbor. Those tomatoes were grown with my effort, not yours. Learn to respect others. They do not exist to serve you.
You’re not consistent. You believe that your government has the right to your product, when providing rule of law and military protection, but not when it provides health care.
So please. Tell me, how is it that you can logically accept one, but not the other.
|
I just feel sorry for that poor family, fallen on hard times, who live a few blocks away from Doug. They’d love some tomatoes. It’s a pity they can’t afford them, what with dad being out of a job thanks to the economic crisis, mom working minimum wage, and that extra kid that they didn’t plan for and can’t really afford (but love dearly nonetheless). They walk past every day, looking with envy through the fence at Doug’s tomato patch (they’re careful not to look too long or hard, lest Doug call the private security company on them, given his justifiable paranoia after some of the other neighbours decided to steal some of his tomatoes).
So they look longingly at Doug’s tomatoes, but they know they’ll never have them. I mean, its only fair, Doug worked hard to grow those tomatoes, he’s not at fault that the family down the road doesn’t have the yard space or the time or money to grow their own tomatoes. But still … they’d settle even for some small, slightly over-ripe tomatoes, like the ones that Doug throws straight on the compost heap, if only they could afford them. Splurging on tomatoes though, would keep bread and milk off the table for a week.
Why, oh why, can’t everyone just have some tomatoes?
Sorry, this is the thread about tomatoes isn’t it?
They have been using procedures and equipment that has been largely developed by us. If we went the way of other governments, I believe that many would be scared that this advancement would slow considerably down.
Well if your concerned about your competativeness in medical developement is your primary concern, perhapes you should consider stripping all ethic requirements from the industry, let them fool around with embrionic stem cells, remove all restrictions on animal and human testing, give them full legal immunity for their actions during developement of drugs and techniques?
Okay, coming from a different perspective then, namely Sweden, the country that is always brought up as an example of paradise by those with certain leanings.
Sweden has a completely nationalised health care system, that has recently been opened slightly, so that primary care units are now available both as politically directed and privately-owned to the prospective patient. However, the state-owned hospitals are the norm everywhere. We have a system where everyone pays taxes for a complete coverage in health insurance, and most private places go through that channel too, hence, the expensive private insurances you can pay for are generally seen as not necessary.
So, every swede can get any sort of health care they need. Only rarely do they have to pay extra. Sounds like heaven, eh?
Not quite. We swedes pay a lot of taxes for that health care, our total taxation ends up between 50 and 70% of our earnings, when you include social fees, work taxation for the employer, local and state taxes, specific taxes for various products like tobacco, and a VAT of 25%. And since the politicians have seen fit to limit the private options severely while not giving the health care system an increased budget since the 70s, we now have a health care system that is dimensioned for the 70s, a time when Sweden had dramatically fewer people (1/3 less). Compared to the european average of 12% of GDP for health care, sweden uses 7%.
There is also a growing trend of bureaucracy. More and more people work in administration, more and more controls that let the politicians check on the system in detail, and so on. Another problem is that since everyone has the right to receive health care, everyone gets it, even if some people perhaps should not have it, thus taking up resources for those who would really be helped. Open heart surgery for 95-year olds, anyone?
All in all, it's a system that means you have to WAIT to get your health care, and you have no other options, unless of course you want to pay for an expensive private insurance on top of the taxes you pay. This waiting is not a laughing matter. It's weeks, months, even years of waiting. First to see a doctor, then to get things like radiology, and heaven help you if you need surgery. Every year, there are a good number of cases where cancer patients, even young ones, die while waiting for treatment. If you go to the emergency ward, expect to wait for 8 to 15 hours before seeing a doctor, no matter what your problem is. The politicians, faced with this problem, have started suggesting that certain diagnoses should not be covered by the general insurance, leaving those patients entirely without health care options. Once this has begun, we can all look forward to seeing that situation expand.
There is also another problem: Since tax money is used for health care, the thought that the state should be allowed to check up on your lifestyle is gaining ground. We don't have the suggestions about mandatory weight loss camps that already exist in the UK yet, but it's very likely they'll get there soon enough.
So, the american system isn't perfect. Neither is a system with a nationalised health care.
Sorry to make light Zombieneighbours. I don’t get it either, but I don’t think you will ever convince some people. Sorry to hear about your dad, hope he is doing better.
It is fine mate, made me laugh, which is good.
|
It is pretty easy to criticise the world when you are sitting at home, in front of your computer, with your 24" screen and a Coke at hand. Why do you need to care about those who might be suffering down the street? As long as you can afford the doctor, who cares about those Mexicans or even those poor folks staring longingly at Doug's tomatoes?
I can haz tomatoez?
I'm in the U.S. and the anti-health care reform crowd seem to have a collection of the following arguments:
...
- "It's communist." Anti-communist hysteria was raging for years in the U.S. from the 1950's to 1989. People of those generations fear communism as an evil influence. The logic goes like this: communism is bad, so anything communists do is also bad, whether it is connected to communism or not. Communists countries had socialized medicine so, ergo, socialized medicine leads to communism. Ronald Reagan had a famous recorded speech saying almost exactly that.
