NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.fredoneverything.net/SocializedMedicine.shtml



Fred Dates Hillary

Commy Sell-Out

August 8, 2007

In thinking about socialized medicine, a couple of points merit thought:

First, the people who are most against it least need it. Usually they are columnists of the political right and the people who read them. Columnists without exception are of intelligence above the average, as are almost all of their readers. With few if any exceptions, they are well educated. Consequently they tend to be prosperous, savvy, and very likely to have good insurance.

They also have little or, more likely, no real contact with anyone who might need socialized medicine. For example in Washington, which I know well, the klaxons of left and right berate each other from the cocktail parties of Georgetown and Cap Hill, eat in posh restaurants, and vacation in the Greek Isles. They do not know the people of the truck stops and gas stations.

Second, opponents of socialized medicine seem to think that such a system would be subject to exploitation by grifters and scam artists. They are right. Note that the grifters would not be people receiving care, but Republican doctors who would pad their bills and otherwise skim off unwatched cream. We are all against corruption until it is our turn at the trough. Note also that a woman with a broken leg does not pretend to have two broken legs so as to get an extra cast.

It seems to me that the underlying question is not that of socialized medicine but rather: What is our attitude as a nation toward people who are not very smart? Who furthermore are culturally impoverished? Who are among the substantial fraction of Americans who can barely read?

They exist in large numbers. Half the white population have IQs below 100. The proportion among various non-white groups is much higher. Throw in legal aliens with fourth-grade educations and little command of English, and people in small towns where the idea of going to college is only slightly stranger than that of going to Mars.

Few of them are welfare cheats. Usually they have worked hard all their lives. Often they vote Republican. They are just…”stupid” is unkind but perhaps best conveys their condition, though some of the apparent stupidity is in fact ignorance. They can’t balance a checkbook, must less understand rollovers on a 401(k). They don’t understand what 18% interest on a credit card means, and can’t read, much less understand, a contract. (“The party of the first part, hereinafter….”) They aren’t smart enough to be entrepreneurs. Very likely, they have never read a book in their lives.

Try to imagine never having read a book. You can’t do it.

Word-crafters of my acquaintance rail against Hillary for supporting socialized medicine. They seem to think that the beneficiaries of the program would be people like themselves, only shiftless. “I studied and worked my way up and made something of myself, and I take care of myself. Why don’t these lazy bastards to the same?” Easy. Because these of my friends have IQs averaging in excess of 140, while the lazy bastards (who in fact are neither) check in at maybe 90.

I often hear it said that people should be able to invest as they think best the payments they make into Social Security. Of course what is really going on is an attempt by stock funds to get their hands on lots of other people’s money. Still, the argument is made that freedom and free enterprise demand that government not take, etc. “It’s our money. Let us invest it.” This ignores the fact that over half the population is absolutely, irremediably, hermetically incapable of investing intelligently.

Now, what do we do with people who have obeyed all the fabled American rules, who have worked, perhaps at pathetic wages and no benefits, and never cheated, and been honest citizens, and then the bottling plant went to China and they’re old and have nothing? What?

We could be good social Darwinists and let them rot. They are not cutting edge people, not Verilog mechanics or optical engineers or hedge-fund managers. Who needs them? All right. If this is your position, say so. Look me in the eye and say, “Screw’em. I don’t care what happens to them and I’m not going to spend a red cent on them.” Say this, and I will understand you.

An obstacle to thought here is that the people in the editorial suites and cocktail parties are twiddlers of abstractions. Waving a shrimp speared on a toothpick, holding a glass of vintage Sobriquet, they speak of second-order supply side multiplier effects of marginal increases in labor costs and what Burke and Adam Smith said. You’ve seen their websites: “Rothman on Kleinfelter.” “Kleinfelter on Fergweiler.” “Fergweiler on Theftwunkel.” Intellectual sparring is their world.

It’s different to Mary Sal Wooten in a decaying trailer somewhere on 301 South, with her retinas peeling like wallpaper from diabetic retinopathy, ankles swollen and darkening toward gangrene, and the hospital won’t take her because it isn’t an emergency and she can’t afford her medicine. Really, truly no-shit can’t afford it.

What do we do with people like her? People who just flat can’t handle the complexity of today’s world? It seems to me that anyone who wants to think about socialized medicine has to answer that question before starting.

When I was a kid in King George Country, Virginia, the answer commonly was the federal government. Dahlgren Naval Proving Grounds was there. It hired a lot of the local country kids, rednecks as we now say, as gate guards, truck drivers, maintenance workers, and so on. These jobs legitimately needed doing, and those hired did them well. The jobs carried benefits and pensions. But the private sector won’t if it can avoid it.

What other solutions are available? Many say, “It’s a job for private charity.” This is another way of saying, “Screw’em, I ain’t paying a cent.” Yet others say cut taxes and the resulting economic boom will lift all boats. This is another way of saying, “Screw’em, I ain’t paying a cent.”

But let’s at least have the dignity to say what we mean. The truth is that large numbers of people cannot take care of themselves beyond showing up at work every day and spinning lug nuts on the assembly line. They aren’t going to invest wisely from youth because they aren’t smart enough. Employers aren’t going to provide retirements unless forced to. Hospitals won’t take them if they can avoid it. Do we say, “Screw’em, let’em croak”? Apparently. Then let’s say so plainly.

.


Yeah yeah yeah baby! Lets be honest and say what we mean. errr....isn't that one of the primary boasts of the loudmouthed wankstained redneck turkey molesting gimme gimme gimme neo-liberals? That only the Right is able to speak their truths...or minds.

Too rich for words really. Actually I find the entire article disturbing. I don't think Fred is saying anything...or is this such an intense subject it needs to be approached this kind of angle...'thought provoking' I guess. Yet here we are in the 21st century.

Something has gone wrong somewhere rather badly.

I've always been afraid to frequent your posts, per your OP lines.

But this time, nose-to-tha-grindstone.

Go team!!



That part about something gone wrong rather badly is right.
*nods solemnly*

What the hell is up with the title?

What the hell is up with the title?

I was inspired by this thread...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=537112

From the article:
Half the white population have IQs below 100.

I'd bloody hope so, or there's something seriously wrong.

Reminds me of one of my favourite sayings: "Think of how stupid the average person is, then remember that nearly 50% of people are stupider than that".

As for the article, it seems like the guy's just trying to justify his own view of "Screw 'em, I ain't paying a cent". He writes about the world of "intellectual sparring", yet that's exactly the world he's in when writing this article. Hypocrite.

I'm confused by this thread. Are you seriously misreading this column as grossly as you are, or what?

As for the article, it seems like the guy's just trying to justify his own view of "Screw 'em, I ain't paying a cent". He writes about the world of "intellectual sparring", yet that's exactly the world he's in when writing this article. Hypocrite.

I haven't seen him arguing for a case against socialized medicine in the article. Are you sure about that statement?

I'm confused by this thread. Are you seriously misreading this column as grossly as you are, or what?

I don't think so...

This is a rabid neo-liberal commentator. For him to broach the subject of universal health care takes some doing. However he really doesn't say much beyond that perhaps a change in thought on the subject is required. He however stays on the fence.

When one of these guys breaks it is fun to watch the feeding frenzy but this guy is not your average troll. Maybe another question is that perhaps libertarians have realised that they have been overwhelmed by wannabe libertarians.

Or maybe I'm just rambling... ;)

I don't think so...

I do.

I do.

Of course you do.

i found your rant (including the ranty title) confusing.

what is it that you like or dont like about the ...blog piece?...you have posted?

and who is fred?

Rightist Libertarian Loony Toon Waxes Lyrical About Socialised Medicine! NUTTER!!!


You make such delightful thread titles. :)

"They exist in large numbers. Half the white population have IQs below 100."

DUH!!!! 100 is the average IQ!!! *twitches. Spasms*

tl, dr

That article has stoled my brain.

Peanut butter :P

Socialized medicine? Go ahead, make it a campaign issue-we can use more conservative lawmakers. Your argument-people are too stupid not to have it-will just clinch the deal.
As one of the working poor, I stand to benefit a great deal from the program-and I oppose it heartily. I don't want the service I get from the Post Office at the medical clinic. I want to be able to choose my doctor, and I want the service on demand we get in America, not the "Wait in Line for Months" service our "enlightened" brothers in countries with socialized medicine get. If you really want to help the poor without crippling the economy by absconding with 20% of it, change the way we pay for medical services. Just come up with an "Injury Schedule"-payment amounts based on the medicak condition and it's strandard treatment paid directly to the sufferer by the insurance company and let them go shopping for services needed. Market forces will bring down medical expenses, especially as these people with 90 IQs go and argue down prices with their 140 IQ doctors.
Our current system is flawed, but the flaw is that no one pays for medicine-the insurance companies and medical profession have conspired to drive these prices up high enough everyone needs insurance for emergencies, and medical facilities are often incapable of handling cash because the insurance company is the standard payer.
The argument you present is nothing near the truth-this program isn't for the benefit of the poor or for "social equality"-it's to seize up more control over everyone's life and flush a few more personal freedoms down the toilet.
The argument I'm too stupid to know what's good for me is as fallacious as the argument socialists can't win elections because they're too intelligent to connect with the general public.

DUH!!!! 100 is the average IQ!!! *twitches. Spasms*

LG, you don't have IQ. You have C.Q. Clown Quotient. And unlike IQ, it builds over time, culminating in some kind of stupendously absurd prank.

Like that mud catapult you built. And the pit of candy floss. And the donut flinging, streaking event.

sounds like he's just outing right lbertarians and conservatives for what they are really.

i liked this bit... its why i often see conservatives/republicans as uncaring, uncompassionate, and heartless.

We could be good social Darwinists and let them rot. They are not cutting edge people, not Verilog mechanics or optical engineers or hedge-fund managers. Who needs them? All right. If this is your position, say so. Look me in the eye and say, “Screw’em. I don’t care what happens to them and I’m not going to spend a red cent on them.” Say this, and I will understand you.

Just to clarify, the writer of that article is NOT a libertarian, to anyone who might be confused.

