patrick.net

Tsusiat -

I've met you many times before.

First, I'm no right winger. Why do you paint me as such? Is that how you approach every argument? You place the opposition in the Rush Limbaugh seat and take out your script?

Second, your quote from RYB.com is a cherry pick and does not represent what is being said there.

I say the federal government is swollen and inefficient, you say

"so every government worker is lazy?"

That argument type, which I've seen so many times, I call "move it to the extreme." It's a method people use to avoid addressing a difficult point.

It's like you say to your wife, "jeez babe, do you think when you get the mail you can put it on my desk and not on the back of the couch where it can fall off?" She replies, "so I can't do anything right?"

No, of course I don't think every government worker is lazy. Why would you say such a bizarre thing? I think that government as a system is horribly inefficient, and that the bigger it gets, the worse it gets. Some employees work hard, some don't, but very few if any have the proper motivation to do their best.

RYB.com says that personal responsibility has got to be at the forefront of every discussion of human behavior. Without it, everything becomes a race to the bottom.

Your perspective seems to be "everybody is a victim, and there's nothing some people can do to better their condition."

I've met you many times.

You're the kind of person who looks at me, what I've done and what I have and you say, "you're a lucky guy."

I think socialism is a beautiful theory that is absolutely impossible to implement in a world with stupid human animals.

My example of my neighbor is straightforward. He chooses to work at a level well below what he is capable of. I do not have any problem with that, but I do not think that he should demand that I pay more for his retirement than he does.

To this you write - "your comments about your neighbor . . . are unkind."

How can a simple description of what is, be unkind? I said nothing other than what he chooses to do. What you seem to object to is my stating the situation - I didn't create it, I just pointed it out.

You have assumed so much.

Why do you talk about the American military complex as if I support it?

Why do you talk about charity to the needy as if I don't support it?

Why do you say I blame the victim? I hold the victim accountable for ems own decisions. It doesn't mean that I have no concern for them. It simply means that I will not ignore bad decisions that lead them to their current state. Why do you think that is wrong?

The people I have met who talk like you all have one thing in common . . .

They think that there is a system that keeps people down. They think that most people are victims of their environment. They think that all people who have something have screwed somebody to get it.

In short, the people I have met who talk like you are the ones who have the class envy and who propagate the class warfare.

You say I blame the victim. I say you absolve everybody of blame.

So here is the central point on which we disagree, I think. Please tell me whether you think this is our point of disagreement (or at least one of them).

The basic tenet of socialism is "each gives according to his ability and each receives according to his need."

Given that,
I believe that most people will take at least according to his need, but will give less than his ability.
You believe that most people will give according to his ability, whether or not he takes.
Is that right?

John, I don't understand your point. Can you clear it up? Are you simply saying that there is no money in a SSFund somewhere?

People, this is going to be my best post in a while.

If you haven't read Tsusiat's posts, above, then you should read them before reading this.

Tsusiat - First, I have no ill feelings toward your country. I'm no patriot and I don't like regionalism.

Second, I was eventually going to tell you that, "wait and see, no socialist system can ever work." But I don't have to because . . .

I did some quick research on Canada and here's what I found . . .

Prior to recently, all Canadians were FORCED to used government health care.

This means that not only was the insult of taxation imposed, but the injury of being forced to use the government system was opposed on top of that.

Hey, maybe what we've got here is broken, but, in my opinion, puttin a gun to somebody's forehead and saying "you can't use your own doctor" is no way to fix it.

Recently, however, and this is a beautiful thing of timing, the Canadian Supreme Court heard a case about whether it was Canada's version of constitutional to force people to use government health care when that system had a huge waiting list.

Me? I've never had to wait for basic health care. The poor folk here? Them neither.

Here's some snippets from the case . . .
"“where the government is failing to deliver health care in a reasonable manner, thereby increasing the risk of complications and death,” the prohibition of private health insurance is unreasonable and violates Charter Rights."

"They rejected the argument that allowing Canadians access to a private alternative when their health is jeopardized by long wait times would undermine the public system and concluded “life, liberty and security of the person must prevail.”"

"Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin pointed out “Access to a waiting list is not access to health care.”"

That don't make Canadian health care seem so great, eh?

"Canadian governments now spend far more per citizen for health care than 10 years ago with Ontario, as an example, devoting 46 per cent of its entire budget to health care, up 25 per cent from 1985. Despite such increases the system has improved little, if at all, particularly with respect to waiting lists."

46 per cent? YOUCH! That's gotta be killing the standard of living up there.

