Socialism

[rational liberal]

Hello everyone. As some of you may know, I have stated that I think that socialism is irrational and unrealistic. However, I want to hear from the other side of the aisle. For all you supporters of socialism(if there are any) why do you think that socialism is a reasonable form of government? Let me be sure to clarify, I am by no means trying to lure you into here so I can attack you for your beliefs. I will only debate with you if you wish to have one with me. I just honestly want to know what reasons socialists have for supporting their beliefs. (I realize that this is my first actual thread that I've started here so if my topic is not suited for this particular area, feel free to move it.) Anyway, I look forward to your responses.

[Mister Joy]

Just to add my 'two cents':

I'm not going to argue with you because I agree; in fact I'd go further and say that socialism is both dangerous and undemocratic. I base this on what's been going on with my country (and I'm sure many others) and the European Union. We're essentially being sold to the EU without any say in it ourselves, our corrupt MPs are being bribed with high salaries in Brussels and all of them want a place on the 'gravy train', so to speak. In fact our three leading political parties are all almost completely in the EU's pocket, so democracy is becoming virtually obsolete here already. Brussels doesn't have to answer to anybody, they already have a 60,000 strong army and spend increasing amounts of money on military and weapons research (see the Eurofighter) and come May 5th 2010 I'll bet you a golden goose egg that our own British army and police force will also answer solely to them. Could even conceivably be used against the British people some day. Yet they continuously spin lies like this:

Vote for EU constitution or risk new Holocaust, says Brussels

Which can be summated to "if you don't surrender sovereignty to an undemocratic elite then you are a nazi." Eeeeerm...... I see.

Just wanted to get that off my chest. And a warning to the USA, Canada and Mexico dwellers: if your NAU (North American Union) works out to be anything like the EU (which it most likely will, if it gets going) then you might as well have surrendered yourselves to the USSR during the cold war. I'd resist it adamantly, if I were you.

[Will]

The natural social state of humans is somewhat socialistic. Humans are designed to operate in packs or tribes in which people are given responsibilities that serve the whole. It's actually quite beautiful, and it puts equality and the good of the whole above that of the individual, which I can appreciate. It's about responsibility as a member of a community instead of just an individual.

That said, socialism cannot work in an overpopulated world. An individual working for the common good of nearly 7 billion doesn't make sense, and because of overpopulation competition is absolutely necessary lest our genes are not passed down. Socialism does not include the same type of competition you find in a capitalistic system.

In a perfect world we would be socialist, but there is no morally acceptable way to significantly lower the population of the planet so we have to just wait for the shit to it the fan (using up all resources, disease, famine, etc.).

One last thing: Leninism is not socialism. Leninism really isn't even communism. Leninism is fascism and imperialism, and pretending that the USSR was an socialist or communist state is simply giving in to propaganda that is almost as old as I am. Lenin wanted to be worshiped. He wanted to be a leader in a system without leaders. I'm glad Karl Marx didn't leave to see his theories used to sucker people into fascism.

[Tom62]

I'm a libertarian so I do agree with you. Problem with socialism is that they think that all men are equal. This means that their policies are based on the lowest common denominator of society. In practice this means that they increase taxes to  bring the middle and upperclass to a lowerclass level and increase the unemployment benefits to a level that people that don't have work are no longer motivated to find work. Another problem with socialism is that it sticks its nose in too many issues where it doesn't belong, because it thinks that it has to "protect" people against anything.

Socialism has also some good points. In general they are more concerned about the environment; better working conditions for people and protection of the poor and elderly. Nothing wrong with that, but socialism does have tendecy to overdo things. Creating huge burocratic hurdles, stiffling the society with senseless laws, overspending taxpayers money on socialist "causes" and making it impossible to fill in my german taxform without getting huge headaches.

