Where do you stand? (Political Affiliation)

[Killsteel]

I thought it would be interesting to see what percentages of people were in which segment of the political spectrum. If you're unsure of where you stand, take this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Personally, I'm Bottom Left. Something like (-8,-8) if I remember correctly...

[mgb]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82

Pretty far left and pretty far libertarian.

[athman]

Economic Left/Right: -1.12
Social Libertairian/Authoritatian: - 2.72

A little bit left and a little bit libertarian.

Not sure about the survey construction though, some double negatives to navigate. Still, its only a bit of fun.

[int]

From earlier this year:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/xparmstr/Random/politicalplacementINTPstext.jpg

[Boneca]

Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

Hm. I see a pattern. :shock:

[jittus rye]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13

[cjs55]

Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49

Looks like I'm the closest to breaking across the Authoritarian line thus far.

[Robespierre]

Individualist 100%

[Boneca]

Individualist 100%That would be bottom right, wouldn't it? I assume that you mean that you are against state interference both in an economic sense (thus extremely right) and in a social sense (extremely libertarian). If not, would you care to explain?

[Warrior413]

Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

[SheepDog]

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79

[Robespierre]

That would be bottom right, wouldn't it? I assume that you mean that you are against state interference both in an economic sense (thus extremely right) and in a social sense (extremely libertarian). If not, would you care to explain?

A good analysis. I agree without caveat that I belong somewhere on the bottom line. However, the definition of "right" is where the trouble comes up. I am for zero interference, which means no government at all, which means no minimum wages, no farm subsidies, no tariffs, no labor laws, nothing. Most people's understanding of what "right" is, including many on the right, involves a somewhat free market, but with other aspects involved, like intellectual property(something I don't recognize), and other mercantilist ideas like government funded infrastructure and the like.

So if you mean right as zero interference, then I do belong on the intersection of bottom-most line and the right-most line. Another term for my views, which I tend to avoid because its components both carry confusing baggage, is Anarcho-Libertarian.

[MasterMerk]

From what I remember when I did it earlier this year, it was around:

Economic Left/Right: -4
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8

[melancholeric]

Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08

[Killsteel]

Well, this is interesting, though hardly suprising. Hmmm..... I guess similar personalities have similar political views too....

[tragula]

Absolutely fascinating... it's like oh my god if personality dictates political views too, then we (and the whole world) are really just hostages to our personalities....

I tested in the same exact corner as almost everyone of course. I wonder if that means we should be worried about surveilance!

[Nindy]

Another Bottom Left here:

Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54

[mgb]

Its not that suprising that we are all in the same corner. Its a strong reflection of individuality and our belief in it, while realizing that we all need at least some support in this world from other people, some of us more than others I guess.

[Robespierre]

Its not that suprising that we are all in the same corner. Its a strong reflection of individuality and our belief in it, while realizing that we all need at least some support in this world from other people, some of us more than others I guess.

I think it more acurately reflects the relative arrogance of intp's in their willingness to label some freedoms as individuality and lack others as 'support'.

Economic freedoms are just as important as any other freedoms.

[HeyBooU]

Economic Left/Right: -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

[Bluehaze]

Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.75

Just about the closest to the origin as one could get.

[indie]

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

I think it's very interesting that we INTPs share such a similar political orientation. The whole INTP thing's gotta mean something, eh, as open to different ideas as we are?

[Killsteel]

Well, I could say it's because we're intelligent and we know what we're talking about, but that would be arrogant and foolish, so I won't. It may be because liberalism is about the individual, whereas authoritarianism is about the country/state...

[Robespierre]

I think the typical INTP has at least been exposed to the reasoning behind civil libertarianism. This is not necessarily the case for economic liberalism. It's a forgivable position, what with the massive majority in education and society at large that don't understand or believe in economic freedom, but I think INTP's should be held to a higher standard. "Everyone else is doing it" should be a warning flag to INTPs.

[Killsteel]

The thing with economic freedom, and civil freedom, I feel, is that there's a point where it goes downhill. Think about this. If we had total economic freedom, we'd be able to buy and sell other human beings. Now, would you call a society that does this free? There's a point where human rights come into it, and that's where both economic and civil liberties have to stop...

[Robespierre]

The thing with economic freedom, I feel, is that there's a point where it goes downhill. Think about this. If we had total economic freedom, we'd be able to buy and sell other human beings. Now, would you call a society that does this free? There's a point where rights come into it, and that's where both economic and civil liberties have to stop...

Not at all. I should have been more clear. Total economic freedom, based upon the concept of natural rights.

Non-aggression should really be the fundamental law for INTPs. Situations where some state or other ruling body steps between two people making voluntary exchanges and forces the two parties to comply to the state's or the ruling party's wishes, are examples of violence, either actual or implied.

A good example is the drug war. Some group of people, possibly a majority of those in the US, think that no one should be allowed to own or use certain plants and chemicals. Is it okay for them to impose their views upon the minority who disagree?

Similarly, minimum wage laws destroy freedom. There may be a majority of people who wish to see them remain, should they be able to impose their idea of economics on the minority? I say not. Aside from the horrible moral problems with minimum wage laws, they are actually counter-productive to the ends which most progressives state, greater standard of living for the poor.

[Killsteel]

Ah, maybe I should have been a little clearer too.

I agree about the whole 'voluntary exchanges' thing, but there must be an exception when the exchange involves another person unwillingly.

I don't see what's wrong with minimum wage laws though, can you explain?

[Robespierre]

Ah, maybe I should have been a little clearer too.

I agree about the whole 'voluntary exchanges' thing, but there must be an exception when the exchange involves another person unwillingly.

Well, if an exchange involves some party unwillingly, it is no longer voluntary. Theft is a good example of this. Party A, the thief, takes something from party B, without B's consent.

Taxes also fall in this catagory. Party A, the fedgov, stategov, or mungov, take something from party B, the subject, without B's consent.


I don't see what's wrong with minimum wage laws though, can you explain?

Minimum wage laws come between two parties wishing to make an exchange, and use the threat of violence to force one party to make a concession. A business owner has the ultimate right to operate his business so long as he respects the same rights of others, basic non-aggression.

Unions fall in the same catagory as violent interventions on behalf of one party in a transaction, at the expense of another's rights.

[Killsteel]

But there has to be a safetynet, doesn't there? We have to make sure that companies can't go and employ people for peanuts, don't we? You could say that's not likely, because no-one would go and work there. But what if if was the only job available? What if it was that or nothing? Surely a working class family should be able to earn the money they need to have a decent life....

[Robespierre]

But there has to be a safetynet, doesn't there?

There can be a safetynet without violence. A system of voluntary charity, which already exists, can serve this purpose well.


We have to make sure that companies can't go and employ people for peanuts, don't we?

No, of course not. If people wish to work for peanuts, who are you to say they may not?


You could say that's not likely, because no-one would go and work there. But what if if was the only job available?

Exactly, what if? Companies are not in existence to provide jobs. No one has a right to employment at another's expense.


What if it was that or nothing? Surely a working class family should be able to earn the money they need to have a decent life....

Of course they should, just not with the aid of violent government interventions.

[Killsteel]

*sigh* but some people may be forced to work for peanuts. They may not have a choice. (i.e. when that's the only job on offer) What do we do then?

*thinks*

I suppose government projects are good for providing work at a fair pay....

But about the charity, it isn't enough. There are still millions of starving people out there Until less than 0.5% of the world are starving, I won't be satisfied with any system...

[Robespierre]

*sigh* but some people may be forced to work for peanuts. They may not have a choice. (i.e. when that's the only job on offer) What do we do then?

Not forced. Forced labor is known as slavery. Please describe a situation in which someone may be "forced" to accept a job for what you call "peanuts".


*thinks*

I suppose government projects are good for providing work at a fair pay....

But about the charity, it isn't enough. There are still millions of starving people out there Until less than 0.5% of the world are starving, I won't be satisfied with any system...

Need does NOT imply right. Simply because people need food, they do not have some right to steal it from others.

[Killsteel]

They have a right to take it off of people who don't need it if they need it more. At least, that's what I think.

Okay, here's your situation.
You're a working class man with a wife and seven children. You need a job. After the abolition of the minimum wage laws, all of the companies have reduced their payments drastically. You are an unskilled labourer, and not very inteligent, so the only jobs available are 10p an hour. Not having a job isn't an option, because then you'll all starve.

That good enough for you? The only solution wuld be to set up state-run workforces, with fair pay....

[SheepDog]

Still trying to understand where you're coming from, Robespierre, and I have another question. What options are available, within your view, when someone violates the respect for individual liberties or property rights? (I tried to leave the wording open, so please rephrase as needed). For example, if someone takes my property, what can I do about it?

[Robespierre]

They have a right to take it off of people who don't need it if they need it more. At least, that's what I think.

Okay, here's your situation.
You're a working class man with a wife and seven children. You need a job.

Correction, WANT a job. Also, the man has chosen to have those children, they do not simply fall out of the sky at random. Those children are his responsibility, and he should consider his ability to provide for them before he produces them.

Also, who are you to decide that party A has too much of something, so much that you think it okay for party B to steal it from party A? The idea of need makes right is the route to mud huts and tribalism.


After the abolition of the minimum wage laws, all of the companies have reduced their payments drastically.

You think so? Why? Will people continue to work for them? Will prices drop accordingly due to competition between the companies, thus ending in a living standard equal or better than that of before?


You are an unskilled labourer, and not very inteligent, so the only jobs available are 10p an hour. Not having a job isn't an option, because then you'll all starve.

I'm with you so far...


That good enough for you? The only solution wuld be to set up state-run workforces, with fair pay....

The only solution? If companies were able to hire labor for 10p an hour, they would undercut one another in such a vicious and self-concerned way as to lower the overall cost of living to such a level that one could get buy just fine on 10p an hour.

[Robespierre]

Still trying to understand where you're coming from, Robespierre, and I have another question. What options are available, within your view, when someone violates the respect for individual liberties or property rights? (I tried to leave the wording open, so please rephrase as needed). For example, if someone takes my property, what can I do about it?

The actions available to you are highly determinate upon the society you live in. In a voluntary society, with a high level of economic development, something the US has(the US is still relatively voluntary, when compared to other schemes), recompense may come in many forms, most of which we will not know about until justice is provided by non-state institutions. It is impossible to predict exactly what the market will produce in this area, but one can make guesses. A good example is that of private security firms and firms that supply information on the character of individuals, something like a character credit check. Before hiring someone, an employer might purchase a background check from one of these organizations and see if any complaints have been leveled against him, and if any were settled.

I also see the possibility of private courts, in which both parties agree to resolve disputes by appealing to the judgement of some organization.

The biggest difference I imagine, between justice now and justice in a voluntary society is the concentration of prevention and deturance over punishment after the fact. In our current system, the police rarely prevent crime, but show up afterwards to impose punishment. While this punishment may act as a deturance, it clearly is not very effective. Criminals who kill or maim, are rarely held financially responsible to their victims. Even most cases involving theft don't result in the victim getting reimbursed.

[Robespierre]

Back on topic, it seems to be that the typical INTP is easily convinced of his or her superiourity over others, to the extent that they believe they have the duty to control the lives of others.

[SheepDog]

Back on topic, it seems to be that the typical INTP is easily convinced of his or her superiourity over others, to the extent that they believe they have the duty to control the lives of others.
That's making too broad a statement with regard to individuals prsesuming superiority over others. For example, saying that I believe in a court that has a group of (alleged) peers deciding issues of justice, is not the same as me saying that I'm going to decide issues of justice for everyone.

[Robespierre]

That's making too broad a statement with regard to individuals prsesuming superiority over others. For example, saying that I believe in a court that has a group of (alleged) peers deciding issues of justice, is not the same as me saying that I'm going to decide issues of justice for everyone.

I freely admit that my comments are broad generalizations, based upon the small sampling of INTP's I have interacted with. But this seems to be the whole point of typing people, to make generalizations about personality and tendencies. Also, I am not an expert on the types. I have read one book, and many websites, but I still have much to learn.

[SheepDog]

Something that I find interesting in this thread in particular, as it relates to type is that INTPs are often described as relying strongly on principles. Robespierre is clearly (in my mind) tying his (assuming gender is correct?) arguments with a high level of integrity to a principle, in this case individual liberties. The counter arguments I'm seeing (here and in other threads) seem to be speaking about a more socially constructed set of arguments. In this sense, it's somewhat ironic, at first glance.

But a principled nature is not the only feature of INTPs. There is also what I will call a pragmatic nature of INTPs that seems to be at work. How do INTPs reconcile principles vs. pragmatism? This is what I see here, anyway.

[Robespierre]

Something that I find interesting in this thread in particular, as it relates to type is that INTPs are often described as relying strongly on principles. Robespierre is clearly (in my mind) tying his (assuming gender is correct?)

Correctamundo.


arguments with a high level of integrity to a principle, in this case individual liberties. The counter arguments I'm seeing (here and in other threads) seem to be speaking about a more socially constructed set of arguments. In this sense, it's somewhat ironic, at first glance.

But a principled nature is not the only feature of INTPs. There is also what I will call a pragmatic nature of INTPs that seems to be at work. How do INTPs reconcile principles vs. pragmatism? This is what I see here, anyway.

I look at this in a different light. I see principles as pragmatic in and of themselves. A model of how things work, society, the universe, whatever, is useless unless it reflects how the world actually is. The most obvious example of this is the cliche that communism works well in theory, but not in practice. The only reasonable response to this is that it MUST not work well in theory if if the theory doesn't square up with real life.

People decide that they like some aspect of an idea, and thus conclude that it is a good theory. The previous example of communism is a good one. Some people decide that the principle of egalitarianism in all things is a good way to organize society because they like it. These same people then ignore that the very idea of complete state enforced egalitarianism is exactly what is wrong with communism and why it failed, resulting in millions of deaths.

[SensEye]

Economic Left/Right: 1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74

A little late to the party, but I thought I would post my results because they are a little off the beaten path.

[SheepDog]

I look at this in a different light. I see principles as pragmatic in and of themselves. A model of how things work, society, the universe, whatever, is useless unless it reflects how the world actually is. The most obvious example of this is the cliche that communism works well in theory, but not in practice. The only reasonable response to this is that it MUST not work well in theory if if the theory doesn't square up with real life.

People decide that they like some aspect of an idea, and thus conclude that it is a good theory. The previous example of communism is a good one. Some people decide that the principle of egalitarianism in all things is a good way to organize society because they like it. These same people then ignore that the very idea of complete state enforced egalitarianism is exactly what is wrong with communism and why it failed, resulting in millions of deaths.
To understand your principles as being as pragmatic as your statement states, I think I need to know more about ALL the principles that you include in your line of thought. As it is, my response about the principle vs. the pragmatic is really based on a set of questions that arise, most of which start off with "yeah, but what about <something-or-other>...?"

For example, if we start off with a principle that taxes are immoral, then I start thinking about a whole list of items that seem necessary and that wouldn't be provided without a government of some sort to provide them. Enforcement of property rights is just one that comes to mind.

But it occurs to me that I am looking at part of your views, and from the basis of decades of a point-of-view that is, for the most part, provided to me by my upbringing. The parts that I understand and agree with (e.g. I believe in individual liberties) do not completely offset a sense that I have that these are 'ideals' which will be mitigated in practice by opposing or relatively incompatible 'realities'.

And just to be clear, some offsetting points include the idea that while people may generally act in predictably self-interested ways, they will not always act rationally when considering their actions. Also, not all people will share the principles, and may act on opposing or at least different principles.

I have a hunch that you've thought about this already... ;)

[Robespierre]

To understand your principles as being as pragmatic as your statement states, I think I need to know more about ALL the principles that you include in your line of thought. As it is, my response about the principle vs. the pragmatic is really based on a set of questions that arise, most of which start off with "yeah, but what about <something-or-other>...?"

For example, if we start off with a principle that taxes are immoral, then I start thinking about a whole list of items that seem necessary and that wouldn't be provided without a government of some sort to provide them. Enforcement of property rights is just one that comes to mind.

I don't believe that there is any good which only a coercive government can provide. In fact, in the case of property rights, the government itself always becomes the greatest enemy of property rights. Right now a massive chunk of the wealth I create is taken from me without my consent.


But it occurs to me that I am looking at part of your views, and from the basis of decades of a point-of-view that is, for the most part, provided to me by my upbringing. The parts that I understand and agree with (e.g. I believe in individual liberties) do not completely offset a sense that I have that these are 'ideals' which will be mitigated in practice by opposing or relatively incompatible 'realities'.

And just to be clear, some offsetting points include the idea that while people may generally act in predictably self-interested ways, they will not always act rationally when considering their actions. Also, not all people will share the principles, and may act on opposing or at least different principles.

I would never propose that there would be a system in which violence would disappear. There will always be people who wish to kill, steal, or whatever. Minimizing these actions is the best that can be hoped for.

And I agree that not all people act rationally, certainly not as I see rationality. However, when each individual is responsible for himself, people should be allowed to do stupid things, so long as they don't aggress against others in the process.


I have a hunch that you've thought about this already... ;)

Yeah, I go through this process at every forum I seriously post on.

[HeyBooU]

Yeah, I go through this process at every forum I seriously post on.
Haha, you know you enjoy it.

[Robespierre]

Haha, you know you enjoy it.

Indeed I do. It's more fun every time.

[SheepDog]

I've had some similar discussions, Robespierre, with an acquaintance who expressed views very similar to yours. He wasn't as articulate, and as it were, showed much less endurance. You, unlike he, have made me think.

I realize that the usual political arguments that I've been exposed to are of the conservative vs. liberal or democratic vs. republican paradigm(s). You are clearly standing outside either of those, which is refreshing. I must say that I have contempt for the arguments as are presented in the broader political 'discussions'. In my eye, they're contrived, more of a distraction than a true debate. Any of the 'issues' in the recent presidential election would serve as an example of this. [It offends me that the republican and democratic parties have made claim to the debates. It is our political process, not theirs...]

I still have reservations about about where you've taken your arguments, despite agreeing with most of your principles.

[jimkopelli]

Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67

[Edmond Zedo]

Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

[int]

Today:

Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

[Boneca]

I would never propose that there would be a system in which violence would disappear. There will always be people who wish to kill, steal, or whatever. Minimizing these actions is the best that can be hoped for.

And I agree that not all people act rationally, certainly not as I see rationality. However, when each individual is responsible for himself, people should be allowed to do stupid things, so long as they don't aggress against others in the process.
I'd like to ask you a question about this. Your opposition to a coercing state would also include a total opposition to a police force, I assume? Then, who is going to stop people from aggressing against each other?
Please do not think I am attacking your views, I'm just trying to understand how you think. Do you imagine a mafia-controlled world where people have to pay to be protected or do you think more along the lines of family-centred protection ("if you mess with me, my brother will kill you")? Or do you have a totally different vision?

[Robespierre]

I'd like to ask you a question about this. Your opposition to a coercing state would also include a total opposition to a police force, I assume? Then, who is going to stop people from aggressing against each other?
Please do not think I am attacking your views, I'm just trying to understand how you think. Do you imagine a mafia-controlled world where people have to pay to be protected or do you think more along the lines of family-centred protection ("if you mess with me, my brother will kill you")? Or do you have a totally different vision?

I have no problem with a police force. My problem is in what laws they enforce, how they are funded, and how they act. Right now, the main job of the police is not to protect private property, but to make money for the individuals running their departments. This is done by persecuting those who the laws of the state decide to be criminals, but may or may not have actually committed a wrong. Aggressing against the person or property of another is a wrong. Ingesting a certain plant or chemical is not.

[Dman]

I like your posts Rob, you remind me very much of a close friend I had in High School. Good arguing material, and you’ve done your homework.

My problem with your proposed society is the thought of how vicious it would be. Thoughts of the wild, wild west come to mind. Although you have reasonable solutions to dealing with potential problems, they are based upon assumptions that all people will act reasonably. We know from mob behavior that this is not always the case. Additionally, the problem of crime needs to be dealt with. In cases where it is not clear who the perpetrator was, would not there need to be some type of system to investigate the situation? Would not this system need some form of authority, i.e. the authority to search for evidence and/or hold the suspect to prevent him from fleeing? Are we not then heading towards the slippery slope of government interference?

[Robespierre]

I like your posts Rob, you remind me very much of a close friend I had in High School. Good arguing material, and you’ve done your homework.