"Out of 23 advanced countries, Canada ranks 16th in the number of physicians per 1,000 population, with just 2.1 physicians for every 1,000 Canadians."

"Overall, Canada ranks 15th out of 24 advanced countries in access to MRI and 17th out of 23 in access to CT scanners and eight out of 22 in access to radiation machines. In the developed world, we rank 16th in the rate of infant mortality and 14th in life expectancy. In the world’s 30 most-developed countries, 28 - including Canada - dictate the right to health care regardless of the ability to pay. Of those we tie with Iceland as the highest spender on health care when adjusted for age, but rank near the bottom in access to technology and physicians with Canadian patients waiting longer then patients in most of these countries."

Gulp!

Finally, I point out that, because of America's disgusting corporate dominance of its own people, America heavily subsidizes the cost of medicine in Canada. That's going to end soon enough, however, and then Canada's costs are going to go up.

So, Tsusiat, the numbers are all there. The supreme court decision is there. In short, the demonstrable effect of socialization is there. 47% of a budget on health care?

That's a bigger pig than even I could have imagined.

Socialism always fails. It's only a question of when.

One last thought. Relative to the rest of the world, I'd say the US would be a very tough place to institute socialism because the proportion of freeriders in the US would likely be higher than in Sweden, where, ironically, I lived.

I wonder if the difference's in opinion on this thread have more to do with birthright or politics.

Does that make sense? What I am getting at is that I was brought up with the John Wayne ideal of American individualism. I was taught that the quality of your life is what you make of it. My parent's favorite saying was "The harder you work, the luckier you get." We've always believed that a good old fashioned work ethic is what it takes to make it, and I still believe that. And I think that is so inherit in the American mindset; you know, the American dream of the white picket fence, yours for the taking if you work hard enough for it.

So I think the ideals that go with socialism tend to go against the grain for most American's. And the ultra liberal, the one's who are looking for more government intervention and support, tend to be looked upon by distain by those who feel we should be able to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and forge ahead.

Perhaps the Canadian philosophy is different and you've been brought up with a different set of ideals. Either way, I doubt we'll be able to change eachother's ideology. I like the idea of self-determination, I think I always will.

I've known people who lived in Germany who came to the U.S. whenever they needed health care because they knew the quality of care here is so much better.

Btw. Michael Moore doesn't speak for all American's-- not even close.

Being my normal self, I feel compelled to point out examples of socialist systems that have worked. First, it is important to draw a distinction between the economic system of socialism from the political system of democracy. It is entirely possible for a democratic socialism to exist, just as it is possible for capitalist facism to exist. We have ample examples of both in the 20th century.

Basically, it's as Peter P pointed out, small, homogenous, highly educated populations which are resource-rich and geographically fortunate tend to succeed quite well as socialist democratic societies, whereas market capitalism (US style) would be a disaster in most these nations because they lack the lower labor classes.

Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany (pre re-unification), much of the rest of Scandanavia, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Austria. All of these countries are quite socialist compared to US/Anglican style market capitalism, and most have posted higher per capita GDP, GDP growth, and standard of living than the US (except Germany post re-unification, which ended the German Economic Miracle). Even France and later Germany succeeded very well with heavily socialist systems until such time as their populations began diversifying.

Now, I think socialist economics is dead wrong for the US, and for much of the rest of the world. But this doesn't mean it's wrong for everyone. And, if you are consistent with your Libertarian ideals, then you will recognize that each nation has the right to determine its own course for its own peoples. But, socialism is not anti-democratic, it is not anti-christian (or whatever the reigning theism claims), it is not communist (which is a political form of government), and it is not automatically doomed to failure...and likewise market capitalism is not guaranteed to succeed. If you need evidence of this, read Stiglitz' book and witness the 20+ nations destroyed by IMF forced premature free-market capitalism that they weren't ready to handle.

Michael Moore suffers from the same issues as Rush Limbaugh.

SactoQT - are you female?

You know, funny that I never thought of the whole individualist thing as an American thing. Maybe you're right.

I met an older woman from Ireland and she was absolutely the biggest "it's not my fault" person I ever met. She thought everything was a conspiracy to keep people down. It was really rather bizarre. She worked for several years in retail making low wages. I suggested that maybe she should go back to school and get some training in something else. "No, they would just discriminate against me because I'm older."

I gotta tell you, good workers are so few and far between, when I found one, I'd hang on to em like they were a life preserver - I didn't care what they looked, who they had sex with - are you kidding me? You mean they won't screw up every fifth thing? I'm keepin em. I mean, really. The best cure for racism and xenophobia is having to deal with some lazy slob who looks and sounds just like you.

