DescentBB

Kilarin wrote:It is what Capitalism is all about. The idea that a poor man with a poor education can not succeed is false. He has a harder time succeeding, certainly, but we too many examples of people who started with every disadvantage but managed to overcome them. In a capitalist system that is. We also have plenty of examples of people who started with every advantage, and managed to waste them all away.

The very concept of capitalism is based on the ideas outlined in that quote. That each person will find his or her own level. It does NOT promise a level playing field, it does NOT promise that everything will be fair, it only promises that you will not be artificially held down from succeeding or failing on your own.

Socialism is the opposite. It says that no matter how hard you work, the government will come in and take what you make and give it to someone who didn't work as hard. So why work? Socialisim is just Communisim light.

Yes, that's exactly what I have against it. Why do you feel that the person who starts off poor should have to work much harder than the person who starts off rich to reach the same position, keeping in mind that they start off poor or rich because they were artificially held down low or up high right at the beginning?
The point of taxes, taking more from the rich than from the poor, is that the poor are actually able to live in the worst of cases, but that it's a terrible life unless they work harder. Because, even for hard-workers, the worst of cases do happen, and it's nearly always beyond their control. It also agnowledges that the only way you're going to become really rich is if you have some sort of an advantage; because in reality, 'the American Dream' doesn't happen for an ordinary job with honest people. Instead, it just gives the employer more of an advantage, which he then uses to take advantage of that honest worker.

Also, nobody mentioned Socialism. At all.

Ford Prefect wrote:Kilarnin you are a Utopian. You feel that people freed from the shackles of government will achieve great things.

They will have the potential to achieve great things, they may or may not actually accomplish them.

Ford Prefect wrote:Before representative government became popular there was very little in the way of government regulation and most people lived as serfs. Forced to swear allegiance to some one that could afford a horse, an iron sword and armour.

Uhm... No. There were very strict laws that controlled what you could and could not do based on who you were. A feudalism is about as far away from Libertarianism as you can get.

Ford Prefect wrote:Lack of government in failed states such as Sudan results in rule by warlord.

Yes, complete lack of government is a BAD thing. What I'm trying to argue here isn't for a complete absence of government (which simply results in the rule of the strong), but for a government that is strictly limited in it's scope. For example, say a government that actually sticks to the Constitution of the USA. Haven't seen one of those in a LONG time.

Ford Prefect wrote:Government funded healthcare insurance is just that insurance funded by government so that all individuals are covered regardless of income.

"funded by the government" means "funded by everyone, regardless of choice". I approve of that type of funding for police, the military, and public roads. Not for medicine.

Ford Prefect wrote:You yourself have admitted that not only is resisting arrest unnecessary but that it's also unwise, even when being arrested for breaking a bad law. Yet we are supposed to still see it as the natural or logical outcome of doing so?

I see this as a very simple point, for some reason it is really upsetting and confusing several of you. Let's just drop it, it's not important. Taxes are taken by force, that's the point, and it's one that I think we can agree upon. Jail will be perfectly adequate for the discussion. If you don't pay taxes, they WILL put you in jail. So, you should never vote for taxes on anything unless you think it's so important they should put your grandmother in jail if she refuses to participate. There, how's that?

Jeff250 wrote:Right, socialism is undesirable because it neglects negative freedom. But a free market neglects positive freedom, allowing evils and injustices to go uncorrected. The task here is to find the proper mean between the two (which is likely going to be a mixed market).

Actually, I AGREE with you, to a point. Government is a necessary evil, but the emphasis is on the word NECESSARY. Some libertarians are idiots who go so far as to want the public highway system replaced with private roads. There is no way you can have a free and open society if there is the possibility some guy can buy all of the roads going in to some town and control who get's in and out. We also need police, a justice system, etc. I even approve of certain limited controls on monopolies. Capitalism requires a LIGHT hand upon it, or it will self destruct.

But it must be a LIGHT hand. It's not the governments job to make our lives perfect. It can never achieve that goal. It's just the government's job to protect us from outside attack, and from our fellow citizens. Providing health care doesn't fall into either of those categories.

Jeff250 wrote:Libertarianism puts way too much emphasis on negative freedom and not nearly enough on positive freedom.

It's hard to put to much emphasis on positive freedom.
Please note the excellent wording in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The key term here is "pursuit of Happiness". The it's not the government's job to guarantee we are happy. It's the government's job to protect our right to TRY and be happy.

Jeff250 wrote:What do you mean when you say that it allows every man to find "his own level?" Certainly it cannot be his own level insofar as it is his just level. It is as much his just level as the market is just.

It's his own level because it's the level he found for himself. Just? Not necessarily, but certainly more just than a level imposed upon him by the government.

TigerAssault wrote:Why do you feel that the person who starts off poor should have to work much harder than the person who starts off rich to reach the same position

I don't feel that they SHOULD have to. But the alternative is much worse. When the government attempts to "level the playing field" what happens is almost inevitably a disaster. No matter what you do, some people will have a worse start than others. Physical and Mental abilities are not equal, we don't all have as good of parents, it's just IMPOSSIBLE to actually give everyone exactly the same starting point. As soon as the government starts messing in that muddle they just make everything worse.

It's better to admit that some people start in the front, and some people start in the back. But life is NOT a 100 yard dash. It's a marathon. And there is plenty of time for the folks in the back to catch up, as well as time for those in the front to fall behind. Just let them run and ensure that no one trips anyone else.

TigerAssault wrote:Also, nobody mentioned Socialism. At all.

Just out of curiosity, what DO you think we are discussing in this thread?

\"funded by the government\" means \"funded by everyone, regardless of choice\". I approve of that type of funding for police, the military, and public roads. Not for medicine.

Would you have the same attitude if you were on the poor end of the stick and couldn't afford health insurance or health care? Your loved ones are sick and you can't get treatment because you can't afford to. I'm sure you'd change your mind on having everyone pay a fair share of the cost.

