Dear Libertarians, A serious question for serious times

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Overhead:

Revnak:

PercyBoleyn:

Yeah, except barely anybody can afford it and a simple broken bone can leave a person or family bankrupt because of the extremely high costs. Socialized insurance might limit that but it won't solve it. A system like Australia's or Germany's would work much better. Less costs, better healthcare. What's there not to love?

WHAT? Of course it would solve the problem, they wouldn't be the ones paying for their medical care.
And what's not to love? The loss of every advantage that America's system currently has for one. You want adequate care, I want exceptional. I want us to have the very best equipment, the very best doctors, the very best medicine and treatments. Totally socialized medicine means that all of these will be lost. Make the state pay the costs and eliminate a few costs through the methods previously mentioned. Maybe limit copyrights on drugs to a few years, no more than five.

Your healthcare isn't exceptional. It is a fair way off from being the best in the world, despite being the most expensive and you're actually on par with Cuba there - the poor communist country that had been economically blockaded for decades.

They spend about 12% of GDP on healthcare while you spend 16% and they are better in the main indicators that I bothered to look at (Life expectancy and under 5 mortality) according to the 2009 World bank figures I have to hand.

Checking on a combination of Wikipedia and the World Health Organisation shows that the USA is 38th in the world for life expectancy, worse than Cuba. Yeah, you guys have no solid ground when it comes to healthcare. And, just for good measure:

image

America seems awfully lonely there for a western country. With mostly Africa and chunks of Asia for company...

Revnak:

Stagnant:

Revnak:

WHAT? Of course it would solve the problem, they wouldn't be the ones paying for their medical care.
And what's not to love? The loss of every advantage that America's system currently has for one. You want adequate care, I want exceptional. I want us to have the very best equipment, the very best doctors, the very best medicine and treatments. Totally socialized medicine means that all of these will be lost. Make the state pay the costs and eliminate a few costs through the methods previously mentioned. Maybe limit copyrights on drugs to a few years, no more than five.

And you can back up the idea that America's current health care system is not only exceptional (or, as you seem to imply, the best), but would be made considerably worth by socializing health care? Because neither seem to be actually true to any noticeable degree.

We are the most responsive by far. Our main, almost sole issue is distribution. Our medical industry is the largest and most innovative. We have absurdly high standards for doctors. Solve distribution and it will be fine. I plan onwriting an essay on the issue now so throwing random data at this point would not irritate me in the slightest. I just have to relate it to family somehow, though I think I have an angle.

You know what I got out of that? "Blah blah blah". Here's the key point in my previous quote: "And you can back up".

PercyBoleyn:

Revnak:
Totally socialized medicine means that all of these will be lost.

Again, you have no proof of that.

Dude, you don't understand. Communism is cumulative. Oh, sure, you might THINK you just want seatbelt laws or Medicaid or something, but the next thing you know, BAM! We're all in the gulag eating Soylent Grandma.

PercyBoleyn:

Revnak:
You want adequate care, I want exceptional.

Are you saying Australia doesn't have exceptional healthcare? Because it does, and it's much more efficient than the US one.

I want better than their's. That would be nice. I want cures for diseases they don't have cured. That takes a system that is better than Australia's.

Revnak:
I want us to have the very best equipment, the very best doctors, the very best medicine and treatments.

And why would that go away?

Because those right there are largely dependent on competition. The medicine and equipment come from pharmaceutical companies doing their jobs and working hard at them, while the doctors and treatments come from allowing risks to be taken, education to be expensive and difficult, and environments being competitive. The free market can and does allow for all of these and totally socialized medicine would take away the free market. If your only concern is that everyone get the baseline level of care and innovation not be rewarded you can go ahead and promote a command economy over medicine. I will not. The only reason that I am willing to support socialized insurance is that there is no logical benefit to a free market of health insurance beyond how they interact with other markets, which could be handled well enough I suppose.

Revnak:
I want better than their's. That would be nice. I want cures for diseases they don't have cured. That takes a system that is better than Australia's.

