Should food be socialized along with healthcare?

[OptionsTrader]

I asked that to a proponent of socialized healthcare today and it made him laugh then studder a little bit.

We were debating free market versus " a little bit of socialism" for over 2 hours. He, like many "progressives" asserts that some things must be provided via redistribution of money and that healthcare and education are his two.

I asked why food is not on his blessed list, and it really stumped him for a few seconds at least. It wasn't all that original or a breakthrough, but I am telling you no argument worked but that one.

[DrYongrel]

Well played, sir.

[american.swan]

Along those lines, the obesity issue is not going well, so socialized food would be a good option to slim down America. D'Oh how is Mickie D's going to stay in business?

Free Market all the way.

[wild03]

I asked that to a proponent of socialized healthcare today and it made him laugh then studder a little bit.

We were debating free market versus " a little bit of socialism" for over 2 hours. He, like many "progressives" asserts that some things must be provided via redistribution of money and that healthcare and education are his two.

I asked why food is not on his blessed list, and it really stumped him for a few seconds at least. It wasn't all that original or a breakthrough, but I am telling you no argument worked but that one.

One of the professors at mises.org gives this same argument in one of the lectures. After all food is more important that education and healthcare.

It was quite interesting as he described the public school system using a socialized food analogy without telling the students what he was describing and at the end he asked what it reminded them of.

too bad I don't remember the lecture.

I can tell you that socialized food and healthcare in my country was/is a disaster! :D

[amy31416]

I can tell you that socialized food and healthcare in my country was/is a disaster! :D

Curious about the lecture and the country of which you speak, if you wish to share.

[Danke]

What about free Internet? People need access to the our wired life/future so that they aren't at a disadvantage in the job market, etc.

I could use a weekly massage with a happy ending for my well being. Government is here to provide for our general welfare after all!

[Danke]

Delete, repeat...

[Truth Warrior]

What about free Internet? People need access to the our wired life/future so that they aren't at a disadvantage in the job market, etc.

I could use a weekly massage with a happy ending for my well being. Government is here to provide for our general welfare after all!

It will come packaged with some later version of the new mandated digital TVs. While we watch it, it will also be watching us. Can't be any too careful about all of those dern'd terrorists after all, dontcha know? :D

"Big Brother" really really cares very deeply about each and every one of us, really.

No, honest he really does, really.


Really! :rolleyes:

[Alex Libman]

How about sex? People too retarded to get laid on their own should get government aid!

And what about people who drool! We must hire government employees to swallow their saliva for them!

[OptionsTrader]

Why not socilaize all of these needs, from bottom to top?

http://i29.tinypic.com/2zghuvl.png

[wild03]

Curious about the lecture and the country of which you speak, if you wish to share.

I've been interested in free market economics for many years now, When I found the great number of lectures that the Mises Institute has available for download I couldn't help but to download ALL of them, available at the time, and I used every chance I got to listen to them. work commute, gym etc. It took me months but it was worth it. It is from one of these lectures that this came from. I am sorry that I cannot tell you which It mas so long ago.

http://mises.org/media.aspx

The country is Cuba, which I left about 20 years ago. Having lived through that, I couldn't believe the rosy picture Michael More painted of it in "Sicko".


These lectures seems to be recorded from conferences and seminars, This particular lecture I remember the professor saying something like:

Suppose food was socialized and each neighborhood was assigned a local store to shop at, You could not go to any other store unless you paid a penalty. The employees were paid by seniority instead of performance. A progressive tax would be collected form each citizen by income level and each citizen would be allowed to spend say $100 a week. Also prices would be fixed.

He might have pointed out other details but I cannot recall, He then asked the students what would be the consequences of this.

Stores would be inefficient because revenue would not be a concern.
They would be shortages on certain items as this was a first come first serve.
People would waste resources by buying too much of a certain item.
Taxes would have to be increased to make up for inefficiencies wasted food.
Customer service would be bad.
Bureaucracy would grow.
Rich people would pay the penalty fee and go to better stores.

There were many other interesting points made, at the end he asked what this resembled, and it was exactly like our current public school system.

[DriftWood]

Food in some sense is already socialized. All those subsidies to rich farmers, so that they can sell the food below production cost. Last time i checked obesity was a bigger problem for the poor than hunger was. Its crazy. Lots of the below cost farming products are dumped onto developing countries. The developing country farmers (even with their rock bottom low wages) cant compete with something thats cheap enough to the point where it is almost free. The therory goes that the US economy benifits from this increase in farming exports. This is completely crazy. No country has ever grown wealthy by giving away stuff to other countries for free (or even at a loss).

Also i read some proposals (in the latest Newsweek i think) for how to fix the current high food prices that have hit developing countries so hard. It started out good, with proposals to stop subsidies in developed countries, so that developing countries will start farming their own food, stop relying on imports, and become self-reliant. So far so good. Then in the next senternce they proposed for rich countries to donate more food to poor countries. Hehe, anyone see the contradiction here? Rich countries dumping subsidised food on poor countries, is the exact same thing as rich countries donating food to poor countries. (Farm subsidies and food donations should be stopped, thats the only long term solution.)

The current farm bill that just passed the senate increased the subsidies to farming.. Crazy.. populism. Im staring to think maybe democracy was not such a good idea.

Cheers

[DriftWood]

How about sex? People too retarded to get laid on their own should get government aid!

And what about people who drool! We must hire government employees to swallow their saliva for them!