My problem with your proposed society is the thought of how vicious it would be. Thoughts of the wild, wild west come to mind.

The legendary wild wild west is something that existed only in pulp magazines and cowboy movies. The big cities of the east were the true hot-beds of crime during the last half of the 19th century.


Although you have reasonable solutions to dealing with potential problems, they are based upon assumptions that all people will act reasonably.

Never have I suggested or implied that people must act reasonably. Clearly they do not, at least according to me. This is the same relativity problem we encounter when talking about "Good" education. Reasonable to you is different than reasonable to me, and likely different from everyone else in the entire world. This is why the views I hold are much more pragmatic and realistic than any idealized system which has at it's core, concepts which are logically impossible, altruism, or ideas which are directly contrary to human rights.


We know from mob behavior that this is not always the case. Additionally, the problem of crime needs to be dealt with.

No one, on this thread or any other on this forum, to the best of my knowledge, has suggested that crime shouldn't be dealt with.


In cases where it is not clear who the perpetrator was, would not there need to be some type of system to investigate the situation?

There would!


Would not this system need some form of authority, i.e. the authority to search for evidence and/or hold the suspect to prevent him from fleeing? Are we not then heading towards the slippery slope of government interference?

Not at all. Authority need not exist to investigate crimes in the manner which you suggest. Communities have many ways with which they may convince suspects to cooperate, ways that are short of coercion. My refusing to sell you goods from my store is NOT an example of coercion. Your insurance company refusing to cover you unless you make public your records in question, is not coercion. As a result of this lack of coverage, other businesses may deny you their services. There are ways, which involve no form of force, that can nudge an individual to cooperate. At the very least, the costs of not cooperating end up completely payed by the individual.

[Dman]

Do you truly believe that the individualistic society you propose would work? If so, why do you believe it has not occurred?

Also – many multinational corporations ostensibly operate under government rules & regulations, however they still tend to harm people. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that void of any government interference, corporations would not only continue to harm people but inevitably do so even more under the relentless pursuit of profit. Is this just a fact of life in an individualistic society? Sure, in theory, over time the market would adjust to weed out those businesses that do this, but in the mean time, possibly decades, people continue to be injured (either financially or physically) or killed.

[Robespierre]

Do you truly believe that the individualistic society you propose would work? If so, why do you believe it has not occurred?

I do believe that it would work and is the best possible outcome, yes. I believe that a truly libertarian society has not yet formed in a lasting way because the concepts behind Individualism and libertarianism are only now being fully explored in all aspects. The early united states was a very good example of people living together with almost no government interference. Granted, there was some, but nothing at all like what we expirience today. But since the basic principles of individualism were only half formed at that time, charlatans like Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln were able to sell their snake oil of government control to more and more people.


Also – many multinational corporations ostensibly operate under government rules & regulations, however they still tend to harm people.

How?


I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that void of any government interference, corporations would not only continue to harm people but inevitably do so even more under the relentless pursuit of profit.

How would corporations harm people? What pursuit, other than profit, do you yourself pursue?


Is this just a fact of life in an individualistic society? Sure, in theory, over time the market would adjust to weed out those businesses that do this, but in the mean time, possibly decades, people continue to be injured (either financially or physically) or killed.

There are always risks involved in living. That is a fact of life. Not every venture will be successful, not every field sown will reap usable wheat. Thus is life.

[Dman]

I’m sure you are familiar with cost/benefit analysis. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but in your opinion, although an individualistic society may have its flaws, it would still be better than any current system – i.e. the benefits outweigh the costs, right?

Certainly you understand that people who are raised within a particular society, and are for the most part quite comfortable with that society, see no reason to radically transform it. Even if there is a vision of a “better” society, there needs to be a compelling enough reason to reject the current situation in order to bring about the necessary change. There will always be flaws under any system, but the majority of people must believe that the costs outweigh the benefits in order to fix it. Otherwise it is simply an academic exercise. I suspect you are writing or have written a thoroughly researched document on the topic.

[Robespierre]

I’m sure you are familiar with cost/benefit analysis. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but in your opinion, although an individualistic society may have its flaws, it would still be better than any current system – i.e. the benefits outweigh the costs, right?

Not quite. I'm saying the system which I outline is the only system to my knowledge that respects all human rights. I would support this even if this meant some reduction in my material wealth. But on a more basic level, yes. I value the human rights of myself and others more than the coercive government and mercantilist patronage system we live under now.


Certainly you understand that people who are raised within a particular society, and are for the most part quite comfortable with that society, see no reason to radically transform it. Even if there is a vision of a “better” society, there needs to be a compelling enough reason to reject the current situation in order to bring about the necessary change. There will always be flaws under any system, but the majority of people must believe that the costs outweigh the benefits in order to fix it. Otherwise it is simply an academic exercise. I suspect you are writing or have written a thoroughly researched document on the topic.

I don't quite follow you here. I can tell you about my personal reasons for holding the beliefs that I do. I cannot tell you exactly why or why not other people agree.

[Dman]

Not quite. I'm saying the system which I outline is the only system to my knowledge that respects all human rights. I would support this even if this meant some reduction in my material wealth. But on a more basic level, yes. I value the human rights of myself and others more than the coercive government and mercantilist patronage system we live under now.



I don't quite follow you here. I can tell you about my personal reasons for holding the beliefs that I do. I cannot tell you exactly why or why not other people agree.

Perhaps I’ve been misinterpreting you, and your views are just of an academic nature. That would explain a lot. It was your strong wording of governmental actions that led me to believe you were proposing an actual revolutionary change. I’m coming from the standpoint that our society at this point in time is the best that can realistically be achieved. I can envision better systems such as what you propose, but certain assumptions must be made in order for them to work and I don’t see a time in the near future that any other system would work. It’s the “in theory it would work” but in reality it wouldn’t, because theories are based upon assumptions.

The point I was trying to make was that one of these assumptions is that all people want to live in that type of society. My belief is that most people, although not entirely content, are satisfied enough with the current system that they would reject a radical change to one such as you view. The evidence for my belief is that there is no large-scale movement to this type of society. People would rather make tweaks to the existing structure than to completely throw it out & give up their current way of life.

Does that make sense? I don’t mean why people do or don’t agree with you, I mean one reason why it wouldn’t work applying it in today’s reality.

On the other hand if we are arguing academically why a hypothetical society such as you propose would or would not be superior to the existing one, if we were starting from scratch, then I will change my style of argument (not necessarily my position).

[Robespierre]

Perhaps I’ve been misinterpreting you, and your views are just of an academic nature. That would explain a lot. It was your strong wording of governmental actions that led me to believe you were proposing an actual revolutionary change. I’m coming from the standpoint that our society at this point in time is the best that can realistically be achieved. I can envision better systems such as what you propose, but certain assumptions must be made in order for them to work and I don’t see a time in the near future that any other system would work. It’s the “in theory it would work” but in reality it wouldn’t, because theories are based upon assumptions.

And in my opinion, the assumptions that our current society is based on are much more foolish and laughably falsifiable than any in my arsenal of ideas.


The point I was trying to make was that one of these assumptions is that all people want to live in that type of society.

I agree with you. If most people wanted to live in an individualist society, I believe we would be living in one right now. That being said, people do not have the right to live however they please. If "people" decide that a good society is one in which all blacks are enslaved, I have a hard time believing that no one would suggest that there is something inherently wrong with that. So while society can be changed if most of the people decide to change it, they will not always choose a just society.



My belief is that most people, although not entirely content, are satisfied enough with the current system that they would reject a radical change to one such as you view. The evidence for my belief is that there is no large-scale movement to this type of society. People would rather make tweaks to the existing structure than to completely throw it out & give up their current way of life.

I agree, people in the US generally seem content. This is why I want to communicate with as many of them as possible and convince them that my views on society are better than those currently in use. However, I will never be willing to use aggressive violence to force people to agree with me. If I cannot convince them, that is my own fault.


Does that make sense? I don’t mean why people do or don’t agree with you, I mean one reason why it wouldn’t work applying it in today’s reality.

Perfect sense. The "people" at large, have the ability to change society in many ways.


On the other hand if we are arguing academically why a hypothetical society such as you propose would or would not be superior to the existing one, if we were starting from scratch, then I will change my style of argument (not necessarily my position).

My point has always been that our current society is one of theft and slavery. Both institutions which I hold in contempt. I am not suggesting that people should agree with me because my beliefs will result in a greater amount of widgets or dollars or what-have-you, but because it is morally right.

[Dman]

If "people" decide that a good society is one in which all blacks are enslaved, I have a hard time believing that no one would suggest that there is something inherently wrong with that.

*ahem* Aren't "blacks" people that can decide?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But I see where you're coming from. Just because the majority say it is right does not make it right. But then, it eventually worked itself out, right? Of course, it took the *government's intervention* to do that, but we won't go there.

[Robespierre]

*ahem* Aren't "blacks" people that can decide?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But I see where you're coming from. Just because the majority say it is right does not make it right. But then, it eventually worked itself out, right? Of course, it took the *government's intervention* to do that, but we won't go there.

We should go there. The united states is the only country on earth that had a war to end slavery. Most other societies were able to abolish slavery(of the overt variety) by peaceful means. Of course, my point is that the war wasn't really about slavery, but was painted that way once it started going bad for the federales. So the end result of 600,000 dead americans, many more wounded, and an economy in ruins.

[Dman]

We should go there. The united states is the only country on earth that had a war to end slavery. Most other societies were able to abolish slavery(of the overt variety) by peaceful means. Of course, my point is that the war wasn't really about slavery, but was painted that way once it started going bad for the federales. So the end result of 600,000 dead americans, many more wounded, and an economy in ruins.

Didn't want to go there cause I was just pushing buttons. I know the war was not about slavery.

I just found it curious (insightful?) that you mention "people" accepting blacks as slaves, as if black people did not qualify as people with opinions. But I understand that your point was that the majority peoples' opinions of what is right does not necessarily mean it is "right" in the sense of justice.

[Robespierre]

Didn't want to go there cause I was just pushing buttons. I know the war was not about slavery.

I just found it curious (insightful?) that you mention "people" accepting blacks as slaves, as if black people did not qualify as people with opinions. But I understand that your point was that the majority peoples' opinions of what is right does not necessarily mean it is "right" in the sense of justice.

If you actually understand what my point was, you wouldn't have found it "curious" that I used blacks as an example. That is something that everyone typically agrees on, that overt slavery is wrong. So when I point out that the majority once allowed this institution, I mean to point out that the diefication of the "will of the people" can be, and in fact almost always is, a bad thing.

[melancholeric]

Robespierre (and other bottom-righties),
out of curiosity, where do you stand on intellectual property rights? From what I've gathered, anarchocapitalists (and alikes) seem to be quite divided on this issue.

[Robespierre]

Robespierre (and other bottom-righties),
out of curiosity, where do you stand on intellectual property rights? From what I've gathered, anarchocapitalists (and alikes) seem to be quite divided on this issue.

Yes, they do seem divided, although I can't really understand why. To be able to claim ownership of something, one must be able to exert some form of exclusive control over it. This is not possible with ideas.

With land property, it is fairy clear how one can exclude others and exert control. You could put up a fence, build a house, clear the lot, whatever. After that, if someone else tries to use the property without your lisence, they are violating your exclusive control by changing the property in some way, even standing on the property necessarily excludes you from using some portion of it, specifically, that portion they are standing on.

However with ideas, other parties can use them without removing the direct utility they have for the originator of the idea. If I write a poem, I can still recite it, read it, whatever, even if a million other people share copies of that poem with one another.

So I do not recognize property in ideas. It just doesn't make any sense.

[melancholeric]

How does ownership of land make any sense?
How on earth could anyone claim ownership of even the tiniest piece of this planet?
"I was here first"?

[Robespierre]

How does ownership of land make any sense?
How on earth could anyone claim ownership of even the tiniest piece of this planet?
"I was here first"?

Yes indeed, "I was here first". A basic assumption is self-ownership. You own yourself, you have direct and exclusive control over your actions. From this, any previously unowned matter with which you mix your labor or capital also becomes your property. You gain exclusive right to use the product of your labor. Without ownership of real property, no human can sustain himself. Property is the basic unit by which man organizes himself into society, and which I think happens to produce the best possible organization for all involved. It outlines perfectly the bounds within a man is free to act. Without property, there is chaos. Property is the only moral way to set the boundaries of action for the non-aggression principle.

[Dman]

Robespierre: I'm sure I'm opening up a can of worms here, but are you talking about something similar to a feudal system, where those who have large properties or particularly valuable properties have the most power?

[melancholeric]

How is the land a product of your labor?
What if you claim ownership to land (that seems previously unowned) without "exerting control", (building a fence etc.) it just happens to be yours, and someone tries to claim that?
How do we know what is previously unowned anyway?
Where can I find such a piece of land so I can claim it?

And what would that squirrel on that tree say? It was here before you...

[Robespierre]

Robespierre: I'm sure I'm opening up a can of worms here, but are you talking about something similar to a feudal system, where those who have large properties or particularly valuable properties have the most power?

The power to do what? If you mean the power to rule over their own property, yes, but this is not fuedalism. Feudalism is about being granted land from some illegitmate authority, and taking ownership over the people there as well. To take possesion of any property, one my make a free exchange with the owner, or, if it is unowned, one must improve it in some way, taking the land out of the state of nature. Land grants are neither, they are basically large scale fraud and enslavement.

[melancholeric]

Oh yeah i forgot..
Without ownership of real property, no human can sustain himself. Property is the basic unit by which man organizes himself into society, and which I think happens to produce the best possible organization for all involved. It outlines perfectly the bounds within a man is free to act. Without property, there is chaos. Property is the only moral way to set the boundaries of action for the non-aggression principle.
We agree on this. I just don't see property as an inherent "right", but rather as a limited privilege, that exists precisely for those pragmatic reasons in a controlled manner (via taxation and regulations etc)

[Robespierre]

Oh yeah i forgot..
We agree on this. I just don't see property as an inherent "right", but rather as a limited privilege, that exists precisely for those pragmatic reasons in a controlled manner (via taxation and regulations etc)

Well, there are certainly at least two schools of thought on that. Mine, which is that property is something that exists out of the natural right to self ownership, and those that come from the utilitarian point of view. I understand the utilitarian arguments, but generally reject them as unconvincing. It's not that I don't see the advantages of property, I certainly do, it is that if one argues from the standpoint of expediency, arguments may eventually be made against the natural right of self-owership, also for reasons of expediency. It may become easier to define some group of people as having no rights, because that might make it easier for the popular movement of the day to accomplish its goals.

However, only when property is defined as a natural right does it have enough power to function as the utilitarians desire. Otherwise, as soon as a problem arises, out go the property rights.

[booyalab]

haha! I'm the only one who got Top Right(Hitler). I took it a month or two ago, although I'm not entirely sure why I got that result. I probably should take it again.

[Robespierre]

haha! I'm the only one who got Top Right(Hitler). I took it a month or two ago, although I'm not entirely sure why I got that result. I probably should take it again.

It means that you want the government to allow people some economic freedom, but not much in the way of civil liberties. At least according to that simplistic test.

Heck, it'd probably be a lot easier if people just explained their own political views without using the dang test.

[booyalab]

......and the site isn't working for me....oh well.

people, meet your new dictator.

[booyalab]

It means that you want the government to allow people some economic freedom, but not much in the way of civil liberties. At least according to that simplistic test.

Heck, it'd probably be a lot easier if people just explained their own political views without using the dang test.

Obviously I know what it means to be in that quadrant. Shit, I'm not stupid. I don't know WHY my result came out that way because it doesn't totally coincide with my beliefs.

[Robespierre]

Obviously I know what it means to be in that quadrant. Shit, I'm not stupid.

Oh, obviously.


I'm not entirely sure why I got that result.

I'm not saying your stupid, just vague.

[booyalab]

Oh, obviously.



I'm not saying your stupid, just vague.

it would be nice if you had assumed the meaning that makes me look minimally retarded. But it's not a big deal, I'll drop it.

[booyalab]

Anyways, I think I should have been somewhere on the x axis between the 2 right quadrants. I think there should be some restriction on civil liberties in time of war.

[Robespierre]

Anyways, I think I should have been somewhere on the x axis between the 2 right quadrants. I think there should be some restriction on civil liberties in time of war.

Now the truth comes out! You are indeed a NAZI!

[booyalab]

Now the truth comes out! You are indeed a NAZI!

well no, because I don't agree with Hitler's premise or most of his chosen tactics.

[booyalab]

And...as it turned out, not with his diplomatic strategies either.

[melancholeric]

Well, there are certainly at least two schools of thought on that. Mine, which is that property is something that exists out of the natural right to self ownership, and those that come from the utilitarian point of view. I understand the utilitarian arguments, but generally reject them as unconvincing. It's not that I don't see the advantages of property, I certainly do, it is that if one argues from the standpoint of expediency, arguments may eventually be made against the natural right of self-owership, also for reasons of expediency. It may become easier to define some group of people as having no rights, because that might make it easier for the popular movement of the day to accomplish its goals.

However, only when property is defined as a natural right does it have enough power to function as the utilitarians desire. Otherwise, as soon as a problem arises, out go the property rights.

My linguisical limitations are setting challenges to this conversation.
I do not find the arguments for property as a right convincing.
I see your point about expediency and self-ownership. This could easily lead into an interesting discussion about, say, population control with Chinese means, but I'm not going to get to that. I still don't know where I ultimately stand with this.

There are plenty of other problems with (uncontrolled) capitalism that have made me reject that. If you want to discuss those thing, I'd much prefer that. :)

[melancholeric]

After finishing and posting my previous message and actually see this thread, what do we have waiting?
A FLAMEWAR!!

Where can i join in?

[booyalab]

There are plenty of other problems with (uncontrolled) capitalism that have made me reject that.

you're not really saying anything in that statement. There are unique problems with every (relatively) pure form of government.

[melancholeric]

I'm not going to discuss this with a Nazi.

Income inequality that will eventually cause "social unrest"? (So far has caused, anyway.)
Without free (and good quality) education system, massive waste of intellectual potential?

[booyalab]

I'm not going to discuss this with a Nazi.


why do people always insult me when I'm right?

[EdwinJefferson]

why do people always insult me when I'm right?

Only an insult if you see it that way.

[Robespierre]

re are plenty of other problems with (uncontrolled) capitalism that have made me reject that. If you want to discuss those thing, I'd much prefer that. :)

Sure. So what's the problem with individual liberty?

[Robespierre]

well no, because I don't agree with Hitler's premise or most of his chosen tactics.

Geepers kid, I was only foolin'.

[booyalab]

Only an insult if you see it that way.

thanks for giving me the definition of an insult, now I'm complete.

[Robespierre]

you're not really saying anything in that statement. There are unique problems with every (relatively) pure form of government.

There is no good form of government that involves a state.

[booyalab]

Geepers kid, I was only foolin'.

Next time I'll ask permission before I explain why I'm not a nazi when someone calls me a nazi.

[melancholeric]

Uncontrolled capitalism, that is. I posted 2 first problems that came to mind above (in
response to that nazi's post), but for kicks, i'll copypaste'em here.

Income inequality that will eventually cause "social unrest". (So far has caused, anyway.)

Without free (and good quality) education system, massive waste of intellectual potential.

[Robespierre]

Income inequality that will eventually cause "social unrest"? (So far has caused, anyway.)
Without free (and good quality) education system, massive waste of intellectual potential?

Intellectual potential in your own opinion. I see a slave-driven system of socialist education completely destroying any potential. Which one of us is right?

[booyalab]

There is no good form of government that involves a state.

That's a matter of opinion, and I agree. But by simply mentioning problems, I wasn't implying that the pros of each would be equal.

[EdwinJefferson]

Without free (and good quality) education system, massive waste of intellectual potential.

What level of education?

[Robespierre]

Uncontrolled capitalism, that is. I posted 2 first problems that came to mind above (in
response to that nazi's post), but for kicks, i'll copypaste'em here.

Income inequality that will eventually cause "social unrest".

Well, I responded to the second one, so I'll try this one out for tad.

Why should income inequality every cause social unrest if it based on personal freedom? What possible solution would you suggest? A max income and a min income?

[Edmond Zedo]

Zig!

