quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Indeed LE. At the very least children should not be allowed to suffer because of their parent's bad decisions, if for no other reason than if we don't care humanely for them now we will quite likely be dealing with a good deal of them as adult criminals. The penny pinchers should at least appreciate that as a bargain.

Z.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

With "rights and privledges", I was referring to the ability to obtain services with one's own income to the same degree (which isn't the case in a capitalist society, but is, as I understand it to be, in a socialist society).  Such as the right to medical care, which seems like it leans more towards the rich in a capitalist society while it's more equal in a socialist one.

I guess it was probably one of the more cryptic parts of the OP.  Darn tired rants.

The taxpaying poor pay a bigger proportion of their income in taxes than the rich, who virtually pay nothing at all and even less in America than in Europe. Take a good look at who pays in a capitalist society and you will find that capitalist societies are social welfare for the rich, as it is the vast bulk of the taxpayers who have income tax taken out of their salaries by the government that pay for the running of society, not the rich. The rich pay for an army of fancy lawyers and accountants to avoid paying their fair share of tax to the society that allows them to accummulate the wealth they have.

When it comes to dying for ones country, it is almost invariably the tax avoiding rich one is asked to die for, not ones family and home. I've never understood why anyone would put on a uniform and be a mercenary for the rich, especially when the same rich are happy to see a soldier and his family go without healthcare.

When it comes to ordinary people claiming capitalism is better than socialism (the west has a synthesis of the two), I can't help but feel the cheese has slipped off their cracker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Aswad, many people may not be aware that a "." is used rather than a "," to indicate 10^3x, where x is a whloe number > 0, in Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

CL: "Be they "socialists" proper, hippies, people for tax-based services for the entire population,..."
Why are you conflating Socialists with Hippies, CL? "Hippie" is a philosophy of living (and I use Philosophy in a loose definition of the word).

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

CL: "Be they "socialists" proper, hippies, people for tax-based services for the entire population,..."
Why are you conflating Socialists with Hippies, CL? "Hippie" is a philosophy of living (and I use Philosophy in a loose definition of the word).

I was flagging a bunch of groups, then constraining them to subsets within themselves (in text that came after that).  Most of the OP is a definition, with marks before and after to prevent misinterpretation.

It was quite a failed approach in practice on my part.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

It's alright.  I understand how and why it failed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

There are some things a man can learn that he may wish he hadn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I'm not sure if I'm strong enough to always accept things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I'm not sure if I'm strong enough to always accept things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

I have an acquaintance (shared interests, but diametrically opposed value systems and approach to life) who fits the bill exactly. He is at least honest enough to admit that he's plain lazy, but it's somewhat frustrating to hear him extolling the virtues of collectivism and the deferral of personal sovereignty aand accountability to the state, etc., while decrying individualism, professional pride, personal growth and so forth, as well as positing ideas of entitlement by virtue of being human, with no room for merit or payoff proportional to effort. I get that he wants to leech (though I'm not comfortable with it), and appreciate the honesty, but it irks me that he lacks the honesty to note that it's charity on the part of the state, not a responsibility of the state.

Health,
al-Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Capitalism is a fact, not an ideology, IMO.

Unless every person is able to provide for themselves, entirely, there must be an exchange of goods or services. These have an intrinsic value, along with a supply level and a demand level. The question becomes what value is used as the basis for these exchanges, along with what regulation- if any- is applied to the exchanges, and who applies it. Capitalism uses supply and demand as the value basis in exchanges, and the degree of regulation is typically small. Alternately, you can set an arbitrary value (cf. salary caps, fixed wages, etc.). One model that is rarely used, is to apply the intrinsic value; the services of a doctor are arguably of higher intrinsic value than those of a sanitation worker, and similar things go for e.g. firefighters. The inherent problem is resolving (and quantifying) less obvious variations in the intrinsic value of the work done;
Actually this is exactly what is done.  Doctors are remunerated much more generously than sanitation workers.  The dichotomy is that not everyone needs a doctor but everyone does need to shit.  If the removal of that necessary byproduct of the human condition ceased the whole of society would then need the services of a doctor.  So it would appear that the intrinsic value theory is somewhat skewed.


that may be why it isn't a particularly common model. Of course, hybrid approaches are also possible, and most systems tend to be hybrids. I think realizing that is useful in making a good hybrid, as it makes it clear that such is what one is doing, rather than viewing it in terms of compromising a pure model, or "patching" one.

Leveling the playing field requires one of two things: local cooperation, or central regulation.

People arguably do not, as a rule, possess the macro-level social awareness and moral fortitude to realize this leveling of the playing field at the local level (cf. the tragedy of the commons, lynching, etc.;
A counter example might be the Mbuti society which has a continuous 6000 year+ society without kings,prime ministers or legislators.

without regulation, a group of average people is arguably less than the sum of the individuals, and possibly less than their average).
Less what??????


Health,
al-Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
My preferred arrangement on the health care front is to have a baseline standard of care that is acceptable, and to allow people to pay for better healh care. That way, the resource utilization is improved over a purely private system, while one retains the ability for those who can afford it to get better care. Thus, when they pay extra, they don't pay anything more extra than they'd otherwise be doing,, due to the resource utilization bit. Consider that the cost of private hospitals, equipment and staff remains  so that they effectively subsidize the public health care system as a side effect
.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

My preferred arrangement on the health care front is to have a baseline standard of care that is acceptable, and to allow people to pay for better healh care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Trembling in my boots as I do so I rise and say that the high lighted bit is definitely incorrect in the UK and my guess is that it is incorrect in most Social Democratically inclined European countries. The cost of Hospitals Hardware and Medical Training is largely born by the taxpayer not the recipient of  a two tiered system of treatment. If such costs were included the upper tier would become prohibitively expensive.

quote:

Why should poor people get inferior medical treatment.?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

Aswad, would you mind defining your term "better health care"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

Aswad, would you mind defining your term "better health care"?

Better than the standard of care that has been decided on as an agreeable minimum. It also effectively means paying to get ahead of the line when there's a queue, which usually happpens in public health care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

And why does Money make one man's operation more imperative than another's?

quote:

Why is the rich man entitled to a life-saving operation that requires everyone else in line to wait for the next available heart donor?

quote:

What if the next guy in line dies, because his condition is far worse than that of the rich man and he simply couldn't survive without the heart the rich man bought?

quote:

Why isn't the rich man required to buy his position in line from whomever currently holds it?

quote:

The problem with capitalism is it is amoral.

quote:

The end justifies the means.

quote:

Socialism recognizes that humans work best within a structured system that treats them fairly and with dignity.

quote:

The problem is defining "fairness" and "dignity" when socialism must implicitly acknowledge that humans outside of a structured system will do anything to survive and ensure their survival (i.e. resort to capitalism).

quote:

Capitalists are the hunters and gatherers ... Socialists are the farmers and herders.