They do that in Denmark. Prisoners and people in old folks homes are allowed to have sex with prostitutes (because it calms them down and makes them easier to handle). And as the money these people have comes from the govt.. the tax payer is paying for it.

Cheers

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

They do that in Denmark. Prisoners and people in old folks homes are allowed to have sex with prostitutes (because it calms them down and makes them easier to handle). And as the money these people have comes from the govt.. the tax payer is paying for it.

I wonder if this is saves very much money on prison-fight medical bills and senior citizen antidepressants?

[Conza88]

Why not socilaize all of these needs, from bottom to top?

http://i29.tinypic.com/2zghuvl.png

I'm at the top. :cool:

[Kludge]

What about free Internet? People need access to the our wired life/future so that they aren't at a disadvantage in the job market, etc.

I could use a weekly massage with a happy ending for my well being. Government is here to provide for our general welfare after all!

Not familiar with the Net Neutrality act, eh? God forbid ISPs have power over their own services!

[DriftWood]

I wonder if this is saves very much money on prison-fight medical bills and senior citizen antidepressants?

It probably does save money. I dont have a moral problem with it, its just that tax payers should not be paying for it.


Side tracking here.. I think prisoners should have to work for a living and get all the same rights as the rest of us, except they would not have the right to rejoing the main population before they done their time and proven that they where not a danger to the main population anymore. In this sense prisons would not have to have cells or even walls or anything. These prisons could be big communities, big as a country or even as a continent (as Australia was some hundred years ago). In this sense getting sent to prison would be alot like getting deported to another country. They would not be a drain on the taxpayer or the main population. Once they done their time they could get their "passport" back and rejoin the main population.

Cheers

[Conza88]

I've been interested in free market economics for many years now, When I found the great number of lectures that the Mises Institute has available for download I couldn't help but to download ALL of them, available at the time, and I used every chance I got to listen to them. work commute, gym etc. It took me months but it was worth it. It is from one of these lectures that this came from. I am sorry that I cannot tell you which It mas so long ago.

http://mises.org/media.aspx

How many hours, how many weeks did it roughly take?

If I started now... when would I finish? lol.. were they all worthwhile? is there anything worth skipping? are you way more knowledgeable now? :) thanks

[Truth Warrior]

It probably does save money. I dont have a moral problem with it, its just that tax payers should not be paying for it.


Side tracking here.. I think prisoners should have to work for a living and get all the same rights as the rest of us, except they would not have the right to rejoing the main population before they done their time and proven that they where not a danger to the main population anymore. In this sense prisons would not have to have cells or even walls or anything. These prisons could be big communities, big as a country or even as a continent (as Australia was some hundred years ago). In this sense getting sent to prison would be alot like getting deported to another country. They would not be a drain on the taxpayer or the main population. Once they done their time they could get their "passport" back and rejoin the main population.

Cheers
Deporting/banishing the 12 million+ sociopaths in the USA would be a very good start. Their damage and destruction goes far beyond their numbers.

[Alex Libman]

They do that in Denmark. Prisoners and people in old folks homes are allowed to have sex with prostitutes (because it calms them down and makes them easier to handle). And as the money these people have comes from the govt.. the tax payer is paying for it.

Cheers

Northern European countries (Scandinavia + BeNeLux) are doing very well for a number of historical reasons. They entered the 19th and 20th centuries without an illiterate agricultural underclass, got industrialized fast, never had a revolution, didn't suffer as badly in the World Wars, etc. Some of them (i.e. Norway & Iceland) also have tremendous amounts of natural resources per-capita. They had their act together diplomatically, in many cases with both sides of the Cold War as well as the non-allied countries, and specialized in high-tech exports early on. And "democracy" just works better in a small country where most people are distant cousins. In spite of a huge public sector, the levels of Economic Freedom and Property Rights protection are some of the highest in the world. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have done even better without their socialism, and it doesn't guarantee they will continue to do well in the future. Their competitive advantages are running out. They have already been leapfrogged by more fiscally-conservative Ireland, and Estonia could follow in a few decades. If other countries follow Ireland's example, they too will be similarly rewarded.

[angelatc]

I asked that to a proponent of socialized healthcare today and it made him laugh then studder a little bit.

We were debating free market versus " a little bit of socialism" for over 2 hours. He, like many "progressives" asserts that some things must be provided via redistribution of money and that healthcare and education are his two.

I asked why food is not on his blessed list, and it really stumped him for a few seconds at least. It wasn't all that original or a breakthrough, but I am telling you no argument worked but that one.

Food is already socialized. So is housing. So is medicine. They're just hellbent on expanding the entitlement.

[Conza88]

Food is already socialized. So is housing. So is medicine. They're just hellbent on expanding the entitlement.

So's money...:(

[Fox McCloud]

Not familiar with the Net Neutrality act, eh? God forbid ISPs have power over their own services!

I don't like what ISPs are doing, and the potential is definitely there for them to say "All Ron Paul sites are blocked", but Net Neutrality is just a a bandaid on a much large problem, and that's the FCC+cable/telco cartel (what the Federal Reserve is to bankers, the FCC is to them).

We need way way WAYYY less regulation in the communications market, and the FCC has to go, or at the very least, be trimmed down to a roll that is netural, at worst, and nearly non-existent, at best.

Also, what doesn't help matters is that often local/State governments will block a new cable or telephone company from coming in, which stifles competition.

If there's a high degree of competition, ISPs would not likely engage in these tactics, as it would VERY quickly turn away customers to another provider in the area.