- "It's not free-market capitalist." There is a very vocal and influential minority of laissez-faire free-marketeers in this country. These people are borderline anarchists as they see profit as ultimately the best source to control everything. They are anti-government control of anything and health care is just another thing that Adam Smith's Invisible Free Hand should control. In this view, people naturally become customers of the best health care insurances, hospitals, and hospitals. The bad ones lose customers to the good ones, and go out of business. Therefore, whichever company makes the most money is the best one. All the problems in the current system, they claim, are the blame of government regulation in place now, not the lack of it.
- "Anything government run is bad." Similar to the free-marketeers above, this argument comes from people frustrated with government bureaucracy--everything from waiting in line at the post office, to paying taxes, to trying to renew your driver's license.
- The "every man for himself" argument. Also similar to the above, is the notion that a "welfare state" is ultimately bad for people. Sure, people might suffer without government assistance, but it won't be for long as they will eventually find a way "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps."
- "It will take *my* money and give it to *THOSE* people." Racism still exists in this country and anything seen as
I find your assessment reasonable with the exception of racism. As a very active Republican conservative (minarchist) for more than 20 years I have heard (and probably made) arguments that echo what you posted, but I have never personally heard an opponent criticize Obama care because it doesn't kill enough black people or any such nonsense.
I'm not saying those kind of people can't be found, but I haven't heard them in my state and local caucus in 20+ years in a very conservative county.
Now, now, its St. Patrick's Day and I have spent all me hard earned coin on booze. Just a wee tomato, Mr. Mothman, for a wee rat?
*Picks up Chubbs and gives him a bowl of mashed boiled carrot.* Back to your cage ickle one.
With such a stand point, i assume your also against the maintiance of a standing army and police force, as well as educational system?If you believe no one is 'entitled to the product of anothers labours', tell me, how would a society based upon this grounding treat some one who has no way of earning such (for instance an orphan), if no one is willing to provide for that individual? I can see only one logical outcome to what your argueing.
Regardless, my fathers treatment does not come from 'entitlement', it is the outcome of engagement in society. He has payed for the education of many individual, along with their health care, security and welfare. They are simply now returning the favour.
You are wrong. I like the armed forces. Putting bullets into bad guys is a good thing. As for police, I like them too, but I still have a private security firm monitoring my house. Fire departments are filled with great people, but I still went out and bought fire extinguishers. Private companies provide those, you know. Some of us don't wait around for government to come fix our problems.
How would my society treat an orphan? It's called charity. Wonderful thing. It allows people with an overdeveloped sense of guilt to take care of those orphans. Meanwhile, I'll get to build my business and donate an entire building to house them. But you still don't have the right to take the product of my labour away from me. That's still called slavery.
I'm sure your father is well-engaged in society. I am, too. I provide a service that people want to use. For my skill, I am rewarded. With those rewards I can pay for my son's education, I can donate to whatever charities I wish, and I can do so without you dictating where my charity goes.
There's still the matter of my philisophy. If you are okay with enslaving others, where does that slavery end? Why not just cut out the taxpayer and directly enslave doctors and nurses? "You're a doctor, you must perform surgery...
:)
|
|
Now, now, its St. Patrick's Day and I have spent all me hard earned coin on booze. Just a wee tomato, Mr. Mothman, for a wee rat?Well, since you put it like that ... I'll see if I can rustle up a tomato for you - or buy you a beer.
DID YOU SAY BEER? KEEP YOUR BLOODY TOMATOES THEN!
*Throws Zombieneighbours way*
We all know you're skeleton under that pretty head of yours! :D
|
|
Now, now, its St. Patrick's Day and I have spent all me hard earned coin on booze. Just a wee tomato, Mr. Mothman, for a wee rat?*Picks up Chubbs and gives him a bowl of mashed boiled carrot.* Back to your cage ickle one.
BLAH! PFFT! BLAH!
Mashed carrot? What the hell did I ever do to you? I am a rat not a bloody rabbit!
... :)
With such a stand point, i assume your also against the maintiance of a standing army and police force, as well as educational system?If you believe no one is 'entitled to the product of anothers labours', tell me, how would a society based upon this grounding treat some one who has no way of earning such (for instance an orphan), if no one is willing to provide for that individual? I can see only one logical outcome to what your argueing.
Regardless, my fathers treatment does not come from 'entitlement', it is the outcome of engagement in society. He has payed for the education of many individual, along with their health care, security and welfare. They are simply now returning the favour.
You are wrong. I like the armed forces. Putting bullets into bad guys is a good thing. As for police, I like them too, but I still have a private security firm monitoring my house. Fire departments are filled with great people, but I still went out and bought fire extinguishers. Private companies provide those, you know. Some of us don't wait around for government to come fix our problems.
How would my society treat an orphan? It's called charity. Wonderful thing. It allows people with an overdeveloped sense of guilt to take care of those orphans. Meanwhile, I'll get to build my business and donate an entire building to house them. But you still don't have the right to take the product of my labour away from me. That's still called slavery.
I'm sure your father is well-engaged in society. I am, too. I provide a service that people want to use. For my skill, I am rewarded. With those rewards I can pay for my son's education, I can donate to whatever charities I wish, and I can do so without you dictating where my charity goes.