Pure metal- The inherent statist position is that some people just aren't as smart or capable as us and we have to lift them up by their bootstraps (with a forklift we stole from the construction company at the point of a gun). On the other hand, libertarians believe that everyone should have a chance to succeed, not just people who know how to buy favors, bribe the government, or cheat the welfare system.

Socialized medicine is insane, and the fact that so many people here are for it is terrifying. Every liberal and every neocon are proponents of socialized medicine and an embezzling social security program--that should give you a hint as to their motives. Both neoconservatives and liberals voted for the Patriot Act in the name of national security. Neither side opposed when Pres. Bush recently redoubled the powers of the FDA, giving them the power to require the branding and implanted chipping of all cattle in the United States, a blatant breach of the Constitution and a move that will effectively wipe out small-time ranchers. Both sides voted for the REALID act, calling for a mandatory national ID card, effective 2008. Neither side has done anything about getting us the hell out of Iraq.

The government, given the slightest indication that it won't be dissolved or its politicians voted out of office by doing so, will ALWAYS vote itself more power. We can't give it that security.

sounds like he's just outing right lbertarians and conservatives for what they are really.

Bingo.

The rant is, from what I can grasp, seems to me to be almost tongue-in-cheek. The writer is presenting not a defense of socialized medicine, but an examination of the motives behind both proponents and opponents of socialized medicine...and it seems he thinks that both sides are disingenuous, money-grubbing political whores.

As far as I can tell.

Ketchup :D

tl, dr

to,dp

Bingo.

The rant is, from what I can grasp, seems to me to be almost tongue-in-cheek. The writer is presenting not a defense of socialized medicine, but an examination of the motives behind both proponents and opponents of socialized medicine...and it seems he thinks that both sides are disingenuous, money-grubbing political whores.

As far as I can tell.

thats what i got out of it.

that whether they are for or against government controlled health care the politicians have no idea of what its like to be the poor stupid slob who needs it. they are all the smart rich elite who are talking out their asses.

its a TEEEEENY bit condescening.

LG, you don't have IQ. You have C.Q. Clown Quotient. And unlike IQ, it builds over time, culminating in some kind of stupendously absurd prank.

Like that mud catapult you built. And the pit of candy floss. And the donut flinging, streaking event.

We each have our niche to fill. :)

Why does the title call this guy a rightist libertarian. This guy seems to be in no way way a rightist or a libertarian, and libertarians are neither rightists nor leftists. Regarding the article, why should anyone be forced to pay for the healthcare or any product or service of anyone else?

I think the problem here is misplaced confidence in government. Why do we trust an inefficient bureaucracy that destroys everyone's liberty to provide us with any services? They are inefficient, have no competition, and care about "customers" far less than any private industry.

thats what i got out of it.

that whether they are for or against government controlled health care the politicians have no idea of what its like to be the poor stupid slob who needs it. they are all the smart rich elite who are talking out their asses.

its a TEEEEENY bit condescening.

Just a bit. I looked over his website and it looks like he's fashioned himself in that whole Maddox mold.

I don't think that the article says what the op thinks it does, but I'm having a hard time unpacking what the op is getting at in general.

Also, I'm having a hard time descering what he means by 'neo-liberal.' It smacks of 'me too-ism,' but for arguments sake I'd like to hear what differentiates a 'neo-liberal' from a liberal. Perhaps an attempt to differentiate them from 'classic liberal' in that libertarian sense I guess...don't know.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/SocializedMedicine.shtml



Yeah yeah yeah baby! Lets be honest and say what we mean. errr....isn't that one of the primary boasts of the loudmouthed wankstained redneck turkey molesting gimme gimme gimme neo-liberals? That only the Right is able to speak their truths...or minds.

Too rich for words really. Actually I find the entire article disturbing. I don't think Fred is saying anything...or is this such an intense subject it needs to be approached this kind of angle...'thought provoking' I guess. Yet here we are in the 21st century.

Something has gone wrong somewhere rather badly.

This guy makes a valid point.

Why does the title call this guy a rightist libertarian. This guy seems to be in no way way a rightist or a libertarian, and libertarians are neither rightists nor leftists. Regarding the article, why should anyone be forced to pay for the healthcare or any product or service of anyone else?

I think the problem here is misplaced confidence in government. Why do we trust an inefficient bureaucracy that destroys everyone's liberty to provide us with any services? They are inefficient, have no competition, and care about "customers" far less than any private industry.

When you pay for insurance you are really paying for someone else. The money you put in doesn't go to a 'you only' account, so really the money you put in actually does pay for someone else. And that 'someone else' will get out more than they put in in many circumstances, and that's your money.

Not only does your money go to help someone else, but a third party takes a cut of that and buys himself a yacht with your money.

So why is it different to take the yacht out of the equation, get more people putting in, and covering everyone?

Half the white population have IQs below 100

Oh wow, how could I let this gem go?

SPOILER: IQ is mapped according to a roughly Gaussian distribution. Of course half of the population has an IQ less than 100, since 100 is the statistical mean and 50% of all results will be above and 50% will be below no matter what.

Gee, I wonder which side of the distribution this guy is on?

Oh wow, how could I let this gem go?

SPOILER: IQ is mapped according to a roughly Gaussian distribution. Of course half of the population has an IQ less than 100, since 100 is the statistical mean and 50% of all results will be above and 50% will be below no matter what.

Gee, I wonder which side of the distribution this guy is on?
You know, everyone is reading this as a discovery and I don't think that that was his intention.

I read it as establishment-it's not like he's telling you something you don't know but rather to establish part of his premise he has to lay out his terms. I don't see any indication that he doesn't understand that that is how it works except maybe his division by race (note that it's only the half way mark for crackers, the racial divide moves 100 up from the half way mark a bit...)

I read it as establishment-it's not like he's telling you something you don't know but rather to establish part of his premise he has to lay out his terms. I don't see any indication that he doesn't understand that that is how it works except maybe his division by race (note that it's only the half way mark for crackers, the racial divide moves 100 up from the half way mark a bit...)

It's the fact that he's using is as a sign of some deep-seated social problem that bothers me; we are neither unique nor alone in having an intelligence distribution like that, and using it to argue against socialized medicine, especially with a racial aspect thrown in, is fallacious at best. The intelligence of the population has nothing really to do with the efficacy of socialized medicine.

It's the fact that he's using is as a sign of some deep-seated social problem that bothers me; we are neither unique nor alone in having an intelligence distribution like that, and using it to argue against socialized medicine, especially with a racial aspect thrown in, is fallacious at best. The intelligence of the population has nothing really to do with the efficacy of socialized medicine.

what he is doing is to remind us that one half of all americans are too freaking STUPID to make a reasonable decision on health care. that they are poor stupid slobs who we rich smart wonderful people either care about or not.

if we dont care about these .... imbeciles... we are against socialized medicine. if we do care about them we are for it.

its all a question of "noblesse oblige"

When you pay for insurance you are really paying for someone else. The money you put in doesn't go to a 'you only' account, so really the money you put in actually does pay for someone else. And that 'someone else' will get out more than they put in in many circumstances, and that's your money.

Not only does your money go to help someone else, but a third party takes a cut of that and buys himself a yacht with your money.

So why is it different to take the yacht out of the equation, get more people putting in, and covering everyone?

Paying for insurance is entirely voluntary, while taxation is forced.

Paying for insurance is entirely voluntary, while taxation is forced.

This doesn't change the 'why should I pay for someone else' that you initially proposed. Regardless of whether you voluntarily pay for it or not, it's still paying for someone else.

to,dp

??

This doesn't change the 'why should I pay for someone else' that you initially proposed. Regardless of whether you voluntarily pay for it or not, it's still paying for someone else.

why should anyone be forced to pay for the healthcare or any product or service of anyone else?

Why should anyone be forced is what I said. Not why should anyone, but why should they be forced. If they voluntarily pay for everyone else through insurance or even charity, that is fine, that is their choice, and even the choice I would make.

Why should anyone be forced is what I said. Not why should anyone, but why should they be forced. If they voluntarily pay for everyone else through insurance or even charity, that is fine, that is their choice, and even the choice I would make.

Alright-different premise than I had initially read. I'll address this then instead.

Same reason you pay for roads. The overall cost of letting the populace become sick or ill becomes greater than treating them to begin with. Regardless of whether or not you believe in the 'safety net' there is a societal cost to letting those who cannot afford insurance or medical care get sicker, become unable to work or pay their bills.

How many of the people that are defaulting and causing the current credit crisis are doing it not because of sub-prime lending, but because medical costs have made them unable to pay their bills? All that money that the lassiez faire crowd like so much being in the economy is lost from people who can no longer be 'good little consumers' because medical costs have crippled their ability to meet their basic needs much less their obligation to buy useless crap to keep this economy going? How much work force is lost by people who were not able to get the care that they needed and as a result became too sick/disabled to work anymore?

This is without the safety net, with the safety net set as low as it is, the cost is even greater because it becomes a matter of pay a little now or pay a lot later.

If your basic concern for your fellow human beings or countrymen isn't enough, your own self interest should be enough. If you make money, you pretty much make money off someone else-you need that someone else and they need to be healthy in order to be that someone else. You have to look past your paycheck to see where that paycheck comes from.

Not all insurance is voluntary. If I want to drive legally, I better have auto insurance. Now when some jackass is yackin' on his cell phone (or TEXTING, ffs), and outstrips his deductible, guess whose rates go up if he's got my company's insurance? Mine.

Insurance strikes me as a scam.

The article in the OP is pretty much right about people, though. Even if his position on healthcare is ambiguous.

what he is doing is to remind us that one half of all americans are too freaking STUPID to make a reasonable decision on health care. that they are poor stupid slobs who we rich smart wonderful people either care about or not.

Which, of course, is a weak argument at best. A healthy population is a boon for the economy no matter what the intelligence of each individual happens to be; a sick factory worker or janitor costs a company money and productivity just like a CEO or engineer.

It might not be the same impact per capita, but it adds up to a significant economic disadvantage.

if we dont care about these .... imbeciles... we are against socialized medicine. if we do care about them we are for it.

its all a question of "noblesse oblige"

Given that said people do play a significant role in our economy, one that is often underappreciated, the benefits of such healthcare programs is pretty significant.