Food should not be socialized....you are entitled to no one else's property--you have to work to get what you want/need....it shouldn't be given to you.

Sadly, most socialists (and the UN) actually classifies housing and food as a "human right"....what fun...look what we're up against.


Northern European countries (Scandinavia + BeNeLux) are doing very well for a number of historical reasons. They entered the 19th and 20th centuries without an illiterate agricultural underclass, got industrialized fast, never had a revolution, didn't suffer as badly in the World Wars, etc. Some of them (i.e. Norway & Iceland) also have tremendous amounts of natural resources per-capita. They had their act together diplomatically, in many cases with both sides of the Cold War as well as the non-allied countries, and specialized in high-tech exports early on. And "democracy" just works better in a small country where most people are distant cousins. In spite of a huge public sector, the levels of Economic Freedom and Property Rights protection are some of the highest in the world. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have done even better without their socialism, and it doesn't guarantee they will continue to do well in the future. Their competitive advantages are running out. They have already been leapfrogged by more fiscally-conservative Ireland, and Estonia could follow in a few decades. If other countries follow Ireland's example, they too will be similarly rewarded.

this is probably why Iceland started a flat-tax system whereby everyone pays the same rate, regardless of income (and the tax rate is much lower than it once was)...they've finally realized that they cannot continue in their current ways and remain economically competitive with other countries.

[DriftWood]

Northern European countries (Scandinavia + BeNeLux) are doing very well for a number of historical reasons. They entered the 19th and 20th centuries without an illiterate agricultural underclass, got industrialized fast, never had a revolution, didn't suffer as badly in the World Wars, etc. Some of them (i.e. Norway & Iceland) also have tremendous amounts of natural resources per-capita. They had their act together diplomatically, in many cases with both sides of the Cold War as well as the non-allied countries, and specialized in high-tech exports early on. And "democracy" just works better in a small country where most people are distant cousins. In spite of a huge public sector, the levels of Economic Freedom and Property Rights protection are some of the highest in the world. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have done even better without their socialism, and it doesn't guarantee they will continue to do well in the future. Their competitive advantages are running out. They have already been leapfrogged by more fiscally-conservative Ireland, and Estonia could follow in a few decades. If other countries follow Ireland's example, they too will be similarly rewarded.

Yeah, the Scandinavian countries are confusing. Moderate socialism has worked pretty Okay over there, even when it has failed in other countries around the world (Maybe its more resources per capita.. but all Sweden and Finland really have is lots of forests and some mines, and then there is Denmark that is small and does not have any resources). I was born in Finland and lived in Sweden a long time. It was a good place to grow up, and a good place to leave. You get good education on the cheap, free health care etc but there are few jobs and they don't pay very well. Lots of educated people not being able to get a job that matches their education. Still the living standard is pretty high. I don't think this good fortune can continue with more immigration, a aging population, in a more globalized and competitive world. They will probably have to lower taxes and cut public spending to keep jobs and keep competitive, just as everyone else.

Cheers

[Kludge]

I don't like what ISPs are doing, and the potential is definitely there for them to say "All Ron Paul sites are blocked", but Net Neutrality is just a a bandaid on a much large problem, and that's the FCC+cable/telco cartel (what the Federal Reserve is to bankers, the FCC is to them).

That's a slippery slope. Political campaigns are a black hole for monies. Banks control almost all the money, so if a bank decided not to lend out to RP supporters or the campaign (I don't believe campaigns can directly borrow anyways...) is it then immoral of the company if the owner's political views differ from ours?

What if there was a Muslim CU and they decide only to loan to Muslims. Are they not entitled to do so?


And then what of the employers? What if they decide against hiring RP supporters, should the act then be charged with discrimination (SHOULD they, not can they...) and be void?

Of course, you could refute this by simply saying that the taxpayers paid for the majority of the cable/fiber optic wiring anyways, in which case those fools who supported the original bill allowing tax payer monies to go toward "internal improvement subsidies" should be hit over the head with an industrial-sized fan and forced to eat a terrible slurry of dog intestines and cat hairballs... and ground chicken testicles!

[AutoDas]

Yeah, the Scandinavian countries are confusing. Moderate socialism has worked pretty Okay over there, even when it has failed in other countries around the world (Maybe its more resources per capita.. but all Sweden and Finland really have is lots of forests and some mines, and then there is Denmark that is small and does not have any resources). I was born in Finland and lived in Sweden a long time. It was a good place to grow up, and a good place to leave. You get good education on the cheap, free health care etc but there are few jobs and they don't pay very well. Lots of educated people not being able to get a job that matches their education. Still the living standard is pretty high. I don't think this good fortune can continue with more immigration, a aging population, in a more globalized and competitive world. They will probably have to lower taxes and cut public spending to keep jobs and keep competitive, just as everyone else.

Cheers

http://www.mol.fi/mol/fi/02_tyosuhteet_ja_lait/02_ulkom_suomessa/07_flash/Tyoministerio_WEB_ENG.html
Could that be why Finalnd is trying to attract new workers to scam out of their paychecks?

[Thrashertm]

I asked that to a proponent of socialized healthcare today and it made him laugh then studder a little bit.

We were debating free market versus " a little bit of socialism" for over 2 hours. He, like many "progressives" asserts that some things must be provided via redistribution of money and that healthcare and education are his two.

I asked why food is not on his blessed list, and it really stumped him for a few seconds at least. It wasn't all that original or a breakthrough, but I am telling you no argument worked but that one.