[pjkeeley]

I am in the difficult position of disliking both socialism and capitalism. They both work and heck, I would be content to live under either. I simply maintain that submitting to either is a failure to realise our full potential as human beings. I believe we can each live more fulfilling lives, without changing any laws, simply by choosing to do so. Read on if this interests you, but do so with an open mind:

The whole reason socialism and capitalism exist as competing systems is because the Industrial Revolution of the Ninteenth Century replaced the existing system of feudalism, and in so doing created a working class and a bourgeoisie. I don't want to paint a rosy picture of feudalism because nothing about the political structure of that time was rosy. It was an age of terrible tyranny, let's be clear. However, the economy under feudalism is of great interest to me. Local communities rested on the pillars of agriculture and artisans, and in turn on a teeming mass of professions within towns and urban areas. When you were born, you were guaranteed a profession for life, which you were taught for free: your family's trade and livelihood. You produced certain things or rendered services that people needed; in turn you supported the community by patronising the people who produced the things or rendered the services that you needed. This meant that nearly everyone was by today's terms 'self employed' (the average medieval peasant worked less hours than today's average worker) and, additionally, by living this way contributed directly to the cultural life of their local community.

This process or one like it still goes on in some form or other in towns and villages all over the world, but it is in danger of becoming extinct. Gradually, industrialisation has replaced this ancient social structure with one in which things are produced en masse, and services are most often rendered via some sort of middle man in the form of a company. We do not, as the aforementioned artisans of feudalism did, truly own our labour; we sell it to companies, and companies in turn sell us back the things we produce and the services we render. The concept of a local community is being phased out. Out with the old, in with the new: national and multinational companies, on whose existence we are all gradually becoming dependent.

Well, there is nothing much wrong with this system. Most of us 'get by' pretty well in it. Many of us even prosper. But I believe it is culturally poisonous and is creating a homogenous, boring, shallow, self-centred, angry, depressive society of distrusting automatons who don't so much live together as tolerate the existence of one another. Traditions, cultures, and the richness and diversity of human existence across this planet -- these things are dying in favour of one homogenous global economy with the same products and the same companies in every place in the world.

Ho hum.

Granted, thanks to (among other things) the advances brought about by industrialisation, we now have democracy, education, modern medicine -- all manner of great things. I say fine, keep those things. But how about some little changes: instead of shopping at a supermarket, buy vegetables from an organic market, or instead of buying clothes from a chain store, how about making them yourself? Let's return to the local economies of yore, this time not because we are compelled to by some King or other, but because we can choose to and because it's the most fulfilling way to live a life.

I don't think this simple concept is terribly idealistic and in fact it seems to be happening a lot, since it overlaps with the goals of the environmentalist and anti-globalisation movements, both very popular nowdays with the urban middle class. So many people are wanting to live more authentically in fact that companies are now trying to market authenticity -- you can observe this phenomena everywhere. But authenticity is not something you can buy and sell, and more and more people seem to be realising this. You own it already, you just aren't putting it to use.

In short, I hope that one day we won't need people on welfare OR people selling themselves to corporations. People will just choose to be autonomous. But it's a cultural aim, not a political one. People's minds need to be changed, they can't simply be forced into it by changing a few laws. In this regard I believe I am libertarian at heart. I'm just not a capitalist, or for that matter, a socialist. In fact, I'm not sure what my philosophy is called or how many other people subscribe to it because I didn't find out about it from anyone else. These are simply conclusions I've come to myself. If they seem naïve, so be it.

[SteveS]

Great topic - and without being obsequious, let me just first say that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading each and every word posted so far by each and every individual.  You folks are inspiring - I find a great depth of thought and consideration in your ideas.

My primary objections to socialism are two:

1) The "personal property" issue.  I find it very natural to view things as belonging to me or belonging to someone else.  I will admit that if I could trust other people to both freely share their belongings with me, and to treat my belongings responsibly, then perhaps I would not object to this aspect of socialism as strongly as I do.  Maybe I could come around on the idea of not personally owning anything.  As Willravel very legitimately points out:

That said, socialism cannot work in an overpopulated world. An individual working for the common good of nearly 7 billion doesn't make sense

And --- that's probably what's going on with me.  Too many faceless strangers --- we can't possibly know and respect one another like we would be forced to do if we lived in smaller communities whose survival was dependent upon cooperation.

