Whats so bad about socialism?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tricky
Pardon me. I made the unwarrented assumption that there were some things you thought the US government was justified in asking you to pay for.

I might, if "asking" was what they would do. But it's not, is it? You might become clearer on this stuff if you would try to keep these distinctions in mind.

If you tell me this is not true and that you believe there should be no tax whatsoever, then I will retract the statement.

Fair enough. I'm okay with "no tax whatsoever".

Otherwise, my statement that you agree with some government spending was correct, even if it didn't cite particulars.

Once again, I don't have a problem with government spending, I have a problem with government financing that spending through confiscation of anyone's property or earnings without their consent.

No, it's more specific than that. Where I differ from you (and the government) is in the legitimacy of forcing people to pay for things they did not agree to pay for.

You agree to pay for them when you agree to abide by the laws of this country

Um ... I didn't agree to abide by the laws of this country in the first place, I abide by the laws either to avoid jail, or because I would make the same choices anyway. But I love it when you guys have to rely on these absurd leaps about what constitutes agreement. To any self-respecting skeptic, it only makes your position look that much more ridiculous. How refreshing it would be if someone could manage to defend this stuff without resorting to such nonsense.

(consider it a clause of your contract with America ).

Get back to me if you were at all serious with this comment.

You are free to try to change how the government spends money.

Isn't that a little like telling a slave he is "free" to try to convince his owner to give him his freedom?

I reiterate: Your rights are defined by the laws.

And I reiterate: Legal rights are, but once again, some of us are able to conceive of "rights" in a broader sense.

And some of you are certain thay their conception of "rights" should apply to all.

Can you identify anything I've claimed as a "right" that should not "apply to all"?

Well excuse me if I decline to accept your conception of rights.

Your loss. You can either learn from your mistakes, or stubbornly cling to them.

When you become a Supreme Court justice, you will have much broader power to make such conceptions reality.

Yeah, and those who mistake commentary about power as an argument about merit are often the same ones who try to pass off mere observations about the status quo as arguments for supporting it.

Just curious, do you really think we'd be better off if, in all the debate that leads to evolving policy, nobody had ever been able to argue for a "right" that was in conflict with whatever the laws had to say at the time? Specifically, if you had been alive when people were trying to bring an end to slavery, would you have been involved in the debate? And if so, would have been your position, and what would your strongest arguments have been?

I would say that based on the current morality shared by most of the country, the "right" of slaveowners to have slaves should be ended and the "right" of people to live free of slavery in the US should be codified.

Your earlier comment about a "direct answer" just gets funnier and funnier. In case you didn't notice, I specifically made reference to "if you had been alive when people were trying to bring an end to slavery", I didn't ask about anything "based on the current morality shared by most of the country".

If you want to get down to my personal morality, it is as simple as the Golden Rule. I wouldn't want to be a slave, therefore it would be immoral for me to own slaves.

That's it? The "Golden Rule" thing? Your response to my question about your "strongest arguments" is that you'd be out there defiantly proclaiming that slavery should come to an end because "I wouldn't want to be a slave"?

And if you have no rights (other that what government tells you, of course), how is your not wanting to be a slave sufficient to make owning slaves "immoral"? I'm guessing you probably wouldn't want to be an animal either, and if so, does that mean you think owning animals is immoral?

But morality was not always this way. Many people felt that slaves were less than human, and it was no more immoral to own slaves than to own cattle.

Were they right?

And while we're at it, do you have a clear position on the legalization of abortion?

I do, but I feel it would derail the topic of this thread.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd want to go near that one.

Oh, I am quite sure that you would be secure in your self-evaluation, regardless of what others say.

Nonsense. That security has been reinforced by what others have had to say, in particular the ridiculous arguments made by those who disagree.

You stated that I had not made my case. I disagree. Who decides?

Who decides what? You think you've made your case, and I don't think you've even come close. So what's the point of your question?

Is this like your idea that whatever you conceive are "rights" are automatically so?

Your misrepresenting my position, of course. It has nothing to do with being "automatically so". It has to do with having withstood the scrutiny of years of debate. Nobody has ever managed to come up with a better concept of rights. Remember, your concept of them still allows for the right to jail people for consensual sexual activity, or even to own slaves, or to commit rape, if that's what those in government decide. My concept of rights does not.

Total individual sovereignty is anarchy.

How so?

Under "total individual sovereignty", if I conceive it is my "right" to own your land, then I may act on that "right" as I have conceived it. You would have a different set of "rights", then we would soon have a battle in which one of us would probably die. Whoever was the strongest would decide "rights". I call that anarchy. What do you call it?

I see no need for calling it anything. But what is more to the point is whether it is consistent with the term you were using, which was "total individual sovereignty". And whatever else it might be, what you described is certainly not that, since someone's sovereignty is being violated. Such a clumsy attempt to make a point about it only further reveals your confusion about such things.

There must be rules.

I'm pretty sure I haven't argued against having rules.

You have argued that the government has no "right" to make certain rules. It appears that you think there should only be rules if you agree with them.