I’ve known people who lived in Germany who came to the U.S. whenever they needed health care because they knew the quality of care here is so much better.

I know Germans, and even moreso Austrians, who do the opposite.

Some procedures in the US are the best in the world, but these tend to be complicated, technology-heavy operations which rely on state-of-the-art research and technique. For everyday ailments, I have had much better experiences in France, Germany and Austria. I've lived in all these countries extensively, and would take their every-day practitioners and health-system over the average American experience any day. If I needed a triple bypass, I'd fly back to the US.

...and Michael Moore is a moron. He should have stuck with TV Nation. My money is on Penn and Teller.

Michael Moore? Give me a break.

If you need evidence of this, read Stiglitz’ book and witness the 20+ nations destroyed by IMF forced premature free-market capitalism that they weren’t ready to handle.

Randy, it appears you and me do share quite a few economic beliefs. ;)

Hey Randy, "If I needed a triple bypass, I’d fly back to the US."

Yeah, but what would you go to Canada for?

the percentage of Swedish unmarried pregnancies in 1996 was 54% percent

This is a social norm within Swedish society, and not necessarily an implication of whether their system "works" or "doesn't work". A Libertarian would not be concerned about their chosen family structure, so long as it is not coerced.

The Swedish system has indeed worked for 50 years. For how many years has the current US sytem worked? What makes you think this system is any more sustainable than theirs (and I think it is, but not for the same reasons as you seem to imply)? If you insist on counting the US' gains pre WWII, then you are implying that sweatshops, Oligarchic abuses, and systemically enforced racial serfdom were just dandy. I abhore coercion: it is the enemy of Libertarian ideals.

Yeah, but what would you go to Canada for? I'm purposefully not commenting on Canada because I can't speak with any knowledge on the subject. Given that, I wouldn't go there for anything because I could just come home.

...and, when addiing in teenage minor dependents, unmarried pregnancies in the US were 50% in 1998, according to the CDC. It appears that this variable is uncorrelated to the underlying economic system of choice. (Most US statistics exlcude minor pregnancies, which dramatically reduces the aggregate statistic).

tsusiat, your post contains some URLs. As a result, it was put into moderation. Try replacing links with tinyurl and it will be fine.

I would love oil to go up in price. $120/barrel if necessary. It is time to put focus on alternative energy sources.

Randy H,

thanking you for pointing out the obvious variety of compatibilities between political and economic systems, and that there is not a right and wrong combination.

After all, a "communist" China is now the new capitalist titan of asia.

Personally, I feel we live in a capitalism clothed in the ritual trappings of democracy, and that is in "socialistic" Canada!

tsusiat

It appears that this variable is uncorrelated to the underlying economic system of choice.

Very true. Family values are going down the drain. Or perhaps I am too conservative?

After all, a “communist” China is now the new capitalist titan of asia.

There is a name for their system - Market Leninism!

OTOH, isn't it ironic that wealth, resource, and democracy are prerequisites for "socialism"? ;)

Very true. Family values are going down the drain. Or perhaps I am too conservative?

Maybe the nature of what consitutes a family is changing. I don't like this conclusion, but I"m forced to accpet it as a possibility as a rational thinker. That said, I prefer a "traditional" family for my own personal choice. That doesn't mean I'm better, just excercising my own freedom of pursuit of happiness.

"TW, society and civilization at all stages of development from ancient times until now are all about pooling resources for the advantage of all."

I disagree. Civilization is about creating a virtuous and free citizenry, which, as its end, allows people to lead well-lived lives.

Clearly many societies have been formed, and continue to be formed, in which resources are not pooled for the advantage of all. Consider radical sharia, or slave-owner societies in africa. I think you are confusing why you *think* societies should be formed with the rather uglier reality of why they are.

Cheers,
prat

God. You bubbleheads are always negative. Bunch of losers.

_smile_

Kisses,
prat

I would love oil to go up in price. $120/barrel if necessary. It is time to put focus on alternative energy sources.

Would you support next-generation nuclear power? When you look at the real, absolute energy consumptions needs of the US it is the only viable "alternative" in the near-term.

Hey Marina, how you been?

Randy H -
THe US number you quote is misleading. A large % of that number is minority/urban culture. The better comparison is to US folk in the same socio/economic level as the Swedes. Compared to that number, the Swedes are high. I'd argue that it's a product of their rotten system, and I'd argue it's bad in the long term for the society.

I didn't follow why you were discussing US WWii stuff.

Randy wrote "A Libertarian would not be concerned about their chosen family structure, so long as it is not coerced."