I'd like to ask Michael Moore if food should be socialized. That fatso!

[Thrashertm]

n\m

[Fox McCloud]

That's a slippery slope. Political campaigns are a black hole for monies. Banks control almost all the money, so if a bank decided not to lend out to RP supporters or the campaign (I don't believe campaigns can directly borrow anyways...) is it then immoral of the company if the owner's political views differ from ours?

What if there was a Muslim CU and they decide only to loan to Muslims. Are they not entitled to do so?


And then what of the employers? What if they decide against hiring RP supporters, should the act then be charged with discrimination (SHOULD they, not can they...) and be void?

Of course, you could refute this by simply saying that the taxpayers paid for the majority of the cable/fiber optic wiring anyways, in which case those fools who supported the original bill allowing tax payer monies to go toward "internal improvement subsidies" should be hit over the head with an industrial-sized fan and forced to eat a terrible slurry of dog intestines and cat hairballs... and ground chicken testicles!

perhaps you misunderstood me--I'm against the Net Neutrality bill...I was merely emphasizing that the act itself was a bandaid on a problem, and not a cure (abolishing the FCC) for the problem.

[Alex Libman]

Good points on Scandinavia, just one thing I'd like to comment on.


Denmark that is small and does not have any resources

Only when compared to its larger northern neighbors. Denmark has more per-capita land than UK, the Low Countries, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, or Czech Republic, including 443 named islands resulting in 7,314 km of total coastline - that's not counting Faroe Islands or Greenland.

Good article here - Denmark, The Potemkin Village of Europe (http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=905).

[wild03]

It probably does save money. I dont have a moral problem with it, its just that tax payers should not be paying for it.


Side tracking here.. I think prisoners should have to work for a living and get all the same rights as the rest of us, except they would not have the right to rejoing the main population before they done their time and proven that they where not a danger to the main population anymore. In this sense prisons would not have to have cells or even walls or anything. These prisons could be big communities, big as a country or even as a continent (as Australia was some hundred years ago). In this sense getting sent to prison would be alot like getting deported to another country. They would not be a drain on the taxpayer or the main population. Once they done their time they could get their "passport" back and rejoin the main population.

Cheers

I like to focus more on repaying the victim. Wasting large amount of land on criminals is wasteful, what if they break the law there, Do they get sent to another prison country? and so on until they end up in Cuba? :)

I think they should be put to work and repay the victim. This can be accomplish with little space. In case of murder the victim's next of kin would inherit the criminals life and can do with it as he/she pleases, donate organs, work for life,
etc.
;)

[wild03]

How many hours, how many weeks did it roughly take?

If I started now... when would I finish? lol.. were they all worthwhile? is there anything worth skipping? are you way more knowledgeable now? :) thanks

Yes I think they are all great, If had to do it over again I would organize them by topic, I would listen to the introduction lectures first (complete courses) then take specific topics and listen to those lectures.

You can always skip a lecture you don't like etc. It really does not matter how long it takes, the idea was, and is, to minimize wasted time. for me this was the time where most people listen to music, Drive to and from work, exercising, etc.

I definetly know more now that when I started ;)

[buffalokid777]

They do that in Denmark. Prisoners and people in old folks homes are allowed to have sex with prostitutes (because it calms them down and makes them easier to handle). And as the money these people have comes from the govt.. the tax payer is paying for it.

Cheers

And I thought San Francisco was liberal :D

[Meatwasp]

They do that in Denmark. Prisoners and people in old folks homes are allowed to have sex with prostitutes (because it calms them down and makes them easier to handle). And as the money these people have comes from the govt.. the tax payer is paying for it.

Cheers

This country is already doing this. Especially in Oregon's rest homes.

[Kade]

I asked that to a proponent of socialized healthcare today and it made him laugh then studder a little bit.

We were debating free market versus " a little bit of socialism" for over 2 hours. He, like many "progressives" asserts that some things must be provided via redistribution of money and that healthcare and education are his two.

I asked why food is not on his blessed list, and it really stumped him for a few seconds at least. It wasn't all that original or a breakthrough, but I am telling you no argument worked but that one.

Just to throw this out here, a very easy response to this question, and one my college mentors perfected, was the principal of economic primal selection. Because the free market itself works on evolutionary principals, it is most perfected in the organizations and markets that are already chiseled and perfected in nature, resources, food, sex... etc.

Healthcare and Education are not natural. Therefore, there selective nature isn't primal...

Now, regardless of what you may say in response, I'm only throwing out one of many loopholes in the supposed simplicity of this argument.

[countrykidz4freedom]

Should food be socialized along with healthcare?

If you think about it, we are really already doing this by subsidizing the food with the food stamp program, and for all the politicians who think they should steal from us thru our tax money to help those who are either unfortunate and really need the help, or for those who are just too lazy to get a job, I suggest they ( the politicians who believe in these programs) should donate their own excessive paychecks instead of stealing more money from us thru taxes to implement their stupid economic failures. We must stop the stupidity, and corruption in our country-please set goals and start cleanup at the local level. We must each do our part to restore America's freedom and dignity. We must forward the revolution!!!!

[satchelmcqueen]

How about sex? People too retarded to get laid on their own should get government aid!

And what about people who drool! We must hire government employees to swallow their saliva for them!

whoaa! That last sentence made me gag, out loud, seriously...bad image.

