Originally posted by eljefejesus With the criticism of capitalism typical of every major cyclical downturn, what hope do socialists have of seeing socialism revive? I say history has not been kind to the failed policies of the past, here's what wiki lists as some of the aspects of socialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Economics
"In the West, neoclassical liberal eco ...[text shortened]... back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.[92]"
socialism might actually make a comeback, if the parts of government that people don't do well are assigned to computers.
Originally posted by Sartor Resartus I thought we were talking about health care.That is what you referred to in your post about a proposed USA government measure and to which I replied.
Yes. And to answer your retort properly, I need to know if you think that the police should be paid for by taxation.
And you know where this is going, and that's why you're not answering.
If an elected government can force a police force, a war, roads, a fire brigade, down one's throat... then, by the same logic, they can do so with a health care plan as well.
Originally posted by shavixmir Yes. And to answer your retort properly, I need to know if you think that the police should be paid for by taxation.
And you know where this is going, and that's why you're not answering.
If an elected government can force a police force, a war, roads, a fire brigade, down one's throat... then, by the same logic, they can do so with a health care plan as well.
Yes and run it with the same wastefulness and lack of efficiency as we see in the UK NHS.
The difference is that health care is a personal service whereas the others you now mention are not. I should have that was obvious other than to a confused individual like you. We need community funded roads but not restaurants, for example, although we must ensure that no one starves for want of food.
Originally posted by Sartor Resartus Yes and run it with the same wastefulness and lack of efficiency as we see in the UK NHS.
The difference is that health care is a personal service whereas the others you now mention are not. I should have that was obvious other than to a confused individual like you. We need community funded roads but not restaurants, for example, although we must ensure that no one starves for want of food.
Actually the NHS runs one of the cheapest health care systems in the industrialized world. I don't know about quality, but efficiency - you bet.
Also, the important point you fail to take into account is that you benefit from others being healthy (since they can work more). So apart from any moral imperative to have universal coverage, there is plenty of economic reason to have it, since these kind of economic interactions cannot be taken into account by the free market.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Actually the NHS runs one of the cheapest health care systems in the industrialized world. I don't know about quality, but efficiency - you bet.
Also, the important point you fail to take into account is that you benefit from others being healthy (since they can work more). So apart from any moral imperative to have universal coverage, there is plent ...[text shortened]... it, since these kind of economic interactions cannot be taken into account by the free market.
The solution is to have all those that believe in free health care sign up for it and pay for it. All those that don't believe in free healthcare would have no claim on the free healthcare system.
Originally posted by Wajoma The solution is to have all those that believe in free health care sign up for it and pay for it. All those that don't believe in free healthcare would have no claim on the free healthcare system.
walla, everyone is happy.
I debunked this claim about 10 times already, but I'm happy to add another one to the tally.
The solution is to have all those that believe in free infrastructure sign up for it and pay for it. All those that don't believe in free infrastructure would have no claim on the free infrastructure system.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra I debunked this claim about 10 times already, but I'm happy to add another one to the tally.
The solution is to have all those that believe in free infrastructure sign up for it and pay for it. All those that don't believe in free infrastructure would have no claim on the free infrastructure system.
Sounds good, let's start with health care. If the new zealand state enforced accident compensation corporation were a private business it would be illegal for them to trade.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra I debunked this claim about 10 times already, but I'm happy to add another one to the tally.
The solution is to have all those that believe in free infrastructure sign up for it and pay for it. All those that don't believe in free infrastructure would have no claim on the free infrastructure system.
btw saying prisoners dilemma ten times does not amount to 'debunking', even once.
Originally posted by Sartor Resartus Yes and run it with the same wastefulness and lack of efficiency as we see in the UK NHS.
The difference is that health care is a personal service whereas the others you now mention are not. I should have that was obvious other than to a confused individual like you. We need community funded roads but not restaurants, for example, although we must ensure that no one starves for want of food.
The police isn't a personal service?
They've never benefitted me in my life. I don't want my tax payers money to be wated on them.
What then?
I don't want an army. I don't want nuclear weapons.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Does anyone still take Hayek, Friedman or planned economy-style socialists seriously?
As is so often the case, the optimum lies somewhere in the middle and combines the strong points of both ideologies.
Yes, the contributions of Hayek and Frieman have added not only layers of analysis, but well-respected contributions to studies of free markets that remain more relevant than centrally-planned models (I would say even victorious).
I would say as is often the case, the optimum lies at the unpopular free-market end but the political considerations always hold it back.
Politics does not always result in a high-growth world where the future is heavily considered and valued nor all the good that comes with such investments in the future.
Originally posted by shavixmir Isn't your government trying to adopt a health care bill?
The question is what type of harm to the economy and what type of benefits will be grouped in the ultimate proposal? We are not there yet, let alone at the signing of such a bill as would break the President's pledge to avoid raising taxes for the middle classes making under $250k a year.
Originally posted by zeeblebot socialism might actually make a comeback, if the parts of government that people don't do well are assigned to computers.
Originally posted by eljefejesus Yes, the contributions of Hayek and Frieman have added not only layers of analysis, but well-respected contributions to studies of free markets that remain more relevant than centrally-planned models (I would say even victorious).
I would say as is often the case, the optimum lies at the unpopular free-market end but the political considerations alway ...[text shortened]... s heavily considered and valued nor all the good that comes with such investments in the future.
Friedman should be tried for crimes against humanity.
Originally posted by shavixmir The police isn't a personal service?
They've never benefitted me in my life. I don't want my tax payers money to be wated on them.
What then?
I don't want an army. I don't want nuclear weapons.
reality check:
do you think that, in the absence of a police force, looters and other criminals wouldn't run riot? pretty soon you'd have warlords ruling much more harshly than any democratically-elected government with a capitalist orientation. what you said is like saying that a vaccination never did you any good because you never caught the disease you were vaccinated against.
as for an army, they're useful for keeping out invaders. and if the other guy had nuclear weapons, you'd better have some too, to deter him from using them or extorting you with them.
Socialism: is it dead yet?
05 Nov '09 16:55
Back to Top