Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Political & socio-economic nerd-rage thread.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Grok View Post
    I have to be honest, I've never watched a single episode of the Smurfs. I tried once when I was a kid, but I couldn't stand watching it for more than a couple of minutes.
    +100. It needed more violence.
    In all of the universe there is only one person with your exact charateristics. Just like there is only one person with everybody else's characteristics. Effectively, your uniqueness makes you pretty average.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
      Look, I totally agree that where free market principles are applicable, government intervention should be minimal. I just don't think that free market principles apply to things like healthcare, education, social welfare, libraries etc.
      I have an idea. We could have a government run hospital and privately run hospitals, and those who want to use the government ones can be taxed for it.

      I wonder why that wouldn't work? Maybe because nobody would pay for the crappy government run healthcare? Nah, that couldn't be it.

      I hear Chavez had to fly to another country to get his cancer treated, I guess the government healthcare in Venezuela just wasn't good enough for him.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
        Nope. I'm just pointing out that the 'wild west' existed because the settlers kinda killed the indians and took the land.

        Seems like a reasonably good metaphor for anarchy, I guess.
        No, the settlers didn't do that. It was the generals of the Union army during the Civil war like General Sherman who slaughtered the Indians just like they slaughtered American southerners. Grant used Sherman to protect the railroad builders (which was heavily subsidized by government at the time) by slaughtering the Indians.

        The settlers who couldn't use the force and might of government actually negotiated and traded with the Indians.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
          How did the doctors get their education?
          Before I explain how it is possible to educate a person without government, would you like to try explaining to me why government force is needed to educate someone?

          Are you saying President Lincoln was an idiot because there was no public education before his Presidency? How did he become a lawyer without the state?

          Comment


          • #50
            I would imagine that people actually sought out knowledge of their own free will before the school system cured them of that urge.
            In all of the universe there is only one person with your exact charateristics. Just like there is only one person with everybody else's characteristics. Effectively, your uniqueness makes you pretty average.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
              Actually, that's a failure of CAPITALSIM, not socialism. The for-profit motive for companies conflicts with the 'get well and live in my own house' ethos of those people fortunate enough to be 'customers'.
              Actually, when the government puts a gun to everyone's head and forces you to pay for someone else's healthcare like with medicare and medicaid, that's called socialism.

              Comment


              • #52
                Well, I'm the wrong person to ask there, since we home-school our kids

                However, you better believe that our kids will be going to a public university.

                I think that the real question is, what public services should be provided by the state?

                I guess you are arguing that there are none. I think that there are a whole heap of intrastructural things that are necessary in the modern economy: roading, water, power, telecommunications, libraries, education, healthcare, social welfare. These are things that should either be provided for or regulated by the government.

                What is crazy about the american healthcare system is not how 'socialised' it is. It's the least socialised healthcare system in the first world. What's crazy is that it is so expensive (read: inefficient). The profit motive is dominant over the service motive, to the detriment of patients. The US comes second when it comes to spending money on healthcare, but ranks 37th in terms of health outcomes. That's appalling.
                Last edited by magicmerl; 05-03-2012, 10:08 PM.
                Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                Griff's cholesterol primer
                5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                bloodorchid is always right

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                  Well, I'm the wrong person to ask there, since we home-school our kids

                  However, you better believe that our kids will be going to a public university.
                  The public universities are almost as expensive as the private ones. The universities can get away with charging whatever price they want for tuition because the student loans are guaranteed by the government.

                  The high cost of education today is a direct result of government involvement, namely government guaranteed student loans.

                  I think that the real question is, what public services should be provided by the state?

                  I guess you are arguing that there are none. I think that there are a whole heap of intrastructural things that are necessary in the modern economy: roading, water, power, telecommunications, libraries, education, healthcare, social welfare. These are things that should either be provided for or regulated by the government.

                  What is crazy about the american healthcare system is not how 'socialised' it is. It's the least socialised healthcare system in the first world. What's crazy is that it is so expensive (read: inefficient). The profit motive is dominant over the service motive, to the detriment of patients. The US comes second when it comes to spending money on healthcare, but ranks 37th in terms of health outcomes. That's appalling.
                  Why do you need a gun to build a road?

                  Can you even answer that one simple question?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    "Communist China has way more cases where the private sector is involved in building roads than the United States does," says Reason Foundation transportation economist Adrian Moore.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by jammies View Post
                      I don't know the context here, but taken at face value that is the Most naive statement about politics I have ever read.
                      The Market For Liberty - A free audio book from Podiobooks.com

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Grok View Post
                        Please do, I'm like the lone anarchist here amongst a den of statists. I need all the back-up I can get.
                        There are plenty of anarchists here dude. Just because someone disagrees with your version doesn't mean he/she is not an anarchist.

                        No True Scotsman over and over and over and over

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Roach View Post
                          There are plenty of anarchists here dude. Just because someone disagrees with your version doesn't mean he/she is not an anarchist.

                          No True Scotsman over and over and over and over
                          Oh wait, you saying all those people who want universal healthcare are actually anarchists?

                          I don't think you can possibly mean that, but that's what it sounds like. Are you one of those anarchists who disagrees with me? If so, how so?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Grok View Post
                            Oh wait, you saying all those people who want universal healthcare are actually anarchists?

                            I don't think you can possibly mean that, but that's what it sounds like. Are you one of those anarchists who disagrees with me? If so, how so?
                            I'm not shocked that's what it sounds like...to you. But no, I do not favor any type of state sponsored healthcare. Universal or otherwise. I don't know how you define anarchism so I can't say exactly what I agree or disagree with regarding that. But I'm definitely not a fan of your rhetorical tactics. From where I sit, you seem to present people with false choice after false choice, you strawman arguments with the best (worst?) of them, you ask loaded questions and call them "simple", blah blah blah blah blah

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Roach View Post
                              But I'm definitely not a fan of your rhetorical tactics. From where I sit, you seem to present people with false choice after false choice, you strawman arguments with the best (worst?) of them, you ask loaded questions and call them "simple", blah blah blah blah blah
                              I have no idea what you are referring to. Give me an example.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Roach View Post
                                I don't know how you define anarchism...
                                For me, anarchism is defined simply as the solution to the principal-agent problem: Principal = agent. That is, the only agent that any principal can ever depend on is himself. I'm willing to accept that a principal may voluntarily choose an agent, but I definitely reject having an agent chosen for the principal, i.e. government. It comes down to incentives. Who has the most incentive to make the best choice one can for oneself?

                                Doug Casey on Anarchy - Casey Research
                                I suppose I can live with the idea of a state, as long as there were about seven billion of them in the world – and everybody had one. That would show that the whole idea of the state is just a scam, where everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. But the only people who really benefit are the guys on top.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X