There's still the matter of my philisophy. If you are okay with enslaving others, where does that slavery end? Why not just cut out the taxpayer and directly enslave doctors and nurses? "You're a
What was it that garnered a :) from all that? Sorry, just curious
Now, now, its St. Patrick's Day and I have spent all me hard earned coin on booze. Just a wee tomato, Mr. Mothman, for a wee rat?*Picks up Chubbs and gives him a bowl of mashed boiled carrot.* Back to your cage ickle one.BLAH! PFFT! BLAH!
Mashed carrot? What the hell did I ever do to you? I am a rat not a bloody rabbit!
My rats always loves warm mashed veggies. :(
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, the two problems I have with a central/nationalized/single payer system in the US are smiple based on the US itself.
1) The Federal goverment has strictly defined powers, and health care isn't one of them. The Military, roads, currency, post office, etc. are all clearly defined in the constitution. You want to take the labor of others and apply it to the national good, fine, write an ammendment. Yes, I know this ship sailed a long time ago, but it's still a hill worth dying for.
2) A single payer puts a chokehold on the market process. While not as far as 'slavery' it does go back to having the government fix what you may charge for your services. As I've said before, How long would Paizo last if they government came in and said 'you can only charge X for a book' and X was <= the cost of making the book? This is what happens all the time with health care providers. Medicare payments are frequently less than the cost of the procedure, and the doctor can either accept the medicare payment, or not see medicare patients. For right now the cost of business is made up for in negotiations with private insurance companies in large part. Yes, this goes back to the 'you're already subsadizing heath care' arguement, but what if there was no private insurance? Who picks up the slack then?
As to the current administration's arguements for heath care, I find them laughable at best, slanderous at worst.
We can debate on what should be done to revitalize the health care industry (buy across state lines, privacy, abuse, etc.) but the current bill does none of that.
|
Well, the single payer has advantages in terms of costs, which are the significant problem for the US. But I think it is way too late for an NHS-style system to be established anyway in the US, and in any case there are problems with it too which you outline (though they don't dictate prices as such, more don't provide treatments that don't meet cost-benefit criteria). And the NHS isn't anything like Medicare - the NHS is the provider and is paid for through general taxation, not a state-sponsored insurance system. To be honest, I don't see the need for an NHS in the US, especially given the infrastructure of insurance companies and private hospitals already in existence. Like I bang on about above, the issue that needs to be grasped is over-treatment and cost inflation, the lack of provision to the uninsured, local health monolpolies, and shennanigans of insurance companies to avoid paying out. As such, the issue seems to be regulation. And only some of that (and not the critical issue of cost) is addressed by the current bill.
The U.S. Treasury is broke. Medicare and Medicaid - the current goverment-run healthcare services for some of our citizens - is also bankrupt and poorly run. The rates they pay at are so low, most medical providers consider the compensation a case for charity and take it anyhow to support needy people in thier communities. So:
1 - The Federal Goverment cannot afford another super-expensive entitlement program.
2 - If they did start to run one, it would in all likelihood be as poorly run as Medicare/Medicaid and the Post Office.
Competition and the free market can and will find a way to improve on the situation - as it always has - if Government will stop interfering in the way they do business and confine itself to regulating safe practices and breaking up trusts. Lawsuit reform is also a vital way to make it more affordable for medical providers to do business without having to charge high rates just to protect themselves from outrageous and frivolous lawsuits.
That's my opinion.I am always curious about opinions like this, regarding U.S. entitlement programs such as Medicare. On the one hand, they complain that these programs are "super-expensive." On the other, that they don't pay enough money out for the program to work right. Likewise, they complain it is poorly run, but ignore the fact that the program is wildly popular among the elderly who rely on it. Accordingly no serious proposal has been made in ages to eliminate it. (Ditto for conservatives' other favorite whipping boy - social security. Just look what happened to Bush's attempt to monkey with it if you want to know what people really think about its worth.)
As for the post office, it's possibly the best example of a well-run government agency. It receives zero dollars in direct taxpayer funding, instead operating with user fees. It's cheap, it's fast, and it's accurate. And if you disagree, you can always send mail through FedEx or UPS (which no one does, except for packages, or where special...
IIRC first class is restricted to the USPS by law. That doesn't sound like cheap, fast, accurate or having a real choice to me.
You do not have the right to take the tomatoes in my garden, and you do not have the right to force me to give tomatoes to my neighbor. Those tomatoes were grown with my effort, not yours. Learn to respect others. They do not exist to serve you.You don't own the sun, which supplies the energy to grow the tomatoes.
You don't own the ground in which they're grown. Think otherwise? Stop paying your property taxes and see what happens. Or ask a native american. Or pour toxic chemicals in your yard.
You didn't do the hundreds of years of artificial selection required to create the modern tomato. That's a product of someone's labor. By this ridiculous sort of reasoning, you don't have a right to your tomatoes either. Your argument is facile at best, and destructive at worst. No offense. We live in a society, and the social contract is not a one-way street.
Zo
So your bottom line is to obey or suffer the consequences.
I don't own gravity. Should I pay a fine for not floating away? Your argument seems absurd on its face.
You observe that "you don't own the ground" because of government violence to justify the use of government violence. How can you not see that your argument is circular?