[wild03]

Just to throw this out here, a very easy response to this question, and one my college mentors perfected, was the principal of economic primal selection. Because the free market itself works on evolutionary principals, it is most perfected in the organizations and markets that are already chiseled and perfected in nature, resources, food, sex... etc.

Healthcare and Education are not natural. Therefore, there selective nature isn't primal...

Now, regardless of what you may say in response, I'm only throwing out one of many loopholes in the supposed simplicity of this argument.

I would check the premises.

Does the free market work on evolutionary principals? which?

It works best on markets perfected by nature? Really?

This seems like a collective argument, benefit of the species, etc.

The free market is best defended on moral grounds. Starting with the nature of man as a free, rational being, with unalienable rights. If man is to live as man, he must not be sacrificed for the benefits of other or other to himself. anything socialized will sacrifice some men for the benefit of others.

"Since nature does not guarantee automatic security, success and survival to any human being, it is only the dictatorial presumptuousness and the moral cannibalism of the altruist-collectivist code that permits a man to suppose (or idly to daydream) that he can somehow guarantee such security to some men at the expense of others." --Rand (Virtue of selfishness)

"Hence the appalling recklessness with which men propose, discuss and accept “humanitarian” projects which are to be imposed by political means, that is, by force, on an unlimited number of human beings. If, according to collectivist caricatures, the greedy rich indulged in profligate material luxury, on the premise of “price no object”—then the social progress brought by today’s collectivized mentalities consists of indulging in altruistic political planning, on the premise of “human lives no object.”
The hallmark of such mentalities is the advocacy of some grand scale public goal, without regard to context, costs or means. Out of context, such a goal can usually be shown to be desirable; it has to be public, because the costs are not to be earned, but to be expropriated; and a dense patch of venomous fog has to shroud the issue of means—because the means are to be human lives." --Rand (Virtue of selfishness)

I could go on the many great quotes this book offers, but it is best for people to read it themselves. The section on socialism is great since I lived it myself I KNOW what she is talking about. So I can probably tell this mentor of yours a thing or two on socialize anything! :)
If he is still not convinced there are still a few countries in the world where he can experience it first hand. I'll just ask him to do a year!

[Kade]

I would check the premises.

Does the free market work on evolutionary principals? which?

It works best on markets perfected by nature? Really?

This seems like a collective argument, benefit of the species, etc.

The free market is best defended on moral grounds. Starting with the nature of man as a free, rational being, with unalienable rights. If man is to live as man, he must not be sacrificed for the benefits of other or other to himself. anything socialized will sacrifice some men for the benefit of others.

"Since nature does not guarantee automatic security, success and survival to any human being, it is only the dictatorial presumptuousness and the moral cannibalism of the altruist-collectivist code that permits a man to suppose (or idly to daydream) that he can somehow guarantee such security to some men at the expense of others." --Rand (Virtue of selfishness)

"Hence the appalling recklessness with which men propose, discuss and accept “humanitarian” projects which are to be imposed by political means, that is, by force, on an unlimited number of human beings. If, according to collectivist caricatures, the greedy rich indulged in profligate material luxury, on the premise of “price no object”—then the social progress brought by today’s collectivized mentalities consists of indulging in altruistic political planning, on the premise of “human lives no object.”
The hallmark of such mentalities is the advocacy of some grand scale public goal, without regard to context, costs or means. Out of context, such a goal can usually be shown to be desirable; it has to be public, because the costs are not to be earned, but to be expropriated; and a dense patch of venomous fog has to shroud the issue of means—because the means are to be human lives." --Rand (Virtue of selfishness)

I could go on the many great quotes this book offers, but it is best for people to read it themselves. The section on socialism is great since I lived it myself I KNOW what she is talking about. So I can probably tell this mentor of yours a thing or two on socialize anything! :)
If he is still not convinced there are still a few countries in the world where he can experience it first hand. I'll just ask him to do a year!

I too can answer my own questions with the Great One... but I was hoping for others to deal with them without her... again, my position is more of Devil's advocate here...

[wild03]

I too can answer my own questions with the Great One... but I was hoping for others to deal with them without her... again, my position is more of Devil's advocate here...

Ah! you should've added "no Rand please", I haven't seen any other defense that even comes close to Rand's. ;)

[Ozwest]

How about socialized war?

Take about one-tenth of the monies taxpayers donate to the military industrial complex, and everyone in America would have free medical.

I live in one of those countries.

Guess we got our priorities wrong.

We're not trying to save the world.

Continue... You are doing a "bang up" job!

[ThePieSwindler]

Just to throw this out here, a very easy response to this question, and one my college mentors perfected, was the principal of economic primal selection. Because the free market itself works on evolutionary principals, it is most perfected in the organizations and markets that are already chiseled and perfected in nature, resources, food, sex... etc.

Healthcare and Education are not natural. Therefore, there selective nature isn't primal...

Now, regardless of what you may say in response, I'm only throwing out one of many loopholes in the supposed simplicity of this argument.

I sort of see what you're saying, Kade. Morally i might not agree with it(even though you're playing devils advocate), but there is certainly a difference between "human capital goods" markets and commodity goods/production markets - anyone who has studied microeconomics know that not all markets have the same incentives. Of course, its also simplistic to think that socializing these goods is necessarily the best way to distribute them both efficiently and Pareto efficiently (or, in laymens terms, fairly). Id say subsidization of education (which can be done without having a department of education, or being fully "socialized") is the one instance where is truly beneficial to ALL, because even if you don't directly reap the results of such an education, you reap the results of living in an economy with improving human capital, which benefits overall commerce and growth of GDP per capita accross the entire economy in the long run.