You want to achieve a system better than Australia's by implementing a subpar one? Yeah, that's not going to work.

Revnak:
Because those right there are largely dependent on competition.

Uhm, sorry to break your little bubble there buddy but most of the research is done by universities, not insurance companies.

Revnak:
The medicine and equipment come from pharmaceutical companies doing their jobs and working hard at them

Prove it?

Revnak:
while the doctors and treatments come from allowing risks to be taken

Why wouldn't a socialized system allow for all that?

Revnak:
education to be expensive and difficult, and environments being competitive.

What do you mean expensive? By making education expensive the only thing you're doing is preventing the poor from participating. Being rich does not automatically make you great at everything. Besides, most doctors are generally middle class people who take out loans.

Revnak:
The free market can and does allow for all of these and totally socialized medicine would take away the free market.

Prove it?

Revnak:
If your only concern is that everyone get the baseline level of care and innovation not be rewarded you can go ahead and promote a command economy over medicine.

Why would innovation not be rewarded?

So... just out of curiosity, how do Libertarians feel about price fixing? Or insider trading?

Stagnant:

Revnak:

Stagnant:

And you can back up the idea that America's current health care system is not only exceptional (or, as you seem to imply, the best), but would be made considerably worth by socializing health care? Because neither seem to be actually true to any noticeable degree.

We are the most responsive by far. Our main, almost sole issue is distribution. Our medical industry is the largest and most innovative. We have absurdly high standards for doctors. Solve distribution and it will be fine. I plan onwriting an essay on the issue now so throwing random data at this point would not irritate me in the slightest. I just have to relate it to family somehow, though I think I have an angle.

You know what I got out of that? "Blah blah blah". Here's the key point in my previous quote: "And you can back up".

The distribution issues? WHO bases almost all of their rankings on fairness (essentially over 50%). Considering that the other main marker, life expectancy, is largely based on distribution as well and is generally too complex to simply break down to, "this medical system sucks, this one doesn't," I'm going to go ahead and ignore it. The U.S. ranks terribly in those areas. However, the only other category, quality of response, is almost always led by the U.S. The issue is distribution.

As for innovative medical industry, well it is obviously the largest considering we're the only first-world country with a private pharmaceutical industry and we spend so much money on it. It is also innovative because of how short of a period of time it takes for any drug to no longer be profitable. There's a reason there's fifty different types of Tylenol when only one is necessary, new ones have to be made so that they can keep making a profit (not certain why, I'll have to ask my professor about it tomorrow).

The high standards for doctors is obvious considering just how incredible U.S. higher education is. Considering that most surveys put the majority of the world's best universities in the United States it really isn't that hard of a jump to conclude the education of doctors at these high level universities would follow suit.

PercyBoleyn:

Revnak:
Because those right there are largely dependent on competition.

Uhm, sorry to break your little bubble there buddy but most of the research is done by universities, not insurance companies.

And that has fuck all to do with what I'm talking about doesn't it. Or did you suddenly forget I have little issue with socialized insurance. Go save your jokes for someone they actually fucking apply to.

Revnak:
The medicine and equipment come from pharmaceutical companies doing their jobs and working hard at them

Prove it?

They have to since medicine only remains profitable for a very short period of time. The profit motive is so huge on medicine that they create fifty versions of the same drug simply because they cannot keep making the old one and expect a profit. If this was forced to be directed more efficiently by limiting pharmaceutical companies from remaking the same drugs by having the state provide generics after a certain amount of time or by limiting the length of copyrights then there would be even more innovation here.

Revnak:
while the doctors and treatments come from allowing risks to be taken

Why wouldn't a socialized system allow for all that?

Depends on the type of risk. Risky procedures? Most countries wind up being better in that regard. Risky ideas? Command economics do not perform well in that regard.

Revnak:
education to be expensive and difficult, and environments being competitive.

What do you mean expensive? By making education expensive the only thing you're doing is preventing the poor from participating. Being rich does not automatically make you great at everything. Besides, most doctors are generally middle class people who take out loans.