You didn't do the R&D on the product that you own, so you don't own it. How do you fail to notice how silly this argument is?
You use all of these insipid arguments to justify the use of violence against those who haven't initiated violence against you to enforce your social contract. If a minority disagrees they must obey, be punished or leave. It's charming to see how tolerant statists are.
Health services are expensive everywhere from America to Australia to the United Kingdom. The right wants people to pay for the use of health services and the left wants to help those who unfortunately cannot afford to access health services.
If a country will let someone suffer because they cannot afford treatment, is that not inhumane? The Australian government has recently lent AUS$250,000 to a woman to receive a new liver. She now has a second chance at life. May be government should have told her too bad and turned its back on her?
Basically, do you want to live in a society that is unable or unwilling to take care of the welfare of its citizens? I would think that health services should be accessible by all (and I do not mean plastic surgery for that convenient boob job) when there is a genuine need.
If you believe that no one has a right to free medical services then that is a sorry view of the world. The US needs a universal health care system that caters to those who cannot afford high insurance premiums. No one in a developed country should remain untreated when they need medical treatment.
A society where there is a pay for service system for front line services has failed (we pay for those services with our taxes and should not have to pay an additional fee) to address the needs of its citizens. I pay my taxes so I expect to be able to call emergency to receive attention from one of three crucial services: ambulance, fire or police. What? Do I have to pay additional money for a badge so the local fire department will stop and put my house out if it is on fire? Do I need to have an additional payment to ensure the police will come to my aid if a crime has been committed?
Zombieneighbours - All the best to your father.
Is there any possibility that this could be achieved without state force?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
If I spend my entire working life making $7/hour (@40 hours per week, that equates to $1750 per year into a retirement account when you take out 2 weeks for unpaid vacation/sick time, etc), I would have over $2 million by the time I retire. Not bad, eh? But our wonderful Social Security system will pay (at most) $675/month, or just over $8000/year in 2010. You'd have to live 250...How do you figure that? I came up with 411410.38 and that is assuming that you are 40 years from retirement, that your wage (and savings) increases at 4% per year and your retirement account grows at 5% per year. Of course, given this steady inflation, that 400k isn't going to last you very long ... about 4 years if you try to maintain your pre-retirement standard of living.
* Note to self: increase retirement savings *
The stock market has returned 10% over the past 85 years. 50 years of work (age 18 +50 = 68). Someone who manages his whole life to earn no more than $7/hr didn't go to college.
I think that the 10% is unadjusted for inflation.
But let's say your $411k is right. That still means one has to live for 50 years to collect the same amount from Social Security. Not too many 120 year olds running around. And if you were earning $7/hr your entire life, it's really doubtful that you took that great care of yourself anyways.
Again, you're not adjusting for inflation. $8000 in 2010 does not equal $8000 in 2060. The amount that social security pays will have to increase accordingly (if the system doesn't go bankrupt first.)
I agree with you, however, that many of us would do better if we could invest that money in our own retirement without government help. (Of course, we'd be retiring to a bleak dystopian future where old people without our investment savvy mug teenagers for their lunch money but hey.) My problem with what you are saying is that you are grossly underestimating the amount that a young person should be putting away.
I just feel sorry for that poor family, fallen on hard times, who live a few blocks away from Doug. They’d love some tomatoes. It’s a pity they can’t afford them, what with dad being out of a job thanks to the economic crisis, mom working minimum wage, and that extra kid that they didn’t plan for and can’t really afford (but love dearly nonetheless). They walk past every day, looking with envy through the fence at Doug’s tomato patch (they’re careful not to look too long or hard, lest Doug call the private security company on them, given his justifiable paranoia after some of the other neighbours decided to steal some of his tomatoes).
So they look longingly at Doug’s tomatoes, but they know they’ll never have them. I mean, its only fair, Doug worked hard to grow those tomatoes, he’s not at fault that the family down the road doesn’t have the yard space or the time or money to grow their own tomatoes. But still … they’d settle even for some small, slightly over-ripe tomatoes, like the ones that Doug throws straight on the compost heap, if only they could afford them. Splurging on tomatoes though, would keep bread and milk off the table for a week.
Why, oh why, can’t everyone just have some tomatoes?
Sorry, this is the thread about tomatoes isn’t it?
Doug would probably be happy to share his tomatoes with his neighbors if no one is is stealing them or pointing a gun at him, but if they are just going to steal them or extort them why should he grow any tomatoes at all? Now no one has any tomatoes unless the government puts a gun to his children's head and forces you to grow tomatoes.
Wow! Your system is totally superior to freedom. How could we have been so stupid?
It is pretty easy to criticise the world when you are sitting at home, in front of your computer, with your 24" screen and a Coke at hand. Why do you need to care about those who might be suffering down the street? As long as you can afford the doctor, who cares about those Mexicans or even those poor folks staring longingly at Doug's tomatoes?
It might be said that it's easy to criticize the greed of those who create wealth while sucking on the state welfare teat, but that would be presumptuous and ignorant, so I will refrain.
They have been using procedures and equipment that has been largely developed by us. If we went the way of other governments, I believe that many would be scared that this advancement would slow considerably down.Wow. Now that is a Yankee-centric comment if I ever heard one!