Kilarin wrote:It's better to admit that some people start in the front, and some people start in the back. But life is NOT a 100 yard dash. It's a marathon. And there is plenty of time for the folks in the back to catch up, as well as time for those in the front to fall behind. Just let them run and ensure that no one trips anyone else.

Firstly, for a LOT of people, there's next to nil chance of them catching up, no matter how hard they try.
Secondly, I did mention that it would encourage people to be greedier and more selfish to get ahead. In this metaphor, that's effectively the equivilent of tripping someone up.
Thirdly, you didn't actually say why it would be bad for the government to level the playing field.

Kilarin wrote:Just out of curiosity, what DO you think we are discussing in this thread?

We're talking about if there is a need to have government-issued healthcare to everyone at the expense of the richer people. That's not socialism, which as Wikipedia would describe, "implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity."

Kilarin wrote:I see this as a very simple point, for some reason it is really upsetting and confusing several of you. Let's just drop it, it's not important. Taxes are taken by force, that's the point, and it's one that I think we can agree upon. Jail will be perfectly adequate for the discussion. If you don't pay taxes, they WILL put you in jail. So, you should never vote for taxes on anything unless you think it's so important they should put your grandmother in jail if she refuses to participate. There, how's that?

Less extremist, less prone to rash generalizations. It's becoming a decently reasonable point. If you think that you can flesh out your earlier stance, go ahead and do so, but appeals to the simple truth of it all aren't going to be effective.

There is one more thing that I can think to note. In the past, although it's not explicit in the language here, you've said that if your grandmother refused to contribute to a project, then she will be shot (or as we've now agreed, possibly imprisoned). But it's not clear to me how she could refrain from contributing to any one project. If she, for example, paid half of the taxes that she owed, can we say that she contributed to some projects and not others? There's no real way of doing this. So it seems that your grandmother would have to not pay any taxes to ensure her not contributing to the project. But at this point, it's become unclear why she shouldn't be jailed for refusing to pay all of her taxes.

Kilarin wrote:The key term here is "pursuit of Happiness". The it's not the government's job to guarantee we are happy. It's the government's job to protect our right to TRY and be happy.

Positive freedom is not about guaranteeing happiness. It is about ensuring that everyone can obtain the essentials for human flourishing. For the libertarian, when they say something like that anyone "can" obtain success, they mean "can" in a very weak sense, like in anyone "can" win the lottery. They only take "can" to mean that it's something that "might" happen. It's something that's logically possible.

Positive freedom uses "can" in the regular sense that we use the word. When you can tie your shoes, you know how to. There is a definite series of steps you know and have the ability to carry out to tie your shoes. It's something that's realistically possible.

When we say that we'd like it to be the case that people can obtain healthcare, we want to say that they can obtain healthcare in the sense that they can tie their shoes, not the sense that they can or might win the lottery. It's a much more important type of "can."

Suggesting that our right is only to try to be happy is meaningless. In a very real way, it's impossible to try to not be happy--or at least something very similar. Surely in every action we are seeking some ultimate goal, whether it be happiness or a close synonym. Offering us the right to try to be happy is offering us the right to do something that we must necessarily do, which is a very weak and meaningless gesture of the Libertarians. At the very least, they're generously offering us the right to do something that seems extremely difficult (if not impossible) to threaten in the first place.

TigerAssault wrote:Thirdly, you didn't actually say why it would be bad for the government to level the playing field.

A point that I'd like to see clarified as well. I'd also like to see skepticism about the government being able to, in practice, competently see the job through to the end separated from actual concerns of why a more ideal government than the one you're envisioning shouldn't attempt to level the playing field, since I think we've been unfairly blurring these issues. An FYI: I'm personally more interested in discussing the more ideal governments than the ones you're envisioning rather than talking about the more practical concerns of whether or not a government, in actuality, could pull it off.

Kilarin wrote:Just out of curiosity, what DO you think we are discussing in this thread?

Mixed markets?

Kilarin:

'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'
'Are there no prisons?\"

'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'

'Both very busy, sir.'

'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'

Oh sorry Kilarin. I got mixed up. That was Dickens satirizing those that felt the poor had their place and were not really the problem of the wealthy.

The working poor are those guys that fixed your roof when you took the lowest bid. Picked up outside of Home Depot and paid in cash by the contractor that gave you the bid. They haul your goods in trucks and stock the shelves of the stores you buy in at night as you sleep. They contribute every day to the quality of your life and the quality of the life of the rest of the nation that live well because someone, somewhere did a nasty job cheaply. The Greeks and Romans had slaves, the British had slaves and the colonial populations to support them. America of the 21st century thrives on the working poor and illegal immigrants and cheap imports. Illegals and imports are another issue entirely. The working poor deserve more.

TIGERassault wrote: Why do you feel that the person who starts off poor should have to work much harder than the person who starts off rich to reach the same position, keeping in mind that they start off poor or rich because they were artificially held down low or up high right at the beginning?

I believe this, so I'll answer you. The answer is that something more important than fairness is at stake: character.

Everyone has to overcome hard challenges to be successful, no matter how well or badly off they are. Everyone has midterms they fail, everyone gets stuck in traffic on a day they can't miss work, everyone experiences a market downswing at just the right time to collapse their business. Guess what? That's life. Learn to deal with it, because everyone needs to, because there's no other way to succeed. If we make a completely fair system that teaches people to react to disadvantage by throwing up their hands and saying, "it's not my fault I failed," then we're all going to very slowly, but very fairly, get poor together. Because we're all going to fairly fail together.

On the other hand, if we build a society where people are taught to meet challenges, we'll succeed. If people respond to difficulties by gritting their teeth and saying "Those who say it can't be done had best git out of the way of those doin' it!"--then we'll do impossible things. You'd be amazed the sorts of insurmountable challenges that can be overcome with a bit of hard work and perseverence. Can't live on minimum wage? Get a second job. Can't advance? Go to community college at night. Single mother? Organize a neighborhood childcare co-op. I'm not saying it's not hard. It's hard. But there are ways. Of course, you'll fail if you've grown up learning to sit on your hands and complain and, well, fail. That's entirely the point: to teach people to not do that.