Do you know anyone who thinks there should be rules they disagree with? At the very least, I certainly think any rules that are going to apply to everyone should reflect the principles I described. But that's a far cry from not believing in any rules at all. And what matters is who can do the best job of defending their ideas about what the rules should be.

Wake up to the real world, sunbeam.

I'll count this as #5. The "real world" monition is another classic that people defending the status quo tend to think passes for an argument in support of it.

And sadly, both the government, and the governed, can get things wrong. Do you agree?

Of course. That is why I try to change them when they conflict with my personal morality.

Actually, I try to change them when they violate individual rights. Beyond that, I wouldn't dream of trying to use the force of law to impose my "personal morality" on others.

And by the way, if you acknowledge that they can get things wrong, then what makes you think they can't also get things wrong about rights?

Sorry, but the threat of punishment does not mean one does not have the right to violate an unjust law. In keeping with the attempt to pin you down, I'm guessing you don't think a slave had a right to run away, back when there were laws against doing so, right?

If he did, he was violating the "rights" of the owner by stealing his property.

And if you had been alive then, you would be okay with this? After all, using your own logic, any arguments you might try to make for change could be trumped with ... well, basically, with what you just said. So how would you counter it? Any chance you could find anything stronger than that "Golden Rule" thing?

I know that this is horrendous by our current moral code, but as I say, these things change.

I don't know who you're talking about when you say "our current moral code", but I don't need to rely on groupthink, or look to anyone else's "code", to know that it was horrendous then, too. But thanks for continuing to demonstrate how dependent your own views are on the prevailing winds.

In barbarian days, it was the "right" of conquering invaders to rape the women. Those rights no longer exist (in most places).

And to some of us, they never have, anywhere. Such activity was a violation of rights.

Actually, my position has consistently been that nobody should be forced to pay for anything they did not agree to pay for. It helps to understand the difference.

And it is my position that you agree to accept the rules of the government under which you live, therefore, you did agree to pay for whatever the government decides to spend money on.

Yes, you've already demonstrated quite clearly that, like so many others, you have no shame when it comes to making absurd leaps about what constitutes someone else's agreement, in order to rationalize your poorly thought out views. The only thing about it that surprises me is the frequency with which it occurs in this forum.

No. If I am to be part of a healthy population, I'm certainly prepared to pay for any medical services I seek. But beyond that, any perceived "benefits" associated with something as general as a "healthy population" are not something that any one entity has any business claiming credit for, let alone sending anyone a bill for.

Well, then you are free to get out and support your position.

Um ... that's sort of what I'm doing. Sadly, you're a perfect demonstration of the problem with this. There are far too many people who don't formulate their opinions any better than you have, who have never really applied any critical analysis to them, and who are extremely resistant to re-evaluating them, especially if any significant change in views might mean breaking away from the comfort of the herd. They usually just end up covering for the weakness of their position by making comments about the "real world", or saying stuff like ...

If enough people agree with you, then your "rights" will change.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tmy
I was going to avoid this semantics arguement but what tyhe hey.

There is a "right" to education. Check your state constitution. Many of them include a right to a public education.

If this is what you think makes something a "right", then why did you bother asking "If we have a 'right' to education, then why not healthcare"?

 

[Tmy]

OK forget the whole "RIGHT" thing.

I was just asking that if something like education can be provided my the government for the good of all then why not do the same with health care. At least I think thats what I meant. That was many posts ago.

 

[Cain]

This is something that I've wondered about too; the only explanations I've found are either utilitarian (that property rights are a good thing, which justifies their existence) or the Lockean idea of property-ownership being a natural right, which is also kind of utilitarian in origin, and depends on a problematic polarity between nature and society. My feeling is that property-rights are so intrinsic to capitalist society, it's really difficult to find a position to evaluate property rights without constantly referring back to capitalism. And it makes my head hurty!

You're absolutely right.

One justification is the Lockean conception kind of Utilitarian because it prescribes a limit on private property- that "there is as good and enough left over for others." The whole "ooh, I mix my labor with the land," has always appeared arbitrary, and besides, it has troubling implications for present day ownership (the United States was taken over by force).

Of course, I suppose they can always fall back on the good ol' Utilitarian argument. But then that means they have no principled argument against universal healthcare. If we have private property to maximize happiness, then there's nothing inherently wrong about redistributing wealth and resources to create a system that treats diseases for everyone.

It's better to just ignore the problem altogether. What legitimizes private property? Are you a Communist or something? Who cares?

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
The whole "ooh, I mix my labor with the land," has always appeared arbitrary, and besides, it has troubling implications for present day ownership (the United States was taken over by force).

So has every other country on earth. Britain was first occupied by Celts, who were conquered by the Romans, who were replaced by the Anglo-Saxons, who lost most of the country to the Danes, before the Normans invaded and subjugated the lot of them. My own ancestors were Norman adventurers who ended up in the west of Ireland and seized themselves a nice spread of land. That was 800 years ago, and we've been here ever since.

But then that means they have no principled argument against universal healthcare. If we have private property to maximize happiness, then there's nothing inherently wrong about redistributing wealth and resources to create a system that treats diseases for everyone.