Possibly, but there is an element of truth to it.
|
|
Is there any possibility that this could be achieved without state force?
I'd say none whatsoever. Poor people make lousy customers because they don't have much money to spend, so many companies tend not to target them. This is particularly the case with financial services and insurance. Market forces are fine and good in many situations not so much in terms of the provision of services to those who cannot pay. As such, it is the role of the state to provide in such circumstances (maybe charity, but not on the scale required for this particular problem) as it can direct taxes towards the problem. Even where universal healthcare is provided through an insurance system (e.g. Switzerland) the state plays a role in regulating the market and in some cases paying for insurance (and it is illegal not to have health insurance in Switzerland, so I believe, another state intervention).
I just feel sorry for that poor family, fallen on hard times, who live a few blocks away from Doug. They’d love some tomatoes. It’s a pity they can’t afford them, what with dad being out of a job thanks to the economic crisis, mom working minimum wage, and that extra kid that they didn’t plan for and can’t really afford (but love dearly nonetheless). They walk past every day, looking with envy through the fence at Doug’s tomato patch (they’re careful not to look too long or hard, lest Doug call the private security company on them, given his justifiable paranoia after some of the other neighbours decided to steal some of his tomatoes).
So they look longingly at Doug’s tomatoes, but they know they’ll never have them. I mean, its only fair, Doug worked hard to grow those tomatoes, he’s not at fault that the family down the road doesn’t have the yard space or the time or money to grow their own tomatoes. But still … they’d settle even for some small, slightly over-ripe tomatoes, like the ones that Doug throws straight on the compost heap, if only they could afford them. Splurging on tomatoes though, would keep bread and milk off the table for a week.
Why, oh why, can’t everyone just have some tomatoes?
Sorry, this is the thread about tomatoes isn’t it?
Doug would probably be happy to share his tomatoes with his neighbors if no one is is stealing them or pointing a gun at him, but if they are just going to steal them or extort them why should he grow any tomatoes at all? Now no one has any tomatoes unless the government puts a gun to his children's head and forces you to grow tomatoes.
Wow! Your system is totally superior to freedom. How could we have been so stupid?
Excuse me...but where did the guns suddenly appear from? There arn't really any guns in our system. I mean, only specially armed responce officers carry guns in the united kingdom. And they ain't sending them out to force people to grow tomatoes. We arn't the USA where the law is enforced at the barrel of the gun.
I am every bit as free as you, maybe even a little freer in some ways..
...
With such a stand point, i assume your also against the maintiance of a standing army and police force, as well as educational system?If you believe no one is 'entitled to the product of anothers labours', tell me, how would a society based upon this grounding treat some one who has no way of earning such (for instance an orphan), if no one is willing to provide for that individual? I can see only one logical outcome to what your argueing.
Regardless, my fathers treatment does not come from 'entitlement', it is the outcome of engagement in society. He has payed for the education of many individual, along with their health care, security and welfare. They are simply now returning the favour.
You are wrong. I like the armed forces. Putting bullets into bad guys is a good thing. As for police, I like them too, but I still have a private security firm monitoring my house. Fire departments are filled with great people, but I still went out and bought fire extinguishers. Private companies provide those, you know. Some of us don't wait around for government to come fix our problems.
How would my society treat an orphan? It's called charity. Wonderful thing. It allows people with an overdeveloped sense of guilt to take care of those orphans. Meanwhile, I'll get to build my business and donate an entire building to house them. But you still don't have the right to take the product of my labour away from me. That's still called slavery.
I'm sure your father is well-engaged in society. I am, too. I provide a service that people want to use. For my skill, I am rewarded. With those rewards I can pay for my son's education, I can donate to whatever charities I wish, and I can do so without you dictating where my charity goes.
There's still the matter of my philisophy. If you are okay with enslaving others, where does that slavery end? Why not just cut out the taxpayer and directly enslave doctors and
It's just refreshing to note that I am not the only one who thinks that there might be some other choice than state violence to address challenges in the human condition.
My position is much more radical than most though.
I don't think that force or the threat thereof is justified except in defense of self or others (and property by extention) against force initiated by others.
Excuse me...but where did the guns suddenly appear from? There arn't really any guns in our system. I mean, only specially armed responce officers carry guns in the united kingdom. And they ain't sending them out to force people to grow tomatoes. We arn't the USA...I just feel sorry for that poor family, fallen on hard times, who live a few blocks away from Doug. They’d love some tomatoes. It’s a pity they can’t afford them, what with dad being out of a job thanks to the economic crisis, mom working minimum wage, and that extra kid that they didn’t plan for and can’t really afford (but love dearly nonetheless). They walk past every day, looking with envy through the fence at Doug’s tomato patch (they’re careful not to look too long or hard, lest Doug call the private security company on them, given his justifiable paranoia after some of the other neighbours decided to steal some of his tomatoes).
So they look longingly at Doug’s tomatoes, but they know they’ll never have them. I mean, its only fair, Doug worked hard to grow those tomatoes, he’s not at fault that the family down the road doesn’t have the yard space or the time or money to grow their own tomatoes. But still … they’d settle even for some small, slightly over-ripe tomatoes, like the ones that Doug throws straight on the compost heap, if only they could afford them. Splurging on tomatoes though, would keep bread and milk off the table for a week.