A disadvantage is a challenge, that's all. Seeking help to overcome it is not a bad thing. Seeking help is part of overcoming challenges. But it is much, much more important that people be expected to succeed by their own efforts than that everyone be given a fair shot while waiting for someone else to deal with whatever problems they have.

TIGERassault wrote:

Kilarin wrote:
It's better to admit that some people start in the front, and some people start in the back. But life is NOT a 100 yard dash. It's a marathon. And there is plenty of time for the folks in the back to catch up, as well as time for those in the front to fall behind. Just let them run and ensure that no one trips anyone else.

Firstly, for a LOT of people, there's next to nil chance of them catching up, no matter how hard they try.

This is a myth. It's simply not true.

Ford Prefect wrote:The working poor are those guys that fixed your roof when you took the lowest bid. Picked up outside of Home Depot and paid in cash by the contractor that gave you the bid. They haul your goods in trucks and stock the shelves of the stores you buy in at night as you sleep.

These are not a "they", but an "us". I, personally, have done hard work outdoors at minimum wage. I, personally, have stocked shelves, put clothes on hangers. Lothar has worked weird hours. Fellow grad student put herself through grad school, with no support, with 7 years of truck driving. These jobs are work, but they are not the endless torture some make them out to be. And guess what? They do get you to where you can improve.

You can drive a truck for 7 years and make enough to go to grad school. You can immigrate to America with 12 dollars to your name, work three minimum-wage jobs to support a family, and 20 years later be a multi-millionare with your own business (person I know). You can have barely a high school graduation certificate, find a job for $9/hour and--if you live cheap--make enough to support a wife and daughter and, with a little help, go to community college. You can be living on social security/disability from the government, have a wife and family to care for, and still go to school. There are organizations that help with that sort of thing. I know a guy who did it.

Seriously. It's really just not that bad out there. Work hard, live cheap, be smart--I can't think of a single background you couldn't overcome. And if you do happen to be the increasingly rare genius-held-back-by-circumstances, just make a little noise. There are lots of justice-loving people who want to help.

Poverty, inasmuch as it exists anymore (and by historical standards, it really doesn't in the US), is largely self-inflicted. That doesn't mean we shouldn't show compassion to "them", but it does mean is folly to build a system on the assumption that all the poor need is a little material help.

Success is not winning the lottery. Success is a habit.

Drakona:

Everyone has midterms they fail, everyone gets stuck in traffic on a day they can't miss work, everyone experiences a market downswing at just the right time to collapse their business.

You live amongst that most privileged of classes. Those with intelligence. There are millions of people in this world that are quite frankly stupid. I meet them every day. They work in my office for my company as plant workers and receptionists. Some of these people are clever and some are as thick as a brick.
It is their fault if they are plain stupid? That they lack the intellectual tools run a successful business? Some of these people can barely manage answering a 12 line phone system.
Lots of people will never fail a midterm because they will never attend a level of school that has them. They will never experience a economic downswing that collapses their business because they will never be able to own and operate a business.
You are not looking at the section of society described in Deer Hunting With Jesus.
Check out the Fred Reed review. http://fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm Fred grew up in Virginia with the kind of folk we are actually talking about.

TIGERassault wrote:We're talking about if there is a need to have government-issued healthcare to everyone at the expense of the richer people. That's not socialism, which as Wikipedia would describe, "implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity."

So, pray tell, who are these rich that we are going to soak to pay for our health insurance; how much is "rich". I'm sure lot's of people would like to know so they can avoid earning less money than the "rich" do, and have somebody else pay for their health insurance.

Is the government actually going to run the health care too? As it is now, doctors are leaving the profession in droves because they are tired of dealing with the government BS. So, how will the government manage costs? Well, they can ration care, for example. Are we going to force health care professionals to work for only certain fees for certain types of care? Is this a recipe for getting the best, brightest and most talented people into the health care professions? Who do you really want doing that heart procedure on you or stitching up the gash in the side of your child's head.

Pay attention please -

Health insurance does not equal health care. See here

There's a link to the WHO report that ranks US health care at No. 37 in this report -
http://dhogberg.com/wordpress/2007/06/moore-thoughts/

I recommend searching out other links at Hogberg's "Health Hog" blog.

None the less Ford, Irregardless of someone's \"intelligence\", we are each solely accountable for our actions. If not, then this whole back half of the argument would and should break down into a debate about causeality and choice.

and lets not go there, as nothing will be achieved.

Keep government small, it should serve the people. People should not be enslaved to it. This is one of the original intents of the founding fathers.

Testi, you're exactly right. Who's going to benefit from it? It certainly is not the citizens of Mass, that's for sure. Just like our \"state\" controlled auto insurance, the commission in charge of regulating the industry is comprised of all insurance industry insiders or politicians with an agenda.

If you go to any online auto insurance company or any nationwide health insurance carrier, and say you want a quote for a resident of Mass, almost all companies will say they don't or can't do business in Mass. because of our regulations or mandates.

Testi, you're exactly right. Who's going to benefit from it? It certainly is not the citizens of Mass, that's for sure. Just like our \"state\" controlled auto insurance, the commission in charge of regulating the industry is comprised of all insurance industry insiders or politicians with an agenda.

If you go to any online auto insurance company or any nationwide health insurance carrier, and say you want a quote for a resident of Mass, almost all companies will say they don't or can't do business in Mass. because of our regulations or mandates.

Having a government funded health insurance is hardly being enslaved to your government.
I behoves all that benefit from the labour of the least privileged of a society to ensure proper care for those who's labour has supported their comfort.
These people contribute to the over all prosperity of the nation and the wealthiest country in the land won't give back because that would \"enslave\" them.
Crap.
It's all about the almighty dollar. They just don't want to pay taxes that might not directly benefit them or their direct family.
Shame.

i'd like to point out that Australia's social healthcare service (Medicare) protects us from unscrupulous pharmacutical companys trying to sell crappy products.