In an affluent society where obesityand sedentary lifestyles are responsible for a lot, if not most of our helath problems then a serious moral objection to universal healthcare can be raised, IMO. Should the reasonably active of us who try and eat well and eschew bad habits like tobacco have our wealth redistributed to people who smoke, drink eat and sit their way to poor health?

Take the case of George Best, one time professional footballer (soccer) of note, now more well known as a professional washed up drunk. In this part of the world in particular it's a typical turn of events, people drinking themselves to death despite medical advice. Should their be a moral obligation on the rest of us to finance their healthcare? Can a moral case for universal helathcare be made in a society where ill-health is caused by the conscious actions of individuals?

It's better to just ignore the problem altogether. What legitimizes private property? Are you a Communist or something? Who cares?

Private property is legitamized by rule of law, the same thing that illegitamizes murder, rape etc.

 

[Cain]

So has every other country on earth. Britain was first occupied by Celts, who were conquered by the Romans, who were replaced by the Anglo-Saxons, who lost most of the country to the Danes, before the Normans invaded and subjugated the lot of them. My own ancestors were Norman adventurers who ended up in the west of Ireland and seized themselves a nice spread of land. That was 800 years ago, and we've been here ever since.

Oh certainly; practically all land has been stolen at one point in time or another.

I'm fond of quoting Herbert Spencer here:

“…Time,” say some, ‘is a great legaliser. Immemorial possession
must be taken to constitute a legitimate claim. That which has
been held from age to age as private property, and has been
ought and sold as such, must now be considered as irrevocably
belonging to individuals.” To which proposition a willing assent
shall be given when its propounders can assign it a definite
meaning. To do this, however, they must find satisfactory answers to such questions as -- How long does it take for what was originally a wrong to grow into a right? At what rate per annum do invalid claims become valid? If a title gets perfect in a thousand years, how much more than perfect will it be in two thousand years? -- and so forth. For the solution of which they will require a new calculus.

When (and how) does an illegitimate claim grow into a legitimate one?

In an affluent society where obesityand sedentary lifestyles are responsible for a lot, if not most of our helath problems then a serious moral objection to universal healthcare can be raised, IMO. Should the reasonably active of us who try and eat well and eschew bad habits like tobacco have our wealth redistributed to people who smoke, drink eat and sit their way to poor health?

That certainly represents one end of the spectrum, but what if a health complications stem from uncontrollable causes? Tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy foods could be taxed to recover some of the costs. Or maybe a society can choose not to cover a person who willingly smokes herself to death, that's fine (and creates a strong incentive against smoking). Where does responsibility begin and end? Suppose I'm driving along the freeway and choose not to wear a seat-belt. I should've known the dangers, and, okay, society has a reasonable claim against covering my costs. But suppose I am wearing my seatbelt and get struck by another driver (her fault entirely). Well, I clearly knew there were dangers driving. And so on.

On efficiency grounds alone, though, a universal healthcare system is desirable. I do not use police protection. I've never called the cops or needed the cops for anything (so far). But the taxes I pay have gone to local law enforcement. Similarly, private health care is just another area tha market doesn't handle adequately (in part for reasons mentioned several posts back).

Private property is legitamized by rule of law, the same thing that illegitamizes murder, rape etc.

That's not a good argument at all. If the law said murdering black people was okay, would it suddenly be okay? The law derives from ethical principles, beliefs. There's simply never been a good argument for private property (Utilitarian justifications notwithstanding). The state cannot just legitamize X by decree. A prior rationale is necessary. Authority and power are not self-justifying. But few people bother asking these critical questions, and those vested in the system rarely answer. The government says so; just take their word for it -- and change the subject, please.

 

[Malachi151]

I do not use police protection. I've never called the cops or needed the cops for anything (so far).

Are you seroius?

So you dont think that your tax dollars goign to the poic helps you at all? Do you think that if the police went away all around the country tomorrow that you would not negatively be effected in any way? You use the police every second of every day. Thier presence keeps law and order. You are benefiting from police when they arrest crimals, you dont ahev to call them specifically for you to be getting your money's worth. In fact you get much more than your money's worth from the police, we all do, unless you think it would be more cost effective for you to defend your property with your own money in a state of anarchy, and that you could still have a nice job, etc in a country with no law enforcement?

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
When (and how) does an illegitimate claim grow into a legitimate one?

Good question. IMO it depends on whether you see legitimacy having a moral or legal basis. If the latter then legitimacy of ownership is conferred by recognition of said ownership by an enforceable legal framework. The former is more problematic. Establishing illegitimacy is the problem.

That certainly represents one end of the spectrum, but what if a health complications stem from uncontrollable causes?

Depends on the patient and their ability to pay. I'm not arguing for no government spending on health, rather against universal healthcare. Is Bill Gates entitled to free healthcare? Again, healthcare spending is always going to be a finite resource. Is it moral or practical to allow billionaires "free" healthcare?

Tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy foods could be taxed to recover some of the costs.

Tobacco and alcohol already are in this part of the world. The problem is that in a relatively affluent society people are willing to pay the added cost. As well as that I'm not inclined to believe that giving the government more money is the solution.

Or maybe a society can choose not to cover a person who willingly smokes herself to death, that's fine (and creates a strong incentive against smoking).