But still - this would be a really hard stretch for me.

2) Individualism/Equality.  I don't view the idea of enforced equality very favorably, mostly because I don't think people behave equally.  What I'm getting at is that we should grant everyone equality in terms of rights and responsibilities, but I don't think that unequal efforts and abilities should necessarily result in equal compensation.

What if, for example, we "determined" what everyone would need for a comfortable and fair existence.  Except that, I really enjoy sailing --- I would love to have a sailboat - but sailboats are unnecessary and expensive.  But its okay --- I don't mind putting in extra effort, working longer hours, for the trade-off of buying my boat.  Why can't I?  Why would I have to be content with the same standards that everyone else is content with?

This keys into the individualist aspect of my personality --- I love individualism.  I know that we're all different, so I despair of finding a common solution that works for everyone.  I don't think it can.  But its okay if it doesn't --- why do we have to be the same to be acceptable to each other?  Individual diversity will lead to cultural diversity and a more rich environment that avoids the global homogenization that pjkeeley is objecting to (and that I object to as well - I'm right with you, pj, on those thoughts).  

Also, I have a subtle difference in opinion about how societies and individuals work (or should work).  For example, Willravel writes:

It's actually quite beautiful, and it puts equality and the good of the whole above that of the individual, which I can appreciate. It's about responsibility as a member of a community instead of just an individual.

I consider myself to have a very fundamental philosophical difference of opinion on this topic, although the end result might not be that dramatically different.  I think its okay for individuals to values themselves first and foremost - its okay to look out for yourself.  For an example of an idea that strongly appeals to me, here's a thought of pjkeeley's:

You produced certain things or rendered services that people needed; in turn you supported the community by patronising the people who produced the things or rendered the services that you needed. This meant that nearly everyone was by today's terms 'self employed' (the average medieval peasant worked less hours than today's average worker) and, additionally, by living this way contributed directly to the cultural life of their local community.

This isn't that different of an end effect from what Willravel describes, I would just place a little different emphasis on the parts.  The individual, in pursuing his/her goals, recognizes that existing in a cooperative society is in his best interests (as I believe it is).  So we have a functioning self-supporting society, but individuals are pursuing individual goals - which ends up supporting the community at large.  We don't work for the common good because working for the common good is a virtue: we end up creating a common good because it is in our best interest, as individuals, to do so.  The common good naturally arises from our pursuit of individual goals.  Something like: I don't like making bread, so I won't.  But I need bread.  I do like making beer: why not make more beer than I need and trade some to the baker (who wants beer - it gets hot in the kitchen  :wink:  ) for the bread that I need?  We each get what we need, we each get what we want, and its based on individuality.  We don't work together because we believe in working together; we work together because its best for each of us to do so.

Like I say, I think this is subtle, but hopefully I've expressed my opinion clearly.

I think all these broad topics (socialism, capitalism, libertarianism) are all composed of individual thoughts that have serious validity and are worthy of individual consideration.  I can't help but recognize, for example, that this thought:

The natural social state of humans is somewhat socialistic.

appears to be fundamentally true.  My family functions in a very socialistic manner, for example, and it seems to work just fine - in fact, I can't even imagine it working differently.  What, for instance, would a capitalist family structure be like?  Buying and selling property and services to each other, within the family?!?

Eh, maybe it really is just an issue of scalability and over-population.  And, if this is the case, would my alternate "libertarian" way really succeed, or would it be plagued by the same problems for the same reasons?

Cheers all for a most engaging topic!  

[Will]

SteveS is wise beyond his years!~

The point I was making, though is that there's not enough to go around, so instead of comfortably contributing towards the whole, we have to compete for ourselves.

Imagine you're in a room with 12 people and there are 8 apples. You'd have to compete or go hungry. There would likely be several people who don't eat. Imagine that same room had 4 people. Suddenly competition turns into cooperation, as everyone will likely agree that it's fair that the 8 apples be divided up evenly among the 4 people. This isn't 100% consistent, of course, as someone like me would probably half my apple in the first room, but overall this is how things work. It's easier to cooperate with someone you're not competing with.