[booyalab]

I think any form of government that does all that it can, all the time, to stifle social unrest (even by blindsiding it's people by preventing anyone from going beyond mediocrity), must have no intrinsic appeal to it's citizens.

[melancholeric]

Somehow relatively extreme poverty next to extreme wealth have so far caused such fascinating things as revolutions etc. Intuitively I'd think it's a direct consequence.
There should be a min income. How high it should be, that depends.

"a slave-driven system of socialist education"? that is what you think of education funded with taxes?
If it is not free, not everyone can afford that. Right?
If not everyone can afford it, we'll end up having geniuses at assembly lines. That is wasted potential.

[Edmond Zedo]

I think any form of government that does all that it can, all the time, to stifle social unrest (even by blindsiding it's people by preventing anyone from going beyond mediocrity), must have no intrinsic appeal to it's citizens.
If it's a war-winning state, it can offer satisfaction. Especially if the citizens are familiar with war-losing states.

[booyalab]

If not everyone can afford it, we'll end up having geniuses at assembly lines. That is wasted potential.
as opposed to having geniuses in government bureacracy? oh yeah much better...and MORE EFFECTIVE.

[Robespierre]

I think any form of government that does all that it can, all the time, to stifle social unrest (even by blindsiding it's people by preventing anyone from going beyond mediocrity), must have no intrinsic appeal to it's citizens.

I don't quite understand what you mean here. People don't like governments that enforce social order? That seems logical, but hardly controversial.

[EdwinJefferson]

Somehow relatively extreme poverty next to extreme wealth have so far caused such fascinating things as revolutions etc. Intuitively I'd think it's a direct consequence.
There should be a min income. How high it should be, that depends.

And those who don't work still get that income?

The reason why sweatshops operate is because people are so desperate for jobs..

It's more about employment than wages.

[Edmond Zedo]

Somehow relatively extreme poverty next to extreme wealth have so far caused such fascinating things as revolutions etc. Intuitively I'd think it's a direct consequence.
There should be a min income. How high it should be, that depends.

"a slave-driven system of socialist education"? that is what you think of education funded with taxes?
If it is not free, not everyone can afford that. Right?
If not everyone can afford it, we'll end up having geniuses at assembly lines. That is wasted potential.
I discussed this years ago with an INTJ, at length. We were of differing opinions--His more like yours. I believed (Do I still?) that great disparity is better for the lower class than moderate disparity, because it is obvious and the chance for change is greater.

And there are geniuses working on assembly lines. Only for the money!

[booyalab]

If it's a war-winning state, it can offer satisfaction. Especially if the citizens are familiar with war-losing states.

It only has a small chance of offering satisfaction then, too. More money in a state government doesn't do much good to the citizens if it all goes to industry or more advanced military. In the case of a free-economy state, when the government ends up finally losing (which chance dictates it will) ..the citizens will at least be psychologically traumatized when the truth comes out about what their government was really like.

[Robespierre]

Somehow relatively extreme poverty next to extreme wealth have so far caused such fascinating things as revolutions etc. Intuitively I'd think it's a direct consequence. There should be a min income. How high it should be, that depends.

First of all, a minimum income is a terrible idea. Welfare produces some serious idlers and layabouts, I cannot even begin to imagine the extent of the laziness that would be generated by such a program as minimum income.

Take a look at societies that actually fit your description of extreme poverty next to extreme wealth. You will find that the US does NOT fit this description. You will also find that those societies which tend to value personal freedom also lack this division. It is only in societies with a tribal-communal understanding of property, or a system of racial dominance, where you see such divisions.

Brazil is a good example of the racial dominance. The VAST majority of people in that country are horribly poor, with the few wealthy land owners running the government for their own personal gain.

places like Zimbabwe, ethiopia, india, etc are all examples of societies that do not respect property rights.


"a slave-driven system of socialist education"? that is what you think of education funded with taxes?

Yes, it is. I also use the term slavery because the gov requires all of its subjects to attend some school under pain of imprisonment.


If it is not free, not everyone can afford that. Right?

Yes of course. Also, it is extremely insulting to suggest that our current system if free, it is not. It costs a LOT of money, way more than is necessary, and that money is taken right out of my pocket.


If not everyone can afford it, we'll end up having geniuses at assembly lines. That is wasted potential.

Why don't you let the geniuses decide what do with themselves? Why must you FORCE them to pay for this ridiculous system?

[Edmond Zedo]

It only has a small chance of offering satisfaction then, too. More money in a state government doesn't do much good to the citizens if it all goes to industry or more advanced military. In the case of a free-economy state, when the government ends up finally losing (which chance dictates it will) ..the citizens will at least be psychologically traumatized when the truth comes out about what their government was really like.
"People don't want peace. They want victory." --Noam Chomsky

[Robespierre]

"People don't want peace. They want victory." --Noam Chomsky

Old Noam is an anarchist. Only he does believe in property or economic freedom. But still, the only real difference is his idea of what society would do with itself when freed from government. He thinks people would form communes and worker owned collectives. I happen to think that this idea is silly, and if such contraptions were worth while, they would be all over the place right now, as there is nothing stopping them. But generally, we agree.

[Edmond Zedo]

Old Noam is an anarchist. Only he does believe in property or economic freedom. But still, the only real difference is his idea of what society would do with itself when freed from government. He thinks people would form communes and worker owned collectives. I happen to think that this idea is silly, and if such contraptions were worth while, they would be all over the place right now, as there is nothing stopping them. But generally, we agree.
He is silly, but also happens to occasionally be insightful.

[EdwinJefferson]

"Liberal: a power worshipper without power." - George Orwell

[Robespierre]

He is silly, but also happens to occasionally be insightful.

His criticism of US foreign policy is rarely wrong. He goes astray when he starts talk about race or economics.

[melancholeric]

First of all, a minimum income is a terrible idea. Welfare produces some serious idlers and layabouts, I cannot even begin to imagine the extent of the laziness that would be generated by such a program as minimum income.
That depends on a) how high the minimum income is and b ) how much you can get if you work.


Take a look at societies that actually fit your description of extreme poverty next to extreme wealth. You will find that the US does NOT fit this description. You will also find that those societies which tend to value personal freedom also lack this division. It is only in societies with a tribal-communal understanding of property, or a system of racial dominance, where you see such divisions.


Brazil is a good example of the racial dominance. The VAST majority of people in that country are horribly poor, with the few wealthy land owners running the government for their own personal gain.

places like Zimbabwe, ethiopia, india, etc are all examples of societies that do not respect property rights.

1. The US does not have income inequalities?
2. The US values personal freedom? That's interesting.
3. Do you claim that capitalism does not cause inequality?


Yes, it is. I also use the term slavery because the gov requires all of its subjects to attend some school under pain of imprisonment.
Requires? I don't think I said that.




Yes of course. Also, it is extremely insulting to suggest that our current system if free, it is not. It costs a LOT of money, way more than is necessary, and that money is taken right out of my pocket.
I never suggested anything about your system. Where do you live anyway?
From what I know about ths US school system, it seems horrible.


Why don't you let the geniuses decide what do with themselves? Why must you FORCE them to pay for this ridiculous system?
So we have a 7 year old kid who a) could receive public education, possibly ending up with a university degree and whatnot. or b) he could work in a sweatshop. In anarchocapitalism, he would probably have to work, unless his parents could afford the education. if they can't, well, too bad.
Pointing out that if it is free, it does not mean compulsory.

[Robespierre]

That depends on a) how high the minimum income is and b ) how much you can get if you work.

I disagree. ANY form of minimum income will have disasterous effects on the people subjected to paying for it and those receiving it. Welfare has created an underclass of hobos and welfare moms. I can't wait for the mini-come looters and the bands of bored 20-somethings.


1. The US does not have income inequalities?

Not like those you tried to suggest it did. You used the terms "extreme poverty" which is something that just plain doesn't exist in the US, and suggested it was right next to "extreme wealth", which certainly does exist. Just for fun, use my example of Brazil, it is a lot closer to your original description.



2. The US values personal freedom? That's interesting.

Yes, much more so than almost anywhere else on earth. This doesn't mean that the government, or even all of the people do, but it is a part of our culture, yes.


3. Do you claim that capitalism does not cause inequality?

I claim that capitalism does not cause inquality. Inequality exists as a result of many different factors, foremost among them being the inability of matter to occupy the same space as another piece of matter simultaneously. More-over inequality, in a meaningful sense of the word, and not simply the democratic-socialist buzzword, is a very good thing. If I can make shoes like an expert, and you can make computers, we are both better off if we trade with one another, rather than both being totally self-sufficient and being able to make crappy shoes and crappy computers.



Requires? I don't think I said that.

No, you didn't say that. People don't typically bring up the enormous negatives of the systems they are defending. That is why I brought it up.



I never suggested anything about your system. Where do you live anyway?

The USA. Where do you live?


From what I know about ths US school system, it seems horrible.

It is.


So we have a 7 year old kid who a) could receive public education, possibly ending up with a university degree and whatnot. or b) he could work in a sweatshop.

Wow, those are his only two choices? Shit, I'll pick the education job ANYDAY!


In anarchocapitalism, he would probably have to work, unless his parents could afford the education. if they can't, well, too bad.
Pointing out that if it is free, it does not mean compulsory.

If you want something, and you cannot convince someone to give it to you or trade you for something you already have, you must find some other method of obtaining it. Your desire to be educated doesn't grant you the right to grab money out of my wallet, does it?

But socialist education is neither free from coercion or free of charge. Everyone who owns property pays for socialist schools, and any child under the age of 16 is required to attend SOME school.

[melancholeric]

I disagree. ANY form of minimum income will have disasterous effects on the people subjected to paying for it and those receiving it. Welfare has created an underclass of hobos and welfare moms. I can't wait for the mini-come looters and the bands of bored 20-somethings.
The welfare I have received has not had a "disastrous" effect on me. I can't describe myself as an underclass hobo either. And if I had to choose between welfare and work, I'd choose work anyday (assuming it pays better. So far it has paid.)



Not like those you tried to suggest it did. You used the terms "extreme poverty" which is something that just plain doesn't exist in the US, and suggested it was right next to "extreme wealth", which certainly does exist. Just for fun, use my example of Brazil, it is a lot closer to your original description.
I don't know about the US. Nor Brazil, for that matter. Brazil would be a bad example of a "bottom-left" society (of the compass) anyway. (Which is what I am arguing for.)




Yes, much more so than almost anywhere else on earth. This doesn't mean that the government, or even all of the people do, but it is a part of our culture, yes.
Ever been to Europe?



I claim that capitalism does not cause inquality. Inequality exists as a result of many different factors, foremost among them being the inability of matter to occupy the same space as another piece of matter simultaneously. More-over inequality, in a meaningful sense of the word, and not simply the democratic-socialist buzzword, is a very good thing. If I can make shoes like an expert, and you can make computers, we are both better off if we trade with one another, rather than both being totally self-sufficient and being able to make crappy shoes and crappy computers.

I'll get back to this later, it's midnight here and I am a bit tired.


No, you didn't say that. People don't typically bring up the enormous negatives of the systems they are defending. That is why I brought it up.
I am not insisting compulsory education.




The USA. Where do you live?
Finland. Look below my avatar.




It is.
Finnish education (public) seems excellent to me.



Wow, those are his only two choices? Shit, I'll pick the education job ANYDAY!
Wait. Sweatshop working vs. (public) education. Did you choose the sweatshop or did I misunderstand?


If you want something, and you cannot convince someone to give it to you or trade you for something you already have, you must find some other method of obtaining it. Your desire to be educated doesn't grant you the right to grab money out of my wallet, does it?

But socialist education is neither free from coercion or free of charge. Everyone who owns property pays for socialist schools, and any child under the age of 16 is required to attend SOME school.
We already disagreeded on the right to property to begin with.

[Robespierre]

The welfare I have received has not had a "disastrous" effect on me. I can't describe myself as an underclass hobo either. And if I had to choose between welfare and work, I'd choose work anyday (assuming it pays better. So far it has paid.)

Consider yourself unique, then.


I don't know about the US. Nor Brazil, for that matter. Brazil would be a bad example of a "bottom-left" society (of the compass) anyway. (Which is what I am arguing for.)

Why?


Ever been to Europe?

Yes, have you?


I'll get back to this later, it's midnight here and I am a bit tired.

K.


I am not insisting compulsory education.

That's nice, but the US government does insist.


Finland. Look below my avatar.

I see, but well, see, mine says Tyumen RF, and I'm not techinically there right now.


Finnish education (public) seems excellent to me.

Maybe it is. You have a tiny-homogenous population. It's still morally wrong though.


Wait. Sweatshop working vs. (public) education. Did you choose the sweatshop or did I misunderstand?

No, you missed my sarcasm. I was pointing out that your two options are silly.



We already disagreeded on the right to property to begin with.

Yep.

[melancholeric]

Consider yourself unique, then.
I don't think it is that unique here. Don't know about the US though.



Why?

Corruption? Lack of functioning democracy?


Yes, have you?
Yes, a few times along the years.


That's nice, but the US government does insist.
That's too bad.


I see, but well, see, mine says Tyumen RF, and I'm not techinically there right now.
I take it you live in the US. Somewhere I managed to get this intuitive impression.


Maybe it is. You have a tiny-homogenous population. It's still morally wrong though.
hmm I should have included Sweden and well the entire Scandinavia as far as I know. (No first-hand experience besides Finland)



No, you missed my sarcasm. I was pointing out that your two options are silly.
It was an exaggaration.
Consider pisspoor parents (do they exist in your ideal society?) who can't afford their kids schooling. Or, for that matter, his living. And obviously, they wouldn't have to, either. That would seriously limit their "freedom". At that point, the kid would pretty much have to accept any job he can get. I'd prefer him being at publicly funded school, and I think he'd prefer that too.
(Still his choice.)

I'm off to get some sleep.

[Robespierre]

I don't think it is that unique here. Don't know about the US though.

You would be unique here.


Corruption? Lack of functioning democracy?

The very essence of democracy is a horrible corruption in my opinion.


Yes, a few times along the years.

Okay, so you live in finland. Have you seen the wonderful things that government has done for its people across the border in the RF?


That's too bad.

Yes.


I take it you live in the US. Somewhere I managed to get this intuitive impression.

Very good. Also, I have said it many times.


hmm I should have included Sweden and well the entire Scandinavia as far as I know. (No first-hand experience besides Finland)

What would that change? Still a tiny population. All of Scandanavia could easily fit inside the US or Russia in terms of population or landmass.


It was an exaggaration.
Consider pisspoor parents (do they exist in your ideal society?)

Now I KNOW you haven't been reading what I have been writing. I have said, with emphasis, that people will always be flawed, and any system which relies on the honesty of individuals to run the entire thing, is doomed to failure.


who can't afford their kids schooling. Or, for that matter, his living. And obviously, they wouldn't have to, either. That would seriously limit their "freedom". At that point, the kid would pretty much have to accept any job he can get. I'd prefer him being at publicly funded school, and I think he'd prefer that too.
(Still his choice.)

It's nice that you prefer that. Maybe YOU can pay for his education?


I'm off to get some sleep.

Dream well.

[melancholeric]

Ok, I SWEAR I'll go to bed after this post...


The very essence of democracy is a horrible corruption in my opinion.

Is this INTP-ish elitism (people are too stupid for that) or just extreme individalism? Consider, at one point in history, we lived in anarchy. For some reason, that changed. Eventually we had nation-states.



Okay, so you live in finland. Have you seen the wonderful things that government has done for its people across the border in the RF?

Care to illuminate? And what relevance exactly does this have? It's not like I was blindly defending my home country..



What would that change? Still a tiny population. All of Scandanavia could easily fit inside the US or Russia in terms of population or landmass.
True. And this proves what exactly? I am saying that public education can be done well. And has been done. The population and landmass comparing to US isn't particularly relevant. The US education system (when it comes to funding and public vs private) is quite different anyway.



Now I KNOW you haven't been reading what I have been writing. I have said, with emphasis, that people will always be flawed, and any system which relies on the honesty of individuals to run the entire thing, is doomed to failure.
And for precisely that reason, capitalism is doomed. It relies on the individual (homo oeconomicus), who can make rational decisions, has all the information required for those decisions, and is driven by sheer self-interest. We both know this is fallacious.
So the welfare state can be abused. True. Point? It still provides financial incentives to work, thus somehow very few people are willling to remain unemployed.


It's nice that you prefer that. Maybe YOU can pay for his education?
Missed the point. Consider yourself in that situation.
Then consider, the individual and the society benefit if the individual has the opportunity to educate himself, thus find a career that suits him. I think this is what you meant when you spoke about inequality.
here...


I claim that capitalism does not cause inquality. Inequality exists as a result of many different factors, foremost among them being the inability of matter to occupy the same space as another piece of matter simultaneously. More-over inequality, in a meaningful sense of the word, and not simply the democratic-socialist buzzword, is a very good thing. If I can make shoes like an expert, and you can make computers, we are both better off if we trade with one another, rather than both being totally self-sufficient and being able to make crappy shoes and crappy computers.
Point is, I wont be able to become an expert with computers without education. Nor shoes.



Dream well.
I'll try my best. :)

[jittus rye]

Will Hitler's Jesus punish me for ending up in the bottom right quadrent?

[Robespierre]

Ok, I SWEAR I'll go to bed after this post...

Is this INTP-ish elitism (people are too stupid for that) or just extreme individalism? Consider, at one point in history, we lived in anarchy. For some reason, that changed. Eventually we had nation-states.

And how many people were killed as a result of war in both ages?

You again present a false choice. We need not choose between disgustingly oppressive governents and chaotic anarchy. We can have a nice orderly society, in fact can ONLY have an orderly society, when human rights are respected.


Care to illuminate? And what relevance exactly does this have? It's not like I was blindly defending my home country..

I am using the RF as an example of death by government. That is what governments everywhere are trying so hard to do, they want to control every aspect of life. And they are getting closer and closer to it every day.


True. And this proves what exactly? I am saying that public education can be done well. And has been done.

First, I don't believe you. I don't believe that your public education system is "good", especially given that my standard of what a good education might be is radically different than most.

Secondly, you do not have to deal with a continent spanning empire that craves centralized power.


The population and landmass comparing to US isn't particularly relevant. The US education system (when it comes to funding and public vs private) is quite different anyway.

Yes, very different BECAUSE of the relative size and "diversity" of the us population.


And for precisely that reason, capitalism is doomed. It relies on the individual (homo oeconomicus), who can make rational decisions, has all the information required for those decisions, and is driven by sheer self-interest. We both know this is fallacious.

Yes we do, so why keep bringing it up? Capitalism in know way requires a perfect rational being, and is in fact, the ONLY form of economics which actually ackowledges that there is not such thing as an objective standard of rational!

And just TRY and find an example or instance that could disprove the fact that humans always act in their own self interest as they understand it. Try.


So the welfare state can be abused. True. Point? It still provides financial incentives to work, thus somehow very few people are willling to remain unemployed.

This is not the case in the US. Many people who receive welfare simply start having children in order get bigger checks. These children then do the same when they come of age, and we have a system where the productive subsidise the idlers to reproduce.


Missed the point. Consider yourself in that situation.

Umm... what? You told me some sob story about a boy who can't get an education. I say to you, if you care so much, why not put you OWN money on the line, and not point a gun and me and loot my wallet?


Then consider, the individual and the society benefit if the individual has the opportunity to educate himself, thus find a career that suits him. I think this is what you meant when you spoke about inequality.
here...

Not at all. First there is no such thing as a benefit to society. Society has no right or wrong direction, and is not a monolithic entity which can make decisions. Second, the socialist education system in america cannot educate peopel, at least to my standard. Since everyone's standard is different, it is sheer idiocy to force all people to pay for education.


Point is, I wont be able to become an expert with computers without education. Nor shoes.

Exactly, and if you go to the public schools in america, you will become neither.

[anarchist]

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.59

[Chicken]

where ever i do not sit down or lay down: i stand.. of course, unless i am doing a hand stand.. then i am standing upside down

[melancholeric]

And how many people were killed as a result of war in both ages?
This is a bit ironic...
Both, capitalism and nation-states were caused by the same thing, agriculture. That is where the notion of owning landed started, and also where our fundamental disagreement comes along.

You again present a false choice. We need not choose between disgustingly oppressive governents and chaotic anarchy. We can have a nice orderly society, in fact can ONLY have an orderly society, when human rights are respected.
Nation-state does not HAVE to equal "disgustingly oppressive governents".
Maybe we are speaking from different experiences here.