Why does the title call this guy a rightist libertarian. This guy seems to be in no way way a rightist or a libertarian, and libertarians are neither rightists nor leftists. Regarding the article, why should anyone be forced to pay for the healthcare or any product or service of anyone else?

I think the problem here is misplaced confidence in government. Why do we trust an inefficient bureaucracy that destroys everyone's liberty to provide us with any services? They are inefficient, have no competition, and care about "customers" far less than any private industry.

You obviously have never heard of the Political Compass. (http://www.politicalcompass.org/). Let's just say its the Ark of teh Covenant for NSG political debate. Check it out, and you'll see where we are all coming from.

Why does the title call this guy a rightist libertarian. This guy seems to be in no way way a rightist or a libertarian, and libertarians are neither rightists nor leftists. Regarding the article, why should anyone be forced to pay for the healthcare or any product or service of anyone else?

You do. Even without a government healthcare system, the cost of providing it to workers (along with the economic cost of sick workers in the first place) is factored in to every product you buy. The main problem is that the current system is actually less efficient and produces inadequate care for millions of people despite higher per-capita healthcare expenditures than the rest of the world.

We spend more on healthcare but get less for it.

You do. Even without a government healthcare system, the cost of providing it to workers (along with the economic cost of sick workers in the first place) is factored in to every product you buy. The main problem is that the current system is actually less efficient and produces inadequate care for millions of people despite higher per-capita healthcare expenditures than the rest of the world.

We spend more on healthcare but get less for it.

But when you buy something, you choose to buy it. Taxation is force. I agree that the current system is flawed in the USA, probably for different reasons than you think, though.

You obviously have never heard of the Political Compass.. Let's just say its the Ark of teh Covenant for NSG political debate. Check it out, and you'll see where we are all coming from.

I see. By rightist he means capitalist. Understood. I have done that compass, I just took the score out of my signature. It was economic:9.00, social: -6.36.


Same reason you pay for roads. The overall cost of letting the populace become sick or ill becomes greater than treating them to begin with. Regardless of whether or not you believe in the 'safety net' there is a societal cost to letting those who cannot afford insurance or medical care get sicker, become unable to work or pay their bills.

How many of the people that are defaulting and causing the current credit crisis are doing it not because of sub-prime lending, but because medical costs have made them unable to pay their bills? All that money that the lassiez faire crowd like so much being in the economy is lost from people who can no longer be 'good little consumers' because medical costs have crippled their ability to meet their basic needs much less their obligation to buy useless crap to keep this economy going? How much work force is lost by people who were not able to get the care that they needed and as a result became too sick/disabled to work anymore?

This is without the safety net, with the safety net set as low as it is, the cost is even greater because it becomes a matter of pay a little now or pay a lot later.

If your basic concern for your fellow human beings or countrymen isn't enough, your own self interest should be enough. If you make money, you pretty much make money off someone else-you need that someone else and they need to be healthy in order to be that someone else. You have to look past your paycheck to see where that paycheck comes from.

Very well, I see that you believe that it will have benefits (I disagree), but does that truly justify using force to make everyone pay for someone else's problems? I don't think the initiation of force is ever justified. I certainly think the current system in the USA is deeply flawed. However, I don't think more government control is the answer.

But when you buy something, you choose to buy it. Taxation is force. I agree that the current system is flawed in the USA, probably for different reasons than you think, though.



I see. By rightist he means capitalist. Understood. I have done that compass, I just took the score out of my signature. It was economic:9.00, social: -6.36.



Very well, I see that you believe that it will have benefits (I disagree), but does that truly justify using force to make everyone pay for someone else's problems? I don't think the initiation of force is ever justified. I certainly think the current system in the USA is deeply flawed. However, I don't think more government control is the answer.
The issue of force was mitigated when we went all apeshit about taxation without representation. While I don't neccisarily believe we have achieved that in total, we do have representation so it's not as much an issue of 'force' as it would be with, say, the sheriff of Nottingham. So I think to simplify it as 'force' is to radically over-simplify the situation.

But when you buy something, you choose to buy it. Taxation is force. I agree that the current system is flawed in the USA, probably for different reasons than you think, though.

Within reason, of course. Some products, you don't really have a choice on whether or not to buy them unless you want to live in poverty, poor health, or outright die. However, I don't think we disagree on the idea that the government programs currently in place are broken.

Personally, I support a government financial aid program to allow the poor to get health insurance; that way, it neither competes with private sector insurance companies or intrudes in to the healthcare market, but allows people to get the insurance they need without massive financial burden. This way, the benefits of the private sector are retained, especially the rise in premiums that abuse of the system would produce; these people are encouraged to pursue healthy habits which in turn lifts the overall quality of national health and reduces use of the system.

Within reason, of course. Some products, you don't really have a choice on whether or not to buy them unless you want to live in poverty, poor health, or outright die. However, I don't think we disagree on the idea that the government programs currently in place are broken.

Yes, but you do have a choice which product to buy as long as competition exists. And I certainly agree that government programs in place are broken.


Personally, I support a government financial aid program to allow the poor to get health insurance; that way, it neither competes with private sector insurance companies or intrudes in to the healthcare market, but allows people to get the insurance they need without massive financial burden. This way, the benefits of the private sector are retained, especially the rise in premiums that abuse of the system would produce; these people are encouraged to pursue healthy habits which in turn lifts the overall quality of national health and reduces use of the system.

That seems quite reasonable, although I would still be against it. I think it does compete with the private sector though, as there would be no need for private insurance for those people. It is still infinitely better than the current system in the USA, IMO, and also infinitely better than universal socialized care.

I haven't seen him arguing for a case against socialized medicine in the article. Are you sure about that statement?
He's not arguing for it and he spends pretty much the entire article abusing those who would most benefit from it.

What a sad way to look at people.

I was always taught not to be arrogant, not to judge people inappropriately or consider them worthless. I expect the best from people.

I think that if people aren't expected to do their best, then they won't. You have to hold everyone to high standards because otherwise they'll never meet them.

He's basically saying that much of the population is subhuman scum, incapable of surviving. He's saying they're retarded and would starve to death if we didn't come and save them. If Ayn Rand had read this she would have projectile-vomited profusely all over my room. Could it be that perhaps expecting people to be worthless is a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Regardless of the arguments pro and con socialised healthcare, I think his view of other people is disgusting. Any system based on it must lead towards a whole society full of disgusting people.

Which, of course, is a weak argument at best. A healthy population is a boon for the economy no matter what the intelligence of each individual happens to be; a sick factory worker or janitor costs a company money and productivity just like a CEO or engineer.

It might not be the same impact per capita, but it adds up to a significant economic disadvantage.



Given that said people do play a significant role in our economy, one that is often underappreciated, the benefits of such healthcare programs is pretty significant.

he has a point, i just dont like the way he stated it.

there is a "libertarian arrogance" that hold that since *I* am smart enough to invest my own money and not face financial disaster through moronic mistakes, since *I* am smart enough to have a good job that provides me with insurance, that there is no need for social safety nets like social security, welfare and socialized medicine.

the sad fate of those who arent as fortunate as *I* am is just their tough luck and they should rot with their bad decisions.

there is the "liberal arrogance" that suggests that only these wonderful educated well to do people can possibly decide what is best for the unwashed masses. to save them, we must herd them all into state run lives for their own good.

both attitudes are disrespectful of the average american who has to be very careful not to end up with medical bills that they cannot possibly pay and a retirement fund that got emptied out by enron.

its sad that someone like you even has to put forward the argument that normal hardworking men and women have actual societal value. i think that is what he was getting at.

Within reason, of course. Some products, you don't really have a choice on whether or not to buy them unless you want to live in poverty, poor health, or outright die.

So in other words, you do have a choice.

From the article:


I'd bloody hope so, or there's something seriously wrong.

Reminds me of one of my favourite sayings: "Think of how stupid the average person is, then remember that nearly 50% of people are stupider than that".


Congratulations. You have just demonstrated that you do not know the difference between the "mean" and the "median".

Just to clarify, the writer of that article is NOT a libertarian, to anyone who might be confused.

No? Pray tell...

Just a bit. I looked over his website and it looks like he's fashioned himself in that whole Maddox mold.

I don't think that the article says what the op thinks it does, but I'm having a hard time unpacking what the op is getting at in general.

Also, I'm having a hard time descering what he means by 'neo-liberal.' It smacks of 'me too-ism,' but for arguments sake I'd like to hear what differentiates a 'neo-liberal' from a liberal. Perhaps an attempt to differentiate them from 'classic liberal' in that libertarian sense I guess...don't know.

Neo-liberal...its what we have been living under in the last 30 odd years...might is right, fuck the hindmost...let the markets rule...

So in other words, you do have a choice.

Choices don't work like that.

Oh wow, how could I let this gem go?

SPOILER: IQ is mapped according to a roughly Gaussian distribution. Of course half of the population has an IQ less than 100, since 100 is the statistical mean and 50% of all results will be above and 50% will be below no matter what.

Gee, I wonder which side of the distribution this guy is on?

This is beginning to scare me.

You honestly believe IQ is based on entirely the "white population"?

What a sad way to look at people.

I was always taught not to be arrogant, not to judge people inappropriately or consider them worthless. I expect the best from people.

I think that if people aren't expected to do their best, then they won't. You have to hold everyone to high standards because otherwise they'll never meet them.

He's basically saying that much of the population is subhuman scum, incapable of surviving. He's saying they're retarded and would starve to death if we didn't come and save them. If Ayn Rand had read this she would have projectile-vomited profusely all over my room. Could it be that perhaps expecting people to be worthless is a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Regardless of the arguments pro and con socialised healthcare, I think his view of other people is disgusting. Any system based on it must lead towards a whole society full of disgusting people.

I think he deliberately overstates for effect... but (as unpalatable as it seems) what he says is just an exaggeration of truth.

No... I'm not saying half the population is too stupid to live. But, let's look at an example... credit card debt. The amount you have going out, must be less than the amount coming in - or you incur debt.

In theory it's a simple principle... much simpler than calculating premia, for example. I suspect, however, that quite a large number of people have 'uncontrollable' credit card debt.