I think that under the right circumstances, most people would behave equally. If the members of this forum were marooned on an island (not the Lost island), I think that we'd become socialist by default. If we were capitalistic, people would likely starve or be eaten.

Would libertarianism work? I dunno. It worked for a bit, but was quickly replaced by bureaucracy when the population started rising. I was really concerned when I thought Ron Paul had a snowball's chance in hell because he was talking about not just getting rid of federal agencies like FEMA (which needs to be reorganized, not abolished), but public schools, public transportation, and public military. A population of 300m people needs some social programs in order to deal with the sheer volume of need. A private military to match our public volunteer military would be cost prohibitive, as would private transportation and schooling. I can't even imagine paying for firefighter insurance.

I think it all boils down to what I've said many times:
We're in a conundrum. The planet is becoming overpopulated (or has been so for a long time), but there is no morally acceptable way to reverse or even halt the process. People, on the whole, believe it is their right to reproduce... and who am I to say they're wrong? Who am I to say that by having little Sally, Jacky, Sammy, Marty, and Skyler (who names their kid Skyler?) you're furthering the biggest problem our species faces? The government could take steps, but even offering incentives is dangerously offensive to some people. Christians believe they have a divine mandate to reproduce, even. It's a conundrum.

[SteveS]

Thanks Will, and yup, I hear you and I agree that if we were marooned we'd probably start behaving in a mostly socialistic fashion.  

Makes me wonder - doesn't is seem that our behavior would change based on our circumstance?  For example, when supply is plentiful but survival is difficult, our behavior will probably resemble a socialist flavor.  If supply doesn't become a big problem, but survival becomes easier, would we become more libertarian?

What I mean is that if we were truly marooned we probably wouldn't find it very easy to get by, especially at first.  But, if we somehow survived and worked out a stable society that could last through at least a few generations, wouldn't we start becoming more trade-oriented, rather than just all pitching in where required?  I think this is sort of the idea you're suggesting with the competitive aspect.  As survival becomes more assured, but resources diminish, our social behavior changes from entirely cooperative to entirely competitive?  If so, I agree, this seems likely.

One thing about libertarian ideas, I agree with you here:

I was really concerned when I thought Ron Paul had a snowball's chance in hell because he was talking about not just getting rid of federal agencies like FEMA (which needs to be reorganized, not abolished), but public schools, public transportation, and public military.

I don't think scrapping these things is a very practical answer either.  You can't just radically change a developed system overnight and expect good answers --- just blanket abolishing systems that have developed over time, that we're used to having, would be a pretty major "system shock"!

On the other hand, I don't understand how just organizing a government structure somehow defrays the cost of things.  If firefighter insurance is worth a certain amount, I don't see how making it a function of government would change the value of it for the better.  If the government was providing a very expensive fire service for only a reasonable charge, how would the government maintain itself?  Wouldn't it become insolvent?

In other words, when you say:

A private military to match our public volunteer military would be cost prohibitive, as would private transportation and schooling. I can't even imagine paying for firefighter insurance.

This is true, but consider that you'd have no tax burden first removed from you finances.  I mean, I consider the amount of tax burden placed upon us all to be highly considerable.  Right now, although these services are provided by the government, we're not paying for them on the cheap!  I mean add it all up: sales tax, real-estate tax, state income tax, federal income tax, liquor/beer tax (I get hit hard with this one  :wink:  ), gasoline tax, etc.  This is an awfully large bill for most folks.

[Will]

Makes me wonder - doesn't is seem that our behavior would change based on our circumstance?  For example, when supply is plentiful but survival is difficult, our behavior will probably resemble a socialist flavor.  If supply doesn't become a big problem, but survival becomes easier, would we become more libertarian?

