Political & socio-economic nerd-rage thread. page 6

[Grok]

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.

[magicmerl]

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.

[Grok]

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?

[Grok]

"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.

[js290]

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

[Roach]

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

[Grok]

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?

[Roach]

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

[Grok]

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.

[js290]

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.