In which case you don't have universal healthcare.

Where does responsibility begin and end? Suppose I'm driving along the freeway and choose not to wear a seat-belt. I should've known the dangers, and, okay, society has a reasonable claim against covering my costs. But suppose I am wearing my seatbelt and get struck by another driver (her fault entirely). Well, I clearly knew there were dangers driving. And so on.

There are dangers to driving a car. Hence motor insurance. Insurance companies make a buck by being careful about the small print on their policies and on paying out claims. Careful drivers are rewarded with no claims bonuses etc, while more reckless ones are penalised in the form of higher premia. In this country third party motor insurance is obligatory.

On efficiency grounds alone, though, a universal healthcare system is desirable.

How is this demonstrable in a society where helath problems arise to conscious lifestyle decisions?

I've never called the cops or needed the cops for anything (so far). But the taxes I pay have gone to local law enforcement.

The main reason you haven't needed to call the cops is because you live in a society with enforceable laws to protect individual security and safety. The fact you haven't directly required police assistance doesn't mean that your taxes went to waste. Quite the opposite in fact.

Similarly, private health care is just another area tha market doesn't handle adequately (in part for reasons mentioned several posts back).

Please refresh. In the meantime here's some more info about the serious shortcomings with state sponsored universal healthcare.

 

[Cain]

Re: Police analogy

Malachi wrote:
Are you seroius?

No, of course not. Police protection is a public good, and though I have not directly called the police and had them coming running to my immediate, the indirect benefits are still real. The same applies to other public goods: education, health care, national defense...

IMO it depends on whether you see legitimacy having a moral or legal basis. If the latter then legitimacy of ownership is conferred by recognition of said ownership by an enforceable legal framework. The former is more problematic. Establishing illegitimacy is the problem.

I do not think your moral-legal distinction works here. We can use homosexuality as an example. Many Christians believe same sex relationships offend God, and are therefore immoral. In the past, and to a lesser extent today, there laws have treated homosexuals inequitably. These laws do not exist in a vacuum; they're derived from a moral code. We can easily imagine a government that says homosexuals ought to be executed for their crimes - i.e. sexual relations with a person of the same gender. That's the law -- no question. Is it legitimate? No, not if legitimate means "logical" or "rational" or "justified." Another moral principle, contrary to the belief espoused by many Christians, might tell us, "Hey, if they're not harming anyone else, then the law has no business interfering in personal relationships, homosexual or otherwise." Yeah, I suppose the government can do whatever it pleases, but that certainly doesn't make it right. An argument -- a justification -- is necessary. I've yet to see anything of the sort in this regard for private property. Why does someone have to demonstrate the illegitimacy? The burden of proof rests with the person arguing on behalf of a power or authority (in this case the state's authority to section off a plot of land and say, "this belongs to X.")

I guess I could attempt to demonstrate illegitimacy, but no argument has been proffered.

Depends on the patient and their ability to pay. I'm not arguing for no government spending on health, rather against universal healthcare. Is Bill Gates entitled to free healthcare? Again, healthcare spending is always going to be a finite resource. Is it moral or practical to allow billionaires "free" healthcare?

And the same argument can be made for police protection, or the right to a lawyer, or anything else. Bill Gates can afford a private security force (and I'm sure he has one), but that does not invalidate his claim to state resources. Bill Gates, if charged with a crime, has the right to a public defender (and so on).

But the first sentence of this paragraph intrigues me: Are you suggesting that if a person lacks the ability to pay for medical attention stemming from an uncontrollable cause then the state must bear the costs?

In which case you don't have universal healthcare.

Splitting hairs. You just wouldn't have coverage in the case of an illness resulting from their conscious self-destructive habit. If a smoker gets struck by a car, or gets his leg broken in a viscious assault, he'd still be entitled to care. Possible complications arise when these things happen in combination. Suppose a person gets struck by a car and she'd ordinarily heal fine, but because of a life-long habit of smoking, there will be added costs. Which is why I don't think it's really so offensive if smokers, alcoholics, and fat people receive care.

How is this demonstrable in a society where helath problems arise to conscious lifestyle decisions?

Australia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Germany and a number of other countries currently have healthcare costs per person about half of the United States. I've been to a couple of these countries, particularly Germany. I know they smoke (and some think, for some weird reason, that smoking has been outlawed in the United States). I know the Germans drink (boy do they drink). All of these countries have lower rates of infant mortality and a comparable life-span. As mentioned earlier, Canada spends a lower percentage than the U.S.

Over 40 million people are currently uninsured. That's not exactly a good thing.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
An argument -- a justification -- is necessary. I've yet to see anything of the sort in this regard for private property. Why does someone have to demonstrate the illegitimacy? The burden of proof rests with the person arguing on behalf of a power or authority (in this case the state's authority to section off a plot of land and say, "this belongs to X.")

In a democracy that authority is derived from the people, and restrained by constitutional safeguards. Both of these have evolved over time. Personally speaking I keep receipts for the personal property I buy and my family have deeds to our land and house. As to the moral standing for this I'd argue we've as much moral right to it as all the other previous generations who fought for it and stole it. I couls also point out that we actually work it, as did previous generations of the family, as opposed to the previous owners, who benefitted from their propreitorship while others did the actual work.