What I mean is that if we were truly marooned we probably wouldn't find it very easy to get by, especially at first.  But, if we somehow survived and worked out a stable society that could last through at least a few generations, wouldn't we start becoming more trade-oriented, rather than just all pitching in where required?  I think this is sort of the idea you're suggesting with the competitive aspect.  As survival becomes more assured, but resources diminish, our social behavior changes from entirely cooperative to entirely competitive?  If so, I agree, this seems likely.

I agree completely, but I like to take that one step further. Not only is socialism the best for "oh christ we're fucked" situations, but also if you want/need to get something done.

Let's say, for example, that we lived in a society that was comfortableâ€"plenty of work and resources to go aroundâ€"but we wanted to start expanding into space. Like let's say we wanted to terraform Mars. In a capitalist system this would be severely cost prohibitive. It would take trillions of dollars over hundreds of years. A socialist system would be different, though. If instead of corporations investing monies that come from profit and not expecting to see a return on their investment until their children's children's children are running the company, we simply say "this is for the collective good of our species" and know that while it's costing us, the benefit to future generations and our whole species will be priceless (imagine two planets worth of resources and land as well as a backup in case something catastrophic ever happened on Earth). It's that element of selflessness in economics/government/society that can get really big things done.

I don't think scrapping these things is a very practical answer either.  You can't just radically change a developed system overnight and expect good answers --- just blanket abolishing systems that have developed over time, that we're used to having, would be a pretty major "system shock"!

Which is why it would take revolution to chance the current systems of government. With a 4-8 year shelf life, there's not enough time to get big things done unless you know the next several administrations are on board. No one can know that (who would have thought Bush would invade Iraq as a response to being attacked by a small guerrilla force that had nothing to do with Iraq?!). I'm not arguing for longer terms, mind you, just that the kind of change Dr. Paul wanted/wants is virtually impossible in our current system.

On the other hand, I don't understand how just organizing a government structure somehow defrays the cost of things.  If firefighter insurance is worth a certain amount, I don't see how making it a function of government would change the value of it for the better.  If the government was providing a very expensive fire service for only a reasonable charge, how would the government maintain itself?  Wouldn't it become insolvent?

There are other costs associated with capitalism, though. As you said, or rather insinuated, above, capitalist systems are about self, money, and me! Bearing that in mind, the economic system has tailored itself to making as much money as possible from said system by making being you very expensive. I hope you don't kill me for using health care to illustrate (a lot of my capitalist friends call me Universal Will because I bring it up so often).

Capitalist healthcare costs don't just include paying for a doctor, equipment, and medical services. They include a host of administrative, marketing, and malpractice costs that are all added to your bill. Add up the administrative costs of the largest healthcare providers in the US, Kaiser, Aetna, Humana, and Healthnet, and it's astronomical. Compare them to the administrative costs of all of Canada, Japan, the UK, and France combined and it's still not quite even. There's a reason that in the US one pays an average of $5k per person for mediocre care when someone with the best healthcare in the world, France, pays around $2k. And yes France does have some problems with their system, but there aren't 50 million frogs jumping around without coverage because they can't afford it.

Imagine a country in which 50 million Americans can't afford fire coverage. Or police coverage. Or sewers. That's kinda scary.

The point is that we pay less in taxes than we would in insurance.

[rational liberal]

Very interesting posts. We have so many smart people here on these forums.  Keep up the good work guys.

[Will]

Rational liberal, are you a liberal or a libertarian? It seems by your aversion to socialism that you may be a libertarian (which I see as a somewhat opposing governmental/economic/social system to socialism). Most liberals, at least in the US, support socialist elements of government like single payer universal healthcare or social security.

[SteveS]

Hey Willravel, I see where you're coming from, but I don't entirely agree.  In the Mars example:

Not only is socialism the best for "oh christ we're fucked" situations, but also if you want/need to get something done.

My only issue with this is who wants/needs to get it done?  Socialism is basically constraining the individuals in the society to function as one large individual.  What if I don't want or feel I need to colonize Mars?  Too bad, if I'm in a socialist government --- I have to, because my mind's been made up for me by the government.

I don't disagree that in cases where there is a common best interest that socialism can meet this need well, but I do take issue as to what the common interest is and who gets to decide.  And somehow, I can't see myself agreeing that what a socialist government declares to be my best interest will always be my best interest.