Because Medicare chooses how much it subsidises medications by how well they work - it forces drugs to be cheaper, and expensive drugs that don't work can't compete.

So it's not just free medical care. It also encourages quality and competition in the market for the benefit of patients. It is illegal to publicly advertise subscription medicines here (they hate that, as most of Pharmacutical companys' budget in other countrys goes into Advertising, but in Australia they have to play a different game. Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk).

Vancouver, Canada and Melbourne, Australia.
Tied for the \"most liveable cites in the world\" naming by The Economist magazine.
Not just because of medical access but it helps.

Drakona wrote:That's life. Learn to deal with it, because everyone needs to, because there's no other way to succeed. If we make a completely fair system that teaches people to react to disadvantage by throwing up their hands and saying, "it's not my fault I failed," then we're all going to very slowly, but very fairly, get poor together.

At the risk of over-extending myself in this topic even more, I'm going to challenge what you're saying here. I just don't see a strong connection between a more just society and people more excessively crying fowl when they've been injusticed. One intuition that would challenge such a connection suggests that a society with less injustice would have fewer people crying fowl about injustice. But, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that by creating a more just society, we might be teaching people to cry fowl about injustice excessively, especially about unavoidable injustice.

Since this is an empirical question, we could examine societies that are more just and see if your theory tends to be correct. I've never researched the matter, but I've never heard anything to that effect.

Regarding the "life is unfair so learn to deal with it" sentiment, I think we need to be careful here. When people object to others' actions as being unfair, some people appeal to life not being fair to try to justify their unfairness. While it's true that life is often uncontrollably unfair, that doesn't moot our moral obligation to try to make it as fair or as just as possible.

Drakona wrote:A disadvantage is a challenge, that's all. Seeking help to overcome it is not a bad thing. Seeking help is part of overcoming challenges. But it is much, much more important that people be expected to succeed by their own efforts than that everyone be given a fair shot while waiting for someone else to deal with whatever problems they have.

As you've picked up, I largely identify unfairness in society with injustice. Social unfairness is not just a personal challenge. It's a moral problem.

Ford Prefect wrote:Drakona:

Everyone has midterms they fail, everyone gets stuck in traffic on a day they can't miss work, everyone experiences a market downswing at just the right time to collapse their business.

You live amongst that most privileged of classes. Those with intelligence. There are millions of people in this world that are quite frankly stupid. I meet them every day. They work in my office for my company as plant workers and receptionists. Some of these people are clever and some are as thick as a brick.
It is their fault if they are plain stupid? That they lack the intellectual tools run a successful business? Some of these people can barely manage answering a 12 line phone system.
Lots of people will never fail a midterm because they will never attend a level of school that has them. They will never experience a economic downswing that collapses their business because they will never be able to own and operate a business.
You are not looking at the section of society described in Deer Hunting With Jesus.
Check out the Fred Reed review. http://fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm Fred grew up in Virginia with the kind of folk we are actually talking about.

I must respectfully disagree. You may suppose that I "live amongst the most priveleged of classes", but you'd be wrong. It's not as though I spend every morning with math professors and every evening at stylish cocktail parties. My last apartment had a lot of government-sponsored housing; while I had a master's degree, I worked at Value Village and half my co-workers didn't speak me the english so well; the characters at my church cut a marvelous cross-section of society. And plus I hang out on the internet with all of you

I've met a lot of people, and my friends come from a pretty broad educational and economic background. And I've never met anyone I would describe as "thick as a brick". I've met willfully ignorant folks, and wickedly delusional folks. I've met folks who are uneducated, especially on certain topics. I've met lots of lazy, irresponsible, or arrogant folks. I've even met folks I thought were certifiably nuts. But, with the exception of the last, never irredeemably stupid folks. I've never met anyone about whom I've thought, "there goes a poor soul destined by poor genes to fail in life." Never.

You and I live in parallel worlds. I suspect we meet the same people, just think of them differently.

As if to illustrate the point, I clicked through to your link and read the front page. It was a story about a fake racially motivated rape. It seemed to me so unrelated to the topic at hand that I almost asked if you had linked me to the right page--but I expect it means something to you that it doesn't to me.

Jeff -

I had to think about your post for several minutes. At first glance, it seems like a really good argument. If I'm saying challenges are good, and people need to learn to overcome them without help, then more challenges should be better! How about all challenges all the time--tyranny, anarchy, violent oppression; what fantastic geniuses those societies must breed!

This left me brooding for several minutes, certain I disagreed with you, but unable to articulate why. But your own post provided the clue:

try to make it as fair or as just as possible

You treat fairness and justice as synonyms--and perhaps as you mean the words, they are. But if I may hijack the language a bit, I see in them separate concepts that are the key to the dilemma.

Fairness is getting the same as the other guy. Justice is getting what you deserve. Fairness is starting out with the same size farm; justice is reaping the crop you've grown at the end of the season. Fairness looks to the past and wants to make things even. Justice looks to the future and wants to reap its own reward. Fairness is inherently relative and seeks to be even with others--so it fundamentally springs from jealousy. Justice is relative to you and your own efforts. Love of justice is a moral axiom.

Communism is fair. Capitalism is just.

And that illustrates the exact issue.

Let me ignore the moral question for the moment and just consider social engineering. Which one, fairness or justice, provides the sort of incentive that helps individuals and society succeed? Which would be more successful--a fair, unjust society, or a just, unfair society? I submit that the latter would work and the former would fail miserably. Fairness is useless--it doesn't matter whether people start out at the same place because they can work with what they have. In fact, it's harmful to try to make everyone even--it harms diversity. But justice rewards folks who do worthwhile things. What could be a more essential incentive?