And the same argument can be made for police protection, or the right to a lawyer, or anything else. Bill Gates can afford a private security force (and I'm sure he has one), but that does not invalidate his claim to state resources. Bill Gates, if charged with a crime, has the right to a public defender (and so on).

Bill Gates undoubtedly spends quite a bit on his personal security. OTOH I wouldn't feel comfortable with Bill running part of the courts system, nor should he absolve himself from being subject to the laws of the land because his bank balance is a lot healthier than the average Joe. In fact Bill made enough money to spend on private security because he benefitted from a society with enforceable laws that allowed him invest and innovate, safe in the knowledge the fruits of his labourr would be safeguarded by the justice system. Capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Rather it requires a minimum of regulation to thrive. Hence taxpayers money should be spent on the police and judicial system.

But the first sentence of this paragraph intrigues me: Are you suggesting that if a person lacks the ability to pay for medical attention stemming from an uncontrollable cause then the state must bear the costs?

Probably. I've never argued that the state shouldn't divert resources to healthcare. I just believe they should be targetted to those most in need. The occurence of uncontrollable causes is minimal compared to controllable causes.

Splitting hairs. You just wouldn't have coverage in the case of an illness resulting from their conscious self-destructive habit. If a smoker gets struck by a car, or gets his leg broken in a viscious assault, he'd still be entitled to care. Possible complications arise when these things happen in combination. Suppose a person gets struck by a car and she'd ordinarily heal fine, but because of a life-long habit of smoking, there will be added costs. Which is why I don't think it's really so offensive if smokers, alcoholics, and fat people receive care.

You're obscuring my point. If a smoker is struck by a car or assaulted, then smoking has absolutely nothing to do with their sudden ill health. In these two scenarios they could probably sue to recover the cost of their medical costs.

Which is why I don't think it's really so offensive if smokers, alcoholics, and fat people receive care.

Neither do I. It's just that I fail to see why the rest of us should shoulder the costs of other people's poor lifestyle choices.

Australia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Germany and a number of other countries currently have healthcare costs per person about half of the United States. I've been to a couple of these countries, particularly Germany. I know they smoke (and some think, for some weird reason, that smoking has been outlawed in the United States). I know the Germans drink (boy do they drink). All of these countries have lower rates of infant mortality and a comparable life-span. As mentioned earlier, Canada spends a lower percentage than the U.S.

And boy, is Germany in a desperate state.A stagnant economy, Unemployment at crisis levels and a lack of business confidence and innovation all caused by interventionist government policies a.k.a. socialism mean that Germans are facing serious problems with paying for their healt system.

What's wrong with socialism? Look at Germany.

 

[Cain]

In a democracy that authority is derived from the people, and restrained by constitutional safeguards. Both of these have evolved over time. Personally speaking I keep receipts for the personal property I buy and my family have deeds to our land and house. As to the moral standing for this I'd argue we've as much moral right to it as all the other previous generations who fought for it and stole it. I couls also point out that we actually work it, as did previous generations of the family,

Your personal circumstances, the details of which I am not at all familiar (culture, history, government), is an unpersuasive.

as opposed to the previous owners, who benefitted from their propreitorship while others did the actual work.

That's capitalism. I see no reason why you would point this out (unless you're arguing land is acquired via a combination of one's labor). But even then difficulties arise.

Bill Gates undoubtedly spends quite a bit on his personal security. OTOH I wouldn't feel comfortable with Bill running part of the courts system, nor should he absolve himself from being subject to the laws of the land because his bank balance is a lot healthier than the average Joe.

The last part of this sentence works on another level in relation to healthcare: why should Bill Gates benefit from all types of treatment while others lack basic care?

In fact Bill made enough money to spend on private security because he benefitted from a society with enforceable laws that allowed him invest and innovate, safe in the knowledge the fruits of his labourr would be safeguarded by the justice system. Capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Rather it requires a minimum of regulation to thrive. Hence taxpayers money should be spent on the police and judicial system.

Again, people who advocate a universal healthcare system make identical arguments on identical grounds.

Probably. I've never argued that the state shouldn't divert resources to healthcare. I just believe they should be targetted to those most in need. The occurence of uncontrollable causes is minimal compared to controllable causes.

Again, I see little to disagree on. "Most in need" clearly conflicts with "effective demand"- i.e. how the market rations medicial resources.

You're obscuring my point. If a smoker is struck by a car or assaulted, then smoking has absolutely nothing to do with their sudden ill health. In these two scenarios they could probably sue to recover the cost of their medical costs.

If anything it makes a stronger point against universal care because it introduces very real aggravating circumstances.

Neither do I. It's just that I fail to see why the rest of us should shoulder the costs of other people's poor lifestyle choices.

Again, we could the same for people who choose to drive on the highway, go rock-climbing, or live in poor neighborhoods with high crime.

And boy, is Germany in a desperate state.A stagnant economy, Unemployment at crisis levels and a lack of business confidence and innovation all caused by interventionist government policies a.k.a. socialism mean that Germans are facing serious problems with paying for their health system.