Add to that the fact that we live in a 'marketing' culture, where the cardinal rule is 'buyer, beware'... and a lot of people simply will not be able to make good, informed decisions.

With that knowledge, it really does come down to 'I'm alright, Jack' to oppose socialised healthcare.

This is beginning to scare me.

You honestly believe IQ is based on entirely the "white population"?

Not to mention that half the population does not have an IQ below 100. It's a curve. The plurality of the population has an IQ of 100.

Not to mention that half the population does not have an IQ below 100. It's a curve. The plurality of the population has an IQ of 100.
I'm feeling on the sad end of that curve 'cause I knew better but went along anyway...

Not to mention that half the population does not have an IQ below 100.
That is correct.
It's a curve. The plurality of the population has an IQ of 100.

That is incorrect. The AVERAGE IQ of a population is 100. But averages tell you nothing about distribution. The problem is that some people (way too many) do not know the difference between average (or mean) and median.

'loudmouthed wankstained redneck turkey molesting gimme gimme gimme neo-liberal'

‘loudmouthed wankstained redneck turkey molesting gimme gimme gimme neo-liberals’, eh?

So let’s see, shall we?

loudmouthed

“Loudmouthed” just means you are not very polite and are ready to talk loudly and clearly about stuff you believe in. I don’t see anything wrong with this.

wankstained

I assume this means you masturbate. To porn and all. I don’t think there’s anybody on the Internet that does not, and again, nothing wrong with this.

redneck

That’s a derogatory term for one of those people who drive large red pickup trucks, believe in minding your own business, own guns and eat waterme- wait, watermelons are from a different stereotype. Using such a term only reveals the user as the intolerant [avoiding descent to insults] he is. And rednecks are awesome. Proud to be an Israeli, Jewish, Hank William Jr. listener!

turkey molesting

From a an atheist/agnostic attitude there is nothing quite morally wrong with it – not more then actually killing and eating your animals, at least, and if you don’t believe in animal rights, I don’t see how you should be bothered – apart from the ‘awww icky’ factor.

I don’t have sex with turkeys – but I suppose eating them should also count, here.

Again, nothing wrong with this.

gimme-gimme-gimme

If this is a reference to not wanting to pay from your pocket for idiotic government expenses, that is all wring – it’s leftists who want my stuff to be given to them. But I suppose it refers to me selfishly not wanting to pay the salaries of people who stomp on kittens.

neo-liberals

Nothing wrong with this one, either. I just have a different opinion from you. Boo-hoo.

So in summary, I am proud to be a loudmouthed wankstained redneck turkey molesting gimme gimme gimme neo-liberal!

In theory it's a simple principle... much simpler than calculating premia, for example. I suspect, however, that quite a large number of people have 'uncontrollable' credit card debt.
And you would absolve them of the responsibility for that by saying they never had a choice, they were somehow conditioned to not understand the notion that spending money you don't have is a bad idea?

Look, I'm quite willing to accept that there are some people out there less intelligent than others. But within reason!

And most importantly, you should never give people the idea that it is okay to behave stupidly, that it is okay to not care. As I said, the expectations you have of people are self-fulfilling prophecies. Yes, you have an IQ of 90, yes, you didn't finish high school - but no, that doesn't mean you're incapable of living, that doesn't mean you're just some organism without purpose and that doesn't mean it's okay to give up on yourself.

Add to that the fact that we live in a 'marketing' culture, where the cardinal rule is 'buyer, beware'... and a lot of people simply will not be able to make good, informed decisions.
I'd love for us to return to 'buyer beware', but a quick glance at consumer protection law will tell you that it would be quite a change.

I'm unwilling to accept though that people are unable to make good decisions. Life is making decisions: if you're not good at that, you're not good at life.

I accept that some people don't have the information they need. I'm a firm advocate of teaching personal finance skills throughout school life, and offering such courses in community centres as well. If you wanted to be all statist about it, you could even require attendance at such courses for anyone who managed to overload themselves with debt to the point of bankruptcy, got thrown out of their house, remains on welfare for prolonged periods of time and the like.

But even if such courses are not as freely available as they should be: being able to handle money and other basic skills are minimum requirements for life. There can be no excuses for not having them, because all you'd do is generate a giant moral hazard problem in which the more incapable and worthless you make yourself as a human being, the easier your life becomes. We can't reward being a bad human.

With that knowledge, it really does come down to 'I'm alright, Jack' to oppose socialised healthcare.
Well, his argument comes down to the "I never had a choice!"-line. I think that's a horrible way of looking at life, it's a philosophy of fatalism. You can't base your life on that.

Look, I'm not making an argument against socialised healthcare here. I'm making an argument against his argument, or rather the view of the world it reinforces. There is something good and worthwhile in every single person, no one can be given up on and no one can rightly be stripped of both the rights and the responsibilities they have as a human being.

What a sad way to look at people.

I was always taught not to be arrogant, not to judge people inappropriately or consider them worthless. I expect the best from people.

I think that if people aren't expected to do their best, then they won't. You have to hold everyone to high standards because otherwise they'll never meet them.

He's basically saying that much of the population is subhuman scum, incapable of surviving.
No he is not saying that at all. He is saying not all the populations are above average in their intelligence, and many do not possess a particular compliment of skills/capacities.

He's saying they're retarded and would starve to death if we didn't come and save them.
No, he is not. It may be news to you, but most of us know that large numbers of non-retarded humans are not proficient at making sound investments. In fact I suggest the large majority of people who fail to invest well are not retarded.

Perhaps you (somewhat arrogantly I suggest) think that anyone who cannot 'invest' well or read complicated 'legalese' is 'retarded' and 'would starve to death if we didn't come and save them', but the fact is I know people who hold post-graduate degrees who have lost more money investing than they've made. I know highly skilled crafts-persons who cannot make heads nor tails of the fine print in their hire purchase agreements.

You might consider the above mentioned people retarded, sub-humans who would all starve to death if we didn't all come save them, but I suggest your belief that you do not judge people inappropriately is misguided and mistaken if that's the case.

If Ayn Rand had read this she would have projectile-vomited profusely all over my room.
Well, that seals it. A brilliant fictional author like her forced to projectile-vomit profusely, even after death. Oh the inhumanity!

Could it be that perhaps expecting people to be worthless is a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Sure, and it can be a motivator in achievement too. It's hardly the point either way. Across many areas expectations in modern industrialised societies are higher than they've ever been, and in the case of some peoples' expectations, unreasonably so.

Regardless of the arguments pro and con socialised healthcare, I think his view of other people is disgusting. Any system based on it must lead towards a whole society full of disgusting people.
You are conflating your own view with the author's perhaps. While you might think the incapacities named by the author constitute sub-human retardation, not everyone shares your inappropriate judgment of the very many humans who struggle or fail to make heads nor tails of investment markets and the 'legalese' fine print of their hire purchase agreements.

It's all very good and well to note what a minority are able to achieve, but it's not reasonable to conclude that everyone can do it because some can. Investment is a fancy word for gambling; ask anyone who held Enron shares. We know a minority of people can climb Mt Everest, we know some have tried and died. Are the latter subhuman? Retarded? We know a minority of people can do very well financially out of investing, does that make the majority of who fail to retarded?

The majority of the skills and capacities needed to plan financially (quite aside from the skills/capacities needed to acquire the finances to plan), are novel to the human race, so far as we know, no one, no matter how intelligent, read or indeed authored written contracts 20,000 years ago. Indeed we evidence suggests there were no systems of 'writing' prior to about 10,000 years ago.

It should not be necessary to point out to you that for most of human history, most humans have never come into contact with a legal document. To not know how to interpret a hire-purchase agreement is the norm for most humans throughout most of human history. The same is true of investing on the modern financial and/or stock markets. Many humans have managed to not starve to death without someone saving, them throughout all of human history - the vast majority actually. They were not all retarded, sub-human or otherwise worthless.

No, he is not. It may be news to you, but most of us know that large numbers of non-retarded humans are not proficient at making sound investments. In fact I suggest the large majority of people who fail to invest well are not retarded.
I'm not talking about building a profitable investment portfolio - that is a quite complicated thing to do (and it isn't gambling) and requires knowledge and experience which not everyone has.

I'm talking about basic financial decisions, like not getting into amounts of credit card debt you can't pay back, like selecting a health insurer and other insurance policies and indeed picking a fund or investment account you can put your spare money in. Because then someone else has to build that portfolio and you can do whatever it is you're good at.

Perhaps you (somewhat arrogantly I suggest) think that anyone who cannot 'invest' well or read complicated 'legalese' is 'retarded' and 'would starve to death if we didn't come and save them'...
That is in effect what he is saying: these people are incapable of taking care of themselves financially, hence we have to do it.

...but the fact is I know people who hold post-graduate degrees who have lost more money investing than they've made. I know highly skilled crafts-persons who cannot make heads nor tails of the fine print in their hire purchase agreements.
And there is no excuse for the latter. We shouldn't pretend it is okay for someone to not understand a contract or what compound interest is. And we certainly shouldn't take it as an unchangable fact of life that we just have to cover for with programs like socialised healthcare.

Across many areas expectations in modern industrialised societies are higher than they've ever been, and in the case of some peoples' expectations, unreasonably so.
And, aren't more people achieving more than they ever have before? So why then accept that there is some "underclass" of people of whom we can't have high expectations?

Indeed we evidence suggests there were no systems of 'writing' prior to about 10,000 years ago.
No, because back then understanding contracts or compound interest weren't exactly central to survival. But you wouldn't find someone from back then who isn't capable of understanding the use of various tools.

‘loudmouthed wankstained redneck turkey molesting gimme gimme gimme neo-liberals’, eh?

So let’s see, shall we?



“Loudmouthed” just means you are not very polite and are ready to talk loudly and clearly about stuff you believe in. I don’t see anything wrong with this.



I assume this means you masturbate. To porn and all. I don’t think there’s anybody on the Internet that does not, and again, nothing wrong with this.



That’s a derogatory term for one of those people who drive large red pickup trucks, believe in minding your own business, own guns and eat waterme- wait, watermelons are from a different stereotype. Using such a term only reveals the user as the intolerant [avoiding descent to insults] he is. And rednecks are awesome. Proud to be an Israeli, Jewish, Hank William Jr. listener!