You write, \"One intuition that would challenge such a connection suggests that a society with less injustice would have fewer people crying fowl [sic] about inustice.\" That's true applied to justice, but paradoxically, it isn't true applied to fairness. The reason is very simple: justice teaches you that rewards come from yourself--you might whine if you've been injustly treated, but by and large you're better off just going out and succeeding. But fairness teaches you that rewards come from the arbiter of fairness--you might be able to get the whole race thrown out on a technicality. You might be able to persuade the referee that that foul kick two rounds ago is worth more of a handicap than he gave you. Fairness encourages whining because, in a fair system, whining is worth the effort.

Do we have a moral imperative to be fair? In examining my own beliefs, I don't actually think that we do. We have a moral imperative to be just, and a moral imperative to do good to our fellow man, but I don't believe we have a moral imperative to satiate his jealousy. Perhaps someone can give me a good reason why we should be fair, and I can think of some circumstances in which you should be. But in general? No. I'm inclined to say that fairness is overrated.

(For the Christians in the crowd, upon reflection, I submit that God is thunderously just, and just as thunderously unfair. Consider the parable of the vineyard.)

Regaurding your comment that \"When people object to others' actions as being unfair, some people appeal to life not being fair to try to justify their unfairness,\" that falls under injustice--people have no right to hurt each other, are recompense should be made whatever their excuse might be.

So there's my answer. Fairness might be okay, but I think it's overrated and definitely not a moral imperative. But justice is essential. And trying to even out society in retrospect denies jusice for fairness--not a worthwhile trade.

Cute perspectives on \"Social Darwinism\"...

When it comes to capitalism, I'm about as \"capitalist\" as it gets. Worked my way up from packer, to math scholarship, to engineer, to post-grad, to \"Fortune 500\" board room meetings,back to private industry, etc. My mortgage was paid off years ago, and I own an apartment house, too.

After 9/11 the head of the EPA said the air was \"perfectly safe\". We have found out that is NOT the case. For the most part, politicians have determined only police/fire employees are entitled to \"socialist medicine\" for care. All other rescue personnel, 9/11 survivors, and the ENTIRE population of downtown Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens, (just downwind), where we smelled / inhaled the toxins for weeks, is simply condemned to repiratory illness.

My wife and son now have lung diseases. If I lose my job, will my next insurer cover a \"pre-existing\" condition? MAYBE NOT!

As a REAL capitalist, why should I eat the cost of the stupidity of a MORON that said it was \"perfectly safe\"? CLEARLY, society mislead ME.

How is that MY \"problem\"? Why should I \"learn a lesson\" by losing my CAPITALIST ENTERPRIZE? Why should I even bother with the epic battle of \"survival of the fittest\" you describe? Why should I pay to give civil servants \"COMMUNIST -STYLE\" health benefits FIRST if my own CAPITALIST family isn't entitled? Do I become a \"socialist\" when I rationally DEMAND society pays for something they put on my hard-working, tax-paying CAPITALIST back?

NAH, I am a CAPITALIST, and I say THEY PAY FOR IT...

Drakona wrote:You treat fairness and justice as synonyms--and perhaps as you mean the words, they are. But if I may hijack the language a bit, I see in them separate concepts that are the key to the dilemma.

Fairness is getting the same as the other guy. Justice is getting what you deserve.

I disagree. Allow me to set out my conception. I don't think it's correct to split the two terms as you do, particularly with your conception of fairness.

You might think that fairness is each person getting the same thing. This might even be correct, depending on what you mean by it. But if you're imagining a system like communism, which you identify fairness with elsewhere, I don't see anything fair about communism at all. When we are fair, we are fair with respect to something. For example, if one person worked for twice as long as another, it would be fair to pay that person twice as much. That's because we are being fair with respect to the number of hours worked. A system like communism thinks that we should be fair with respect to need. It seems fair in some cases, but it can hardly be considered fair in all, especially when one person is working twice as hard as another. Surely it's fair to pay the one twice as much money, even though we are ultimately paying each person different amounts! We can also imagine a person who always pays more money to people with a certain skin color. It's certainly consistent behavior, but I don't think that it would ever be fair! What I'm hoping to demonstrate from these examples is that true fairness is going to be fairness with respect to the right things, not just anything. It's fair to pay one person twice as much money for doing twice as much work, and it's unfair to do anything else. This is true even if the two people are ultimately getting different amounts of pay. This is because one deserves more than the other.

I largely agree that justice is getting what one deserves. But now suppose a person who does job X justly deserves Y. Another person who does job X in the same relevant ways would likewise justly deserve Y. It's being fair, and it's a requirement for justice. Somebody who does the same job in the same relevant ways must deserve the same outcome.

This is why fairness and justice really converge on meanings. Fairness emphasizes consistency, but something isn't really fair unless it is consistent about the right things, about what one deserves. Justice emphasizes getting one's deserts, but these can't be just without being consistent. It's in this sense that they really converge to mean the same thing.

I don't think that you have to buy all of this though to understand why pure capitalism is immoral. Pure capitalism doesn't make any evaluative judgments that take into account what one deserves or what is fair. It doesn't take into account the moral matters of need, human flourishing, and human suffering.

Pure capitalists seem to think that because we are all playing in the same game, namely, the free market, then whatever outcomes that game produces are just. But there is a constant disconnect between the game's product and what people really deserve, call it justice, or fairness, or whatever you'd like, and between its product and moral matters of pleasure, pain, and need.

TIGERassault wrote:

Kilarin wrote:Just out of curiosity, what DO you think we are discussing in this thread?

We're talking about if there is a need to have government-issued healthcare to everyone at the expense of the richer people. That's not socialism, which as Wikipedia would describe, "implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity."

Topic subject is: Socialized Healthcare: Whats the big deal?
The operative term here being "Socialized".

CDN_Merlin wrote:Would you have the same attitude if you were on the poor end of the stick and couldn't afford health insurance or health care?

Yep.