Why, oh why, can’t everyone just have some tomatoes?
Sorry, this is the thread about tomatoes isn’t it?
Doug would probably be happy to share his tomatoes with his neighbors if no one is is stealing them or pointing a gun at him, but if they are just going to steal them or extort them why should he grow any tomatoes at all? Now no one has any tomatoes unless the government puts a gun to his children's head and forces you to grow tomatoes.
Wow! Your system is totally superior to freedom. How could we have been so stupid?
Guns are simply a tool for using force. If it makes you feel better about your method of using force to gain compliance from those who fail to obey your dictates, you are welcome to focus on the use of tazers, restraints, chemical irritants, dogs, fire hoses, billy clubs, or some other LTL tool, but in the end states enforce their dictates with force or lethal force when it suits them.
Is there any possibility that this could be achieved without state force?I'd say none whatsoever. Poor people make lousy customers because they don't have much money to spend, so many companies tend not to target them. This is particularly the case with financial services and insurance. Market forces are fine and good in many situations not so much in terms of the provision of services to those who cannot pay. As such, it is the role of the state to provide in such circumstances (maybe charity, but not on the scale required for this particular problem) as it can direct taxes towards the problem. Even where universal healthcare is provided through an insurance system (e.g. Switzerland) the state plays a role in regulating the market and in some cases paying for insurance (and it is illegal not to have health insurance in Switzerland, so I believe, another state intervention).
We are at an impasse that is only likely to be resolved with force. I suppose you wouldn't have it any other way.
Look, can we stop blathering irrelevantly about state violence, slavery, freedom and tomatoes?
Not really. (OK maybe tomatoes, but I really like tomatoes.)
However, for me, state violence and the rightful use thereof is the very definition of slavery and freedom.
My fairly extreme view of this is a minority position. Others are likely to have a much more practical approach to the whole affair. I am unwilling to accept limitations on fundamental adult human rights in the interests of practicality.
|
|
I just feel sorry for that poor family, fallen on hard times, who live a few blocks away from Doug. They’d love some tomatoes. It’s a pity they can’t afford them, what with dad being out of a job thanks to the economic crisis, mom working minimum wage, and that extra kid that they didn’t plan for and can’t really afford (but love dearly nonetheless). They walk past every day, looking with envy through the fence at Doug’s tomato patch (they’re careful not to look too long or hard, lest Doug call the private security company on them, given his justifiable paranoia after some of the other neighbours decided to steal some of his tomatoes).
So they look longingly at Doug’s tomatoes, but they know they’ll never have them. I mean, its only fair, Doug worked hard to grow those tomatoes, he’s not at fault that the family down the road doesn’t have the yard space or the time or money to grow their own tomatoes. But still … they’d settle even for some small, slightly over-ripe tomatoes, like the ones that Doug throws straight on the compost heap, if only they could afford them. Splurging on tomatoes though, would keep bread and milk off the table for a week.
Why, oh why, can’t everyone just have some tomatoes?
Sorry, this is the thread about tomatoes isn’t it?
Doug would probably be happy to share his tomatoes with his neighbors if no one is is stealing them or pointing a gun at him, but if they are just going to steal them or extort them why should he grow any tomatoes at all? Now no one has any tomatoes unless the government puts a gun to his children's head and forces you to grow tomatoes.
Wow! Your system is totally superior to freedom. How could we have been so stupid?
Psst, Bitter guy, I gotta tell you, I just heard this thread isn't about tomatoes after all. We better stop talking about tomatoes or we might end up looking stupid. Nah, don't worry about it, this one's on me.
Oh, and it's not about guns either.
Clearly you are right - given the civil war and millions who died to get the NHS up and running.
Exactly! Now you see my obvious logic!........
...
Oh crap! Sarcasm.
.
.
.
I refer you to my rejection of practicality up thread.
Is there any possibility that this could be achieved without state force?
Yeh it is possible without force ! In Australia a political party said ok people if you elect us we will implement health reform and Medicare to ADEQUATELY cover those that cant afford to have private insurance - The overwhelming majority of Australians voted in the political party that said that they were going to do it. That party did it - the opposition when they came to power made a change or two but kept it because it WORKS its NOT perfect but it DOES the job. You don't have to have Medicare in fact the government gives you tax breaks to get private insurance.
Democracy at work BT no force necessary. You make Australia, UK, New Zealand, Canada, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries all who have public health sound like tyrannies - which is insulting and makes you look like you have reverted to the old reds under the beds Macarthyist paranoia. Nobody forced anybody to have it any-more than we needed the police, schools and the army.
You Americans are so hung up on force, its very strange... I just don't understand.
Australian doctors don't have to work in public health, they can make bucket loads of hot juicy cash working in the private industry, most do a bit of both.
Are you forced to have the police, schools (we have an excellent public school system very proud of it), Ambulance, Armed forces, roads, rail, water, power, and all that other necessary shyte you need to live in the 21st Century.
Australia is a exceedingly strong democracy. We were the second country in the world to give women the vote (the first was New Zealand) , we "invented" the secret or Australian ballot.
