5 edits
Originally posted by WajomaTo begin with, I have to tell you, Waj - in the most friendly terms - I'm going to have to reject the friendly advice of someone who can't spell "neither", "absence" or "breach" (I didn't scan further, it was getting tiresome, and if you want people to redscore your work, you should really pay them), and whose personal style resembles that of an unfunny fourteen-year-old in the midst of a hissy fit. It would be a bit embarrassing to take it, you see. But thanks for offering.
Or you snipped them because you changed this [b]"...come by wealth through sheer dumb luck..." to this "...rich..." It's niether here nor there, it's just a characteristic of your slithering. More importantly you skip over the bit where it says it just ain't your business how people come by their wealth as long as it isn't by the 3 'f's: force, t ire"[/b] hasn't even ascended to the rank of pretentious twhat yet.[/b]
You haven't posted much of relevance, as usual. Running through quickly, before it gets tedious - I snipped it because it wasn't relevant to the point I posed, which had everything to do with allotment of fortune inheritance and its retention by zero social mobility. That simple, and as usual, that simply missed.
Your second point is also ludicrous and irrelevant, since it simply presupposes that arbitrary force is okay just so long as it's impersonal, which is begging the very question being asked.
Your third point is also daft by its own admission, since you even accept the state's de facto role in guaranteeing custom, and challenges to wills are implicitly backed by the state through the legislature. Since all this invalidates your original argument, your position is about as solid as a bag of jelly.
Your fourth point is tautologous and once again unsupported by anything at all - to say that your negative definition of "liberty" is about the absence of force is to miss by a church mile the point that liberty is also about the presence of it, namely volition and the ability to make decisions. I do agree that contradiction is the sign of a muddled mind - your inability to grasp the fact that force is force whether personal or impersonal is a classic example.
As for the surveys, thanks for changing my question to a different one to the one that I actually asked, but I'm afraid I really can't let you get off that easily. Since you've now avoided this question twice, I think we're all intrigued to know why you claim the following WHO criteria is so tendentious and controversial a method of assessing the quality of national healthcare systems:
1. overall level of population health
2. health inequalities (or disparities) within the population
3. overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts)
4. distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system)
5. distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)
We await your answer - please try to focus on the subject this time.
Originally posted by AmauroteSpelling and typos? I now bestow upon you the rank of PFC pretentious twhat (sp?)
To begin with, I have to tell you, Waj - in the most friendly terms - I'm going to have to reject the friendly advice of someone who can't spell "neither", "absence" or "breach" (I didn't scan further, it was getting tiresome, and if you want people to redscore your work, you should really pay them), and whose personal style resembles that of an unfunny fo ...[text shortened]... ts)
We await your answer - please try to focus on the subject this time.
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteWhat is your issue with inheritance, exactly?
But inheritance itself is random, and the state acts as guarantor in its transmission, which enables the less merited to gain and retain (the idea that the rich regularly lose money rapidly is absurd, even coming from you - we've already discussed the flatlining in social mobility in the US and elsewhere in this very thread) money which enables them to make ian" is ludicrous. When you're hot, you're hot; when you're not, you're not. You're not.
If my father collects books or hubcaps or fountain pens -- these can be passed on without a problem in most societies. But if he collects money, that's different and the government needs to step in and regulate. Why? And if so, why regulate at the arbitrary point of death? If I should not inherit, why should my father be allowed to accumulate?
Further, suppose my father gives everything to charity -- or to the government. Is that OK? What makes that better than giving it to me?
What if he gives me the bulk before he dies -- also not OK?
If not, why is my father allowed to accumulate as he chooses but not dispense with as he chooses?
2 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358The issue is quite simple: intellectual consistency.
What is your issue with inheritance, exactly?
If my father collects books or hubcaps or fountain pens -- these can be passed on without a problem in most societies. But if he collects money, that's different and the government needs to step in and regulate. Why? And if so, why regulate at the arbitrary point of death? If I should not inherit, why sho ...[text shortened]... not, why is my father allowed to accumulate as he chooses but not dispense with as he chooses?
If you're a meritocrat, you should be unafraid of fair and equal competition, and deeply suspicious of unearned advantages which retard the social and economic exchanges and competition of a free society. If you favour a capricious system of increasingly concentrated inheritance which has nothing to do with personal merit (there's nothing natural about state-backed primogeniture, any more than ultimogeniture or partible inheritance: just because something is the norm does not mean it has always been that way), there are only two real explanations:
1) You are afraid of competition from the working class.