Jeff250 wrote:So it seems that your grandmother would have to not pay any taxes to ensure her not contributing to the project. But at this point, it's become unclear why she shouldn't be jailed for refusing to pay all of her taxes.

Uhm, that IS the point. Taxes are taken by force, you have to pay them, meaning the only way NOT to support projects paid for by taxes is to not pay your taxes and suffer the governments punishment for that.

Don't vote taxes for any project that you don't think it would be moral to send someone to jail if they didn't want to contribute.

Jeff250 wrote:Suggesting that our right is only to try to be happy is meaningless

No, it means the law shouldn't get in the way of your trying.

Ford Prefect wrote:Oh sorry Kilarin. I got mixed up. That was Dickens satirizing those that felt the poor had their place and were not really the problem of the wealthy.

The problem is your assumption that the wealthy pay most of the taxes. They don't. The majority of the tax burden falls on the middle and lower classes.

Which brings us to:

TigerAssault wrote:you didn't actually say why it would be bad for the government to level the playing field.

Let's take social security as an example. How about if we took tax dollars so the government could take care of old people. Nice idea on the surface, right? But lets look at it. In the USA, the government takes 15% of your income for Social Security.

Let's say someone is making $20,000 a year, certainly not rich. If they took 15% of their income and put it into a safe, government insured bank in a long term CD, they can get 5% EASY. Suppose they work from age 20 to 65, that's 45 years. What would their investment be worth at retirement?
Over $500,000 dollars. And remember, thats assuming they never earned more than $20,000, and that they never got a better interest rate than 5% (they certainly should be able to)). That means they should now be able to retire making $25,000 dollars a year, that's MORE than they were making when they were working. AND, they will have the principle to draw upon if the wish, or to pass on to their children or a worthy cause. This, of course, doesn't take into account inflation, but since you expect salaries and interest rates to go up when inflation does, it is still quite sound.

Social Security is a very good example of what happens when the government attempts to "Level the playing field". They don't end up taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. They end up taking money from the poor and putting it into government pockets. Governments are NOT efficient. They never have been, they never will be.

The solution to the healthcare problem is to fix the stupid insurance system that has caused the cost of BASIC healthcare to go through the roof. Making tax-free health savings accounts simple and legal would go a long way towards solving that problem.

Drakona wrote:The answer is that something more important than fairness is at stake: character.

Thank you, WONDERFUL answer. Several wonderful answers.

Ford Prefect wrote:You live amongst that most privileged of classes. Those with intelligence. There are millions of people in this world that are quite frankly stupid.

No matter how much you attempt to hold the smart people down, they WILL outperform the stupid people. I don't see that as a problem. Especially since much of "smart" is a matter of choice.

Kilarin wrote:Uhm, that IS the point. Taxes are taken by force, you have to pay them, meaning the only way NOT to support projects paid for by taxes is to not pay your taxes and suffer the governments punishment for that.

Don't vote taxes for any project that you don't think it would be moral to send someone to jail if they didn't want to contribute.

Again, you're ascribing consequences, like being sent to jail, to something that isn't criminal, like not wanting to contribute to a tax-funded project. Since this isn't the first time in this thread that you've made this kind of jump in reasoning, from not wanting to contribute to a project to actually not paying owed taxes (or from not thinking a law is good to actually breaking it, resisting arrest, and so on), I must ask, what motivates this jump in reasoning? Why equate the consequences of something like not wanting to contribute to a tax-funded project to those of actually not paying taxes? I'm not denying that it is impossible to connect the two, but you really need a further argument to do so. I mean, I assume that this is what the point of your imperative is all about. Because if you just said, "Don't vote for tax-funded projects if you don't think that people who didn't pay their taxes should go to jail," then we'd be fine here. But by saying something like, "Don't vote for tax-funded projects if you don't think that people who don't want to pay for that project should go to jail," you're definitely saying something more powerful, but I think that it's ultimately dishonest.

Jeff250 wrote:if you just said, "Don't vote for tax-funded projects if you don't think that people who didn't pay their taxes should go to jail," then we'd be fine here. But by saying something like, "Don't vote for tax-funded projects if you don't think that people who don't want to pay for that project should go to jail," you're definitely saying something more powerful, but I think that it's ultimately dishonest.

If the Christian Right votes to fund missionary projects with taxes, Atheist will be quite upset. Why? Because this means that the government is going to come and take money from them, and use it to fund something they don't approve of. The ONLY way they can avoid funding this project they disprove of, would be to not pay their taxes, in which case, they will be sent to jail (at least).

This is direct cause and effect. I HAVE to fund any project that the government spends tax dollars on, OR go to jail for not paying my taxes. You have to pay, or go to jail, (or worse).

Are you actually trying to argue that tax dollars are not taken by force?

Kilarin wrote:If the Christian Right votes to fund missionary projects with taxes, Atheist will be quite upset. Why? Because this means that the government is going to come and take money from them, and use it to fund something they don't approve of. The ONLY way they can avoid funding this project they disprove of, would be to not pay their taxes, in which case, they will be sent to jail (at least).

This is direct cause and effect. I HAVE to fund any project that the government spends tax dollars on, OR go to jail for not paying my taxes. You have to pay, or go to jail, (or worse).

This would still do nothing to demonstrate that the consequence for an atheist thinking that the Christian missionary projects shouldn't be funded would be jail time, which is what would be necessary to justify your imperatives.

I think you're neglecting an important group of people here--people who aren't 100% for the projects that their taxes go toward, yet pay their taxes anyways. Libertarians seem to think that acknowledging such a group of people is acknowledging some sort of grave evil in society. Yes, we should acknowledge the right to property and to dispose of one's money as one desires. But I think that libertarians place too much value on this right, especially when other serious moral values are weighing against it. Since we can all imagine at least one situation where we would be morally obligated to violate somebody's right to property to serve some other moral good, there is nothing wrong with voting for a tax-funded project, even if less than 100% of everyone wants to pay for it, if you think that the project's end is constituent of a great enough moral good.