I am using the RF as an example of death by government. That is what governments everywhere are trying so hard to do, they want to control every aspect of life. And they are getting closer and closer to it every day.
And your solution to this is?




First, I don't believe you. I don't believe that your public education system is "good", especially given that my standard of what a good education might be is radically different than most.
I'd like to hear your definition of "good".

Secondly, you do not have to deal with a continent spanning empire that craves centralized power.
We agree here. This is a problem. However, I find this kind of ironic.

"2. The US values personal freedom? That's interesting."


"Yes, much more so than almost anywhere else on earth. This doesn't mean that the government, or even all of the people do, but it is a part of our culture, yes."

Next moment you are speaking of nation-states "disgustingly oppressive governents".


Yes, very different BECAUSE of the relative size and "diversity" of the us population.
I don't see how diversity is a problem. Nor relative size, for that matter.
are the US public education problems somehow a direct consequence of these?


Yes we do, so why keep bringing it up? Capitalism in know way requires a perfect rational being, and is in fact, the ONLY form of economics which actually ackowledges that there is not such thing as an objective standard of rational!
Maybe I've been reading too much randian philosophy lately..

And just TRY and find an example or instance that could disprove the fact that humans always act in their own self interest as they understand it. Try.
That wasn't my point. I brought it up because capitalism assumes that among other things. I could try that, but you could offer some help in reading people's minds and their motives that even they are not aware of themselves.
Sure one could argue both sides from evolutionary standpoint.



This is not the case in the US. Many people who receive welfare simply start having children in order get bigger checks. These children then do the same when they come of age, and we have a system where the productive subsidise the idlers to reproduce.
Whatever. AFAIK, the US welfare system is by nomeans comparable to Scandinavian system. (Not that that's perfect either. It's pointless to argue this.)



Umm... what? You told me some sob story about a boy who can't get an education. I say to you, if you care so much, why not put you OWN money on the line, and not point a gun and me and loot my wallet?
So you don't care. Point taken. (Libertarians always manage to give the impression that they were born with a golden sponn. I've yet to see the poor argue for capitalism.)



Not at all. First there is no such thing as a benefit to society. Society has no right or wrong direction, and is not a monolithic entity which can make decisions. Second, the socialist education system in america cannot educate peopel, at least to my standard. Since everyone's standard is different, it is sheer idiocy to force all people to pay for education.
First, I'll phrase this differently. Every individual benefits. We have TVs, because this one guy whose name escapes me had both the brainpower and the education required to come up with the photo-electric effect. Did you not, as an individual, benefit from this?


Exactly, and if you go to the public schools in america, you will become neither.
I assume that if I can't afford private schooling, I'm pretty much doomed.

This isn't going anywhere. We disagreed on the premises, and end up debating mundane details (that are derived directly from the very premises), which we view differently due to completely different enviroments.

[Dman]

First of all, a minimum income is a terrible idea. Welfare produces some serious idlers and layabouts, I cannot even begin to imagine the extent of the laziness that would be generated by such a program as minimum income.

Take a look at societies that actually fit your description of extreme poverty next to extreme wealth. You will find that the US does NOT fit this description. You will also find that those societies which tend to value personal freedom also lack this division. It is only in societies with a tribal-communal understanding of property, or a system of racial dominance, where you see such divisions.

Brazil is a good example of the racial dominance. The VAST majority of people in that country are horribly poor, with the few wealthy land owners running the government for their own personal gain.

places like Zimbabwe, ethiopia, india, etc are all examples of societies that do not respect property rights.



Yes, it is. I also use the term slavery because the gov requires all of its subjects to attend some school under pain of imprisonment.



Yes of course. Also, it is extremely insulting to suggest that our current system if free, it is not. It costs a LOT of money, way more than is necessary, and that money is taken right out of my pocket.



Why don't you let the geniuses decide what do with themselves? Why must you FORCE them to pay for this ridiculous system?

For the record, those quotes (page 11) were not from me, they were Melancholeric's.

[Robespierre]

For the record, those quotes (page 11) were not from me, they were Melancholeric's.

Sorry about that, the problem has been corrected. I suspect it was a case of careless copy/paste of the [quote=Dman) tag.

[KentOhio]

Why are the results 1, 1, 32, and 5? I thought there was supposed to be no correlation between personality type and political views.

[file cabinet]

everytime I notice this thread title, I think of, where I stand.. literally.. so I stand on the corner... or outside.. or somewhere else..

[Warrior413]

everytime I notice this thread title, I think of, where I stand.. literally.. so I stand on the corner... or outside.. or somewhere else..
:blink: Hmm same here. Except I don't move.

[Robespierre]

Why are the results 1, 1, 32, and 5? I thought there was supposed to be no correlation between personality type and political views.

I think INTP's are overwhelmingly left-libertarians. They pay lip-service to liberty, but when it comes down to it, they seem to wish for personal power over others.

[Boneca]

I'm sorry for throwing myself into this discussion, but I cannot help but wonder at some of your arguments, Robespierre.

I am using the RF as an example of death by government. That is what governments everywhere are trying so hard to do, they want to control every aspect of life. And they are getting closer and closer to it every day.First of all, you're totally paranoid. Governments were not sent here by martians to control us, they were elected by the people. And if the people don't like their governing, they will eventually get thrown out, as long as we're talking about real democracies.
Secondly, how can you infer that all governments are bad because the Russian government has failed? I think most people would agree that the Russian government is crap, but what does that have to do with the government of Finland, or whatever hypothetical country you were talking about?


First, I don't believe you. I don't believe that your public education system is "good", especially given that my standard of what a good education might be is radically different than most.If your standard of education is different than most, why should we then all conform to your standard? I see a lot of problems with my own country's (Sweden's) school system, but I would rather have that than a system where only the rich can afford schooling.


This is not the case in the US. Many people who receive welfare simply start having children in order get bigger checks. These children then do the same when they come of age, and we have a system where the productive subsidise the idlers to reproduce.I wonder why this isn't happening in Scandinavia? Even though at least Sweden (I don't know about the other countries) gives welfare to mothers, the reproduction rate is still lower than 2.1, i.e. our population is slowly diminishing.

And also, if people get no welfare, what would happen? The people who can't work for various reasons would become utterly poor. And utterly poor people with rich neighbours will probably see no other choice than to steal for their survival. So there goes your valued property anyway.


First there is no such thing as a benefit to society. Society has no right or wrong direction, and is not a monolithic entity which can make decisions.Society is usually defined as a group of people, I believe. Therefore, to calculate the effects on society caused by a specific event, you simply add that event's benefit for every individual in that society and subtract the event's negative impact on every individual. If the result is still positive, you have a net benefit, which should equal a benefit to society.

Again, you seem to forget that societies, just like governments are made up of people.

[Robespierre]

I'm sorry for throwing myself into this discussion, but I cannot help but wonder at some of your arguments, Robespierre.
First of all, you're totally paranoid.

No argument there.


Governments were not sent here by martians to control us, they were elected by the people. And if the people don't like their governing, they will eventually get thrown out, as long as we're talking about real democracies.

I don't believe that anyone has suggested any sort of conspiracy theories. I am simply stating that I believe coercive government, in any form, will continue to grab power in any way it can, to inflate its own importance. This trend is plainly obvious in all governments around the world, including the US.

Who cares if "the people" like or dislike the government? Who are "the people"? 75% of the subjects of the US? 60%?50.1%? Why should the 49.9% be bound to what the 50.1% decide?


Secondly, how can you infer that all governments are bad because the Russian government has failed?

I was specifically calling melancholeric out to defend his/her statements about governments acting in the best interests of the people. He/she lives in Finland, which was once part of Russia, and remains only a hop-skip-jump away. I presented the RF as a great example of government run amok.


I think most people would agree that the Russian government is crap, but what does that have to do with the government of Finland, or whatever hypothetical country you were talking about?

The government of Finland is a democratic-socialist government. They will eventually hit the same rocks as the central-western European social-democracies are on course for, that is, unfunded pansion mandates and all other manner of benefits, which will be unpaid for due to declining or aging population. How will they solve these problems? No one can yet say. Perhaps they will liberalize and grant economic freedom. That's not very likely of course, it is more likely that they will simply step up the economic oppression.


If your standard of education is different than most, why should we then all conform to your standard?

I'm not asking you or anyone to conform to my or any other standard. That is the keystone of my argument. No standard of education should be forced upon anyone, just as no standard of religion should be forced upon anyone. Don't make me pay for your education, and I won't make you pay for mine.


I see a lot of problems with my own country's (Sweden's) school system, but I would rather have that than a system where only the rich can afford schooling.

Well, that's a nice goal to have, but to loot your countrymen under threat of arms, that's no way to accomplish your goal. My problem is the horrid nature of the method.


I wonder why this isn't happening in Scandinavia? Even though at least Sweden (I don't know about the other countries) gives welfare to mothers, the reproduction rate is still lower than 2.1, i.e. our population is slowly diminishing.

Who can say? Perhaps Scandinavia was previously over-populated? Is the issue of population something you think governments should be involved in?


And also, if people get no welfare, what would happen?

Maybe you'd get a job?


The people who can't work for various reasons would become utterly poor.

Crazy talk. There have always been, and will always be private charity for people who actually need it.


And utterly poor people with rich neighbours will probably see no other choice than to steal for their survival. So there goes your valued property anyway.

You know, we hear a LOT of this argument going around. The appeal that forcing the rich to fork over 50% of their income is really in their best interest, because it keeps the ignorant unwashed peasants from rising up and chopping off their heads. I personally find this laughable. However, if you think this threat is real, why do you need to use violence to get the rich to comply? Certainly, since they are so terribly selfish, they would act to protect their spoils.


Society is usually defined as a group of people, I believe. Therefore, to calculate the effects on society caused by a specific event, you simply add that event's benefit for every individual in that society and subtract the event's negative impact on every individual.

Yes, one could do that, and that method is widely used by your government and others to justify massive human rights violations. The concept is still farcical and logically unsound. Add the benefits? Let's say your neighbors decide that having one of your arms cut-off and replaced with a pole is a benefit. They have the operation done, and as a favor to you, they force you to have the same operation. What is the benefit to the hypothetical society in question? Well, the obvious answer is that there is no such thing as objective good and bad for an entire society. Only individuals can decide what is a benefit and what is not, and it is totally subjective.


If the result is still positive, you have a net benefit, which should equal a benefit to society.

See above.


Again, you seem to forget that societies, just like governments are made up of people.

i have forgotten? You are the one who wishes to remove the people from the equation and decide for yourself what is in their best interest.

[songbird36]

Your head was on the Guillotine in this argument Rob.

A resounding loss..

[Boneca]

Who cares if "the people" like or dislike the government? Who are "the people"? 75% of the subjects of the US? 60%?50.1%? Why should the 49.9% be bound to what the 50.1% decide?Let's turn this around. Say that a majority of people want a coercive government. Isn't their opinion equally valid as yours?


I was specifically calling melancholeric out to defend his/her statements about governments acting in the best interests of the people. He/she lives in Finland, which was once part of Russia, and remains only a hop-skip-jump away. I presented the RF as a great example of government run amok.I read your argument. Still, I fail to see how the the fact that the Russian government decided to invade Finland once would automatically make the Finnish government bad, or any other government for that matter. If one apple is bad, does that make all apples bad?


The government of Finland is a democratic-socialist government. They will eventually hit the same rocks as the central-western European social-democracies are on course for, that is, unfunded pansion mandates and all other manner of benefits, which will be unpaid for due to declining or aging population. How will they solve these problems? No one can yet say. Perhaps they will liberalize and grant economic freedom. That's not very likely of course, it is more likely that they will simply step up the economic oppression.I know this is something that many are worried about. Still, your solution would be to just stop paying pensions, I assume? Or would you prefer to just shoot the elderly?
Also, this is a short-lived problem. Provided that there is no unexpected changes in birthrates, the demographics will eventually stabilise. And as a matter of fact, immigration makes up for a lot of the declining births in Sweden at the moment.
By the way, how is the U.S. superior to this system? I don't know much about U.S. internal politics, so please enlighten me.


Don't make me pay for your education, and I won't make you pay for mine. It sounds really nice when you say it like that. But what about those who cannot afford education? Would you just shrug and say that it's their own problem? Bad karma from previous lives deserves to be punished, or what?


Who can say? Perhaps Scandinavia was previously over-populated? Is the issue of population something you think governments should be involved in?No, I don't think governments should be involved in direct population control. My example was just to show that welfare to mothers does not automatically lead to women having children just to receive money, as you seem to think.


Maybe you'd get a job?
....
Crazy talk. There have always been, and will always be private charity for people who actually need it.Now this seems to boil down to the main differences between us.
You assume that everyone who doesn't work is just lazy. Do you actually know anyone who enjoys being unemployed? I've at least never met such a person.
And your idea of private charity is just laughable. You mean that the sick and elderly should be taken care of, just not by you!? You thereby imply that there will always be altruistic people in the society and it is their duty to pay for the stuff you don't want to, because you have the right to be greedier than them?
Private charity has always existed because there have always been self-centered bastards like you. That doesn't make your attitude right.


Yes, one could do that, and that method is widely used by your government and others to justify massive human rights violations. The concept is still farcical and logically unsound. Add the benefits? Let's say your neighbors decide that having one of your arms cut-off and replaced with a pole is a benefit. They have the operation done, and as a favor to you, they force you to have the same operation. What is the benefit to the hypothetical society in question? Well, the obvious answer is that there is no such thing as objective good and bad for an entire society. Only individuals can decide what is a benefit and what is not, and it is totally subjective.If you force someone to do something, it has to be subtracted as a negative impact. But still, if more people gain from it than lose from it, it is still a benefit to the society.
Now of course, your example takes the ownership of your own body into question, and there I'm with you. Nobody has anything to do with what I do with my body, as long as it doesn't harm anybody else.

[indie]

Why are the results 1, 1, 32, and 5? I thought there was supposed to be no correlation between personality type and political views.

Where did you hear that? I suppose it seems logical that the distribution of political orientation would be more random, but not necessarily. After all, INTPs are, by far, the smartest. And coolest. :sombrero:

[Robespierre]

Your head was on the Guillotine in this argument Rob.

A resounding loss..

Do you have anything to add to the conversation?

[jittus rye]

-nevermind.

[mgb]

Also, this is a short-lived problem. Provided that there is no unexpected changes in birthrates, the demographics will eventually stabilise. And as a matter of fact, immigration makes up for a lot of the declining births in Sweden at the moment.

I think it's fair to say that you would see a large rise in birthrates under the "new" system being described. Without the ability to afford birth control there would probably be a sharp rise. And any farmer will tell you that kids make great farm hands...extension being that in the long run kids will be net contributors to the family pocketbook.

Immigration at this point would probably fall dramatically as people seek opportunities in other countries.

I would point to a lot of countries in Africa as being examples of the opposite of Sweden. Although they do have oppressive military governments, many of them rely on "charity" rather than socialism and it doesn't seem to work very well for them and much of the population lives in a system with little or no market controls.

[Robespierre]

Let's turn this around. Say that a majority of people want a coercive government. Isn't their opinion equally valid as yours?

No, of course not. If a majority of people want to enslave all people under 5' tall, would that be a valid opinion? The problem is not with those people. If they wish to be ruled by a power-mad government, that is their right, but it is NOT their right to subject even one person to the same treatment against his/her will.


I read your argument. Still, I fail to see how the the fact that the Russian government decided to invade Finland once would automatically make the Finnish government bad, or any other government for that matter. If one apple is bad, does that make all apples bad?

I don't think you got it. The only time I mentioned the Soviet invasion of Finland was to call the Finnish defense, a just war. The invasion has nothing at all to do with why the Finnish government is bad.


I know this is something that many are worried about. Still, your solution would be to just stop paying pensions, I assume? Or would you prefer to just shoot the elderly?

Oh I love it! One of the greatest false dilema fallacies of all time. If we don't rape and murder the productive, we must rape and murder the non-productive. How about we do neither? How about we allow people the dignity of settling their own affairs? And yes, the solution is the immediate stop of all wealth-redistribution programs, with all funds on hand returned to those who payed them in.


Also, this is a short-lived problem. Provided that there is no unexpected changes in birthrates, the demographics will eventually stabilise. And as a matter of fact, immigration makes up for a lot of the declining births in Sweden at the moment.

Yep, that immigration is going to temporarily stave off some of your problems. But soon you will see the multitude of other problems it causes. Either way, your system of robbery and political plunder is doomed to collapse.


By the way, how is the U.S. superior to this system? I don't know much about U.S. internal politics, so please enlighten me.

It's not much better. Only slightly lower percentage of wealth is looted from the private sector. One major aspect in which the US is superiour, is the lower number of state-owned industries and socialized aspects of life. Health care is still some-what liberal, etc. Although this is quickly changing, so America will resemble Sweden in this respect soon.


It sounds really nice when you say it like that. But what about those who cannot afford education? Would you just shrug and say that it's their own problem? Bad karma from previous lives deserves to be punished, or what?

Same as everything else, there are private charities that have previously and will continue to cover these situations. People in the US, at least the ones I know, tend to be very generous, and take pleasure in helping others. If we were not being raped at the paycheck by 40%, and more %'s elsewere, the rate of charitable giving, which is already easily the highest in the world, would skyrocket.

I just can't allow the justification of theft to go un-noticed. It always takes the form of substituting one certain evil, theft, for the possibility of future issue, lack of education.


No, I don't think governments should be involved in direct population control. My example was just to show that welfare to mothers does not automatically lead to women having children just to receive money, as you seem to think.

Scandanavia is not a representative sample of social democracies. In the US, this is indeed what happens, and I would wager it happens in France and UK as well. And if it doesn't, it will eventually. It takes time to totally destroy the pride of independent people.


Now this seems to boil down to the main differences between us.
You assume that everyone who doesn't work is just lazy. Do you actually know anyone who enjoys being unemployed? I've at least never met such a person.

Of course. I myself have been unemployed. I have known many people who have been unemployed. It is not my opinion that people who don't work are just lazy. If I could survive without working, I would. The problem is in the violent redistribution of wealth. If I don't want to work, that is my right. However, I have no right to demand goods and services for free. If I can afford to stop working, that is my business.


And your idea of private charity is just laughable. You mean that the sick and elderly should be taken care of, just not by you!?

Clever but incorrect. No. I don't think you should hold a gun to my head and force me to empty my wallet so your grandpa can retire at the age of 60. I will use my money in the way I see as most fit. You can do the same.


You thereby imply that there will always be altruistic people in the society and it is their duty to pay for the stuff you don't want to, because you have the right to be greedier than them?

I imply nothing of the sort. I explicitly state that it is wrong to commit robbery. If you assume that the above statement implies something about the existence of altruism, that is your logical leap, not mine. I do not recognize altruism as a logically sound concept. I don't believe it actually exists. No human can ever act in such a way as to be altruistic. It is not possible. All humans act to improve their own well-being as they judge it. If an individual believes he will improve his own well-being by donating all his wealth to charity and living in poverty, he will. Charity does not imply altruism.

And yes, everyone has a right to be as greedy as they please. This doesn't mean I think greed is a good thing. Just like everyone has the right to use whatever drugs they please and not be thrown in jail by some crazed goernment, I don't necessarily think that doing drugs is a good decision. I just think that people have the right. Do you have a right to decide how much is enough? Will you tell me when I've given enough?


Private charity has always existed because there have always been self-centered bastards like you. That doesn't make your attitude right.

Okay you socialist fuck, this was relatively civil. You have now crossed the line. You will obviously spare no tactic indefending your lofty position as the arbiter of right and wrong, deciding for all, how much should be donated, what activities will be permitted, and who will prosper and who won't.

Your attitude of absolute arrogance is very instructive. You are a perfect example of the pathetic socialist defense of tyranny.


If you force someone to do something, it has to be subtracted as a negative impact.

Sounds good, on an individual level.


But still, if more people gain from it than lose from it, it is still a benefit to the society.

It is impossible for anyone other than the individuals involved to state whether or not they have gained from the transaction in question!


Now of course, your example takes the ownership of your own body into question, and there I'm with you. Nobody has anything to do with what I do with my body, as long as it doesn't harm anybody else.