I don't agree. A libertarian doesn't want the government or his neighbors to dictate terms on things like family structure, true enough, but he certainly can care.

For example, I would never vote for a system that made my neighbor work harder, but I care that he will not be well taken care of in his old age.

I would never want a system that forced an abortion on a 17 year old who was not married, but I care that she is not married because I know that that condition is causative, in many cases, of a poor outlook for the child.

Would you support next-generation nuclear power? When you look at the real, absolute energy consumptions needs of the US it is the only viable “alternative” in the near-term.

I would definitely support that if there is a sustainable way to handle nuclear waste. Nuclear fusion would be the ideal solution.

Randy,

I note that you approach everything from a rational/libritarian position. I find this position very admirable, but I'm wondering how you deal with the philosophical difficulty of rationality being turned on itself. In particular, I tend to think than any value, when held under rational scrutiny, will fall apart as merely contingent. If blue is no better than red, then why should being good, or free, or a slave with no choices, be any better than anything else?

This is what partially drove me out of the libertarian/rationalist camp, and to Chesterton. Your thoughts (and anyone elses) on the matter would be very much appreciated.

Oh, wait, right. Housing bubble. So, housing will crash 50% by the end of the month. Guaranteed.

Cheers,
prat

I didn’t follow why you were discussing US WWii stuff.

My point is that the current US economic system has only been around since roughly 1948. Pre WWII, it was an altogether different flavor of capitalism which only resembles the current system superficially. So making comparative statements about sustainability based on longevity are not useful. My reasons for believing the US is sustainable are altogether different.

"Would you support next-generation nuclear power?"

To butt in: absolutely.

"When you look at the real, absolute energy consumptions needs of the US it is the only viable “alternative” in the near-term."

Bio-diesel. Algae-based bio-diesel. Please, for the love of pete, algae-based bio-diesel.

http://tinyurl.com/2sbbf

Faster, please.

Cheers,
prat

So making comparative statements about sustainability based on longevity are not useful. My reasons for believing the US is sustainable are altogether different.

I am starting to think that perhaps no system is infinitely sustainable. History has always been in flux and there is no reason why it will not continue to be in flux. We may have to accept the evolutionary nature of the global social-economic system.

Bio-diesel. Algae-based bio-diesel. Please, for the love of pete, algae-based bio-diesel.

You should meet my wife. She is very interested in bio-mass energy sources.

find this position very admirable, but I’m wondering how you deal with the philosophical difficulty of rationality being turned on itself.

As has been revealed in this thread, this is why I don't count myself a Libertarian. But, I am a rationalist; in particular an Objectivist. You are right there are philosophical trappings to this line of thought, but I find that Objectivist rigor, although hard to practice, yields a consistent approach to these things. The problem with most Libertarians is that they wrap economic conservatism, and often social conservatism, in rationalism; which generally leads to hypocritical inconsistencies.

Peter P:

I completely agree with you, no system or society has ever proven infinitely sustainable up to now. The best historical antecedent I can see for the present political-economic situation is the collapse of the Roman Republic, and the rise of the fascistic Roman Empire.

Ironic so many of the symbols adopted by the American founding fathers have their roots in Roman civilization, neh?

I completely agree with you, no system or society has ever proven infinitely sustainable up to now.

Perhaps my views are Hegelian?

Bio-diesel. Algae-based bio-diesel. Please, for the love of pete, algae-based bio-diesel.

I support this, along with new-tech solar and wind. But, I disagree with the hardcore enviornmentalist types who preclude nuclear. I don't see any practical way to elminate the bulk of fossil fuels short of nuclear. Then, we can work on the mix with the other "exotic" sources, hopefully offloading nuclear over the next hundred years or so. After all, uranium is also fininte (short of mining asteroids).

I also think nuclear energy is a must, at least as a temporary measure before we can tinker with trilithium, gold pressed latinum, or whatever.

Bio this and Bio that won't work. Not enough energy. Unless we radically change what we need.

Dirty uranium is all that there is, for now.

Hey Randy H, please point out my inconsistencies as you see them!

Praet, good to see you bub. Although not directed at me, I'll answer . . .

There is no point to anything if blue is no better than red.

I guess I was born with the sense that good was better than evil, and so blue is better than red. Sounds silly, but it's all I got.

Isn't there some evidence that there are dilithium crystals on Mars? that might be the answer.

How can a libertarian be socially conservative? Then you're not a libertarian, you're a republican.

There is no point to anything if blue is no better than red.

Excellent point! Technology is no more than a gizmo if the social-economic system is not well.