Australia was formed when the various colonies got together and said ok this is silly all of us having different trade laws, armies, navies and stuff... do you want to form a country we will call it the Commonwealth of Australia. All the colonies said yeh that's a good Idea lets have a vote we will invite New Zealand as well and maybe Western Australia although they are a bit far away.
The colonies voted: New Zealand said nahh thanks though bro, it would be too unfair to the rest of the world if we teamed up because we would be so choice at sport nobody else would win any thing.
Western Australia said umm got nothing else going on so ok but we will do our own thing pretty much anyway.
No force used everybody got together had some consensus said ok this is what the states can tax for, this what the Commonwealth can Tax for, lets get this working and build some roads open some hospitals, have a kick arse all volunteer army, still no force - no civil war - some strikes and a highly unionised population.
Yes the states and Commonwealth have had disagreements in the most extreme cases they have gone to court and our Judicial system is independent of the political system so and is accepted as the impartial referee...... Still no force.
We are one friggen strong democracy with the strongest economy in the western world, with banks that made such huge profits during the crisis they were so embarrassed, they had to give their employees bonuses and buy some other banks.
Blow me down we also have Medicare not a dint on the economy during the crisis. In fact we need more people we want plumbers and electricians we are talking about increasing our intake of migrants because we haven't got the population, guess what Medicare is factored into that as well.
Nobody is being forced....
I just feel sorry for that poor family, fallen on hard times, who live a few blocks away from Doug. They’d love some tomatoes. It’s a pity they can’t afford them, what with dad being out of a job thanks to the economic crisis, mom working minimum wage, and that extra kid that they didn’t plan for and can’t really afford (but love dearly nonetheless). They walk past every day, looking with envy through the fence at Doug’s tomato patch (they’re careful not to look too long or hard, lest Doug call the private security company on them, given his justifiable paranoia after some of the other neighbours decided to steal some of his tomatoes).
So they look longingly at Doug’s tomatoes, but they know they’ll never have them. I mean, its only fair, Doug worked hard to grow those tomatoes, he’s not at fault that the family down the road doesn’t have the yard space or the time or money to grow their own tomatoes. But still … they’d settle even for some small, slightly over-ripe tomatoes, like the ones that Doug throws straight on the compost heap, if only they could afford them. Splurging on tomatoes though, would keep bread and milk off the table for a week.
Why, oh why, can’t everyone just have some tomatoes?
Sorry, this is the thread about tomatoes isn’t it?
Doug would probably be happy to share his tomatoes with his neighbors if no one is is stealing them or pointing a gun at him, but if they are just going to steal them or extort them why should he grow any tomatoes at all? Now no one has any tomatoes unless the government puts a gun to his children's head and forces you to grow tomatoes.
Wow! Your system is totally superior to freedom. How could we have been so stupid?
Psst, Bitter guy, I gotta tell you, I just heard this thread isn't about tomatoes after all. We better stop talking about tomatoes or we might end up looking stupid. Nah, don't worry about it, this one's on me.
Oh, and it's not about guns either.
IIRC, I think tomatoes are an analogy for property which i view as the extension of labor and self.
Guns I guess i can speak to when I haven't gone ~30 hours with out sleep.
Ok. I'll let go of the tomato analogy, but it was really working for me.
I like tomatoes.
OK. I'm letting it go.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
...I just feel sorry for that poor family, fallen on hard times, who live a few blocks away from Doug. They’d love some tomatoes. It’s a pity they can’t afford them, what with dad being out of a job thanks to the economic crisis, mom working minimum wage, and that extra kid that they didn’t plan for and can’t really afford (but love dearly nonetheless). They walk past every day, looking with envy through the fence at Doug’s tomato patch (they’re careful not to look too long or hard, lest Doug call the private security company on them, given his justifiable paranoia after some of the other neighbours decided to steal some of his tomatoes).
So they look longingly at Doug’s tomatoes, but they know they’ll never have them. I mean, its only fair, Doug worked hard to grow those tomatoes, he’s not at fault that the family down the road doesn’t have the yard space or the time or money to grow their own tomatoes. But still … they’d settle even for some small, slightly over-ripe tomatoes, like the ones that Doug throws straight on the compost heap, if only they could afford them. Splurging on tomatoes though, would keep bread and milk off the table for a week.
Why, oh why, can’t everyone just have some tomatoes?
Sorry, this is the thread about tomatoes isn’t it?
Doug would probably be happy to share his tomatoes with his neighbors if no one is is stealing them or pointing a gun at him, but if they are just going to steal them or extort them why should he grow any tomatoes at all? Now no one has any tomatoes unless the government puts a gun to his children's head and forces you to grow tomatoes.
Wow! Your system is totally superior to freedom. How could we have been so stupid?
Psst, Bitter guy, I gotta tell you, I just heard this thread isn't about tomatoes after all. We better stop talking about tomatoes or we might end up looking stupid. Nah, don't worry about it, this one's on me.
Oh, and it's not about guns either.
The tomatoes made perfect sense to me. I disagree with Bitter Thorn, but I understood him.
It's just, I've got a lot of cucumbers and I live very far away from Bitter Thorn. I'd like to be able to engage in some kind of exchange, so that we can make a salad. In order to do that, however, I have to be able to ensure that my cucumbers reach him. I've hired a cousin to drive my pickup to BT's place to deliver the cucumbers and pick up the tomatoes.