Health care is alot different, because when it is socialized, all the risks are socialized as well. Rather than my tax dollars going toward improving human capital which improves and economy, it goes toward covering the health of others, which is a risk entirely out of my control, and completely within theirs. I do not want tax dollars going toward the risks of other individuals, because its not just a redistribution of wealth, its a redistribution of personal welfare (the risk of poor choices creating an even more cumbersome, expensive system as a whole, thus my actual welfare is harmed).

This is all, of course, assuming only consequentialist grounds, in response to your consequentialist argument.

[Kade]

I sort of see what you're saying, Kade. Morally i might not agree with it(even though you're playing devils advocate), but there is certainly a difference between "human capital goods" markets and commodity goods/production markets - anyone who has studied microeconomics know that not all markets have the same incentives. Of course, its also simplistic to think that socializing these goods is necessarily the best way to distribute them both efficiently and Pareto efficiently (or, in laymens terms, fairly). Id say subsidization of education (which can be done without having a department of education, or being fully "socialized") is the one instance where is truly beneficial to ALL, because even if you don't directly reap the results of such an education, you reap the results of living in an economy with improving human capital, which benefits overall commerce and growth of GDP per capita accross the entire economy in the long run.

Health care is alot different, because when it is socialized, all the risks are socialized as well. Rather than my tax dollars going toward improving human capital which improves and economy, it goes toward covering the health of others, which is a risk entirely out of my control, and completely within theirs. I do not want tax dollars going toward the risks of other individuals, because its not just a redistribution of wealth, its a redistribution of personal welfare (the risk of poor choices creating an even more cumbersome, expensive system as a whole, thus my actual welfare is harmed).

This is all, of course, assuming only consequentialist grounds, in response to your consequentialist argument.


Agreed. What do you think is a decent critique of a system of healthcare that offered socialized services as just another option, on top of the market choices as well? A competing government program... with the market?

[Ozwest]

I sort of see what you're saying, Kade. Morally i might not agree with it(even though you're playing devils advocate), but there is certainly a difference between "human capital goods" markets and commodity goods/production markets - anyone who has studied microeconomics know that not all markets have the same incentives. Of course, its also simplistic to think that socializing these goods is necessarily the best way to distribute them both efficiently and Pareto efficiently (or, in laymens terms, fairly). Id say subsidization of education (which can be done without having a department of education, or being fully "socialized") is the one instance where is truly beneficial to ALL, because even if you don't directly reap the results of such an education, you reap the results of living in an economy with improving human capital, which benefits overall commerce and growth of GDP per capita accross the entire economy in the long run.

Health care is alot different, because when it is socialized, all the risks are socialized as well. Rather than my tax dollars going toward improving human capital which improves and economy, it goes toward covering the health of others, which is a risk entirely out of my control, and completely within theirs. I do not want tax dollars going toward the risks of other individuals, because its not just a redistribution of wealth, its a redistribution of personal welfare (the risk of poor choices creating an even more cumbersome, expensive system as a whole, thus my actual welfare is harmed).

This is all, of course, assuming only consequentialist grounds, in response to your consequentialist argument.

Socialized medicine...

Does that make enlightened democracies communist?

Or you guys enjoy getting screwed by the medical industry?

[AisA1787]

What about free Internet? People need access to the our wired life/future so that they aren't at a disadvantage in the job market, etc.


Don't worry dude, Obama has it covered:



from: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet

As a country, we have ensured that every American has access to telephone service and electricity, regardless of economic status, and Obama will do likewise for broadband Internet access. Full broadband penetration can enrich democratic discourse, enhance competition, provide economic growth, and bring significant consumer benefits. Moreover, improving our infrastructure will foster competitive markets for Internet access and services that ride on that infrastructure. Obama believes we can get true broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives. Specifically, Obama proposes the following policies to restore America’s world leadership in this arena:

And you thought you were joking, right?

[Kade]

Don't worry dude, Obama has it covered:



And you thought you were joking, right?

I am an advocate for Obama's open internet policy....

[Ozwest]

Countries that have free health care, don't interpret it as "socialized" medicine.

We choose to set aside monies for those in need. My fellow countrymen deserve that.

Are you saying that only the rich deserve longevity? Tough luck for the less fortunate.

Is that the best America can come up with?

[AisA1787]

I am an advocate for Obama's open internet policy....

Good for you. I'm an advocate for Obama going back to Chicago and staying there.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Any hand outs should be done by those who want to, like churches, non profits and charities and nothing more. I have my own family to feed, clothe, educate and medicate.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Good for you. I'm an advocate for Obama going back to Chicago and staying there.

+1776

[Black Dude]

What do y'all think about State ran health care systems? As in... Missouri would have its own universal health care system, Illinois would have its own, as would Kansas, Arkansas, etc.
That would give a level of competition between the States. And would work better than other State-run industries because health care isn't driven as much by profits as it is by helping people.

[AisA1787]

Countries that have free health care, don't interpret it as "socialized" medicine.

We choose to set aside monies for those in need. My fellow countrymen deserve that.

Are you saying that only the rich deserve longevity? Tough luck for the less fortunate.

Is that the best America can come up with?

You're confusing "choice by government" with "choice by individuals."

Many people choose to set aside money for those in need. It's called charity. When a country chooses to have free health care, then individuals are no longer able to choose whether or not their money goes to help the needy. They are forced to pay, whether they like it or not. See the difference?