First, German does not practice socialism; it's a capitalist welfare state. Secnod, leaf through all the business publications from the early eighties and we hear the same kind of dire, chicken-little predictions (or go back even further to Hayek's most celebrated work, _The Road to Serfdom_). The buearu of Labor is notorious for underestimating unemployment here. A ten year budget surplus projected at 5.6 trillion dollars has been converted into a 4 trillion dollar deficit. Poverty rates, infant mortality, and the number of Americans lacking health insurance is staggering. Why harp on Germany, anyway? What about Norway or any of the other countries that ranks higher than the United States according to the UN development index?

 

[Malachi151]

No, of course not. Police protection is a public good, and though I have not directly called the police and had them coming running to my immediate, the indirect benefits are still real. The same applies to other public goods: education, health care, national defense...

I think think you could be since you're usually on the ball

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
Your personal circumstances, the details of which I am not at all familiar (culture, history, government), is an unpersuasive.

See if I care. Fact is that's our land, our property, and nothing you say is going to persuade me that there's anything immoral about it. Juwst wondering, but where do you live? A rented tent? Where did you grow up? And have you any viable alternative to private property?

That's capitalism. I see no reason why you would point this out (unless you're arguing land is acquired via a combination of one's labor). But even then difficulties arise.

It was anything but capitalism. Tenants weren't allowed by law to buy their land until the latter part of the 19th century, regardless of their abilit to buy. What difficulties are you talking about?

The last part of this sentence works on another level in relation to healthcare: why should Bill Gates benefit from all types of treatment while others lack basic care?

Easy. If Bill Gates takes care of his own healthcare, more government funds can be directed to those most in need.

Again, people who advocate a universal healthcare system make identical arguments on identical grounds.

Nonsense. It's highly desireable that those who can pay for their healthcare. It is highly undesireable that anyone buys justice. Healthcare can be a commodity, justice never should be.

Again, I see little to disagree on. "Most in need" clearly conflicts with "effective demand"- i.e. how the market rations medicial resources.

How is there a clear conflict. People who can finance their own healthcare should be obliged to, with government funds and charitable organisations taking up the slack. Whatever you think about the iniquity of the market it's a fact that healthcare still has to be paid for. It simply isn't "free". It's a question of finding the most efficnet way of financing it.

First, German does not practice socialism; it's a capitalist welfare state

Capitalist welfare = social democracy. Not exactly the same as socialism, but still having an emphasis on the redistribution of income and interventionism in the market place.

Secnod, leaf through all the business publications from the early eighties and we hear the same kind of dire, chicken-little predictions (or go back even further to Hayek's most celebrated work, _The Road to Serfdom_).

I posted facts, not predictions. Who said what when I was in diapers is moot to what is actually happening now.

The buearu of Labor is notorious for underestimating unemployment here.

Says who?

The OECD standardized unemployment rates suggest that German unemployment has been about twice that of the US for quite some time.

Poverty rates, infant mortality, and the number of Americans lacking health insurance is staggering.

Evidence?

Why harp on Germany, anyway?

Because you were there, and I wanted to inform your perceptions with some facts.

What about Norway or any of the other countries that ranks higher than the United States according to the UN development index?

Norway is interesting, a small country with loads of oil. This has allowed it avoid the problems facing other countries.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Cain
Yeah, I suppose the government can do whatever it pleases, but that certainly doesn't make it right.

Thank you!

An argument -- a justification -- is necessary. I've yet to see anything of the sort in this regard for private property. Why does someone have to demonstrate the illegitimacy? The burden of proof rests with the person arguing on behalf of a power or authority (in this case the state's authority to section off a plot of land and say, "this belongs to X.")

If the burden of proof rests with the person arguing in behalf of a power or authority, does that also apply to the state's "authority" to secure funding by confiscating property or earnings?

 

[BillyTK]

You're absolutely right.

One justification is the Lockean conception kind of Utilitarian because it prescribes a limit on private property- that "there is as good and enough left over for others." The whole "ooh, I mix my labor with the land," has always appeared arbitrary, and besides, it has troubling implications for present day ownership (the United States was taken over by force).

If I make this land mine by use of force--which is to say I mixed my labour with this land--then what is to stop someone else from taking my land by mixing their labour with it? Or even using other forms of force (and labour)? How do I guarantee my claim to it? If I use force to defend my claim, is it simply a case of the greatest force wins? It makes the idea of rights of ownership troubling unless there's a greater force--than I or my challenger can muster-- to act as guarantor for my rights.

Of course, I suppose they can always fall back on the good ol' Utilitarian argument. But then that means they have no principled argument against universal healthcare. If we have private property to maximize happiness, then there's nothing inherently wrong about redistributing wealth and resources to create a system that treats diseases for everyone.

Hold on, but what about--nope, you're right, dammit!

It's better to just ignore the problem altogether. What legitimizes private property? Are you a Communist or something? Who cares?

Well, colour me communist then!

 

[Cain]

See if I care. Fact is that's our land, our property, and nothing you say is going to persuade me that there's anything immoral about it.