From a an atheist/agnostic attitude there is nothing quite morally wrong with it – not more then actually killing and eating your animals, at least, and if you don’t believe in animal rights, I don’t see how you should be bothered – apart from the ‘awww icky’ factor.

I don’t have sex with turkeys – but I suppose eating them should also count, here.

Again, nothing wrong with this.



If this is a reference to not wanting to pay from your pocket for idiotic government expenses, that is all wring – it’s leftists who want my stuff to be given to them. But I suppose it refers to me selfishly not wanting to pay the salaries of people who stomp on kittens.



Nothing wrong with this one, either. I just have a different opinion from you. Boo-hoo.

So in summary, I am proud to be a loudmouthed wankstained redneck turkey molesting gimme gimme gimme neo-liberal!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/rof.gif

I tip my hat to you;)

That is incorrect. The AVERAGE IQ of a population is 100. But averages tell you nothing about distribution. The problem is that some people (way too many) do not know the difference between average (or mean) and median.
Averages don't tell you anything about distribution. However, I've seen the curve, and the curve does. The plurality of the population has an IQ of 100.

The Daily Mail called, they'd like their headline back, please.

The Daily Mail called, they'd like their headline back, please.

Call it a fiver ;)

And you would absolve them of the responsibility for that by saying they never had a choice, they were somehow conditioned to not understand the notion that spending money you don't have is a bad idea?


I said nothing about absolving anyone of responsibility.

However, I don't thinksomeone should suffer from disease, just because they lack money, or lack the aptitudes to make good decisions with money.


Look, I'm quite willing to accept that there are some people out there less intelligent than others. But within reason!


Why? What 'reason' would you say was the limit? The guy who thought it was okay to fight bears... was that stupidity that is 'within reason'?

And - maybe I've oversimplified in my attempt to refer to the article, but it's not about stupidity, per se.


And most importantly, you should never give people the idea that it is okay to behave stupidly, that it is okay to not care. As I said, the expectations you have of people are self-fulfilling prophecies. Yes, you have an IQ of 90, yes, you didn't finish high school - but no, that doesn't mean you're incapable of living, that doesn't mean you're just some organism without purpose and that doesn't mean it's okay to give up on yourself.


I'm not making that argument. On the other hand - is it okay to punish people just because they are stupid?


I'd love for us to return to 'buyer beware', but a quick glance at consumer protection law will tell you that it would be quite a change.


Maybe where you are from. In the US, it is very much buyer beware, and I suspect it really is where you are from also, if you think about it.

If you have products in which the ingredients use esoteric terms for simple components (like 'aqua' for water, for example.. that's a favourite) then you do have a buyer beware mentality. If your food industry allows common phrases to 'mean' something else (again - a favourite is the fact that a lot of places allow 'fresh' to mean 'never frozen' in the context of food), then you have a buyer beware mentality.


I'm unwilling to accept though that people are unable to make good decisions. Life is making decisions: if you're not good at that, you're not good at life.


I disagree. Life isn't just about handling money. Indeed... it's an arbitrary concept that has no real application. Not possessing THAT 'skill' doesn't make you a 'failure at life'... it just makes you fucked in a buyer beware, non-caring culture.


I accept that some people don't have the information they need. I'm a firm advocate of teaching personal finance skills throughout school life, and offering such courses in community centres as well. If you wanted to be all statist about it, you could even require attendance at such courses for anyone who managed to overload themselves with debt to the point of bankruptcy, got thrown out of their house, remains on welfare for prolonged periods of time and the like.


Why not make such courses mandatory for everyone? With refreshers every six months till you die?


But even if such courses are not as freely available as they should be: being able to handle money and other basic skills are minimum requirements for life.


No... they are 'minimum requirements for life' in a buyer beware, non-caring culture.


There can be no excuses for not having them, because all you'd do is generate a giant moral hazard problem in which the more incapable and worthless you make yourself as a human being, the easier your life becomes. We can't reward being a bad human.


You think money is the mark of a good human?

You think being a good accountant is a moral issue?

You think your 'value as a human being' is ordained by your bank-balance?


Well, his argument comes down to the "I never had a choice!"-line. I think that's a horrible way of looking at life, it's a philosophy of fatalism. You can't base your life on that.

Look, I'm not making an argument against socialised healthcare here. I'm making an argument against his argument, or rather the view of the world it reinforces. There is something good and worthwhile in every single person, no one can be given up on and no one can rightly be stripped of both the rights and the responsibilities they have as a human being.

I think this heads ina progressively esoteric direction, where we would have to discuss what sould be considered the 'rights' and 'responsibilities' inherent in being 'a human being'... and why we think those things apply.

‘loudmouthed wankstained redneck turkey molesting gimme gimme gimme neo-liberals’, eh?


So in summary, I am proud to be a loudmouthed wankstained redneck turkey molesting gimme gimme gimme neo-liberal!

Soooooooooooooo sigworthy.
*bows*

On the other hand - is it okay to punish people just because they are stupid?
Well, no one is being punished. They're just not being helped. Reality does the punishing, just like a Neanderthal who can't hunt will find himself punished.

Maybe where you are from. In the US, it is very much buyer beware, and I suspect it really is where you are from also, if you think about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty

I disagree. Life isn't just about handling money. Indeed... it's an arbitrary concept that has no real application. Not possessing THAT 'skill' doesn't make you a 'failure at life'... it just makes you fucked in a buyer beware, non-caring culture.
Well, for good or bad we live in this culture. In this culture, handling money is an integral life skill.

If we lived in a different culture, we'd need different skills to survive. And it still wouldn't be okay to just not have those skills and not to bother with acquiring them.

Why not make such courses mandatory for everyone?
Well, if they're taught at school, they sorta would be.

With refreshers every six months till you die?
Meh, I don't think you need to be retaught how a credit card works every six months.

I think this heads ina progressively esoteric direction, where we would have to discuss what sould be considered the 'rights' and 'responsibilities' inherent in being 'a human being'... and why we think those things apply.
A functioning Neanderthal should be able to find food. A functioning medieval peasant should be able to grow wheat or milk a cow. A functioning modern person should be able to read a contract, understand a credit card or use a computer.

The only excuse is some sort of disability, be it genetic, due to an accident or due to age. And that is what I'm saying: by telling us that these people don't posess the basic skills required to survive in this world, he's telling us that these people are in fact retarded.

Soooooooooooooo sigworthy.
*bows*

Sigged already.

Well, no one is being punished. They're just not being helped. Reality does the punishing, just like a Neanderthal who can't hunt will find himself punished.


Two things: we consider ourselves fairly sophisticated and civilised versus neanderthal, do we not? Why would you use 'it's okay for neanderthals' as an argument?

And second: obviously, you are wrong. We are a gregarious species, because our survival doesn't automatically depend upon EVERY member of the pack having EVERY skill or ability.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty


And?


Well, for good or bad we live in this culture. In this culture, handling money is an integral life skill.

If we lived in a different culture, we'd need different skills to survive. And it still wouldn't be okay to just not have those skills and not to bother with acquiring them.


What makes it 'okay'? In our close-knit society, we 'need' advanced social skills. Some people lack social delicacy and will never be able to acquire it... is that 'okay'?


Meh, I don't think you need to be retaught how a credit card works every six months.


Why not? Having seen how quickly people degenerate in their ability to drive, for example, I'm firmly of the opinion that drivers should have to take refresher courses every six months. And, handling (and making good decisions with) money isn't automatically just 'how a credit card works'.

I'm beginning to think you oversimplify deliberately so you don't have to make a real response.


A functioning Neanderthal should be able to find food. A functioning medieval peasant should be able to grow wheat or milk a cow. A functioning modern person should be able to read a contract, understand a credit card or use a computer.

The only excuse is some sort of disability, be it genetic, due to an accident or due to age. And that is what I'm saying: by telling us that these people don't posess the basic skills required to survive in this world, he's telling us that these people are in fact retarded.

Rubbish.

Your entire concept here relies on the fact that ALL people should change to match an environment (an arbitrary one, at that) that some of us have created to best suit some of us.

Why not change that environment? And allow those who suck at making good decisions with money, apply themselves somewhere useful instead?

While it is all well and good to debate the self-sufficiency of others, we should not forget that there are often extenuating circumstances. Especially in healthcare. It is possible that you become ill or wounded in such a manner that your health care insurer will not cover you. Or you may be going through a divorce, and not be able to make payments on your health insurance. This does not even touch on those who are simply unable to afford it.

Sigged already.

Don't over do it son...

Maybe where you are from. In the US, it is very much buyer beware, and I suspect it really is where you are from also, if you think about it.

If you have products in which the ingredients use esoteric terms for simple components (like 'aqua' for water, for example.. that's a favourite) then you do have a buyer beware mentality. If your food industry allows common phrases to 'mean' something else (again - a favourite is the fact that a lot of places allow 'fresh' to mean 'never frozen' in the context of food), then you have a buyer beware mentality.

I disagree. Life isn't just about handling money. Indeed... it's an arbitrary concept that has no real application. Not possessing THAT 'skill' doesn't make you a 'failure at life'... it just makes you fucked in a buyer beware, non-caring culture.

No... they are 'minimum requirements for life' in a buyer beware, non-caring culture.

You think money is the mark of a good human?

You think being a good accountant is a moral issue?

You think your 'value as a human being' is ordained by your bank-balance?

I think this heads ina progressively esoteric direction, where we would have to discuss what sould be considered the 'rights' and 'responsibilities' inherent in being 'a human being'... and why we think those things apply.

One thing I think you might want to reconsider is the 'non - caring' culture idea.

If you replace that with 'market orientated' culture you are much closer to the point with regards to neo-liberalism.

There is no such thing as a non caring culture as far as I am aware of...there is the 'free market'...which can project an image of not caring.

While it is all well and good to debate the self-sufficiency of others, we should not forget that there are often extenuating circumstances. Especially in healthcare. It is possible that you become ill or wounded in such a manner that your health care insurer will not cover you. Or you may be going through a divorce, and not be able to make payments on your health insurance. This does not even touch on those who are simply unable to afford it.