Why should that philosophy not apply to previously unowned property which you have improved through the use of your self-owned body? Why should anyone else deserve a percentage of the wealth you obtain in trade for the labor of your exclusively self-owned body?

[Robespierre]

I would point to a lot of countries in Africa as being examples of the opposite of Sweden. Although they do have oppressive military governments, many of them rely on "charity" rather than socialism and it doesn't seem to work very well for them and much of the population lives in a system with little or no market controls.

Name one country in sub-saharan africa that relies more upon charity than socialism. Then tell me how much their government owes the IMF or Worldbank. Those two institutions are the savior of thirdworld socialist/fascist governments, without them, the local governments would be forced to stop crowding out businesses with government project, stop paying for large burocracies, an in general, stop oppressing their people. No, socialism has helped no one but dictators in sub-saharan africa.

[melancholeric]

/me ponders if I should get to this or not...

[Robespierre]

/me ponders if I should get to this or not...

I see no reason why not. If you have something to add, do so.

[melancholeric]

No, of course not. If a majority of people want to enslave all people under 5' tall, would that be a valid opinion? The problem is not with those people. If they wish to be ruled by a power-mad government, that is their right, but it is NOT their right to subject even one person to the same treatment against his/her will.
You are not alone in this world. You were born to this country with other people around, infrastructure, whatnot. (hereafter: society) Societies came to be, when people decided, that cooperation works better than competition, but ultimately we can't trust each others, (thus laws, police, etc) and that there come times when someone might need a safety net. And that voluntary charity may not be enough. You (and I) were born into this society, and no, it was not your choice. (Nor mine.)


I don't think you got it. The only time I mentioned the Soviet invasion of Finland was to call the Finnish defense, a just war. The invasion has nothing at all to do with why the Finnish government is bad.
Boneca asked if actions of one goverment automatically make all goverments (including Finnish) bad. If you answered that question, I guess i failed to see that.



Oh I love it! One of the greatest false dilema fallacies of all time. If we don't rape and murder the productive, we must rape and murder the non-productive. How about we do neither? How about we allow people the dignity of settling their own affairs? And yes, the solution is the immediate stop of all wealth-redistribution programs, with all funds on hand returned to those who payed them in.
Does this mean I have to immediately pay my debt to my goverment when I have received free healthcare, education and some welfare, or could get university degree and a steady job first?



Yep, that immigration is going to temporarily stave off some of your problems. But soon you will see the multitude of other problems it causes. Either way, your system of robbery and political plunder is doomed to collapse.
Care to define these problems a bit more accurately?




It's not much better. Only slightly lower percentage of wealth is looted from the private sector. One major aspect in which the US is superiour, is the lower number of state-owned industries and socialized aspects of life. Health care is still some-what liberal, etc. Although this is quickly changing, so America will resemble Sweden in this respect soon.Funny you should mention healthcare. Finnish system is ultimately cheaper and superior in results than the US system. Atleast from the statistics I've seen.


Same as everything else, there are private charities that have previously and will continue to cover these situations. People in the US, at least the ones I know, tend to be very generous, and take pleasure in helping others. If we were not being raped at the paycheck by 40%, and more %'s elsewere, the rate of charitable giving, which is already easily the highest in the world, would skyrocket.

I just can't allow the justification of theft to go un-noticed. It always takes the form of substituting one certain evil, theft, for the possibility of future issue, lack of education.


Highest in the world in absolute numbers or % of GDP?


Scandanavia is not a representative sample of social democracies. In the US, this is indeed what happens, and I would wager it happens in France and UK as well. And if it doesn't, it will eventually. It takes time to totally destroy the pride of independent people.
Why is Scandinavia not representative? Because it's too small? Too monogenic? Are people somehow different here?



Of course. I myself have been unemployed. I have known many people who have been unemployed. It is not my opinion that people who don't work are just lazy. If I could survive without working, I would. The problem is in the violent redistribution of wealth. If I don't want to work, that is my right. However, I have no right to demand goods and services for free. If I can afford to stop working, that is my business.
When you were unemployed, did you receive welfare? If so, did you need it?




Clever but incorrect. No. I don't think you should hold a gun to my head and force me to empty my wallet so your grandpa can retire at the age of 60. I will use my money in the way I see as most fit. You can do the same.
Assuming we all care about fellow citizens enough to donate money to charity. If we do, then why nit pay taxes that ultimately will be used to preetty much same things, and provide certain stability that voluntary charity can't really do. Because it is dependant upon people's good will.







Okay you socialist fuck, this was relatively civil. You have now crossed the line. You will obviously spare no tactic indefending your lofty position as the arbiter of right and wrong, deciding for all, how much should be donated, what activities will be permitted, and who will prosper and who won't.
Your attitude of absolute arrogance is very instructive. You are a perfect example of the pathetic socialist defense of tyranny.
I agree, that went a bit too far. Your response is not helping it though.
Let's try to keep this civil from now on mm'kay?



Why should that philosophy not apply to previously unowned property which you have improved through the use of your self-owned body? Why should anyone else deserve a percentage of the wealth you obtain in trade for the labor of your exclusively self-owned body?
I assume this goes back land ownership again. The argument of "I was here first" is still not very convincing to me.

Assume there is this piece of previously unowned land (haha, where exactly). Now you improve that by, say, planting seeds. Eventually we get crop. If you owned the seeds, I think keeping the crop would be justified. But the land? I don't think I agree.

[Robespierre]

You are not alone in this world. You were born to this country with other people around, infrastructure, whatnot. (hereafter: society) Societies came to be, when people decided, that cooperation works better than competition, but ultimately we can't trust each others, (thus laws, police, etc) and that there come times when someone might need a safety net. And that voluntary charity may not be enough. You (and I) were born into this society, and no, it was not your choice. (Nor mine.)

So, according to your theory, since we were born into society, society owns us?


Boneca asked if actions of one goverment automatically make all goverments (including Finnish) bad. If you answered that question, I guess i failed to see that.

[QUOTE=melancholeric]Does this mean I have to immediately pay my debt to my goverment when I have received free healthcare, education and some welfare, or could get university degree and a steady job first?

Are you in-debt to your government? I was under the impression that your health-care system was not one that issued loans, but simply gave out services for free.


Care to define these problems a bit more accurately?

You will have the same fractured society that america has. Not one culture, spread across a land-mass, but many cultures, co-existing side by side. I don't think this is a bad thing, but it will cause your welfare-state to totally collapse.


Funny you should mention healthcare. Finnish system is ultimately cheaper and superior in results than the US system. Atleast from the statistics I've seen.

Superiour by who's standard? How is theft superiour to voluntary transactions?


Highest in the world in absolute numbers or % of GDP?

Don't know, probably both.


Why is Scandinavia not representative? Because it's too small? Too monogenic? Are people somehow different here?

Scandinavia is not a representative sample of socialist democracy because it doesn't reflect the conditions of the majority of states using the same form of government. The real differences though are in time and severity of the collapse. Your welfare state will eventually collapse, just not as soon as France, Italy, or Germany.


When you were unemployed, did you receive welfare? If so, did you need it?

No, I did not. Did I need it? What does that mean? I need air to breath, and I need some sort of food to eat. I didn't need welfare.


Assuming we all care about fellow citizens enough to donate money to charity. If we do, then why nit pay taxes that ultimately will be used to preetty much same things, and provide certain stability that voluntary charity can't really do. Because it is dependant upon people's good will.

So you are asking, why should we not simply steal the money, if people will donate it anyway? Do you really have to ask that?

Why should charity NOT depend on people's good will? Is that not what it is? The measure of how much pleasure people gain out of helping others?


I agree, that went a bit too far. Your response is not helping it though.
Let's try to keep this civil from now on mm'kay?

Civil.


I assume this goes back land ownership again. The argument of "I was here first" is still not very convincing to me.

Who ownes you?


Assume there is this piece of previously unowned land (haha, where exactly). Now you improve that by, say, planting seeds. Eventually we get crop. If you owned the seeds, I think keeping the crop would be justified. But the land? I don't think I agree.

Why not? What if you build canals to irrigate the fields you plant, and sheds to store the harvest? What about those persistent improvements of the land? Should they not also be as 100% yours as the crops are?

[mgb]

Assume there is this piece of previously unowned land (haha, where exactly). Now you improve that by, say, planting seeds. Eventually we get crop. If you owned the seeds, I think keeping the crop would be justified. But the land? I don't think I agree.

Central to Locke's theory on property is the idea that labour put into land leads to owndership of land. I too believe this to be a fallacy. For two reasons: all land is not equally productive and it does not take into account the natural world (drought, flooding, etc.). Current world (by current I mean the last ten thousand years) populations could not be achieved without organized cooperation between farmers and citizens in the cities. Without that the most people the world can maintain is around one million people.

The inevitable conclusion of Locke's ideas that a small few will end up owning all the land and pass it down to their heirs. If Locke's idea had been instituted around his time none of us would be having this conversation because none of us could read because we would all be serfs. Feudalism only worked for a short time, and it was harsh and brutal, why would we want to return to that?

[mgb]

You are not alone in this world. You were born to this country with other people around, infrastructure, whatnot. (hereafter: society) Societies came to be, when people decided, that cooperation works better than competition, but ultimately we can't trust each others, (thus laws, police, etc) and that there come times when someone might need a safety net. And that voluntary charity may not be enough. You (and I) were born into this society, and no, it was not your choice. (Nor mine.)


I think we have a choice to belong to society or not. Its the red/blue pill argument. Ultimately, you get to decide, but if you leave "society" the cost is very high. The framework in which you live your life has to be drastically changed. Probably the country too.

[Robespierre]

Central to Locke's theory on property is the idea that labour put into land leads to owndership of land. I too believe this to be a fallacy. For two reasons: all land is not equally productive and it does not take into account the natural world (drought, flooding, etc.). Current world (by current I mean the last ten thousand years) populations could not be achieved without organized cooperation between farmers and citizens in the cities. Without that the most people the world can maintain is around one million people.

I find this theory to be silly. What do you define as organization? Is government domination the only way to organize land use and production? I suggest that you should consult the soviet union to see what happens when ONLY government is involved in organizing land use. Primarily, the millions of Ukrainians who starved to death in the 20's and 30's.

Also, why should the relative variety in land, in quality and content, have anything to do with one's ability to own it?


The inevitable conclusion of Locke's ideas that a small few will end up owning all the land and pass it down to their heirs.

You guys are starting to sound as repetative as I do. How? Do you have even one example where Locke's ideas have resulted in this sort of monopoly scenario?


If Locke's idea had been instituted around his time none of us would be having this conversation because none of us could read because we would all be serfs. Feudalism only worked for a short time, and it was harsh and brutal, why would we want to return to that?

So, you are suggesting that all the feudal lords gained their property through lockean homesteading? This is ridiculous. The feudal lords were granted land from their kings, who either took the land by violent force, or simply claimed ownership over some domain. Niether are actually examples of Lockean homesteading. What you attempt to smear is the right to own one's self and the product of one's own labor.

[KentOhio]

Where did you hear that? I suppose it seems logical that the distribution of political orientation would be more random, but not necessarily. After all, INTPs are, by far, the smartest. And coolest. :sombrero:

There's no such thing as the smartest type.

I saw the political study on keirsey.com long ago, but, going back to check it now, I see that it's gone. It was a study of being republican, democrat, or other, and all of the types turned out to be random.

[melancholeric]

So, according to your theory, since we were born into society, society owns us?
I didn't say that. I say that we live in a society, where we have certain rules. If you do not like those, you are free to express your discontent, and are free to change the society by accepted means, assuming the society respects your rights to do so. The US goverment does, doesn't?



Are you in-debt to your government? I was under the impression that your health-care system was not one that issued loans, but simply gave out services for free.
I am in-debt, because I have been in the receiving end of the system you describe as theft. Technically that would make me a "theft". However, I will pay it back via taxes. You wanted "immediate stop of all wealth-redistribution programs, with all funds on hand returned to those who payed them in."

Did you answer the question of how the actions of one goverment make alll goverments bad or did I miss it again?


You will have the same fractured society that america has. Not one culture, spread across a land-mass, but many cultures, co-existing side by side. I don't think this is a bad thing, but it will cause your welfare-state to totally collapse.
How exactly?
I am honestly worried about the future of the welfare-state. I'd like to know what you think will cause the collapse of that.



Superiour by who's standard? How is theft superiour to voluntary transactions?
Cost-effective. Less funds used, better results.
The US has insurance-paid healthcare, right?


Don't know, probably both.
Certainly not by % of GDP. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I don't think the US was anywhere close to highest.



Scandinavia is not a representative sample of socialist democracy because it doesn't reflect the conditions of the majority of states using the same form of government. The real differences though are in time and severity of the collapse. Your welfare state will eventually collapse, just not as soon as France, Italy, or Germany.
Once again, what will cause this collapse? Besides tax evations and aging population? (Tax evations can't be justified, for reasons I described above. I am in debt to this society, and no, it was not my choice.)


No, I did not. Did I need it? What does that mean? I need air to breath, and I need some sort of food to eat. I didn't need welfare.
Just checking. If welfare had been your the only thing between you and starvation, you might have a bit different opinion about it.




So you are asking, why should we not simply steal the money, if people will donate it anyway? Do you really have to ask that?

Why should charity NOT depend on people's good will? Is that not what it is? The measure of how much pleasure people gain out of helping others?

Point it out again: the welfare state, where I grew up, does provide stability and security. I am suspicious of charity doing the job. Besides the two are by no means mutually exclusive.





Who ownes you?
Last time I checked, nobody. I don't think humans can be "owned". Unless you are talking about slavery. ( oh i see where this will lead. now we are slaves of the welfare state. right.)


Why not? What if you build canals to irrigate the fields you plant, and sheds to store the harvest? What about those persistent improvements of the land? Should they not also be as 100% yours as the crops are?
Somehow it does not make too much sense to me. We did disagree on this once already.
How do you know if the land is previously unowned?

[Robespierre]

I didn't say that. I say that we live in a society, where we have certain rules. If you do not like those, you are free to express your discontent, and are free to change the society by accepted means, assuming the society respects your rights to do so. The US goverment does, doesn't?

Accepted means. Do those accepted means include theft and murder?


I am in-debt, because I have been in the receiving end of the system you describe as theft. Technically that would make me a "theft". However, I will pay it back via taxes. You wanted "immediate stop of all wealth-redistribution programs, with all funds on hand returned to those who payed them in."

My suggestion still sounds reasonable.


Did you answer the question of how the actions of one goverment make alll goverments bad or did I miss it again?

Why would I answer a silly question like that?


How exactly?
I am honestly worried about the future of the welfare-state. I'd like to know what you think will cause the collapse of that.

You will end up with the same sort of laziness that the US and UK expirience. People will eventually come to regard plundering society as their right. Fewer and fewer people will be paying into the system and the government will be forced to raise taxes or to decrease services. As a result, they will either drive the few remaining productive people away, or they will cause welfare riots.


Cost-effective. Less funds used, better results.
The US has insurance-paid healthcare, right?

The US has no top-down system. There are plenty of interventionist restrictions on insurance providers and health-care professionals that act to warp the free market, but the system is not owned entirely or dictated entirely by the fedgov.


Certainly not by % of GDP. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I don't think the US was anywhere close to highest.

Well then, I guess until someone can find some numbers, the point is moot.


Once again, what will cause this collapse? Besides tax evations and aging population? (Tax evations can't be justified, for reasons I described above. I am in debt to this society, and no, it was not my choice.)

So, you want to know what will cause the welfare-state to collapse other than a disparity between funds plundered and funds redistributed? Nothing at all!


Just checking. If welfare had been your the only thing between you and starvation, you might have a bit different opinion about it.

That is never the case, and can never be the case.

How do you think the human race survived before the invention of socialism? How did the Finns get by before the social democrats took over?


Point it out again: the welfare state, where I grew up, does provide stability and security. I am suspicious of charity doing the job. Besides the two are by no means mutually exclusive.

One CAN exist along side the other, but as far as actually usefulness and method applied, they are extreme opposites.

Do you honestly think that charity can involved the involuntary confiscation of resources? If you rob someone at gunpoint, then give the money to charity, have you committed a wrong?


Last time I checked, nobody. I don't think humans can be "owned". Unless you are talking about slavery. ( oh i see where this will lead. now we are slaves of the welfare state. right.)

Well, who has control over you? I would suggest that it is you, and you alone. Other people may have influence over you, but they cannot actually cause your muscles to move. You have exclusive control over your own actions.


Somehow it does not make too much sense to me. We did disagree on this once already.
How do you know if the land is previously unowned?

Perhaps I mis-phrased it. The homesteading of currently unowned land, should be the issue. It doesn't much matter if the land has been owned in the past, so long as it is currently unowned.

Either way, what doesn't make sense to you? You specifically stated that if you had some unowned land, planted seeds(which you owned) on that land, and grew the crops, you would be the 100% owner of those crops. Why? And why should the same not be true for the land itself when you make permanent improvements to it, like buildings?

[Boneca]

First of all, I want to apologise for being rude to you, Robespierre. I do find some of your views offensive, but that was no reason to offend you back.


Oh I love it! One of the greatest false dilema fallacies of all time. If we don't rape and murder the productive, we must rape and murder the non-productive. How about we do neither? How about we allow people the dignity of settling their own affairs? And yes, the solution is the immediate stop of all wealth-redistribution programs, with all funds on hand returned to those who payed them in.But how do you expect people without income to get by in your system? Would they have to rely on this "private charity" you have so high hopes on? The people who are today getting their retirements have paid taxes their whole working life in order to get, among a lot of other things, a decent pension. Wouldn't that be robbery to deprive them of that?


Scandanavia is not a representative sample of social democracies. In the US, this is indeed what happens, and I would wager it happens in France and UK as well. And if it doesn't, it will eventually. It takes time to totally destroy the pride of independent people.And why is the U.S. or France more representative than Scandinavia? Do you believe we Scandinavians are genetically more inclined to enjoy tyranny, or what?


If I don't want to work, that is my right. However, I have no right to demand goods and services for free. If I can afford to stop working, that is my business.I agree totally. But at least in Sweden, if you choose not to work when work is available, you will not receive welfare.


And yes, everyone has a right to be as greedy as they please. This doesn't mean I think greed is a good thing. Just like everyone has the right to use whatever drugs they please and not be thrown in jail by some crazed goernment, I don't necessarily think that doing drugs is a good decision. I just think that people have the right. Do you have a right to decide how much is enough? Will you tell me when I've given enough?This is all a question on when you start harming others. If your greed (or drug abuse for that matter) causes harm to people around you, you have no right to continue. It is not an easy limit to draw, I agree, but to avoid drawing the limit altogether wouldn't exactly solve the problem.


It is impossible for anyone other than the individuals involved to state whether or not they have gained from the transaction in question!Yet, in the individualist-centered society you favour, you would constantly have to ask yourself, "do I harm anyone around me?", since there would be no government regulations to guide you.
Companies would have their own ethics, you claim. But there may be a whole lot of people that are affected by a company's actions, and you cannot possibly ask them all for permission for every little change you want to make. So how would you solve this?


But soon you will see the multitude of other problems it causes. Either way, your system of robbery and political plunder is doomed to collapse.
...
You are a perfect example of the pathetic socialist defense of tyranny.This is what I find somewhat offensive. Sweden, along with Norway, Finland and Denmark are usually considered to be countries with exceptionally high standards of living. Even though I don't always agree with the government's decisions, I still think that Sweden is a free country. If we thought we lived in a tyranny, we would rebel, and there would certainly be a lot of complaints.
Now, if you think Sweden is a tyranny, does that make it true to us? No, it doesn't - it's just your opinion.

Here is where I think the problem with your ideas lie. You advocate individual freedom, yes. But if these individuals disagree on how to best form a society, whose opinion is most worth - yours or the majority's? And if you say yours, why?

[Robespierre]

First of all, I want to apologise for being rude to you, Robespierre. I do find some of your views offensive, but that was no reason to offend you back.

No problem.


And why is the U.S. or France more representative than Scandinavia? Do you believe we Scandinavians are genetically more inclined to enjoy tyranny, or what?

No. There are a known number of social democracies in the world. Most of them are in Europe. Scandinavian social democracies are not representative of that group, as a whole.


I agree totally. But at least in Sweden, if you choose not to work when work is available, you will not receive welfare.