Then I see no reason to continue. As a final note, though, I'd only say that your private ownership lacks moral justification.

Juwst wondering, but where do you live? A rented tent? Where did you grow up? And have you any viable alternative to private property?

Southern California. Apartment. Southern California. There are alternatives to the current regime.

It was anything but capitalism. Tenants weren't allowed by law to buy their land until the latter part of the 19th century, regardless of their abilit to buy. What difficulties are you talking about?

Hold on a second. Contextually, you mentioned the prior land owners as having *less of a claim* than you. I find it curious that you would fault prior laws as prohibiting the sale of these seemingly illegitimate titles. Finally, you wrote, "previous owners... benefitted from their propreitorship while others did the actual work."

That's capitalism. There's nothing inherently wrong (according to capitalism), contrary to what's implied, with a capitalist benefitting from the labor of others. Or let's just imagine share-croppers so poor that they couldn't purchase the land if they wanted to (the post-civil war south is a historical example). Such structures would be even worse, but they're still capitalistic.

Easy. If Bill Gates takes care of his own healthcare, more government funds can be directed to those most in need.

This makes no sense; the resources a universal healthcare system provides to Bill Gates would probably be equal to (or even less than) the average person.

Nonsense. It's highly desireable that those who can pay for their healthcare. It is highly undesireable that anyone buys justice. Healthcare can be a commodity, justice never should be.

For reasons mentioned earlier, healthcare makes a poor commodity. None of the ordinary free-market assumptions hold (barrier to entry, perfect information (asymmetries in information alone undermines the structure), a small number of providers, and so on). If you're making the argument on economic grounds, then it fails.

How is there a clear conflict. People who can finance their own healthcare should be obliged to, with government funds and charitable organisations taking up the slack. Whatever you think about the iniquity of the market it's a fact that healthcare still has to be paid for. It simply isn't "free". It's a question of finding the most efficnet way of financing it.

Agreed. The primary question, though, is whether or not government can provide universal care in principle. Libertarians, conservatives, and others usually say "no." They allege that such a regime "confiscates" their property, which is immoral.

The OECD standardized unemployment rates suggest that German unemployment has been about twice that of the US for quite some time.

Europe has almost always had higher unemployment rates (partially, again, becasue of the way my government estimates unemployment. We have one of the highest prison populations in the world (it might be the highest), and none of those two million (or whatever the figure) people counts as unemployed. Prisons don't come cheap, either. We could send a person to Harvard for the same costs).

Evidence?

This requires little to no investigation. The 40 million uninsured, at least here in the States, is well known.

For comparisons on infant mortality and poverty consult the CIA world factbook:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

And a comparison between JUST the US and JUST Germany is completely arbitrary. Why not compare Scandnavian countries, the biggest offenders social democracy (Germany is technically corprotist anyway). Or the Netherlands, or all of Western europe.
Why even place so much emphasis on unemployment? Japan has a lower unemployment than the United States, for example. Does that mean it has a more sound economy? Of course not.

Norway is interesting, a small country with loads of oil. This has allowed it avoid the problems facing other countries. [/B]

Undoubtedly a critical factor. But again, for the sake of a meaningful comparison, we can look at the natural treasures of the United States: five percent of the world's population occupying approximately seven percent of its land; over 15 percent of the world's copper and cadium reserves; over 20 percent of its reserves of coal, lead, zinc. Not to forget fertile cropland. (Source: Stephen Gardner, _Comparative Economic Systems_).

And let's not fail to mention all of the middle-eastern countries sitting on far more oil.

According to the UN's development index the United States ranks sixth in the world.

If the burden of proof rests with the person arguing in behalf of a power or authority, does that also apply to the state's "authority" to secure funding by confiscating property or earnings?

It depends on how you wish to justify property, wmt. If we say private property is a social institution defined and governed by a government to maximize happiness, then there's nothing wrong (in principle) with taking it for Utilitarian purposes. If you say private property is a natural right, nearly absolute, and completely free from government interference under all but the most extreme circumstances, then that requires an argument. A justification. If that justification holds up, if you have a good reason, then of course the government (or anyone) cannot "confiscate" it.

My government forcibly seized land from the Natives. I am a direct beneficary from genocidal actions. No conservative today complains about land "stolen" from the Indians. As George Bernard Shaw said, "the government that steals from Paul to pay Peter can always count on the support of Peter."

 

[Skeptic]

I think a lot of the discussion is about definitions.

ORIGINALLY, "socialism" was a system that was opposed to unfetterd, 19th-century "Robber Baron" capitalism.

In this respect, not only is there nothing wrong with socialism, the US is, in fact, a socialist country: if you look at the American socialist party list of demanded reforms, virtually all of them (at the time considered insanely "liberal" and the "ruin of free enterprise") were adopted. They include, for example, such radical suggestions as insurance for workers against getting hurt on the job, an eight-hour workday, minimum wage, overtime, etc.

EVENTUALLY, "socialism" came to signify not merely the demand for social responsiblity in a capitalistic society, but either the replacement of the capitalistic system by a "socialist revolution" (that is, communism as practiced in the USSR and its allies) or the trumping of business and profitability by social consideration (that is, the welfare state as practiced in, say, Sweden, where you have cradle-to-grave care... and a 70-80% tax rate.)