My only point here is that the question of whether or not a large hypothetical undertaking like this Mars example is, in fact, in our best interest appears to be presented as a foregone conclusion: but is it?  Who decides?  What if not everybody agrees - are they enslaved to serve the majority opinion?  Why - because the will of most supersedes the will of the individual?  Might makes right, and we force a definition of "common best interest"?

In a non-socialist situation, the only people financially backing the project would be willing participants.  What's wrong with that?  The individual cost might be higher because not everybody is forced to pay (so some won't), but if there is a long term benefit, won't the non-backers suffer the long-term consequences of missing out on the benefit?  And, wouldn't this be fair?  How could they argue that its unfair?

About the Ron Paul thing,

I'm not arguing for longer terms, mind you, just that the kind of change Dr. Paul wanted/wants is virtually impossible in our current system.

Yeah, I agree.  Also, just to clarify, my political thinking seems to run very parallel to the libertarian philosophy, but this hardly means I'm always in support of members of the Libertarian party.  I see myself as having the libertarian philosophy as a guidance, rather then the Libertarian party as an answer.  I couldn't have disagreed with Ron Paul more strongly on his interpretation of state/church separation, for example.  Nor am I convinced that a libertarian anarchy is really a plausible system.  It seems we must always have some level of government.

About the healthcare idea,

I hope you don't kill me for using health care to illustrate (a lot of my capitalist friends call me Universal Will because I bring it up so often).

 If I ever wanted to kill anybody, I doubt very much that it would be because they decided to throw stones at the healthcare debacle!  No worries, dude.

My only comments here would be that there are certainly administrative costs with healthcare under a socialist system as well.  And if there aren't malpractice costs, then what recourse does a patient have who's been negligently injured?  I think the current insurance rates could be seriously influenced by some reason being executed on the judge's benches and jury rooms around the country.  The damage awards are totally ridiculous, and knowing that doctors are just going to pay larger insurance amounts and pass the costs on down, aren't we as jurors responsible for creating this situation?  Personally, I think people go a little crazy when they get into a jury box and contemplate damage values.  Where do they think all the award money is going to come from?

Suppose I do some job, and I screw it up.  Bad, my fault, never should have happened.  OK, go ahead and find me liable for $15,000,000 dollars - hell, send me a bill!  Do you think you're ever going to be able to collect?  But, everyone else who does my job is going "Wow!  What if that happened to me?  Better get some insurance so I can survive in case I screw up, and boy is it gonna cost with award suits like that coming down!  I'm gonna have to raise my prices...."

Doesn't taking away a doctor's medical license solve the problem of malpractice better then raising everybody's healthcare costs astronomically to cover fantastic damage awards?  And how many people are hypocritical in this situation?  There seems to be this undercurrent of "its okay for me to make mistakes, but my doctor better be perfect or I'm going to sue for tall cash!".

The point is that we pay less in taxes than we would in insurance.

Sure, if you abolish the insurance industry and prevent people from suing doctors.  If we make a socialist government, and make healthcare a function of that government, then we still wouldn't really prevent any of the incidences of what is currently considered malpractice.  But, since we've got a government in charge, it just refuses to pay out large damage settlements.  Problem solved!  But, we don't need a socialist government to do this now --- just stop awarding ridiculous damages in the court room.   And, for that matter, not just a socialist government could effect this change.  A dictatorship would work just as well - just create state doctors and don't let people recover damage amounts.  

This is kind of an aside, but honestly, with all this current litigation, is malpractice actually declining and therefore quality of care improving, or is the cost of healthcare just increasing?  We should all seriously ask ourselves whether the legal action in the courts is having the intended result.  And what about overworked doctors making mistakes?  Well, why aren't there more doctors?  Because we have what amounts to a trade union (the AMA) artificially manipulating the market to make doctors scarce (and therefore, demand higher than supply - high prices).  I think medical treatment is overpriced, and remains so because we don't let the market adjust --- we won't let nurses open treatment centers and we won't let too many students graduate medical school.  But this isn't a flaw with the market system --- its a flaw with placing restrictions on the market system's ability to adjust itself.