And there are so many other considerations... like the spouse and children who rely on the 'skills' of the person who buys the policy...

One thing I think you might want to reconsider is the 'non - caring' culture idea.

If you replace that with 'market orientated' culture you are much closer to the point with regards to neo-liberalism.

There is no such thing as a non caring culture as far as I am aware of...there is the 'free market'...which can project an image of not caring.

And you can call the anti-abortion stance 'pro-life' How you market concepts is as important as how you marklet products.

You say 'market orientated'. Maybe you even believe that's the real focus. I've never worked for a company in which that was actually true, though. They may have been focused on the market, but only because they were PROFIT-orientated. Either that, or they were service orientated, which isn't necessarily a good strategy for market success.

When the dollar sign is more important than the concept of human well-being, your culture is non-caring.

I recommend The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith; he talks about the disparity between America's public and private wealth.

I am confused by those who say they don't want to pay for someone else's health care. Maybe you should stop taking advantage of those poor insurance agencies, they're paying for you.

Furthermore, health care doesn't really work in a free market. If I want to buy a car, I have a pretty good idea of what to look for, it really is "survival of of the fittest." If I have a pain in my pancreas, I have no idea what to do. In fact, I don't even know where my pancreas is, or what it does. Thus, I turn to my doctor, who is also the supply in terms of supply and demand. This is the equivalent of deciding what car to buy by asking the Chairman of Ford Motors. However, if medicine is socialized, then the doctor will have no reason to inflate my symptoms, and I will feel more comfortable going to see him (even if its coming out of my insurance, it still isn't cheap to see a doctor about something which may just be a cramp).

Ok so I have the answer to this thread. We eliminate public health care and let charity hospitals and charity doctors help the poor. That way, the good hearted people who want to give, can give, the selfish people can be selfish, and the poor can get help. Plus we could let the charities effectively micromanage health care. Everybody wins. Thankyou, thankyou very much

I'm not talking about building a profitable investment portfolio - that is a quite complicated thing to do (and it isn't gambling) and requires knowledge and experience which not everyone has.

I'm talking about basic financial decisions, like not getting into amounts of credit card debt you can't pay back, like selecting a health insurer and other insurance policies and indeed picking a fund or investment account you can put your spare money in. Because then someone else has to build that portfolio and you can do whatever it is you're good at.
The fact is there is no evidence that skills needed to achieve what you suggest, are within the practical reach of everyone who is not 'retarded'.

That is in effect what he is saying: these people are incapable of taking care of themselves financially, hence we have to do it.

As in taking care of ensuring they have access to affordable medical care... I recall that it is food and not medical care that one needs to not starve to death. How does not being able to secure medical care become equivalent in your mind to 'would starve to death if we didnt come and save them'?

And there is no excuse for the latter. We shouldn't pretend it is okay for someone to not understand a contract or what compound interest is.
Pretend? Have you or anyone else ever demonstrated the contrary? It's all very good and well for you to assume that 'all humans who are not retarded are capable and should reasonably be expected to learn X', but if you want to convince someone outside your own head of this, you might need something more compelling than your mere say-so.

And we certainly shouldn't take it as an unchangable fact of life that we just have to cover for with programs like socialised healthcare.
We shouldn't take anything as fact unless it can be proved factual. Obviously this includes your utterly unsubstantiated claims regarding which skills all non-retarded humans must, do or should possess.

And, aren't more people achieving more than they ever have before?
Perhaps, although given there are more people than ever before, this would not be unexpected in any case.

So why then accept that there is some "underclass" of people of whom we can't have high expectations?
Oh please, what is meant by this vague 'high expectations'? I would suggest any creature that learns to either communicate in a language, do multiplication calculations, read or write, has met astoundingly high expectations. Bugger all life forms can achieve any one of those things.

I think you have failed to think about expectations in a reasoned way. It's all good and well to call someone retarded if they reach quite an advanced age (compared to their cohorts) without being able to tie their shoe laces, but that did not stop the name 'Einstein' becoming synonymous with genius.

Literacy as a phenomenon, is about 10,000 years old, and has been widespread only in pockets of societies for a handful of decades. To understand a contract you need to read it yourself (you cannot be sure what it says in order to interpret it otherwise). So literacy is a pre-requisite for the competence you assume everyone should have. It's actually never been demonstrated that comprehending meaning fluently from written text is a universal, innate skill set (to humans), akin to say being linguistic, rather than a case of a highly variable talent set more along the lines of learning to sing or dance.

No, because back then understanding contracts or compound interest weren't exactly central to survival. But you wouldn't find someone from back then who isn't capable of understanding the use of various tools.
Tool use actually predates anatomically modern humans and is considered a highly significant aspect of our evolutionary trajectory. Literacy and and understanding abstract compounding percent calculations are not comparable to skill sets that we have clear evidence are universal and innate to humans and indeed their ancestors.

While it is all well and good to debate the self-sufficiency of others, we should not forget that there are often extenuating circumstances. Especially in healthcare. It is possible that you become ill or wounded in such a manner that your health care insurer will not cover you. Or you may be going through a divorce, and not be able to make payments on your health insurance. This does not even touch on those who are simply unable to afford it.

So what?

One's need does not entitle him to enslave others.

Need is not a valid claim on the life or property of another.

I recommend The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith; he talks about the disparity between America's public and private wealth.

I am confused by those who say they don't want to pay for someone else's health care. Maybe you should stop taking advantage of those poor insurance agencies, they're paying for you.
Private insurance is fine; there's no one holding a gun to your head forcing you to participate--you do so of your own free will, because you perceive that the benefit you receive is greater than the price you pay. If you don't find that to be the case, then you don't purchase insurance.

The same can't be said of a mandatory government scheme, where you are forced to participate whether you want to or not.

However, if medicine is socialized, then the doctor will have no reason to inflate my symptoms,

Sure he will. Economic laws are universal--they are not context-dependent. If he can make more work for himself, he will have an argument to increase what he is paid by the state.

So what?

One's need does not entitle him to enslave others.

Need is not a valid claim on the life or property of another.

Why isn't 'need' a valid claim on property? What kind of claim IS a 'valid' claim? First past the post? Lucky enough to have rich parents? Privilged position?

Why shouldn't food, water, accomodation and healthcare be fundamentals so basic you don't even have to think about how they are going to be provided?

Private insurance is fine; there's no one holding a gun to your head forcing you to participate--you do so of your own free will, because you perceive that the benefit you receive is greater than the price you pay. If you don't find that to be the case, then you don't purchase insurance.

The same can't be said of a mandatory government scheme, where you are forced to participate whether you want to or not.


There is a 'gun to your head' in as much as, without medical insurance, most people can't afford most medical treatments.

Thus - you have the choice - either buy into a market for a commodity you MUST have, (which eliminates the possibility that 'choice' can ever drive the market)... and pay whatever doctors, pharaceutical providors, and insurance companies work out is their acceptable profit... or die.

Healthcare is one of the things that absolutely should NOT be 'private'.


Sure he will. Economic laws are universal...

Even on NSG, this is one of the least supportable pieces of speculation I've ever seen...

Why isn't 'need' a valid claim on property? What kind of claim IS a 'valid' claim? First past the post? Lucky enough to have rich parents? Privilged position?
Clearly, you ignored the "of another".

A valid claim is "he and I agreed to it, without force or the threat thereof on either side."

Why shouldn't food, water, accomodation and healthcare be fundamentals so basic you don't even have to think about how they are going to be provided?
Because they have to be provided BY SOMEONE, which implies effort on someone else's part--and to claim you are entitled to them is to claim you are entitled to that person's effort, which is nothing more than slavery.

There is a 'gun to your head' in as much as, without medical insurance, most people can't afford most medical treatments.
No one's threatening to take from you something that was yours to begin with.

Refusing to provide you with something that's not already yours, even if you "need" it, is not the same thing.

Thus - you have the choice - either buy into a market for a commodity you MUST have, (which eliminates the possibility that 'choice' can ever drive the market)... and pay whatever doctors, pharaceutical providors, and insurance companies work out is their acceptable profit... or die.
Yes, and?

How does need justify violating the sacred rights of others? How does anything justify slavery?

Healthcare is one of the things that absolutely should NOT be 'private'.
Incorrect.

Even on NSG, this is one of the least supportable pieces of speculation I've ever seen...

It's a fact, and any economist will tell you as much.

Clearly, you ignored the "of another".


Not at all. You've given me no reason to assume 'of another' is even possible, let alone a reasonable assumption.


A valid claim is "he and I agreed to it, without force or the threat thereof on either side."


Fine. Me and my friend want your house.


Because they have to be provided BY SOMEONE, which implies effort on someone else's part--and to claim you are entitled to them is to claim you are entitled to that person's effort, which is nothing more than slavery.

Make your strawman, if you will - but don't pretend they are even vaguely connected to the topic at hand.

Why shouldn't everyone in the society provide a small amount of assistance to the whole society, for the greater good of the whole society?

It's not a matter of entitlement... claiming that you can live WITHIN a society, and contribute nothing to it... might be a claim to entitlement. If your society sets the condition on you that you provide a reasonable service, in exchange for allowing you to dwell within it... there is no slavery involved. That is the 'price'.

No one's threatening to take from you something that was yours to begin with.


My life, my health and my money?


Refusing to provide you with something that's not already yours, even if you "need" it, is not the same thing.


Perhaps. If I was standing next to the pond you were drowning in, and refused to help you until you paid me, maybe I wouldn't be breaching some 'claim' you imagine you might have, but I WOULD be an asshole to capitalise on your misfortune.


Yes, and?

How does need justify violating the sacred rights of others? How does anything justify slavery?


'Sacred' rights'? What the hell are you talking about? Since when did economics rely on god?


Incorrect.


That's your whole response? Well - I can't argue with an answer like that. No - I mean I really can't.


It's a fact, and any economist will tell you as much.

If you wish to believe that all economists are idiots, that is your choice.

And you can call the anti-abortion stance 'pro-life' How you market concepts is as important as how you marklet products.