For any one tax-funded project, for those who make up the dissenting group of people who don't think that they should pay for the project, I don't see why it would be natural or necessary or reasonable or logical or even good to just stop paying all of your taxes. Yes, it is true that if they didn't want to fund the project, then they would have to stop paying all taxes. But so what? Unless you're going to make an argument that not paying all taxes is somehow natural or necessary or reasonable or logical or even good in these cases (which it is none of these things by the way), then why should we be concerned with these people doing it anyway and then landing themselves in jail? The only real evil here that we should be concerned with is somebody paying for something that they don't want to pay for. And that involves no jail time. It involves nobody resisting arrest. It doesn't even involve anybody being arrested. It just involves people paying for something that they don't want to pay for. That is something that I can comfortably live with, in the right circumstances of course.

Jeff250 wrote:for those who make up the dissenting group of people who don't think that they should pay for the project, I don't see why it would be natural or necessary or reasonable or logical or even good to just stop paying all of your taxes.

I am NOT saying you shouldn't pay your taxes. I'm not saying you couldn't pay your taxes while disagreing with the funding. I do that all the time.

I'm saying that with tax dollars you only have two choices. Pay them, or go to jail. With tax dollars, you are reaching into other peoples pockets and taking their money. So you should make CERTAIN it's for something important.

Jeff250 wrote:The only real evil here that we should be concerned with is somebody paying for something that they don't want to pay for.

And the reason they are paying for something they don't want to pay for is that if they don't, they will go to jail.

Jeff250 wrote:Since we can all imagine at least one situation where we would be morally obligated to violate somebody's right to property to serve some other moral good, there is nothing wrong with voting for a tax-funded project, even if less than 100% of everyone wants to pay for it, if you think that the project's end is constituent of a great enough moral good.

And that's exactly what I have been saying. You should only vote to fund a project with taxes if you feel that it's important enough that anyone who will NOT fund it should go to jail.
The Military fits this category, so do public roads, police, etc. Funding the arts does NOT. Neither does much of the rest of the stuff our governmment currently steals your money to do.

Kilarin wrote:And that's exactly what I have been saying. You should only vote to fund a project with taxes if you feel that it's important enough that anyone who will NOT fund it should go to jail.

Now that one actually makes sense the way that you've put it there. But do note that it differs critically in form from saying the following: "You should only vote to fund a project with taxes if you feel that it's important enough that anyone who doesn't want to fund it should go to jail." Or worse yet: "You should only vote to fund a project with taxes if you feel that it's important enough that anyone who will not fund it should be shot." I'm not engaging in pedantry here. These and the one quoted above are imperatives that you've given, ones that we are supposed to live our lives by, yet they can result in drastic differences in behavior. Only one of them is really justifiable.

Jeff250 wrote:Now that one actually makes sense the way that you've put it there.

Aha! We have communicated! Thank you, I will be more careful about the way I phrase things next time. My meaning seemed obvious to me, but you are correct, it was NOT phrased precisely. I always learn something in these discussions...

I'm sure I could have done a better job of not taking over a page to finally communicate my point. I'm just glad that we can walk away from this without thinking lesser of our intelligences.

Fred Reed sums up my feelings on his web site Fred On Everything.

http://fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

Socialized health care worked when I almost got killed by a drunk driver..

12 weeks in the hospital, and a few more weeks of physical therapy to learn how to walk again. Recovery was painful, but I'd rather have that than the alternative....

and we didn't get dinged by a 7,000 dollar bill.

7,000? That's it? 12 weeks in the hospital + PT here would have cost $100,000 or more. A friend of mine went in for a week and it cost him about $10,000.

Testiculese wrote:7,000? That's it?

Yup. as far as I'm told that would have been the amount. Then again it happened sixteen years ago..

Kilarin wrote:If the Christian Right votes to fund missionary projects with taxes, Atheist will be quite upset. Why? Because this means that the government is going to come and take money from them, and use it to fund something they don't approve of. The ONLY way they can avoid funding this project they disprove of, would be to not pay their taxes, in which case, they will be sent to jail (at least).

So if my mom and dad don't approve of the war... they can get a refund? Finally, I can own both an Xbox 360 AND a Playstation 3!

Ironically I haven't responded to my own thread. Here is a question to all of those who don't support healthcare from taxes:
If you do not approve of state health care, then do you approve of fire protection/police security? If you do, why would you allow those services over healthcare?

Dakatsu wrote:If you do not approve of state health care, then do you approve of fire protection/police security? If you do, why would you allow those services over healthcare?

Very important difference. Police security is a matter of protecting us from each other. This is a legitimate function of the state, although it's a dangerous one that certainly requires close regulation and supervision. There is no safe way to privatize the police force and still keep it under close control of the people.

Fire protection fits in to the same concept. It's a matter of protecting us from each other. Libertarians often talk of privatizing the fire department. the difficulty with that idea is that if I pay good money to have my property protected, and my neighbor doesn't, then when his house burns completely out of control it endangers MY house. This gets worse as the number of unprotected houses increases. One unprotected poor neighborhood would endanger the entire city.
So, fire protection fits under the umbrella of defending us from each other.

AND, by the way, so does the Center For Disease Control. Keeping infectious disease under control IS a matter for the government to deal with, since people running around spreading small pox are endangering all of us. But the CDC can operate just fine without privatizing the entire health care system.

healthcare could be said to be protecting us from ourselves/eachother too.

diseases are caused by environment or genetics, both of which are outside causes.

nextdoor's house burning down catching fire to yours is like catching the flu from your neighbour. If your neighbour is your parent you can \"catch\" a genetic heart disease from them.

Caught the flu? The flu, like many diseases, comes from our animal farming practices. (one of the major points in the book/documentary \"Guns Germs and Steel\"). Do you have a pigfarm? Of course not. Your neighbour works at the deli though, you buy your bacon from him.

Hit by a car? The car wasn't driving itself, your neighbour was driving!