It seems clear to me that all three systems--lassaiz-fair (sp?) capitalism with no safety net or workers' rights at all, the nanny state, and the communist dictatorships--are clearly inferior to the moderate, or perhaps the "original" or "true", socialist capitalism as practiced in the USA.

 

[Segnosaur]

Australia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Germany and a number of other countries currently have healthcare costs per person about half of the United States

....

As mentioned earlier, Canada spends a lower percentage than the U.S.

Over 40 million people are currently uninsured. That's not exactly a good thing.

I just want to point out that although Canada pays less on health care per capita than the US, we have major problems with our health care system. Waiting lists are long for operations, medical tests, etc. In fact, many 'well off' people will go down to the US for certain tests (Like MRIs).

And while it is unfortunate that there are uninsured Americans, even uninsured people will still receive some form of health care.

The average level of health care in the US is probably higher than that of Canada, but that includes people getting really good health care, and people getting some (but not great) health care. Canada's system is universal, but it means that everyone receives the same crappy level, somewhere in between the best and the worst of the US.

 

[BillyTK]

I think a lot of the discussion is about definitions.

ORIGINALLY, "socialism" was a system that was opposed to unfetterd, 19th-century "Robber Baron" capitalism.

Not so much a system, more a response; the "system" aspect of it came later in the mid-eighteenth century.

In this respect, not only is there nothing wrong with socialism, the US is, in fact, a socialist country: if you look at the American socialist party list of demanded reforms, virtually all of them (at the time considered insanely "liberal" and the "ruin of free enterprise") were adopted. They include, for example, such radical suggestions as insurance for workers against getting hurt on the job, an eight-hour workday, minimum wage, overtime, etc.

EVENTUALLY, "socialism" came to signify not merely the demand for social responsiblity in a capitalistic society, but either the replacement of the capitalistic system by a "socialist revolution" (that is, communism as practiced in the USSR and its allies) or the trumping of business and profitability by social consideration (that is, the welfare state as practiced in, say, Sweden, where you have cradle-to-grave care... and a 70-80% tax rate.)

Wrong, in that socialism split into many different forms (although there'd been competing ideas all along anyway), ranging from British ethical socialism--which came from a branch of protestantism called methodism--Fabian socialism--after a group called the Fabians, who favoured gradual, pragmatic change backed up by empirical studies--and Marxism. It's worthwhile noting that Marx was ambivalent about revolutionary change; he thought socialism was inevitable, and it was subsequent Marxists like Lenin and Trotsky who were off on the whole revolutionary aspect. It's also interesting to note that the Fabians were opposed to Marxism, and Trotsky was opposed to both Stalin and the USSR, particularly with the way that the old Imperial elite had been replaced by a new beaurocratic elite.

It seems clear to me that all three systems--lassaiz-fair (sp?) capitalism with no safety net or workers' rights at all, the nanny state, and the communist dictatorships--are clearly inferior to the moderate, or perhaps the "original" or "true", socialist capitalism as practiced in the USA.

It'd take one helluva stretch of imagination to construe the liberal changes made in the US as socialist. As for "socialist capitalism" practised in the US, there's nothing "original" or "true" about it, other than the most superficial similarities with Fabian socialism. Social democracy might be the closest term, but this is still kind of way off the mark, not least with Clinton's welfare reforms of the '90s.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
If the burden of proof rests with the person arguing in behalf of a power or authority, does that also apply to the state's "authority" to secure funding by confiscating property or earnings?

Originally posted by Cain
It depends on how you wish to justify property, wmt. If we say private property is a social institution defined and governed by a government to maximize happiness, then there's nothing wrong (in principle) with taking it for Utilitarian purposes.

I don't say that, and if you do, then you appear to be using selective definitions to get around that "burden of proof" thing that you seem to expect others to adhere to. Specifically, why isn't there any burden of proof for saying that "private property is a social institution defined and governed by a government to maximize happiness" in the first place? Isn't there some "authority" that needs to be established for government to do this?

Moreover, even if that's how you define it, what makes you think it naturally follows that "there's nothing wrong (in principle) with taking it for Utilitarian purposes"? Is calling it a "social institution" supposed to meet the "burden of proof"? And aren't you the one who said "I suppose the government can do whatever it pleases, but that certainly doesn't make it right"?

If you say private property is a natural right, nearly absolute, and completely free from government interference under all but the most extreme circumstances, then that requires an argument. A justification.

I haven't made this claim, so you might want to take it up with someone who has.

If that justification holds up, if you have a good reason, then of course the government (or anyone) cannot "confiscate" it.

So you were just kidding when you said "The burden of proof rests with the person arguing on behalf of a power or authority"?

My government forcibly seized land from the Natives. I am a direct beneficary from genocidal actions. No conservative today complains about land "stolen" from the Indians.

Are these statements somehow relevant to what I asked? You're not trying to pass them off as proof of something, are you?

As George Bernard Shaw said, "the government that steals from Paul to pay Peter can always count on the support of Peter."

I think he might have identified one of the problems with socialism.