Also, consider that if insurance companies would no longer be paying out large sums, would the socialist government be paying out large sums in place of the insurance companies?  If not, then you're comparing apples to oranges.  You're comparing capitalism with ridiculous malpractice awards to socialism with no malpractice awards.  No wonder that makes healthcare look cheaper under socialism :wink:  .  But, if we're going with socialism and the malpractice awards, where is the socialist government going to get the money from if not taxes?

I also think this statement is sort of wrong:

There are other costs associated with capitalism, though. As you said, or rather insinuated, above, capitalist systems are about self, money, and me! Bearing that in mind, the economic system has tailored itself to making as much money as possible from said system by making being you very expensive.

Surely, we can't just artificially create value, and I don't see how any capitalist system can do so.  "Making as much money as possible" doesn't really work this way --- if we just increase currency costs, inflation catches up and keeps the relative balance.  Value is based, at some level, on reality, right?  So, returning to the Mars mission, I don't understand why the relative value would somehow be far less in a socialist society.  If money can be equated to effort (expended effort creates value), just pitching in free "voluntary slave effort" must still be considered to have value.  Whether or not you are paid in currency for your work value, or just eat from the free soup kitchen for dinner.

In other words, the Pyramids weren't free (or even cheap), even if nobody was paid in coinage to build them.

[Will]

I probably should have used a more realistic and generally acceptable example. I'd friggin' love to terraform Mars, obviously.

How about curing a disease that isn't really a cashcow? Let's say, for example, there is a need to find a cure for a disease that's mostly effecting the poor. Let's say millions die. Could 300 million people come together to save a few million poor people? Is it okay for people to say, "Fuck the poor"? Is that freedom, the freedom to passively kill? Is it passively killing?

It seems we must always have some level of government.

A pragmatist libertarian?! Sweet!

Healthcare: administrative costs for one organization would be a lot cheaper than many organizations. As for malpractice, the doctor is punished and the healthcare system makes any repairs it can (like if you accidentally get a new asshole instead of a new knee, the doctor will be put on probation and you'll get your knee). In addition, I know that France and the UK have monetary incentives for patients that are in good health. They are showing great results.

Surely, we can't just artificially create value...

This is a toughie. Can the capitalist system be blamed for the Federal Reserve Bank? If so, then yeah it can create value and then ruin the credibility of money. If not, I dunno.

BTW, voluntary slave is a contradiction in terms. If they've volunteered, they're volunteers. If they didn't volunteer, they're slaves.

[Tom62]

My 2cts about healthcare. A government based healhcare system runs inefficiently. You can see that in many european countries, like in Germany and England, where the costs of the public healthcare system are unaffordable. In Germany I pay 4 times more for my heath insurance than in Switzerland, although the swiss doctors are better paid and the quality of the healthcare is much higher. Why is it in Switzerland better? Because there is no public heathcare system. Everone is privately ensured; there is a lot of competetion and there is barely any burocraty because the insururance company pays the doctors directly. In Germany however there is no competition. The huge state organisations devide the money among themselves and don't pay the doctors directly, but to an organisation of doctors which adds an additional layer of burocraty and costs. This doctor organisation than dstributes the money among the doctors based on a very complicated scheme that is not based on the work that the doctor has done but by the amount of patients that the doctor has. In many cases that means that some doctors earn less than the minimum hourly wage. The doctors therefore heavily rely on private insurured patients, beacause there is where the money is. So basically a socialist healthcare system generates exactly what they are desperately trying to avoid, namely a two class system where the privately insured people receive better healthcare than the public ensured people. Not to mention ofcourse that in order to have a decent salary many doctors submit the privately ensured people to needless tests in order to fillup their wallets.

[pjkeeley]

Why is it in Switzerland better? Because there is no public heathcare system. Everone is privately ensured

If there was no public healthcare in a lot of other countries I doubt they could boast the same.