Makes sense. Let's see if you guys can make sense of the other part of the equation, those deemed to not have a choice.


This is all a question on when you start harming others. If your greed (or drug abuse for that matter) causes harm to people around you, you have no right to continue.

I agree 100%. You are free act, to do as you please on and with your own property, so long as you don't violate the right of others to do the same on and with their own property. So if your greed causes you to build a big fence around your yard, fine. No one else is harmed. However, if you greed causes you to enter your neighbor's house and rob him and gunpoint, then there is harm created.


It is not an easy limit to draw, I agree, but to avoid drawing the limit altogether wouldn't exactly solve the problem.

Not at all, it is a very easy line to draw, I have done so above.


Yet, in the individualist-centered society you favour, you would constantly have to ask yourself, "do I harm anyone around me?", since there would be no government regulations to guide you.

You think this would be a bad thing?


Companies would have their own ethics, you claim. But there may be a whole lot of people that are affected by a company's actions, and you cannot possibly ask them all for permission for every little change you want to make. So how would you solve this?

I don't understand. What do you mean by a company's actions? Ask who permission for what? What do you want solved?


This is what I find somewhat offensive. Sweden, along with Norway, Finland and Denmark are usually considered to be countries with exceptionally high standards of living.

Typically, yes. I don't consider them this way due to the extreme lack of economic freedom. As stated, there is no objective measure of good and bad.


Even though I don't always agree with the government's decisions, I still think that Sweden is a free country. If we thought we lived in a tyranny, we would rebel, and there would certainly be a lot of complaints.
Now, if you think Sweden is a tyranny, does that make it true to us? No, it doesn't - it's just your opinion.

Yep.


Here is where I think the problem with your ideas lie. You advocate individual freedom, yes. But if these individuals disagree on how to best form a society, whose opinion is most worth - yours or the majority's? And if you say yours, why?

I say each individual's opinion is best for himself. Their is no such thing as a "majority" opinion. Large groups do not have opinions. This is like taking a handful of tiny multi-colored stones, and asking what color the group is. If 50% of the stones are blue, is the group blue? I say, of course not, the group has no color. Even if all but one of the stones are blue, the group is still not blue.

You mistake my position as that of a dictator, wishing to impose his opinion on all. This is the furthest scenario from the truth that I can imagine. I do not wish to de-throne the majority rule of democracy for the autocracy of a dictatorship. I am speaking of a devolution of power to the individual, and the individual alone as sovreign over himself and his property. Each individual, not just me.

[Boneca]

You mistake my position as that of a dictator, wishing to impose his opinion on all. This is the furthest scenario from the truth that I can imagine. I do not wish to de-throne the majority rule of democracy for the autocracy of a dictatorship. I am speaking of a devolution of power to the individual, and the individual alone as sovreign over himself and his property. Each individual, not just me.And here is where I've lost you. What if these individuals don't get along? What makes you think that every individual is moral enough to care about others' rights?
As I see it, there has to be some sort of authority in these cases, and that's what I'm asking you - if you mistrust democracy, who or what would be this authority?
What I see from your descriptions is a total law-of-the-jungle society where the strongest/richest do whatever they please.

[Robespierre]

And here is where I've lost you. What if these individuals don't get along? What makes you think that every individual is moral enough to care about others' rights?

Nothing makes me think that, in fact, I don't think that at all. There will never be time when everyone respects the rights of others. Never. No system of social organization can ever change that.

Do you suppose that people respect the rights of one another now?


As I see it, there has to be some sort of authority in these cases, and that's what I'm asking you - if you mistrust democracy, who or what would be this authority?

The individuals involved are the only authorities required.


What I see from your descriptions is a total law-of-the-jungle society where the strongest/richest do whatever they please.

What makes you think that isn't exactly what we(we who live in nation-states, which is just about everyone) have right now?

There is nothing unique about the ability of nation-states to organize society. Their methods and results are the problem. The government isn't everywhere at all times, although it threatens to be. When you invite someone into your home, is the threat of government police action the only thing preventing you from murdering the person you invited into your home? If it is, I have a hard time believing that even that fear will stay your hand forever. People have other reasons to be civil to one another besides fear of state-reprisal.

[melancholeric]

Accepted means. Do those accepted means include theft and murder?
Accepted means to change the society. Consult your lawyer.




My suggestion still sounds reasonable.
Am I in debt to my goverment, and if I am, do I have to pay it now, or can it wait untill I have a decent job?



Why would I answer a silly question like that?

I presented the RF as a great example of government run amok.
Silly me, for a moment I thought you had a point.




You will end up with the same sort of laziness that the US and UK expirience. People will eventually come to regard plundering society as their right. Fewer and fewer people will be paying into the system and the government will be forced to raise taxes or to decrease services. As a result, they will either drive the few remaining productive people away, or they will cause welfare riots.
Somehow, I don't see that laziness. (Boneca got to this first.)

But at least in Sweden, if you choose not to work when work is available, you will not receive welfare.



The US has no top-down system. There are plenty of interventionist restrictions on insurance providers and health-care professionals that act to warp the free market, but the system is not owned entirely or dictated entirely by the fedgov.
The patient goes to a doctor. The doctor wants to give him the best treatment possible, whether it is actually needed or not, (just not harmful) because his employment depends on that. The patient assumes the doctor knows better. The insurance company pays. And the costs go through the roof.


Well then, I guess until someone can find some numbers, the point is moot.
Do I have to google this? Not that that is awfully relevant.



So, you want to know what will cause the welfare-state to collapse other than a disparity between funds plundered and funds redistributed? Nothing at all!
Now it does not have any problems besides tax evation and aging population? Interesting.


That is never the case, and can never be the case.

How do you think the human race survived before the invention of socialism? How did the Finns get by before the social democrats took over?
When exactly was it invented? (Socialism, that is. Not marxism.) I always thought societies evolved, rather than were "invented". Ever since the hunter-gathererer discovered agriculture.


One CAN exist along side the other, but as far as actually usefulness and method applied, they are extreme opposites.

Do you honestly think that charity can involved the involuntary confiscation of resources? If you rob someone at gunpoint, then give the money to charity, have you committed a wrong?
Am I allowed to steal food if I can't afford it, if I pay it back later?



Well, who has control over you? I would suggest that it is you, and you alone. Other people may have influence over you, but they cannot actually cause your muscles to move. You have exclusive control over your own actions.
The point?



Perhaps I mis-phrased it. The homesteading of currently unowned land, should be the issue. It doesn't much matter if the land has been owned in the past, so long as it is currently unowned.

Either way, what doesn't make sense to you? You specifically stated that if you had some unowned land, planted seeds(which you owned) on that land, and grew the crops, you would be the 100% owner of those crops. Why? And why should the same not be true for the land itself when you make permanent improvements to it, like buildings?
I stated I think you'd own the crops. I'll get back to this someday.

[melancholeric]

By the way, you can criticize existing societies fairly well. Have your ideals ever been carried out?

And how exactly would this Utopia of yours deal with enviromental problems?

[Boneca]

Nothing makes me think that, in fact, I don't think that at all. There will never be time when everyone respects the rights of others. Never. No system of social organization can ever change that.

Do you suppose that people respect the rights of one another now?

The individuals involved are the only authorities required.

What makes you think that isn't exactly what we(we who live in nation-states, which is just about everyone) have right now?
All right. You think we live in a law-of-the-jungle society right now, and therefore you want to replace the current society with another law-of-the-jungle society.
Really, what is your point?

[Robespierre]

Accepted means to change the society. Consult your lawyer.

So there is no society without nation-states and top-down imposed legal codes?


Am I in debt to my goverment, and if I am, do I have to pay it now, or can it wait untill I have a decent job?

All good questions. If any one person can show that their property was looted and given to you, they would have a claim on that portion of your wealth.


Silly me, for a moment I thought you had a point.

Yeah, BIG mistake. Come on, you create this idiotic dilema for me to be stuck in, when I have never spoken in the terms that you claim I did. Are governments capable of mass-murder and mass-oppression? Yes, yes they are.


Somehow, I don't see that laziness. (Boneca got to this first.)

Come to the US and visit any large metropolitan area.


The patient goes to a doctor. The doctor wants to give him the best treatment possible, whether it is actually needed or not, (just not harmful) because his employment depends on that.

Why would a doctor's employment ever hinge on him offering the most expesive treatments even when they are not applicable?


The patient assumes the doctor knows better. The insurance company pays. And the costs go through the roof.

I don't think you understand how insurance companies work. They are adamant about reducing the costs of health-care, not increasing.


Do I have to google this? Not that that is awfully relevant.

You don't have to do anything. I will simply assume I am correct unless I am shown otherwise, on this matter.


Now it does not have any problems besides tax evation and aging population? Interesting.

Isn't it?


When exactly was it invented? (Socialism, that is. Not marxism.) I always thought societies evolved, rather than were "invented". Ever since the hunter-gathererer discovered agriculture.

It was named by Marx, and solidified as a theory of economics and sociology by him and others.


Am I allowed to steal food if I can't afford it, if I pay it back later?

Allowed? By the owner of the food? Then it wouldn't be stealing. If you are not allowed, then it is stealing.


The point?

You have exclusive ownership over your own body and labor.


I stated I think you'd own the crops. I'll get back to this someday.

How about today? Why should you be the exclusive owner of those crops? What if your neighbor wants them? Can't he just come and take some?

[Robespierre]

By the way, you can criticize existing societies fairly well. Have your ideals ever been carried out?

Thankyou. The closest implementation of the ideas I support would be the original independence movement in the US. Those values remain, in a distant way still today, but are muted and strangled by socialism.


And how exactly would this Utopia of yours deal with enviromental problems?

I propose no utopia. Only states make promises like that.

Environmental issues can only ever really be solved by applying private property rights. Those places where property rights are lacking, are typically the worst polluted places on earth.

A basic concept of property rights in environmentalism, would be the issue of air pollution. If you were to live in a house down the street from an empty lot, you, like everyone else, also own the right to determine your own air quality. So if some factory is built at the end of the street, and starts pumping smoke into the air, and dirties up your airspace, you have a grievance against the factory.

[Robespierre]

All right. You think we live in a law-of-the-jungle society right now, and therefore you want to replace the current society with another law-of-the-jungle society.
Really, what is your point?

The point is to recognize human rights. The more people I can convince, the better. Nation-states are an unnecessary evil.

[Boneca]

A basic concept of property rights in environmentalism, would be the issue of air pollution. If you were to live in a house down the street from an empty lot, you, like everyone else, also own the right to determine your own air quality. So if some factory is built at the end of the street, and starts pumping smoke into the air, and dirties up your airspace, you have a grievance against the factory.But what if the owner of the factory doesn't care about you and your breathing air? Who will stop him from continuing his pollution if a government is not allowed to intervene?

[Robespierre]

But what if the owner of the factory doesn't care about you and your breathing air? Who will stop him from continuing his pollution if a government is not allowed to intervene?

Ultimately, it is your responsibility to stop him, if you care about his trespass.

However, in a voluntary society, many non-violent options are open. Many insurers might not be willing to insure firms that act in this way, if this is the case, inform the firm's insurer about the issue, they may drop their coverage. Inform those who sell electricity and water to the firm's factory. If enough people care, they are likely to go along with the bulk of their customers, and stop selling power to the factory. There are an infinite number of ways in which disputes can be settled without violence. There is no one right way, and no possible way to predict which will prevail in any specific society.

[Boneca]

Ultimately, it is your responsibility to stop him, if you care about his trespass.

However, in a voluntary society, many non-violent options are open. Many insurers might not be willing to insure firms that act in this way, if this is the case, inform the firm's insurer about the issue, they may drop their coverage. Inform those who sell electricity and water to the firm's factory. If enough people care, they are likely to go along with the bulk of their customers, and stop selling power to the factory. There are an infinite number of ways in which disputes can be settled without violence. There is no one right way, and no possible way to predict which will prevail in any specific society.Right. This does not sound like a society that I would like to live in.
So, if that creepy man on the street wants to rape me, it's my duty to stop him!? And if say, this man is very violent, and none of the people that I ask for help is strong enough to deter him, then the rapist has the right to rape me?
If this is what you call civilisation, I must say I disagree.

[melancholeric]

So there is no society without nation-states and top-down imposed legal codes?
I am not aware of such a society existing right now. Sure those have been, but, you know, people apparently prefer to have legal codes. Wonder why.



All good questions. If any one person can show that their property was looted and given to you, they would have a claim on that portion of your wealth.
And if I received the "property" (mostly immaterial, thus quotations) via wealth distribution, anyone who happens to be paying more than receiving could possibly claim that. We are all at the receiving end at some point.


Yeah, BIG mistake. Come on, you create this idiotic dilema for me to be stuck in, when I have never spoken in the terms that you claim I did. Are governments capable of mass-murder and mass-oppression? Yes, yes they are.

Somehow you gave the impression that goverments are inherently bad, only cabable of deeds similar to, say, Russia.




Come to the US and visit any large metropolitan area.
I suppose I'll see welfare bums, right? But we do not see them here. Conclusion: welfare seems to do its job here, but not there. You draw the conclusion that welfare can't work. I draw the conclusion that it can. Maybe the US system is implemented in different manner. Maybe the americans are genetically disposed to be lazy. I don't know.



Why would a doctor's employment ever hinge on him offering the most expesive treatments even when they are not applicable?
Because it is the doctor's job to treat patients? Rephrase: not expensive, but you get the point. (Hopefully.)



I don't think you understand how insurance companies work. They are adamant about reducing the costs of health-care, not increasing.
Yes, because the costs have gone through the roof.



You don't have to do anything. I will simply assume I am correct unless I am shown otherwise, on this matter.
And I assume I am correct, unless shown otherwise.




It was named by Marx, and solidified as a theory of economics and sociology by him and others.
Marx named that. Welfare, universal healthcare and education existed way before Marx.



Allowed? By the owner of the food? Then it wouldn't be stealing. If you are not allowed, then it is stealing.
Rephrase: If I steal food that I need and can't afford, with the intention of paying it back as soon as I can and get caught, what kind of punishment would you consider approriate?


Thankyou. The closest implementation of the ideas I support would be the original independence movement in the US. Those values remain, in a distant way still today, but are muted and strangled by socialism.
But no actual example of your ideal? It's easy to criticize that what is, and defend that what is not. Obviously the problems of an actual society are more apparent than the fictional.


Environmental issues can only ever really be solved by applying private property rights. Those places where property rights are lacking, are typically the worst polluted places on earth.
Can you privatize air or water?
By the way, somehow Scandinavia once again seems to offer a countering example. Edit: Comparing to the US that is.

[Robespierre]

Right. This does not sound like a society that I would like to live in.

Lovely. Then don't live in it. I promise not to force you, so long as you don't force me to live in your society.


So, if that creepy man on the street wants to rape me, it's my duty to stop him!?

Yours, and anybody that cares about you and humanity in general. You must not have a crime problem in Sweden.


And if say, this man is very violent, and none of the people that I ask for help is strong enough to deter him, then the rapist has the right to rape me?

What? Who said anything about being strong makes anything right? You are now deliberately defaming me because you no longer now how to make your point.


If this is what you call civilisation, I must say I disagree.

Again, if some guy walking down the street is really big and strong, and wants to rape you, who the fuck is stopping him right now?

[Boneca]

Lovely. Then don't live in it. I promise not to force you, so long as you don't force me to live in your society.And if we'd happen to be born in the same country, who of us is supposed to move?


Again, if some guy walking down the street is really big and strong, and wants to rape you, who the fuck is stopping him right now?Perhaps the fact that if I (or anybody else in the vicinity) see his face, I could get him into prison?
Of course, criminals will always exist. But in your society, you give them moral right to commit their crimes as long as nobody can stop them. It might not always make a lot of difference in reality, but it is still where I draw the line of what is civilisation.
And by the way you are right. Compared to the U.S., we do not have a lot of crimes in Sweden.

Edit: I should clarify, I have only seen numbers for murders. I don't know about overall crime.

[Robespierre]

I am not aware of such a society existing right now. Sure those have been, but, you know, people apparently prefer to have legal codes. Wonder why.

As stated before, anarchy and legal codes are not mutally exclusive.


And if I received the "property" (mostly immaterial, thus quotations) via wealth distribution, anyone who happens to be paying more than receiving could possibly claim that. We are all at the receiving end at some point.

What are you talking about?


Somehow you gave the impression that goverments are inherently bad, only cabable of deeds similar to, say, Russia.

I do suggest that all coercive governments are bad and capable of evil. I did not, however, suggest that simply because Russia is bad, all governments are bad.


I suppose I'll see welfare bums, right? But we do not see them here. Conclusion: welfare seems to do its job here, but not there. You draw the conclusion that welfare can't work. I draw the conclusion that it can. Maybe the US system is implemented in different manner. Maybe the americans are genetically disposed to be lazy. I don't know.

Either way, neither result matters in the end, as welfare is a form of theft, and is fundamentally wrong, no matter what the result.


Because it is the doctor's job to treat patients? Rephrase: not expensive, but you get the point. (Hopefully.)

And who pays the doctor to treat patients? And no, you lost me on this.


Yes, because the costs have gone through the roof.

And?


And I assume I am correct, unless shown otherwise.

Great. Then drop it.


Marx named that. Welfare, universal healthcare and education existed way before Marx.

Possibly. Care to provide an example?


Rephrase: If I steal food that I need and can't afford, with the intention of paying it back as soon as I can and get caught, what kind of punishment would you consider approriate?

Returning the food.

Although I doubt that if you were actually on the brink of starvation, a problem mainly reserved for societies with no concept of property rights, that anyone would refuse you SOME form of food, as pity.


But no actual example of your ideal? It's easy to criticize that what is, and defend that what is not. Obviously the problems of an actual society are more apparent than the fictional.

Obviously. Would you prefer that I change my ideals so that they match some existing society?


Can you privatize air or water?

Neither can be rightfully owned by anything but private citizens.


By the way, somehow Scandinavia once again seems to offer a countering example. Edit: Comparing to the US that is.

It could possibly offer a counter example, if you were capable of explaining it. However you don't seem to bother with that at all.

[melancholeric]

Compared to the U.S., we do not have a lot of crimes in Sweden.
Which just might be due to the welfare state.

[Robespierre]

And if we'd happen to be born in the same country, who of us is supposed to move?

Country? What country?


Perhaps the fact that if I (or anybody else in the vicinity) see his face, I could get him into prison?

Nope, that's not the answer. The answer is....nothing at all. Nothing is stopping someone intent upon raping you. People will not suddenly turn into completely wild animals totally incapable of empathy simply due to lack of government.


Of course, criminals will always exist. But in your society, you give them moral right to commit their crimes as long as nobody can stop them.

Again you deliberately mischaracterize my statements to make me sound like a monster. I have never EVER condoned crimes so long as no one can stop them, and you actually know this. Yet you prefer to continue with this childish line of attack because you have no way to refute anything else I have been saying, yet you still feel the emotional need to attack me.

I have said, probably 50 or 60 times by now, that non-aggression is the ultimate moral, and the only way to operate a society.


It might not always make a lot of difference in reality, but it is still where I draw the line of what is civilisation.
And by the way you are right. Compared to the U.S., we do not have a lot of crimes in Sweden.

Okay. So you think that if the Swedish government disappeared tomorrow, the swedes would rape and kill one another and generally decend into chaos?

[Robespierre]

Which just might be due to the welfare state.

Certainly, the welfare state here in the US.

[Boneca]

I have said, probably 50 or 60 times by now, that non-aggression is the ultimate moral, and the only way to operate a society.And I keep repeating, what if the rest of the people living around you do not have the same moral as you have?
It seems like we aren't getting anywhere with this argument.

[Robespierre]

And I keep repeating, what if the rest of the people living around you do not have the same moral as you have?
It seems like we aren't getting anywhere with this argument.

I agree, we are going no where. You deliberately suggest absurdities, like suggesting that I think anyone who acts violently and is successful at their goals is justified.

People living around you, RIGHT NOW, are capable of not recognizing the value of non-aggression. Why don't they rush to attack you?

[melancholeric]

As stated before, anarchy and legal codes are not mutally exclusive.
Great.


What are you talking about?

I am talking about the fact that you indirectly implied that I am in debt to this society. Everyone who has grown up here has been at some point.