Cancer? Probably coz your body injested some chemical it shouldn't have - where'd you get the chemical? You probabaly bought it from SOMEONE ELSE (your neighbour makes chemicals).

The only thing i can think of that is not linked in some way to externals would be tripping over something on your own property causing some physical trauma, or natural old age - which is influenced by your inherited genetics anyway.

So i put it to you:
If the role of government is to protect us from our neighbours, then healthcare comes under that umbrella.

roid wrote:healthcare could be said to be protecting us from ourselves/eachother too.

In the first place, I don't WANT the government to protect me from myself. That always leads to an unwanted loss of liberty.

In the second place, Yes, I agree that PREVENTING the spread of dangerous contagious disease is a legitimate government function. But you're trying to make "protecting me from my neighbor" cover such things as being injured in an automobile accident. That's not "protecting" me, it's dealing with the aftermath after I have already been injured. AND, we already have a system to deal with that. If you injure me in an accident, and the court system determines that you were at fault, then you will be held legally responsible for my health care bills.

Governments are DANGEROUS. Only give them the powers you absolutely have to.

Kilarin wrote:In the first place, I don't WANT the government to protect me from myself. That always leads to an unwanted loss of liberty.

Now, even though I don't agree with you on healthcare, that is definatley a quoteable!

Kilarin wrote:In the second place, Yes, I agree that PREVENTING the spread of dangerous contagious disease is a legitimate government function. But you're trying to make "protecting me from my neighbor" cover such things as being injured in an automobile accident. That's not "protecting" me, it's dealing with the aftermath after I have already been injured. AND, we already have a system to deal with that. If you injure me in an accident, and the court system determines that you were at fault, then you will be held legally responsible for my health care bills.

Problem in my opinion, is lets say someone is going to try to kill you. Scenario 1 is you get shot, either you die or you get sent to the emergency room. The guy hopefully gets sent to jail for the rest of his life. Scenario 2 however, is lets say you drank a glass of wine with poison. This is life threatening, but you cannot prove you are poisoned without a test. Lets say that you have no insurance to cover the test, what are you to do? Surely you are most likely screwed.

Of course the chances of getting poisoned is very small, but, lets say you have cancer, it is treatable but you do not have the insurance to get the treatment. Two weeks later, you end up in the emergency room with heart failure. This COULD have been prevented with that treatment, but it was never a life-threatening issue at that moment...

You are now dead!
Sucks that you can't hit fire to respawn, doesn't it?

Kilarin wrote:Governments are DANGEROUS. Only give them the powers you absolutely have to.

I find it that we don't give the government powers it needs, and instead give it powers that lead to corruption and too much power to it. The above is majorly quoteable as well, but I just disagree that healthcare falls under the umbrella of electronics or a new pool.

Kilarin wrote:In the second place, Yes, I agree that PREVENTING the spread of dangerous contagious disease is a legitimate government function. But you're trying to make "protecting me from my neighbor" cover such things as being injured in an automobile accident. That's not "protecting" me, it's dealing with the aftermath after I have already been injured. AND, we already have a system to deal with that. If you injure me in an accident, and the court system determines that you were at fault, then you will be held legally responsible for my health care bills.

Governments are DANGEROUS. Only give them the powers you absolutely have to.

There is also already a system to deal with property damage that could be extended to housefires (if it isn't already):

If a car hits your car, nudging your car into another car again, YOU pay for the damage to that next car.

Housefires could be done the same way. If your house is the cause of your neighbours house burning down, they YOU may pay for it.

i'm not saying i approve of any of this, but it is one way to answer to your housefire illustration by extending the "don't treat the symptoms if you can treat the cause instead, or at least blame another private party" idea, allowing firefighting to become privatised and scrubbing it off the "things we absolutely need a government for" list.

it sounds cool that. "don't treat the symptoms if you can treat the cause instead, or at least blame another private party". coz i guess the point is to privatise everything so that the government itself is nearly pennyless and therefore powerless (coz it doesn't need power anyway). So the government is more of a switchboard than anything else - assigning blame and responsability to relevant partys instead of footing the bill itself. Am i getting close to the cornerstone of Libertarianism? Or is this just absolute freemarket Capitalism?

Kilarin wrote:Governments are DANGEROUS. Only give them the powers you absolutely have to.

The free market can be just as dangerous or even more dangerous than the government in many domains. I'm not exactly at ease relinquishing all power to an invisible free hand. Or is it somehow more moral to be screwed by the free market rather than the government? I hear a lot of talk about the government restricting rights. But why not about the free market restricting rights? Why is it that when the government raises taxes, this infringes on rights, but when an HMO denies necessary medical treatment to save a person's life, that is not a restriction of someone's rights? There's a dangerous myth afoot that only the government can take our rights away. However, the free market has an excellent track record for it itself. Wake up!

Also, I simply reject that the role of the government is to protect people from each other. One reason you give for government-provided police protection is a matter of practicality--the free market cannot do this effectively. But there's still a more important reason that hasn't been explicitly addressed--why have police protection at all? I think it's obvious--simply, because police protection is good. But then why say that the government should only be interested in this one type of good, protecting people from each other? Why not famine relief or healthcare? These issues can carry more moral weight than something like police protection, so restricting it to protecting people from each other seems arbitrary.

I think we're forgetting some of the Economic realities here:

- Despite not paying for everyone's health care directly via a tax, you still pay for it. Just because your taxes would be higher for national health care, doesn't mean your total expenses necessarily would go up.

How?

- Companies have to pay for employee health care more and more -- this increases the price of all goods and services. It is also a barrier to conducting busines; it's not just the $$ that is a problem, it's the extra organizational time, effort, and increased size of a business that creates problems

It's a well recognized economic fact that the fewer burdens we can put on business, the easier it is for businesses to grow and jobs to be produced. Right now many businesses, small to large, are struggling mightily with the issue of health coverage. It would be intellectually silly not to at least consider a national health care -- there's not just the \"compassionate\" perspective, but also the business oriented one.