You say 'market orientated'. Maybe you even believe that's the real focus. I've never worked for a company in which that was actually true, though. They may have been focused on the market, but only because they were PROFIT-orientated. Either that, or they were service orientated, which isn't necessarily a good strategy for market success.

When the dollar sign is more important than the concept of human well-being, your culture is non-caring.

For neo-liberalism to exist it needs the market. That is what its all about. Note - we still have hospitals and people and companies that support them (and make $$). That is not the sign of an uncaring society.

Neo-liberalism however does bring misery to those unable to help themselves. If we were living in an uncaring society I think we would have already seen things like eugenics and DNA manipulation with a touch of labour camps (ala gulags) in the west.

Regarding profit - of course....and you know what? You can make money from debt. How fucked is that?

For neo-liberalism to exist it needs the market. That is what its all about. Note - we still have hospitals and people and companies that support them (and make $$). That is not the sign of an uncaring society.

Neo-liberalism however does bring misery to those unable to help themselves. If we were living in an uncaring society I think we would have already seen things like eugenics and DNA manipulation with a touch of labour camps (ala gulags) in the west.

Regarding profit - of course....and you know what? You can make money from debt. How fucked is that?

There are islands of care within our society. That doesn't make it a caring society, any more than one oasis makes a desert a lake.

When you pay for insurance you are really paying for someone else. The money you put in doesn't go to a 'you only' account, so really the money you put in actually does pay for someone else. And that 'someone else' will get out more than they put in in many circumstances, and that's your money.

Not only does your money go to help someone else, but a third party takes a cut of that and buys himself a yacht with your money.

So why is it different to take the yacht out of the equation, get more people putting in, and covering everyone?

nicely put.

There are islands of care within our society. That doesn't make it a caring society, any more than one oasis makes a desert a lake.

Islands? Schools, families, communities....not exactly non caring...

My point is that the market is uncaring. People feel helpless when a monolithic corporation such as Tesco's decides to open a mega hypermarket next to your soon to be ex-shop...just one example...I am sure we both could think of many many more...

Not at all. You've given me no reason to assume 'of another' is even possible, let alone a reasonable assumption.
Private property is an objective moral principle.



Fine. Me and my friend want your house.
You have made an offer, which I am free to refuse. You do not have a claim on it unless I accept your offer.



Make your strawman, if you will - but don't pretend they are even vaguely connected to the topic at hand.
It's not a strawman at all; I'm simply pointing out to you a fact of reality that you seem to ignore (that services have to be provided BY SOMEONE) and what this causes the logical conclusion of your argument to be. Your refusal to recognize that is your failure, not mine.

Why shouldn't everyone in the society provide a small amount of assistance to the whole society, for the greater good of the whole society?

It's not a matter of entitlement... claiming that you can live WITHIN a society, and contribute nothing to it... might be a claim to entitlement. If your society sets the condition on you that you provide a reasonable service, in exchange for allowing you to dwell within it... there is no slavery involved. That is the 'price'.

There is no such thing as "society" as such--there are only individuals.

I don't live "in society". I live on my property, and I interact with other individuals, and together we make agreements among ourselves, by ourselves, concerning our mutual business. There is no entity "society" above and apart from the separate individuals comprising it. And what I do with each of those individuals is a private matter between myself and the particular individual(s) concerned--no one else gets to interfere.

My life, my health and my money?
They won't take anything from you if you don't agree to deal with them.

Perhaps. If I was standing next to the pond you were drowning in, and refused to help you until you paid me, maybe I wouldn't be breaching some 'claim' you imagine you might have, but I WOULD be an asshole to capitalise on your misfortune.
Being nice in one's interpersonal relations is irrelevant to the question of political rights.

'Sacred' rights'? What the hell are you talking about? Since when did economics rely on god?
There is no god. This isn't about economics; it's about individual liberty and objective moral principle.



That's your whole response? Well - I can't argue with an answer like that. No - I mean I really can't.
Since you merely made an assertion rather than a complete argument, an assertion is all that was needed in response.


If you wish to believe that all economists are idiots, that is your choice.

Economists generally tend to know more about economics than, say, some random joker on the Internet.

My life, my health and my money?
They won't take anything from you if you don't agree to deal with them.

Perhaps. If I was standing next to the pond you were drowning in, and refused to help you until you paid me, maybe I wouldn't be breaching some 'claim' you imagine you might have, but I WOULD be an asshole to capitalise on your misfortune.
Being nice in one's interpersonal relations is irrelevant to the question of political rights.

'Sacred' rights'? What the hell are you talking about? Since when did economics rely on god?
There is no god. This isn't about economics; it's about individual liberty and objective moral principle.



That's your whole response? Well - I can't argue with an answer like that. No - I mean I really can't.
Since you merely made an assertion rather than a complete argument, an assertion is all that was needed in response.


If you wish to believe that all economists are idiots, that is your choice.

Economists generally tend to know more about economics than, say, some random joker on the Internet.

Islands? Schools, families, communities....not exactly non caring...

My point is that the market is uncaring. People feel helpless when a monolithic corporation such as Tesco's decides to open a mega hypermarket next to your soon to be ex-shop...just one example...I am sure we both could think of many many more...

We agree that the market is uncaring. And the market is a large (and increasing) presence.

As for whether or not communities 'care' (I would argue they basically don't) or schools are evidence of 'care' (I would argue they were increasingly becoming a means to extract debt-payments)... even where such things DO show evidence of care... such philanthropy is the exception, no longer the rule.

Private property is an objective moral principle.


No, it isn't. It is entirely subjective, and not even vaguely related to 'morals'.


You have made an offer, which I am free to refuse. You do not have a claim on it unless I accept your offer.


I disagree. I find your claim on your house worthless. Why should I respect it?


It's not a strawman at all; I'm simply pointing out to you a fact of reality that you seem to ignore (that services have to be provided BY SOMEONE) and what this causes the logical conclusion of your argument to be. Your refusal to recognize that is your failure, not mine.


Not at all. You have invoked the spectre of slavery (from which we can assume EITHER an 'appeal to emotion' fallacy... or you simply don't know what slavery means)... thus any argument you make MUST be a strawman.

You also decided to make the issue about 'entitlement', another spectre you created from wholecloth. If you wish to fight arguments other than those I make, feel free. Let's just not waste each other's time by pretending it's any kind of response to anything I said, k?


There is no such thing as "society" as such--there are only individuals.


There are no such things as individuals, just collections of DNA.


I don't live "in society". I live on my property, and I interact with other individuals, and together we make agreements among ourselves, by ourselves, concerning our mutual business. There is no entity "society" above and apart from the separate individuals comprising it. And what I do with each of those individuals is a private matter between myself and the particular individual(s) concerned--no one else gets to interfere.

On the contrary, there are synergistic and gestalt concepts involved in the soceity that make it (indeed) an 'entity' apart from our (individual) selves.

What you chose to do with another private individual is a private matter ebetween you and the other individual - but ONLY as much as the collective allows.

They won't take anything from you if you don't agree to deal with them.


So - if I don't buy insurance, and don't visit doctors... I'll live forever?

No - because my health is contingent on a number of factors.


Being nice in one's interpersonal relations is irrelevant to the question of political rights.


Is it? Because you say so? On the contrary... one could argue that some degree of 'being nice in one's interpersonal relationships' was basic to the question of political 'rights'.


There is no god. This isn't about economics; it's about individual liberty and objective moral principle.


You invoked 'sacred'. Not me.

If you are going to suggest there is some 'higher truth' that makes something a 'sacred right', you are going to have to present a damn sight more than hollow mouthed platitudes.


Since you merely made an assertion rather than a complete argument, an assertion is all that was needed in response.


The fact that you chose not to interpret (or failed to comprehend?) the single sentence as part of a cohesive unit, is a failing at your end, I suspect... not mine.

The connection was clear - basic human needs should not be denied where there is easy capacity to provide them. To move from there to 'should not be private' is not the great leap you seem to suggest.


Economists generally tend to know more about economics than, say, some random joker on the Internet.

Relevence? Do you know, for example, that I am not an economist?

I notice you chose to resort to ad hominem rather than provide a source, of course. You kind of made a rod for your own back with the ridiculous generalisation that 'any economist' would agree with every other economist on anything.

Private property is an objective moral principle.

Since objective is the opposite of subjective, and morality is subjective, the idea of an objective moral principle is an oxymoron.

You have made an offer, which I am free to refuse. You do not have a claim on it unless I accept your offer.

This is an interesting bit of theory. Too bad the real world is more complicated than that.

It's not a strawman at all; I'm simply pointing out to you a fact of reality that you seem to ignore (that services have to be provided BY SOMEONE) and what this causes the logical conclusion of your argument to be. Your refusal to recognize that is your failure, not mine.

Keeping the discussion to healthcare, having a socialised heathcare system reduces the cost for all the individuals involved. Those who provide the service are still being paid for it. I just pay less as a consumer.

There is no such thing as "society" as such--there are only individuals.

I don't live "in society". I live on my property, and I interact with other individuals, and together we make agreements among ourselves, by ourselves, concerning our mutual business. There is no entity "society" above and apart from the separate individuals comprising it. And what I do with each of those individuals is a private matter between myself and the particular individual(s) concerned--no one else gets to interfere.

Your property has a big pipe extending off the property called a water main. It is attached to the municipal infrastructure that you did not directly pay for or install. The same can be said of all the services going into your home. You drive on roads with other people who are following the same rules as you. The money in your pocket is recognised by people you don't know as legal tender. You live in a society, and you have given your tacit consent to obey its laws.

They won't take anything from you if you don't agree to deal with them.

Unless they have more guns than you.


Being nice in one's interpersonal relations is irrelevant to the question of political rights.

Politics is the art of organising interpersonal relations. Don't you even wonder why 'polite' has the same root word as 'politics'.

Since you merely made an assertion rather than a complete argument, an assertion is all that was needed in response.

Heathcare should nott be private because the demand for heathcare services is so high that by applying freemarket economics to such a situation would inevitably result in coercion. An example would be emergency surgery. Since I would need the surgery to survive, the medical practitioner could demand whatever price he or she wishes. If I don't pay it, I die. Therefore, it would be coercive.