I do suggest that all coercive governments are bad and capable of evil. I did not, however, suggest that simply because Russia is bad, all governments are bad.
You did manage to give that impression. How would your ideal work if it has legal codes but no coercive goverment?



Either way, neither result matters in the end, as welfare is a form of theft, and is fundamentally wrong, no matter what the result.
edit:We disagreed on property rights, didn't we?



And who pays the doctor to treat patients? And no, you lost me on this.

I was under the impression that insurance companies do. And the patients pay the companies, right?


And?

And somehow insurance-funded healthcare gets quite expensive. The US spent ~13 % of GDP in healthcare, comparing to Finlands <7 %. Somehow the US had lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates.


Great. Then drop it.
You brought it up, but whatever.



Possibly. Care to provide an example?
Your original claim was that Marx invented socialism. Nevermind Thomas More or others who proposed similar ideas way before Marx. Actual examples later, I'd have to consult my history books first.



Returning the food.

Although I doubt that if you were actually on the brink of starvation, a problem mainly reserved for societies with no concept of property rights, that anyone would refuse you SOME form of food, as pity.
After eating that?
Somehow you have an awful lot of faith on your fellow humans.



Obviously. Would you prefer that I change my ideals so that they match some existing society?
No. Just pointed that out. Some real examples would have given more weight to your arguments.



Neither can be rightfully owned by anything but private citizens.
And what if they can't be owned? I am having *very* difficult time understanding how you could own air. Land ownership was nothing compared to this.



It could possibly offer a counter example, if you were capable of explaining it. However you don't seem to bother with that at all.
The US producing more that 25 % of the worlds CO2 comparing to what Scandinavia does? Or most of Europe, for that matter. Yet we seem to have less "property rights". CO2 being one example. Now I wish I wasn't too lazy to find all the statistics for this.

[cuspuser]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

[Robespierre]

Great.

It is.


I am talking about the fact that you indirectly implied that I am in debt to this society. Everyone who has grown up here has been at some point.

Assuming I implied that you were in debt, would the fact that the rest of society is also in debt change that fact?


You did manage to give that impression. How would your ideal work if it has legal codes but no coercive goverment?

Legal codes are something that have been written since hammurabi, and existed probably before then. The 10 commandments are a legal code. Pick one. So long as it upholds the ideals of non-aggression, it's all good.


edit:We disagreed on property rights, didn't we?

Umm, probably? You never quite stated what your position was on property rights, only that you "sensed" there was something wrong with mine.


I was under the impression that insurance companies do. And the patients pay the companies, right?

Occasionally. So explain, in the light of this new knowledge, how a doctor could be encouraged to use the most expensive medical care possible, regardless of the patient's needs.


And somehow insurance-funded healthcare gets quite expensive. The US spent ~13 % of GDP in healthcare, comparing to Finlands <7 %. Somehow the US had lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates.

Some how, yes. Again, the ends never justify the means.


You brought it up, but whatever.

Dropped.


Your original claim was that Marx invented socialism. Nevermind Thomas More or others who proposed similar ideas way before Marx. Actual examples later, I'd have to consult my history books first.

Marx described the system of socialism. He brought it out of the atmosphere and concretized it into something substantial, with written principles and such. Do you disagree?


After eating that?
Somehow you have an awful lot of faith on your fellow humans.

If you have already eaten the food, then you have to work out some way to reimburse the person you stole from.

Actually, the socialist is the one showing real faith in others. Instead of taking care of yourself and those you love, you trust some group of men in a city far away(or not so far, I don't know) to make those decision for you.


No. Just pointed that out. Some real examples would have given more weight to your arguments.

Yes, and real examples of an airplane would have been nice for the Wright brothers to work off of when developing their airplane. Sometimes the theories and mechanical possibility is there, but the final product is not.


And what if they can't be owned? I am having *very* difficult time understanding how you could own air. Land ownership was nothing compared to this.

If you are able to have exclusive control over air, say, by compressing it and putting it into metal tanks, then you can own it. Normally, air is not a scarce resource, in that it requires no concious effort to obtain, and therefor cannot be controlled or owned. But in other circumstances, like when scuba diving or on a space ship, it can be owned.


The US producing more that 25 % of the worlds CO2 comparing to what Scandinavia does? Or most of Europe, for that matter. Yet we seem to have less "property rights". CO2 being one example. Now I wish I wasn't too lazy to find all the statistics for this.

Find all the statistics you like. You will not convince me that the US has a substantial amount of property rights above and beyond sweden, with respect to pollution.

[melancholeric]

Find all the statistics you like. You will not convince me that the US has a substantial amount of property rights above and beyond sweden, with respect to pollution.
this about sums it up. If I read this correctly, You are implying that you have made up your mind, no matter what statistics I bring that might counter your ideal. Tell me i'm just misreading.
Edit: Which is not entirely impossible, considering it's 1 am here, I have insomnia and english is not my first language.

[Robespierre]

this about sums it up. If I read this correctly, You are implying that you have made up your mind, no matter what statistics I bring that might counter your ideal. Tell me i'm just misreading.
Edit: Which is not entirely impossible, considering it's 1 am here, I have insomnia and english is not my first language.

Statistics cannot answer every question.

[melancholeric]

Whatever. You have your Ideal that you want hold on, and when reality (the fact that the US does pollute far more than Scandinavia that I used as an example) does not fit to that, it can be dismissed as irrelevant. Am I right?

If so, I'm through with this. Never has a debate seemed this pointless.

[Robespierre]

Whatever. You have your Ideal that you want hold on, and when reality (the fact that the US does pollute far more than Scandinavia that I used as an example) does not fit to that, it can be dismissed as irrelevant. Am I right?

If so, I'm through with this. Never has a debate seemed this pointless.

You have to make your own point, I won't do it for you. If you can tell me HOW the level of the pollution in the US vs Scandinavia is relevant, then please do so.

[melancholeric]

You stated "You will not convince me that the US has a substantial amount of property rights above and beyond sweden, with respect to pollution."
This seems to claim that the US has more substansial property rights, thus it must pollute less.
Obviously the level of pollution is relevant, if you are arguing that property rights alone are enough to prevent pollution.
edited for sepeling.

[garak]

I'm in the bottom right. I don't really have a firm stance on economics, but when in doubt I lean towards less government involvement. On social issues I definitely think that liberalism is the way to go.

[indie]

There's no such thing as the smartest type.

I saw the political study on keirsey.com long ago, but, going back to check it now, I see that it's gone. It was a study of being republican, democrat, or other, and all of the types turned out to be random.

I know that there's no such thing as "smartest type," though I do remember reading a study about introversion being directly related to intelligence/IQ. Anyhow, I was just trying to lend some humor to what seems to be the WWIII of Robespierre vs. everyone else.

It doesn't matter what the topic of the thread is, he always seems to take it back to the same thing.

So, RS, may I ask you a question? You might want to start a new thread, in order to prevent derailing this one any further.

Describe what is, in your opinion, the best system of governance or non-governance. If you decide this is something you would be interested in discussing, I offer some questions you might want to elaborate on:


Who decides what acts, if any deserve punishment?
What form of currency should the society have?
Is there any system that prevents abuse of the environment?
What determines land ownership? What happens if someone forcefully attempts to take it away from you?
Or, is anyone allowed to own anything at all?

[Robespierre]

Describe what is, in your opinion, the best system of governance or non-governance. If you decide this is something you would be interested in discussing, I offer some questions you might want to elaborate on:

A completely voluntary society is the ideal system.


Who decides what acts, if any deserve punishment?

Those involved in the acts, or their representatives.


What form of currency should the society have?

There should be no top-down enforcement of one currency upon society. Money is something that must evolve organically through the interaction of many different individuals, as gold did over the past 5000 years. Short answer: it is up to the individual.


Is there any system that prevents abuse of the environment?

Of course not, as the abuse you refer to may not be considered abuse by others. There is no objective standard on how the environment should be treated.


What determines land ownership? What happens if someone forcefully attempts to take it away from you?

Ownership of any property, not just land, is only legitimate as the result of homesteading unowned property or voluntary exchanges. If someone tried to take my property, I would attempt to stop them if I thought I could do so. A good example of why I include the caveat is fedgov. Everyweek they take 30-40% of my property in the form of income, yet I do not directly attempt to stop them, as such an attempt would be futile, and would do more harm than good.


Or, is anyone allowed to own anything at all?

Allowed by whom?

[garak]

Somalia doesn't seem to be doing too hot.

[Robespierre]

Somalia doesn't seem to be doing too hot.

Are you a fan of the BBC? They had a big run of articles a while back on how Somalia proved all the small or no-government people wrong. It was pretty good for laughs, but short on substance.

[QrioCT]

straight in the middle, a very tiny bit to the right.

[garak]

Are you a fan of the BBC? They had a big run of articles a while back on how Somalia proved all the small or no-government people wrong. It was pretty good for laughs, but short on substance.

I read a BBC article recently about their telecom "industry," but that's it. Of course it would be stupid to take a single example like Somalia and suggest that it means that anarchy or near-anarchy will always turn out badly -- but from what i have read, your ideas seem a little pie in the sky. Doesn't seem very realistic to me.

[Robespierre]

I read a BBC article recently about their telecom "industry," but that's it. Of course it would be stupid to take a single example like Somalia and suggest that it means that anarchy or near-anarchy will always turn out badly -- but from what i have read, your ideas seem a little pie in the sky. Doesn't seem very realistic to me.

A forgivable conclusion. Not many people who honestly considered the possibility of living in a voluntary society. I certainly don't claim to be all-knowing, but with all the options I am aware of, individualism seems to me, the best suited to allow the highest amount of individual liberty, without sacrificing society to barbarism.

[joft]

I certainly don't claim to be all-knowing, but with all the options I am aware of, individualism seems to me, the best suited to allow the highest amount of individual liberty, without sacrificing society to barbarism. I haven't been following this thread, but I completely agree with Rob's ideas. I think ruling systems are inherently flawed and it only takes time for the people to cause their current one to fall apart or reform. I also think the single most important thing in moving toward the goal of complete individualism is education. I think truly knowing and understanding the natural consequences of our actions can prevent us from doing harmful things.

[Seraph]

Economic Left/Right: 0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.23


Almost smack-dab in the middle of course. I can never decide on anything!

[crule81]

Economic Left/Right: 5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59

I think many questions are phrased so that one is more likely to fall into the bottom-left quadrant.

[crule81]

I admit that I have not had the time to completely follow this thread. Hopefully this is not completely repetitive. But I do have a very, very, general question for those falling deep into the bottom-left quadrant: Why is it proper for the government to tell you and everyone else what to do with your money, but it is improper for the government to tell you and everyone else whom to marry, that you cannot terminate a pregnancy, or that you cannot read or watch certain material, etc? The converse problem arises for those in the top-right quadrant. It seems that the top-left and bottom-right at least have consistent worldviews concerning all aspects of personal freedom (of lack thereof). So now tell me why you believe this reasoning is flawed.

Interestingly enough, I think the bottom-left can be said to represent the views of most who are considered Democrats and the top-right those who are considered Republicans. The other quadrants do not seem to have a coherent or significant voice in American Politics. (I have been tempted by the libertarians, but they are too insignificant and much of their platform is silly and wholly impractical.)

[Dman]

I admit that I have not had the time to completely follow this thread. Hopefully this is not completely repetitive. But I do have a very, very, general question for those falling deep into the bottom-left quadrant: Why is it proper for the government to tell you and everyone else what to do with your money, but it is improper for the government to tell you and everyone else whom to marry, that you cannot terminate a pregnancy, or that you cannot read or watch certain material, etc? The converse problem arises for those in the top-right quadrant. It seems that the top-left and bottom-right at least have consistent worldviews concerning all aspects of personal freedom (of lack thereof). So now tell me why you believe this reasoning is flawed.

Interestingly enough, I think the bottom-left can be said to represent the views of most who are considered Democrats and the top-right those who are considered Republicans. The other quadrants do not seem to have a coherent or significant voice in American Politics. (I have been tempted by the libertarians, but they are too insignificant and much of their platform is silly and wholly impractical.)

Because many people believe that their opinions are the "right" ones and that everyone else should be forced to behave similarly. Thus the apparent hypocrisy of wanting little gov't interference in some aspects but more gov interference in others.

"Everybody Wants To Rule The World" - Tears for Fears

[Killsteel]

Hey, man, who said anything about money? If I had my way we would eradicate it entirely....

Heh, "If I had my way"

I sound like a grumpy old man...

[Shai Gar]

Interestingly enough, I think the bottom-left can be said to represent the views of most who are considered Democrats and the top-right those who are considered Republicans.
actually the top right is BOTH democrats and republicans, the only difference is that democrats are only slightly left but they are still firmly on the right.

they do pretend to be on the bottom left though

[mgb]

I admit that I have not had the time to completely follow this thread. Hopefully this is not completely repetitive. But I do have a very, very, general question for those falling deep into the bottom-left quadrant: Why is it proper for the government to tell you and everyone else what to do with your money, but it is improper for the government to tell you and everyone else whom to marry, that you cannot terminate a pregnancy, or that you cannot read or watch certain material, etc? The converse problem arises for those in the top-right quadrant. It seems that the top-left and bottom-right at least have consistent worldviews concerning all aspects of personal freedom (of lack thereof). So now tell me why you believe this reasoning is flawed.

Interestingly enough, I think the bottom-left can be said to represent the views of most who are considered Democrats and the top-right those who are considered Republicans. The other quadrants do not seem to have a coherent or significant voice in American Politics. (I have been tempted by the libertarians, but they are too insignificant and much of their platform is silly and wholly impractical.)

I sometimes make the mistake of posting before I have time to come up with a good answer, but I'll risk that here.

I am not sure I fully understand what you mean...as one of the deepest bottom left people I can tell you how I see things. I don't think it is proper for the government to have a say in marriage or pregnancy...or government is willing to at least acknowledge and accomadate all options for both. As for reading...I tend to agree with Canada's hate crime law with some exceptions. I don't think hateful material should have mass dissimination. I know that if you don't like you you don't have to read it, but some of that material in the wrong hands can be quite dangerous. I'll admit to having a copy of the Turner Diaries, but it's from a university course on millennarian groups and the psychology of involvment in some of these groups was important and after reading the book you can see why.

I guess overall I am for heavy government intervention in our lives, but not to the point where we are controlled by it (I realize its a fine line). I think government should act in the best interest of the citizens and not in the best interest of governments or businesses. For example the phone industry in Canada is pretty heavily regulated. The phone companies used to all be government owned but were privatized about ten or fifteen years ago. They had a real advantage over other phone companies that might have tried to compete. They had all the phone lines all over Canada. It would not have been possible for any phone company in the world to come here and try to introduce an entire new infrastructure to major markets to compete with the phone companies. The government realizing that there would be no competition forces the phone companies to share their lines with other companies should the customer want to switch. As well, the prices are heavily regulated, so the phone company, realizing it has a monopoly (over cell phones too) can't charge whatever it wants, keeping the rates of a phone line below the real cost of service delivery, making up the difference in charges for features.

So for money I guess I would say that because the governments provide a great deal of services they should be paid for. Canada has "free" universal health care. I realize its not free at all, it costs as much as health care in the US, however, everyone having equal access to treatment is important. Driving is fun, its nice to have someone else take care of the roads in front of my house and my neighbors houses so I can expect that all the roads I drive on throughout the country to be fairly universal and me not having to pay tolls everywhere I go. That goes for police, fire and ambulances as well. The list goes on, you get the point.

Since I don't think government should take all of you money, you are free to do what you want with the rest of your earnings (I don't know what percentage is ideal).

[garak]

Canada has "free" universal health care. I realize its not free at all, it costs as much as health care in the US, however, everyone having equal access to treatment is important.
Actually the US spends more per capita on health care than most, if not all other countries, and gets less for what it spends.

[mgb]

Actually the US spends more per capita on health care than most, if not all other countries, and gets less for what it spends.

Canadians somehow fall under the impression that our health care is free. They forget it is paid for by taxes. The US on the other hand does have some "free" health care for the elderly and the low income (I know its coming from some people's taxes).

I am not sure about the numbers, but I have a hunch that open heart surgery is probably comparatively priced in both countries. What I am not sure about is what the average American pays in health care premiums from insurance companies compared to what the average canadian pays for health care out of their taxes.

As for coverage, since we aren't trying to offer the cheapest possible health care (as the insurance companies would have it, to maximize profits) I far prefer the Canadian system, despite the waits for certain services, I know that at crunch time I will get the service I need no matter what.

[Solo]

I didn't feel like reading all that so I'll just post my scores and let you guys continue with your discussion.

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38

[garak]

The numbers I mentioned before were what I learned in a recent government class, but a quick google found a graph that explains it pretty concisely:

http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2001winter/images/fig1.gif

[booyalab]

haha I'm still the only top right.

[booyalab]

The top left person and I should go into cahoots with each other before everyone else assassinates us.

[booyalab]

Actually the US spends more per capita on health care than most, if not all other countries, and gets less for what it spends.
I'd like to see the data backing that up. I'm sure you have it.

[mgb]

Furthermore, as can be seen in Exhibit 1, U.S. per capita health spending continued to exceed per capita health spending in the other OECD countries, by huge margins, in 2001. After expenditures are converted into purchasing-power parity international dollars (PPP$), Switzerland spent only 68 percent as much on health care per capita in 2001 as the United States.3 Neighboring Canada, with a health care delivery system and medical practice styles fairly similar to those in the United States, spent only 57 percent as much per capita as the United States. PPP-adjusted per capita spending in the median OECD country was only 44 percent of the U.S. level (PPP$2,161).

Finally, the median percentage of GDP absorbed by health care in the non-U.S. OECD countries in 2001 was only 8.3 percent, compared with 13.9 percent in the United States. Although that percentage remained more or less constant during the 1990s, during the previous two decades the average annual growth of health spending exceeded the growth of total GDP by 2.5–3 percent.4 U.S. government actuaries now project that during 2003–2013 U.S. health spending will revert to its traditional, long-term trend. They project the annual growth in U.S. health spending to exceed the annual growth in GDP once again by about two percentage points, and total national health spending to absorb as much as 18.4 percent of U.S. GDP by 2013.5

Actually it makes since that US spends the most per capita on health care. If you look at GDPs per capita for larger countries the US exceeds the next closest country, by probably $10,000. With a fairly low population growth rate and an aging population that is expected to live longer every year its easy to see how health care spending would be a priorty for most people. In fact, it's a luxury most countries in the world simply don't have.

[mgb]

haha I'm still the only top right.

Yeah, we know...

[relaxo]

Neighboring Canada, with a health care delivery system and medical practice styles fairly similar to those in the United States, spent only 57 percent as much per capita as the United States. PPP-adjusted per capita spending in the median OECD country was only 44 percent of the U.S. level (PPP$2,161).

Ah, Canada's health care system. Quite world class really. Nice long line ups, people dying for organ transplants, outdated equipment, medical professionals leaving for the USA, no choice, bureaucratic control. It's quite lovely. Everyone I know has had a lovely time with it.
But at least everyone can afford it. It's free! free. well, you do pay taxes, and sure it's about 50% of your taxes now, and Canada is one of the highest taxed nation in the world now, but it's all in a good cause.
It just needs more money you see. For the last 35 years it's just needed more money to fix it. So taxes go up. Almost fixed, getting worse, just need a bit more of your money thank you.

I doubt the GDP comparison takes into consideration the amount of debt and interest on debt Canadian's pay for our outdated system. People are too busy paying taxes to go to a doctor anyway so our usage of the system is probably less than American usage of their system.

and PPP measures are nonsense. probably a UN creation. a hospital room in Canada is not comparable to one in the USA.

My father is still alive because he went to the USA, private care.

Health care kills. but the baby boomers love it.

[coffeezombie]

Well, if you happen to be one of the people fortunate enough to have a decent job, then private health care is better, of course. It's just that too often I've not had a job, or haven't had a job that had health insurance, and I've known many people in the US in a similar situation. So let's just let scum like me die while the rich get great health care. I like this system a lot better, don't you, Relaxo?

[relaxo]

Well, if you happen to be one of the people fortunate enough to have a decent job, then private health care is better, of course. It's just that too often I've not had a job, or haven't had a job that had health insurance, and I've known many people in the US in a similar situation. So let's just let scum like me die while the rich get great health care. I like this system a lot better, don't you, Relaxo?