Unfortunately, as we live in a perfect world completely free of government, I have no postal service through which to contact him, no roads to drive the truck on, no police to ensure those roads we don't have are safe, no health care to keep those working at the rest stops healthy and strong, etc.
I abhor government inefficiency but I still value government.
|
|
Hey 8th dwarf.....nice post. You make me want to move over to Australia! It seems that clearer heads are prevailing there instead of this whole American 2 party government that can't see past each's own agenda and the crap-tons of money tossed at them by special interests.
Now if I can just incorporate "mate" into my speech patterns and remember that Dropbears only attack the tourists.....
I had to stop reading this thread because it was taking too much time :)
One quick comment from an outside observer.
I think America's biggest problem is that roughly 45% of your population wants a low tax darwinian society and 45% wants a high tax social welfare state. And then you've got maybe 10% in the middle (I believe you call them swing voters) who seem to want both.
As in, one election they vote for tax cutters. And then the next election they vote for spenders who can't seem to raise the necessary taxes to pay for their proposals. And then next time around they vote in tax cutters who seem unable to eliminate some of the entitlements so they can finance their tax cuts.
Please, just pick the society you want and stick with it. You won't have the same deficit problems and you might actually manage to get your ducks in a row.
Or at least stop derailing the global economy... Zanny neighbors are fine on sitcoms, not so great in real life :)
The overwhelming majority of Australians voted in the political party that said that they were going to do it.
And this is where the current debate kinda confuses me. Obama said before the election that he was gonna do just that:
(It's a pdf, just a warning.)
There's no date here, but the title of the PDF says it all "accessible health coverage for all".
Last time I checked Obama got the plurality of the vote, did he not? So, if he said he was going to provide accessible health coverage for all, and the people voted him in, doesn't that give him the mandate to do it?
Isn't this democracy in action?
Greg
Look, can we stop blathering irrelevantly about state violence, slavery, freedom and tomatoes?Not really. (OK maybe tomatoes, but I really like tomatoes.)
However, for me, state violence and the rightful use thereof is the very definition of slavery and freedom.
My fairly extreme view of this is a minority position. Others are likely to have a much more practical approach to the whole affair. I am unwilling to accept limitations on fundamental adult human rights in the interests of practicality.
Bitter thorn, i want to ask you a series of questions, they are going somewhere, i promise.
Is it okay for you to use violance on another person, if they where trying to kill or enslave you or a member of your family? Is it okay if they are trying to forcibly indoctronate you into their religion?
Is there any possibility that this could be achieved without state force?Yeh it is possible without force ! In Australia a political party said ok people if you elect us we will implement health reform and Medicare to ADEQUATELY cover those that cant afford to have private insurance - The overwhelming majority of Australians voted in the political party that said that they were going to do it. That party did it - the opposition when they came to power made a change or two but kept it because it WORKS its NOT perfect but it DOES the job. You don't have to have Medicare in fact the government gives you tax breaks to get private insurance.
Democracy at work BT no force necessary. You make Australia, UK, New Zealand, Canada, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries all who have public health sound like tyrannies - which is insulting and makes you look like you have reverted to the old reds under the beds Macarthyist paranoia. Nobody forced anybody to have it any-more than we needed the police, schools and the army.
You Americans are so hung up on force, its very strange... I just don't understand.
Australian doctors don't have to work in public health, they can make bucket loads of hot juicy cash working in the private industry, most do a bit of both.
Are you forced to have the police, schools (we have an excellent public school system very proud of it), Ambulance, Armed forces, roads, rail, water, power, and all that other necessary shyte you need to live in the 21st Century.
Australia is a exceedingly strong democracy. We were the second country in the world to give women the vote (the first was New Zealand) , we "invented" the secret or Australian ballot.
Australia was formed when the various colonies got together and said ok this is silly all of us having different trade laws, armies, navies and stuff... do you want to form a country we will call it the Commonwealth of Australia. All the colonies said yeh that's a good Idea lets have a vote we will...
Wow, so in your country there is no penalty if you don't pay your taxes? Everyone just does it because they really want to? That's awesome. Maybe your system is superior.
Here in the US if we don't pay our taxes they can take our wages and accounts and even our homes. If we don't like it and we try to keep our own stuff if they made a mistake and we can't prove it they can put us in prison where our government brags about how inmates are raped and murdered by other inmates and guards. If you don't like that they may just shoot you or burn your house down or kill your children.
I think it's really awesome that you guys don't use force at all to support government policy against your own people and you just let them opt out of the whole system if they want.
.
.
.
.
Sarcasm aside, all states use force and the threat thereof. The question for me is what justifies the use of that force.
|
|
Did I miss the memo where the necessity of calling a Constitutional Convention was completely bypassed?
Providing healthcare isn't in the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, so shouldn't that be the first step of this process?
If they amended the Constitution to make a Universal Healthcare system a legitimate function of the Federal Government, then most of the arguments against it would be moot. It would put it on the same level as the military, the courts, and interstate commerce.
As it is, it doesn't fill one with confidence that instead, the House is trying to pass the Healthcare Bill without actually voting on it. :(