2) Through casuistry, you choose not to see the compulsion of arbitrary inheritance as "force", presumably because something that appears natural must be somehow good, however absurd and arbitrary, while regulation and compulsion voted democratically by a Parliament is somehow "dirty", however much it expands liberty in the lives of ordinary people. Fortunately we gave up worshipping rain-clouds and the sun a long, long time ago - and call it what you will, force, compulsion, arbitrary diktat, there can be no level playing-field for a meritocratic society while we idly sit by and assume that the virtually flatlined social mobility of the last thirty years is going to redress the balance for us.
Originally posted by AmauroteThe above bears the hall-mark of the forum bore who nitpicks typing errors and excretes pompous jargon in lieu of intelligble argument.
The issue is quite simple: intellectual consistency.
If you're a meritocrat, you should be unafraid of fair and equal competition, and deeply suspicious of unearned advantages which retard the social and economic exchanges and competition of a free society. If you favour a capricious system of increasingly concentrated inheritance which has nothing to do ...[text shortened]... flatlined social mobility of the last thirty years is going to redress the balance for us.
As to the 'working class, it no longer exists in the UK: everyone is now either middle class and working (or retired), or underclass and living on 'benefits' paid for by the former.
Originally posted by AmauroteSo apparently you have no issue with a parent accumulating wealth(presumably through merit, although I would challenge that too -- many times someone gets wealthy through sheer good fortune). Your issue is with allowing that person to do what he wishes with his wealth. In particular, it should NOT go to his offspring unless they merit it. Is that right?
The issue is quite simple: intellectual consistency.
If you're a meritocrat, you should be unafraid of fair and equal competition, and deeply suspicious of unearned advantages which retard the social and economic exchanges and competition of a free society. If you favour a capricious system of increasingly concentrated inheritance which has nothing to do ...[text shortened]... flatlined social mobility of the last thirty years is going to redress the balance for us.
I'm not sure I see the rationale for restricting someone's behavior at or towards the end of their life. What is the magic at that point? Why not restrict people's behavior throughout their lives? Or is that what you are driving at?
If so, then I reject the premise that restricting people's freedom is necessary or desirable, especially in the name of combating the general stochasticity of the universe. Restricting freedom is too high a price to pay, and the gain -- more people of similar means -- won't make anyone happier. Human contentment results from meaningful and joyful interaction with friends and family, not as a result of equilibration of material wealth among neighbors.
Originally posted by CartanThat is possibly the funniest thing I've ever heard anyone say.
The above bears the hall-mark of the forum bore who nitpicks typing errors and excretes pompous jargon in lieu of intelligble argument.
As to the 'working class, it no longer exists in the UK: everyone is now either middle class and working (or retired), or underclass and living on 'benefits' paid for by the former.
Do you do stand up?
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteA final note on a side issue to a non-issue in the NHC debate.
Dear oh dear, another little sulk. Seriously, if you don't have the maturity to take insults, don't start dishing them out in the first place. You just look even sillier.
The state need play no more role in the transfer of an estate (a matter of contract) than it does in a billion billion other transactions that take place daily between voluntary parties, you'd have done as well to mention; buying a loaf of bread, tipping the waiter, engaging the services of a plumber, purchasing a bulk lot of second hand personal lubricant on E-bay. All of these are just as relevant i.e. not.
When a person owns something, that means they may dispose of it as they see fit. Arguing for UHC on the basis that a few people 'get lucky' when their parents die is unfathomable. Do you propose to make inheritance illegal? The introduction of death duties (a tax for dieing) just created another level of bureaucracy where wealth is put into trusts to protect it from the envy artists. The only winners - lawywers, accountants, solicitors. The biggest loser - average Joe.
You will need to expand on these 'impersonal forces' especially when it appears your solution includes some very personal threats. My owning something is not an initiation of force, threat of force or fraud against my fellow man.
You can bait (sp?) your breath all you like in regards to the survey criteria, taking a snap shot of only health care ignores many other factors, eg, is health care up and something else down? Is a 5 star health system possible in a economically destitute country? Then there'd be a chicken and egg to and fro, with you claiming prosperity is only possible when people who take wreckless risks with their health receive the same level of care as those that look after themselves.
I'm not interested in your stats anymore than I'm interested in how many people voted this or that way on some particular day in history. An individuals health care should not be put to the vote.
Correcting spelling and typos on internet forums, especially one so casual as RHP is no more than pointless, petty, posturing and if it was intended as an insult (intimated in the attached post) then it has been an abject failure, a tremendous backfire, even.
Originally posted by WajomaLooks as though he has finally admitted defeat, You have not provided him with any spelling, punctuation, or typing slips on which to base a reply.
A final note on a side issue to a non-issue in the NHC debate.
The state need play no more role in the transfer of an estate (a matter of contract) than it does in a billion billion other transactions that take place daily between voluntary parties, you'd have done as well to mention; buying a loaf of bread, tipping the waiter, engaging the services of a ...[text shortened]... d in the attached post) then it has been an abject failure, a tremendous backfire, even.