I wish everyone could have longevity and live forever. I really, really do. But I do not think that anyone "deserves" it as a birthright. Besides, how old is old enough? How much longevity is enough? Who "deserves" to get life-saving operations? Do you really want politicians making these decisions? I don't. We live in a world of scarce resources. There isn't enough to go around, whether the market controls it or the government controls it. Welcome to reality.

[ThePieSwindler]

Socialized medicine...

Does that make enlightened democracies communist?

Or you guys enjoy getting screwed by the medical industry?

Its more the insurance industry, than the medical industry, that 'screws' anyone over, and alot of that has to due with government laws and regulations (and i mean specific ones that i can cite, if youd like me to). Medical industries in, say, the UK, france, etc, are even more cartelized and protected than in the US, and love the fact that the system is socialized.

Despite the hype, there is actual a pretty large safety net for medical care in the united states, and the 40 million uninsured figure thats often cited has a very high turnover rate, with only about 10% of it being actual people 'slipping through the cracks". A large portion of it is people who could be insured fairly easily, but choose not to - mostly young adults. There's also a decent amount of walk-in clinics and quasi-public hospitals that will take patients for whatever they can pay. SZome of this is government mandated, some of it isnt. Sure, you have your little nitpicked anecdotes that you see in films like Sicko, but for everyone of those, theres plenty of other little anecdotes of people not receiving care and having waiting periods in the "enlightened" democracies.

So i think its a little more sophisiticated than getting "screwed by the medical industry". Theres pros and cons to anything, any system. Even a free market system (which i would prefer) certainly has its drawbacks.

[Ozwest]

What do y'all think about State ran health care systems? As in... Missouri would have its own universal health care system, Illinois would have its own, as would Kansas, Arkansas, etc.
That would give a level of competition between the States. And would work better than other State-run industries because health care isn't driven as much by profits as it is by helping people.

I have advocated this here before.

Each State or community negotiating directly with health providers and drug companies, to achieve the best outcome for it's citizens.

Magic!

[AisA1787]

What do y'all think about State ran health care systems? As in... Missouri would have its own universal health care system, Illinois would have its own, as would Kansas, Arkansas, etc.

I think it's a great idea. Leave it to the states. Then people can "vote with their feet" by moving to that state or leaving it.



health care isn't driven as much by profits as it is by helping people.

...you're joking right? I can never pick up sarcasm on the internet.

[Ozwest]

ThePieSwindler,

Sorry...

But I am happy to sacrifice some of my monies towards the well-being of my fellow citizens.

[FindLiberty]

interesting idea... socialized food distribution. Great for weight loss!

I think this is in practice in North Korea right now -sort of a working example.

It's easy to spot the FAT Kim tyrant guy in a crowd when compared to his walking dead thin subjects. They do love him (or else!)

[Black Dude]

...you're joking right? I can never pick up sarcasm on the internet.

I was thinking more specifically about hospitals.

Most hospitals are non-profits right? Obviously, drug companies and health insurance companies are 100% profit driven. But health insurance companies would be unnecessary if the State paid the bill. And drugs would be better left to the market.
And clinics are profit driven. But couldn't they be profitable if they are able to be paid by the State? Is that kinda how it is in other countries, where the clinics try to offer better care to patients so they will come to their clinic over another one?

[Ozwest]

interesting idea... socialized food distribution. Great for weight loss!

I think this is in practice in North Korea right now -sort of a working example.

It's easy to spot the FAT Kim tyrant guy in a crowd when compared to his walking dead thin subjects. They do love him (or else!)

Get over the word socialized, when referring to Medical structures in other countries.

That is a misnomer.

Socialized (your word) food.

It's not going to happen.

Are farm subsidies socialized food?

[Ozwest]

Are GMO crops socialized agriculture, or is that corporate social engineering?

[Kade]

Are GMO crops socialized agriculture, or is that corporate social engineering?

LOL.

If you are an American, for which I doubt you are, we could use some more of this intellectual freshness here... phew... it was getting stale in here.

[AisA1787]

I was thinking more specifically about hospitals.

Most hospitals are non-profits right? Obviously, drug companies and health insurance companies are 100% profit driven. But health insurance companies would be unnecessary if the State paid the bill. And drugs would be better left to the market.
And clinics are profit driven. But couldn't they be profitable if they are able to be paid by the State? Is that kinda how it is in other countries, where the clinics try to offer better care to patients so they will come to their clinic over another one?

Oh right, those kind of profits. Non-profit businesses are a funny thing. Basically, someone in government thinks that we shouldn't tax certain things like some hospitals or colleges, and those businesses get huge tax breaks by operating as "non-profits". The salaries of many people at these "non-profits", including those on the board of directors, is astronomical, hundreds of thousands if not millions sometimes. Does that seem like "non-profit" to you? I'm not against people getting paid a lot, but I am against people running a corporation, even if it is a "non-profit" corporation, and not paying corporate taxes like everyone else while they pay themselves huge salaries. It's still all about the money, whether or not it is technically a "non-profit."

[Ozwest]

LOL.

If you are an American, for which I doubt you are, we could use some more of this intellectual freshness here... phew... it was getting stale in here.

Lived in the States for 17 years. You will grow to hate me.:D

But, that's ok.

[ThePieSwindler]

Get over the word socialized, when referring to Medical structures in other countries.

That is a misnomer.