Economists generally tend to know more about economics than, say, some random joker on the Internet.

You are a random joker on the internet. Economic laws are not universal. Many societies have had different economic models that do not fit your theories. An example is the gift economy of the First Peoples of the Pacific Northwest. Wealth is calculated by the largesse of your gifts to others. Please explain how this works into your idea of universal economic laws.

We agree that the market is uncaring. And the market is a large (and increasing) presence.

and uncompromising...

As for whether or not communities 'care' (I would argue they basically don't) or schools are evidence of 'care' (I would argue they were increasingly becoming a means to extract debt-payments)... even where such things DO show evidence of care... such philanthropy is the exception, no longer the rule.

Yet charities still seem to do quite well.... ;)

(regarding your islands idea...maybe that is the only island in the market place...that charities still exist...how bleak is that? !)

(regarding your islands idea...maybe that is the only island in the market place...that charities still exist...how bleak is that? !)

Unfortunately, it is bleak.

I am torn between a fundamental skepticism (I would call it realism) that says people will constantly screw each other for personal gain... and a (perhaps unrealistic) degree of optimism that says people push back against darkness, if you leave them long enough.

Of course - even if there is a bright future 50 years down the line, when the swings and roundabouts bring compassion back to the 'virtues' side... it really doesn't help so many people now.

Unfortunately, it is bleak.

I am torn between a fundamental skepticism (I would call it realism) that says people will constantly screw each other for personal gain... and a (perhaps unrealistic) degree of optimism that says people push back against darkness, if you leave them long enough.

Of course - even if there is a bright future 50 years down the line, when the swings and roundabouts bring compassion back to the 'virtues' side... it really doesn't help so many people now.

Yet without that competition we most likely would never have developed complex societies...

Humans = Clusterfuck

Humans = Clusterfuck

On this, at least, we agree. :)

On this, at least, we agree. :)

LOL yeah.

Mostly Harmless my arse...!

Woah... That's about all I can say.

Two things: we consider ourselves fairly sophisticated and civilised versus neanderthal, do we not? Why would you use 'it's okay for neanderthals' as an argument?
Because or world is more sophisticated and civilised. The bar has moved on, so to speak.

And second: obviously, you are wrong. We are a gregarious species, because our survival doesn't automatically depend upon EVERY member of the pack having EVERY skill or ability.
And yet, if someone lacks a very basic ability (like finding food in the neolithic time, or using a credit card in ours), that person's usefulness to anyone at all is severely reduced. He or she can't provide value to his or her fellow human beings.

Again it comes down to a simple dichotomy: either that person is too lazy to acquire those basic survival skills, or he or she is unable to do so.

And?
And therefore Buyer Beware has been abandoned by a regulation-happy legal system.

What makes it 'okay'? In our close-knit society, we 'need' advanced social skills. Some people lack social delicacy and will never be able to acquire it... is that 'okay'?
Nope.

But if I were to use the same "they can't help themselves so the state has to do it" argument...would you be okay to be legislated to have to spend 4 hours a week with people who don't have any friends? And if you don't, you'll go to jail?

And besides, what sort of friendship would that be? You wouldn't otherwise have been there, you probably don't want to be there. And the other guy knows the entire time that you've been forced to help him because he's incapable.

It's the same if the forced help isn't through physical presence, but through money.

And, handling (and making good decisions with) money isn't automatically just 'how a credit card works'.
Handling money is not that complicated. I don't think people will just forget.

Making good decisions on the other hand is not something that can be taught. Once you have the information you need, it's up to your own brain to come up with an answer that you think is best.

Your entire concept here relies on the fact that ALL people should change to match an environment (an arbitrary one, at that) that some of us have created to best suit some of us.
And there we have it: "Capitalism is a system imposed on people by the rich."

Don't you realise that this has nothing to do with the system, and everything with the person? In an anarcho-communist world people spend a lot of time in meetings, trying to convince each other of a their favourite way to allocate resources.

If someone is a crap debater, would it be okay to just give a bigger vote to him because he's somehow disadvantaged? Or would you rather expect him to work on his skills?

Every system or environment has some skills associated with it that have to be learned to lead a good life. The least we can expect from a healthy, capable human being is to learn those skills.

The fact is there is no evidence that skills needed to achieve what you suggest, are within the practical reach of everyone who is not 'retarded'.
Not a medical definition, no. A colloquial one.

Are the skills necessary to survive and live in the modern world in acceptable conditions? Yes.

I still don't see how you can then excuse people not having them, except if they're physically unable to. Which means that they're physically unable to survive and live in the modern world in acceptable conditions.

How does not being able to secure medical care become equivalent in your mind to 'would starve to death if we didnt come and save them'?
Fine, just go for the "take everything literally" line.

If it makes you feel better, we can go for "all die from Polio" instead.

We shouldn't take anything as fact unless it can be proved factual. Obviously this includes your utterly unsubstantiated claims regarding which skills all non-retarded humans must, do or should possess.
Okay, what is being human to you?

I put forward that it is more than just being a bunch of cells stuck together in a colony. Part of being a real human being is to stand up to the challenges one's environment can present and overcome them. Or at least try to overcome them.

That Neanderthal becomes a human being because he won't lie down like some animal but think of ways to improve his life, and master the skills necessary to do so.

What would you call a person who fails to tackle the challenges that life presents, who doesn't bother to learn the vital skills necessary to survive or improve one's lifelihood? It's either a lazy slob (who therefore doesn't deserve our help) or someone who is physically or mentally unable to learn those skills. And if that isn't a disability, I don't know what is.

Oh please, what is meant by this vague 'high expectations'? I would suggest any creature that learns to either communicate in a language, do multiplication calculations, read or write, has met astoundingly high expectations. Bugger all life forms can achieve any one of those things.
You and me are not bugger all life forms. We're human beings, and that carries with it rather different expectations. Personally, I don't get much comfort from the fact that my speech skills are superior to that of a house fly.

Our species survives by putting our brains and bodies to work and change the environment we face. We're changing the planet to make life easier and become happier.

That seems to then be a good objective criterion for deciding whether or not someone has lived a good life.

Tool use actually predates anatomically modern humans and is considered a highly significant aspect of our evolutionary trajectory. Literacy and and understanding abstract compounding percent calculations are not comparable to skill sets that we have clear evidence are universal and innate to humans and indeed their ancestors.
And? I never claimed that these skills are required universally. I claimed they are required in the here and now, and I don't think you can prove me wrong.

Need is not a valid claim on the life or property of another.

"If you have no work, ask for work. If they will not give you work, ask for bread. If they will not give you bread, steal bread." --Peter Kropotkin

"Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.

You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle." -- Ayn Rand

Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.

Strangely enough... no, it hasn't.

All it requires is justification, and one beyond the useless and irrational standard of "I want."

All it requires is justification, and one beyond the useless and irrational standard of "I want."
And since economic value is ultimately a subjective thing, "I want" is the basis of any economic justification for taking from some to give to others.

And since economic value is ultimately a subjective thing, "I want" is the basis of any economic justification for taking from some to give to others.

No, "I want" is the basis of any measurement of economic value. It is not the basis--or at least not a legitimate basis--for understanding what constitutes a just distribution.

Edit: Ayn Rand, on the other hand, is quite explicit about basing her ethics on what amounts to a glorified version of "I want."

No, "I want" is the basis of any measurement of economic value. It is not the basis--or at least not a legitimate basis--for understanding what constitutes a just distribution.
You know, in many ways you and I are very different people. ;)

Edit: Ayn Rand, on the other hand, is quite explicit about basing her ethics on what amounts to a glorified version of "I want."
But a strictly limited one. It's okay to want things that you worked for. It's not okay to want things other people worked for without compensation.

But a strictly limited one. It's okay to want things that you worked for.

I work hard. And yet my job doesn't enable me to get things that other people with 'easy' jobs can have.

If there is no actual meritocratic measure, there is no justification for claiming that someone should have something because they 'worked for it'.

And yet, if someone lacks a very basic ability (like finding food in the neolithic time, or using a credit card in ours), that person's usefulness to anyone at all is severely reduced. He or she can't provide value to his or her fellow human beings.


Utter wank.

If Bob is shit at collecting food, but a damn good doctor he is worth the effort it will take the rest of his fellows to feed him.


Again it comes down to a simple dichotomy: either that person is too lazy to acquire those basic survival skills, or he or she is unable to do so.


So - you admit that there are people who simply cannot master what you call 'basic survival skills'?


And therefore Buyer Beware has been abandoned by a regulation-happy legal system.


Regulation is needed because people cheat each other unless they are compelled not to.

I notice you completely ignored some examples of why it's still a buyer beware culture. Even in (what you call) a regulation-happy system, people are pushing the envelope to cheat one another.


But if I were to use the same "they can't help themselves so the state has to do it" argument...would you be okay to be legislated to have to spend 4 hours a week with people who don't have any friends? And if you don't, you'll go to jail?


I would be willing to volunteer time for those less fortunate, yes.

I have done.

Why would anyone NOT be willing to help others a little?


And besides, what sort of friendship would that be? You wouldn't otherwise have been there, you probably don't want to be there. And the other guy knows the entire time that you've been forced to help him because he's incapable.


It isn't about friendship. When you feed the poor it's not about 'feeling good'.. it's about filling stomachs.


It's the same if the forced help isn't through physical presence, but through money.


No. It isn't. If you're going to launch into a 'taxation is slavery' rhetoric, I'm not going to waste my breath on you.


Making good decisions on the other hand is not something that can be taught. Once you have the information you need, it's up to your own brain to come up with an answer that you think is best.


You already admitted not everyone can do that, right?


And there we have it: "Capitalism is a system imposed on people by the rich."


I didn't say that. I basically said it favours the rich.


Don't you realise that this has nothing to do with the system, and everything with the person? In an anarcho-communist world people spend a lot of time in meetings, trying to convince each other of a their favourite way to allocate resources.


Why? Why wouldn't things be efficient? You leap to an assumption that you just can't support.


If someone is a crap debater, would it be okay to just give a bigger vote to him because he's somehow disadvantaged? Or would you rather expect him to work on his skills?


Your strawman, you work it out.