People are dying in Canada. We have a 100% public health care system. Poor die, rich die.

Ever hear of charity? There are many charities and charitable hospitals in the USA. I suggest you look into it if you can not take care of yourself. Or go into the street and demand others take care of you.

[coffeezombie]

Um... what is charity again and how is it any different than being taxed? You'll have to explain that one to me again, Relaxo. Don't both involve a redistribution of wealth? Or perhaps I've just forgotten my Economics 101.

[relaxo]

Um... what is charity again and how is it any different than being taxed? You'll have to explain that one to me again, Relaxo. Don't both involve a redistribution of wealth? Or perhaps I've just forgotten my Economics 101.

Charity. Voluntarily giving money?
Taxes. Forced from you by government?

[Killsteel]

Any economist will tell you that charity is inefficient...

Or at least the ones I've heard about/met.

[hugin]

Ah, Canada's health care system. Quite world class really. Nice long line ups, people dying for organ transplants, outdated equipment, medical professionals leaving for the USA, no choice, bureaucratic control. It's quite lovely. Everyone I know has had a lovely time with it.
But at least everyone can afford it. It's free! free. well, you do pay taxes, and sure it's about 50% of your taxes now, and Canada is one of the highest taxed nation in the world now, but it's all in a good cause.
It just needs more money you see. For the last 35 years it's just needed more money to fix it. So taxes go up. Almost fixed, getting worse, just need a bit more of your money thank you.

I doubt the GDP comparison takes into consideration the amount of debt and interest on debt Canadian's pay for our outdated system. People are too busy paying taxes to go to a doctor anyway so our usage of the system is probably less than American usage of their system.

Oh lovely, sounds just like home!
I spent 18 months waiting in a queue for a test to determine whether I had prostate cancer or not. :shock:

Lucky me, it wasn't cancer. But the followup exam scheduled for 6 months after was cancelled because the cancer ward had to shut down for 4 months!
The hospital had exceeded it's budget changing all their signs to a more "readable" design (it's for the disabled, how dare you critize, you selfish bastard!?).

And still they tell me that Norway is one of the richest nations on earth.
Gah!

Btw, a serious problem with the public healthcare system today, is the exodus of skilled professionals to the US. Seems like the good Doctors dislike being held slaves to the expectations of others. :whistle:

I'm planning on jumping ship too when I'm done with my Ph.D. :mad:

[coffeezombie]

Charity. Voluntarily giving money?
Taxes. Forced from you by government?

You'll have to inform us all then of exactly how much money you've given to charities to support programs to aid those who are less well-off than you. If Canada repealed its national health care system, I'm sure you'd be giving an awful lot. lol

Waiting lines for health care sound like a government efficiency issue, not an issue of capitalism versus socialism. I'm sure there are ways to streamline things without a profit motive. People just need to be more socially responsible and less greedy for money. I refuse to support a system where some people are allowed to have better access to health care than others just because they have more money. We are all human and deserve an equal right to adequate health care. The American system is not the answer.

[relaxo]

You'll have to inform us all then of exactly how much money you've given to charities to support programs to aid those who are less well-off than you. If Canada repealed its national health care system, I'm sure you'd be giving an awful lot. lol

I have to inform everyone how much money I give in charity? Excuse me? Are you some sort of religious type? No offense, but you religious types sure like to judge people by how much money they give away. Or are you a socialist type? Same thing really, different in name only. Both are arrogant and self-righteous.

Let's see, how much have I given to less well-off (whatever that means). I guess I pay about 50% of my income in taxes, so after 15 years or so of working, I have given about 7.5 years of my wealth away in income redistribution in taxes. Now that's not 100% true, a lot of tax money goes into other uses. You would have to figure at least 3 years of my working life has been taken from me to give to less fortunates.

So if my taxes were reduced, well I'm quite sure it would be people like you with your hand out so I guess I would give nothing. I would take care of myself and not be a burden to others.



Waiting lines for health care sound like a government efficiency issue, not an issue of capitalism versus socialism.
What are you talking about? Canada is not socialist. We have a universal health care system where no private enterprise is allowed to function.



I'm sure there are ways to streamline things without a profit motive. People just need to be more socially responsible and less greedy for money. I refuse to support a system where some people are allowed to have better access to health care than others just because they have more money. We are all human and deserve an equal right to adequate health care. The American system is not the answer.
Do doctors and nurses have the right to determine how they work? You have absolutely no right to their services. You also have no right to my wealth, my time or my life.

You can pretend universal health care is the best, and pretend private health care is bad, and even pretend America has a complete private health care system, but the reality is that the universal health care system in Canada costs more and more and more and is getting worse and worse and worse. Pretend all you want.

[coffeezombie]

Do doctors and nurses have the right to determine how they work? You have absolutely no right to their services. You also have no right to my wealth, my time or my life.


I don't have time on here to debate with worthless conservatives with no intelligence and no sense of emotion when it comes to the less well-off. There are enough of your type in Texas already. If it makes you feel any better, I'd enjoy being able to do a swap with you so that you could come here and I could live in Toronto.

I do find your choice of a nickname entertaining in an ironic way, though.

[relaxo]

I don't have time on here to debate with worthless conservatives with no intelligence and no sense of emotion when it comes to the less well-off. There are enough of your type in Texas already. If it makes you feel any better, I'd enjoy being able to do a swap with you so that you could come here and I could live in Toronto.


What part of me is conservative? My desire for economic freedom in medical choice which I believe will benefit all, including the less well-off?
You are the one who wants government control, that is very conservative to me.
When government gets involved in health care to the extent it has in Canada, things go down hill. Deny it all you want, it won't change the reality.

[mgb]

What part of me is conservative? My desire for economic freedom in medical choice which I believe will benefit all, including the less well-off?
You are the one who wants government control, that is very conservative to me.
When government gets involved in health care to the extent it has in Canada, things go down hill. Deny it all you want, it won't change the reality.

Doesn't "choice" lead to the highest per capita health care spending in the world with millions of people dying because the have no care at all? Aren't people going to die in that system as well.

It's not actually the "less well off" that are most affected under the US system, it's the working poor that make just enough to put food on the table and have a roof over their heads but too much to qualify for "charity" from the state.

Coffeezombie wasn't calling you a "conservative" I think he was calling you a "Conservative", big difference.

[relaxo]

For the United States:

"Myth: Uninsured individuals have no access to medical care.
Fact: It turns out that in 2004 uninsured Americans received $125 billion of health care, of which $41 billion was provided totally free of charge.

Fact: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as a whole, Americans spend about 1 percent of their income on drugs. Seniors spend about 3 percent on drugs, less than the amount they spend on entertainment.

Today, the government directly pays for 45 percent of health-care spending.

Government intervenes in the form of tax subsidies and costly regulations on private insurers. Regulations imposed on medical practitioners are oppressive. According to a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, for every four hours that a physician devotes to caring for a Medicare patient, hospital administrators spend 30 minutes on Medicare paperwork. For emergency room care, it's one hour spent on paperwork per one hour spent caring for a patient.


Canada:
The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 12.6 weeks. Patients in Prince Edward Island experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (six weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (33.5 weeks). Overall, Canada's total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner to treatment averaged about 18 weeks in 2004.
"

Universal health care is not a solution. It is inferior. Every other industrialized nation allows some privitization in their health care system and have better results than Canada.
In five years 10% of Canada's medical staff will be retired and not replaced. Health care taxes are continuing to go up. Government spending on health care continues to go up. 20% of Canada's medical graduates leave the country each year. Canadians go to the United States if they have enough money for their health care.

Americans spend more on healthcare because it is superior quality and because they are wealthy enough to be able to do it.
We spend less and get line ups and inferior quality.

Universal health care kills.

[booyalab]

finally another perspective

[MacGuffin]

Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67

I used to be a lot more right like Robespierre. Then I got tired of Ayn Rand.

Still have a streak of economic freedom in me though.

[booyalab]

Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67

I used to be a lot more right like Robespierre. Then I got tired of Ayn Rand.

Still have a streak of economic freedom in me though.

This just in......Robespierre is an anarchist.

[melancholeric]

Universal health care kills.
It didn't kill me.

WHO statistics. (http://www.who.int/countries/en/)
Finland:
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 68.7/73.5
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 4/3
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2001): 1,845
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2001): 7.0


Sweden:
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78.0/82.6
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 4/3
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2001): 2,270
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2001): 8.7


US:
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 74.6/79.8
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 9/7
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2001): 4,887
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2001): 13.9

Canada

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77.2/82.3
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 6/5
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2001): 2,792
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2001): 9.5

For some reason they had healthy life expectancy instead of actual life expectancy for Finland, that explains why the figures are lower.

[mgb]

For the United States:

"Myth: Uninsured individuals have no access to medical care.
Fact: It turns out that in 2004 uninsured Americans received $125 billion of health care, of which $41 billion was provided totally free of charge.

Fact: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as a whole, Americans spend about 1 percent of their income on drugs. Seniors spend about 3 percent on drugs, less than the amount they spend on entertainment.

Today, the government directly pays for 45 percent of health-care spending.

Government intervenes in the form of tax subsidies and costly regulations on private insurers. Regulations imposed on medical practitioners are oppressive. According to a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, for every four hours that a physician devotes to caring for a Medicare patient, hospital administrators spend 30 minutes on Medicare paperwork. For emergency room care, it's one hour spent on paperwork per one hour spent caring for a patient.


Canada:
The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 12.6 weeks. Patients in Prince Edward Island experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (six weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (33.5 weeks). Overall, Canada's total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner to treatment averaged about 18 weeks in 2004.
"

Universal health care is not a solution. It is inferior. Every other industrialized nation allows some privitization in their health care system and have better results than Canada.
In five years 10% of Canada's medical staff will be retired and not replaced. Health care taxes are continuing to go up. Government spending on health care continues to go up. 20% of Canada's medical graduates leave the country each year. Canadians go to the United States if they have enough money for their health care.

Americans spend more on healthcare because it is superior quality and because they are wealthy enough to be able to do it.
We spend less and get line ups and inferior quality.

Universal health care kills.

Medicare doesn't kill, being sick does.

It's amazing that the "facts" you gave don't actually correlate at all. You really made no connection between $125 billion health care for poor to waiting times in Canada. What were the waiting times in the US like? Maybe you should have listed that "Fact:" and some sort of corresponding myth to allow you to use the "Fact:"

It is also amazing that you chose some of the poorest provinces to discuss waiting times. Brilliant really. Since health care is administered by the provinces maybe you should write some letters.

You solution is to spend more on health care. Again, brilliant. That has really been the solution all along hasn't it? Every country in the world would have immaculate health care if they spent all their money on it.

Didn't leave in a huff and decide not to come back? What happened to that? Kind of dropped the ball didn't you?

[mgb]

finally another perspective

Other perspectives steal your thunder.

[booyalab]

Government controlled healthcare may work in other, smaller, more homogenous countries, but it sure as hell wouldn't work in the US. Also, there are other reasons for lower life expectancy rates and higher child mortality rates than simply inefficiently spent healthcare costs. Let me give you some examples of other things that would bring down those numbers in the US. that could not be immediately solved by improving and expanding healthcare. Compared to all of the other countries listed, the US has different types of people who may have naturally lower life spans (it's not out of the question..and data certainly supports it)...or sociologically exclusive health predicaments *cough*AIDs*cough*....then there are personal choices people have made in our self-indulgent society that could not be immediately solved by giving them more insurance: like obesity.

[mgb]

Government controlled healthcare may work in other, smaller, more homogenous countries, but it sure as hell wouldn't work in the US. Also, there are other reasons for lower life expectancy rates and higher child mortality rates than simply inefficiently spent healthcare costs. Let me give you some examples of other things that would bring down those numbers in the US. that could not be immediately solved by improving and expanding healthcare. Compared to all of the other countries listed, the US has different types of people who may have naturally lower life spans (it's not out of the question..and data certainly supports it)...or sociologically exclusive health predicaments *cough*AIDs*cough*....then there are personal choices people have made in our self-indulgent society that could not be immediately solved by giving them more insurance: like obesity.

So how would you recommend dealing with some of these health problems, like Aids and obesity without going through the healthcare system.

How about condoms in bathrooms (is that allowed by the current administration?)

Or tax credits for every pound you lose.

[booyalab]

So how would you recommend dealing with some of these health problems, like Aids and obesity without going through the healthcare system.

How about condoms in bathrooms (is that allowed by the current administration?)

Or tax credits for every pound you lose.

This is the difference between conservatives and liberals. I DONT THINK ANYTHING CAN BE DONE ON A GOVERNMENT LEVEL TO MAKE PEOPLE MORE RESPONSIBLE. It has to come from within, and it should. The most that should be done by government could be some advertising campaign. As long as it's not overdone.

[mgb]

This is the difference between conservatives and liberals. I DONT THINK ANYTHING CAN BE DONE ON A GOVERNMENT LEVEL TO MAKE PEOPLE MORE RESPONSIBLE. It has to come from within, and it should. The most that should be done by government could be some advertising campaign. As long as it's not overdone.

But under your system, only rich fat people get medical help (fat cats we'll call them).

I agree that you can't legislate stupidity, or morals for that matter (which doesn't seem to stop them from trying).

So is health care a luxury or a necessity?

[matthew0028]

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28

[melancholeric]

I said some two weeks ago that I'm not going to discuss this with a nazi, but to hell with it...

Government controlled healthcare may work in other, smaller, more homogenous countries, but it sure as hell wouldn't work in the US. Also, there are other reasons for lower life expectancy rates and higher child mortality rates than simply inefficiently spent healthcare costs. Let me give you some examples of other things that would bring down those numbers in the US. that could not be immediately solved by improving and expanding healthcare. Compared to all of the other countries listed, the US has different types of people who may have naturally lower life spans (it's not out of the question..and data certainly supports it)...or sociologically exclusive health predicaments *cough*AIDs*cough*....then there are personal choices people have made in our self-indulgent society that could not be immediately solved by giving them more insurance: like obesity.
Free-market advocates argue that privatized healthcare must work better than goverment-controlled, always. When reality proves them wrong, it's an exception of a "smaller, more homogenous country". Would a private healthcare be more cost-efficient in these smaller countries too?

Also, the US spends more than double the cash in healthcare than Finland or Sweden, yet the child mortality rates are twice as high. This is explained by "different types of people". I'd certainly like to hear the data that "certainly supports this".

[booyalab]

I said some two weeks ago that I'm not going to discuss this with a nazi, but to hell with it...

Free-market advocates argue that privatized healthcare must work better than goverment-controlled, always. When reality proves them wrong, it's an exception of a "smaller, more homogenous country". Would a private healthcare be more cost-efficient in these smaller countries too?

Also, the US spends more than double the cash in healthcare than Finland or Sweden, yet the child mortality rates are twice as high. This is explained by "different types of people". I'd certainly like to hear the data that "certainly supports this".

1. I don't think it necessarily works best always. So, you're either making a non-sequitor or you're putting words in my mouth.
2. Does it make sense to simply compare amount of money spent when different things are probably counted among the category in each country and also there are WAY MORE PEOPLE in the US?
3. You're way oversimplifying. I didn't mean that absolutely the correlation between higher child mortality rates and more money spent is because of 'different people'. I meant that you can't just exclude the possibility of other variables contributing to a connection between the 2 figures besides what you might assume if you just look at it and compare at face value.

[booyalab]

But under your system, only rich fat people get medical help (fat cats we'll call them).

I agree that you can't legislate stupidity, or morals for that matter (which doesn't seem to stop them from trying).

So is health care a luxury or a necessity?

Last time I checked, rich fat people aren't the only ones who get healthcare in my country...( not to mention that rich people aren't the only fat ones)..I'm assuming that's what you mean by "my system" since I haven't laid out any detailed plan for another.

Ideally for me, everyone's responsible and only needs healthcare for things that occurred despite their best efforts. Ideally for (it seems ) everyone else on this thread, everyone gets all the healthcare they could ever want on demand. Neither method is perfect when implemented in reality, but some versions and combinations of each have worked better in some societies than others.

[Claverhouse]

I said some two weeks ago that I'm not going to discuss this with a nazi, but to hell with it...

Um, the nazis, particularly the left-wing ones ( think SA ), were rather on the side of state-run systems.

Not just for 'euthanasia programmes', either.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


a/ Free-marketeers/Conservatives/Libertarians are thus the opposite to nazis. Just to make it clear.

b/ I too prefer the socialization of medicine. But not with coercive policies to enforce government/liberal fads. And certainly not with advertisements: not only does one ignore government advertising anyway, but there's no reason why they should spend money advertising in the first place. Our Blair government spends millions on fuck-wit advertising.

c/ America may well be a different place where different solutions apply: fair enough, but by the same token, American pressure for other countries to dismantle their socialized systems is equally invalid.

[booyalab]

c/ America may well be a different place where different solutions apply: fair enough, but by the same token, American pressure for other countries to dismantle their socialized systems is equally invalid.


fair enough too
(edit: assuming those sytems are also working)

[Edmond Zedo]

Um, the nazis, particularly the left-wing ones ( think SA ), were rather on the side of state-run systems.
I'm afraid the party aesthetic more than made up for any lacking in public policy.

Didn't Hitler order the SS to take out the SA? I honestly thought it was one of the more ill-conceived and wrong things he did. If only Hitler had been the Nazi Art Director instead of the Fuhrer, it would have worked out a little better for Germany in that whole "war" of theirs.

[melancholeric]

1. I don't think it necessarily works best always. So, you're either making a non-sequitor or you're putting words in my mouth.
2. Does it make sense to simply compare amount of money spent when different things are probably counted among the category in each country and also there are WAY MORE PEOPLE in the US?
3. You're way oversimplifying. I didn't mean that absolutely the correlation between higher child mortality rates and more money spent is because of 'different people'. I meant that you can't just exclude the possibility of other variables contributing to a connection between the 2 figures besides what you might assume if you just look at it and compare at face value.
1. I must have gotten the impression that you (among many others) indeed were advocating somewhat complete free market.
2. The figures included funds spent on healthcare per capita. "Way more people" is irrelevant.
3. Child mortality, life expectancy, money spent, etc. Sure there are other factors contributing to this, but they'd have to contribute a lot to explain the difference. Care to explain what these other factors are and the data that supports this?



a/ Free-marketeers/Conservatives/Libertarians are thus the opposite to nazis. Just to make it clear.
I was aware of that. I called Booyalab a nazi referring to our discussion some weeks ago in this thread.

[mgb]

I was aware of that. I called Booyalab a nazi referring to our discussion some weeks ago in this thread.

Actually, her position in the upper right quadrent makes her much closer to being a Nazi than anyone else here. So, if the shoe fits.

[melancholeric]

Actually, her position in the upper right quadrent makes her much closer to being a Nazi than anyone else here. So, if the shoe fits.
That's exactly why I called her a nazi in the first place.

[Crazy]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.95


Amazingly, that makes me Left Libertarian, or lower left.

[booyalab]

That's exactly why I called her a nazi in the first place.
that's why he said "if the shoe fits"

[xmoogle]

me:

Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00

really really far bottom left hehe..maybe there should've been options in the poll for "relatively centre", "bottom centre", "left centre" etc.. like.. -1.5 to +1.5 being considered centreish, or whatever

[mgb]

me:

Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00

really really far bottom left hehe..maybe there should've been options in the poll for "relatively centre", "bottom centre", "left centre" etc.. like.. -1.5 to +1.5 being considered centreish, or whatever

I guess those numbers pretty much make you the Gandhi of the site.

[melancholeric]

Shut up, I took the test again and got :
Economic Left/Right: -10
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.25

[Boneca]

Shut up, I took the test again and got :
Economic Left/Right: -10
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.25Because you wanted to be the Gandhi of the site, or because you actually changed opinion?

[melancholeric]

Well I got ~-8 -8 the first time, and the results vary a bit depending on the time of the day and what not.

[melancholeric]

Somewhat relevant (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/01/11/punitive-and-it-works/).
What on earth are those Swedes thinking?
Nothing, as usual.

[mgb]

Somewhat relevant (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/01/11/punitive-and-it-works/).
What on earth are those Swedes thinking?
Nothing, as usual.

Your links are scary. I am not opening this one. That is where I stand.

[melancholeric]

What's so scary in my links?