Socialized (your word) food.

It's not going to happen.

Are farm subsidies socialized food?

I think you're the one getting up in arms about the word's use. Technically speaking, any publically pooled and redistrubuted good or service is socialized. I'm personally not using it as anything other than a connotation-free adjective. There are moral tradesoffs, just as there are economic tradeoffs, to such a system. I wasn't making any normative judgements on this, simply using the word. Seems to me thats what others are doing as well. Yes, some use it with a negative, boogeyman connotation, but i'm not, and thats not what i drew from the contexts of some of these other posts.

[Kade]

Lived in the States for 17 years. You will grow to hate me.:D

But, that's ok.

I don't hate much... I'm open to debate and reason...

I do hate:

Rampant ignorance.
Absolutism.
Fundamentalist Religion.
Totalitarianism.
Preventable Suffering.

[Ozwest]

I think you're the one getting up in arms about the word's use. Technically speaking, any publically pooled and redistrubuted good or service is socialized. I'm personally not using it as anything other than a connotation-free adjective. There are moral tradesoffs, just as there are economic tradeoffs, to such a system. I wasn't making any normative judgements on this, simply using the word. Seems to me thats what others are doing as well. Yes, some use it with a negative, boogeyman connotation, but i'm not, and thats not what i drew from the contexts of some of these other posts.

According to your definition, the Iraq war is a socialized war.

Am I talking out of my ass, or are you?

[ThePieSwindler]

ThePieSwindler,

Sorry...

But I am happy to sacrifice some of my monies towards the well-being of my fellow citizens.

Ozwest,

i wasnt necessarily making any explicitly normative statements in the post(that i guess you were referring to indirectly). It'd be nice if youd actually have a discussion, rather than continually dropping a couple one liners here or there.

If you want to argue from a deontological point of view, fine, but i was really speaking more from a consequentialist point of view, trying to remain fairly positive in my evaluations.

[Kade]

According to your definition, the Iraq war is a socialized war.

Am I talking out of my ass, or are you?

TPS is good people... chill.

[Ozwest]

Ozwest,

i wasnt necessarily making any explicitly normative statements in the post(that i guess you were referring to indirectly). It'd be nice if youd actually have a discussion, rather than continually dropping a couple one liners here or there.

If you want to argue from a deontological point of view, fine, but i was really speaking more from a consequentialist point of view, trying to remain fairly positive in my evaluations.

I'm a terrible typer, and incredibly boring.

I do my best.

[ThePieSwindler]

According to your definition, the Iraq war is a socialized war.
I suppose. Its publicly funded, so yes, i guess it is. Again, im just using socialized as a synonym for 'publicly funded'. If its really bothering you that much, ill use 'publicly-funded' instead. Well, no i wont, because it doesn't really matter. Its just a word, sorry if it offends you.

Or as Borat would say, "NAAAT"


Am I talking out of my ass, or are you?

I'll leave that one up to you to decide.

Anyways, its pointless to argue about the morals of a ....'publicly funded' health care system because no one is going to change their minds. All i wanted to offer up was the fact that the American health care system is less unforgiving or evil or whatever you feel like calling it than Europeans or Austrailians or Canadians et al. are led to believe, just as im sure there are some moral and economic positives to a socialized...ahem, sorry, 'publicly funded' system that many Americans don't consider. I have different valuations of these tradeoffs than you do, but that does not mean i do not acknowledge them.

[Ozwest]

TPS is good people... chill.

Ok.

No dis-respect intended.:o

Didn't realize this was the Disney channel.

[Ozwest]

I suppose. Its publicly funded, so yes, i guess it is. Again, im just using socialized as a synonym for 'publicly funded'. If its really bothering you that much, ill use 'publicly-funded' instead. Well, no i wont, because it doesn't really matter. Its just a word, sorry if it offends you.

Or as Borat would say, "NAAAT"



I'll leave that one up to you to decide.

Taxpayer funded - works for me. :D

[wild03]

ThePieSwindler,

Sorry...

But I am happy to sacrifice some of my monies towards the well-being of my fellow citizens.

Good for you, On a free society you won't be stopped.

As long as no one else is forced to go along with whatever you want to do, I'm fine with that.

[wild03]

...Id say subsidization of education (which can be done without having a department of education, or being fully "socialized") is the one instance where is truly beneficial to ALL, because even if you don't directly reap the results of such an education, you reap the results of living in an economy with improving human capital, which benefits overall commerce and growth of GDP per capita accross the entire economy in the long run...


You can use the "improving human capital" argument for pretty much anything you want to socialize.

Education is no different to anything else. Like any other service the market can handle it just fine.

Who says that you need to spend 10 years of your life in some institution to get a so called high school diploma! People come out of there with no real skills or knowledge. About the best they can do is tend registers and flip burgers.

The market can easily handle this wasted time. Have people who do not want to get a degree become helpers in all sort of trades, carpet installers, etc. By the time they are adults they'll have a real skill. Parents can pay someone in the neighborhood to teach them math, reading, etc. Then If they feel like their kids can benefit from higher education, kids can then get a loan and go to collage and repay it back when they are done and start working.

Since now education is public, the state generates this false ideal that having a degree is important, when in fact this makes all the degrees less meaningful. You don't need a collage degree to be successful. Kids rush out to get a degree, and usually end up with degrees like psychology, arts etc. Kids think that as long as they have a degree they'll do better.

Do people get actually hired because they have a degree, No, You have to pass an interview and know the stuff.