I meant that it takes a prestigious university, which are generally expensive as all shit to pay for the quality. I should have phrased that differently.

Revnak:
If your only concern is that everyone get the baseline level of care and innovation not be rewarded you can go ahead and promote a command economy over medicine.

Why would innovation not be rewarded?

How would it be rewarded? On some strict and arbitrary merit system? I'll go with supply and demand rewarding people. More fluid.

arbane:

PercyBoleyn:

Revnak:
Totally socialized medicine means that all of these will be lost.

Again, you have no proof of that.

Dude, you don't understand. Communism is cumulative. Oh, sure, you might THINK you just want seatbelt laws or Medicaid or something, but the next thing you know, BAM! We're all in the gulag eating Soylent Grandma.

Wow! Thank you for deliberately misrepresenting me like you do with everyone else arbane. You are such a fucking treat. I really appreciate how much you add to this forum.

Revnak:
And that has fuck all to do with what I'm talking about doesn't it. Or did you suddenly forget I have little issue with socialized insurance. Go save your jokes for someone they actually fucking apply to.

I wasn't joking. Most of this so called competition you talk about isn't competition at all.

Revnak:
Depends on the type of risk. Risky procedures? Most countries wind up being better in that regard. Risky ideas? Command economics do not perform well in that regard.

Please use actual evidence when you attempt to prove your points.

Revnak:
I meant that it takes a prestigious university, which are generally expensive as all shit to pay for the quality. I should have phrased that differently.

Cost has nothing to do with prestige.

Revnak:
How would it be rewarded? On some strict and arbitrary merit system? I'll go with supply and demand rewarding people. More fluid.

That's still not evidence to support your point. What proof do you have that innovation would be stifled under a socialized system of medicine? There are numerous systems of socialized medicine in the world that do a much better job than the US one and innovation in the US system has nothing to do with competition.

PercyBoleyn:

Revnak:
And that has fuck all to do with what I'm talking about doesn't it. Or did you suddenly forget I have little issue with socialized insurance. Go save your jokes for someone they actually fucking apply to.

I wasn't joking. Most of this so called competition you talk about isn't competition at all.

Well isn't that just vague enough to have no valid counterpoint, especially considering how you are making absolutely no point here.

Revnak:
Depends on the type of risk. Risky procedures? Most countries wind up being better in that regard. Risky ideas? Command economics do not perform well in that regard.

Please use actual evidence when you attempt to prove your points.

So the history of command economics vs. free markets isn't evidence to you? I mean, sure I didn't cite a specific case, but I was pretty certain that most people acknowledge that a lack of innovation and risk taking was a well known flaw of command economics. I suppose you're some kind of exception.

Revnak:
I meant that it takes a prestigious university, which are generally expensive as all shit to pay for the quality. I should have phrased that differently.

Cost has nothing to do with prestige.

It sure as fuck does. Good schools cost good money.

Revnak:
How would it be rewarded? On some strict and arbitrary merit system? I'll go with supply and demand rewarding people. More fluid.

That's still not evidence to support your point. What proof do you have that innovation would be stifled under a socialized system of medicine? There are numerous systems of socialized medicine in the world that do a much better job than the US one and innovation in the US system has nothing to do with competition.

Well considering most innovation in medicine already occurs here I'm going to have to ask you where these innovations come from. I suppose your answer will be universities since I believe you already mentioned that, but considering how much of that is based around private investment I would say that's still based pretty heavily around the free market.

The American healthcare system has some of the best technology available, but it is incredibly expensive and people die in the streets from lack of access. Having the best technology is not something to be proud of when large swaths of society have no access to it at all and other groups are bankrupted by it. Clearly, it's not a system for a solidary society. We have societies to provide the basic services we need. And healthcare simply is one of the most basic needs.

Revnak:
Well isn't that just vague enough to have no valid counterpoint, especially considering how you are making absolutely no point here.

I pointed out that research into the medical field is done by universities.

Revnak:
So the history of command economics vs. free markets isn't evidence to you? I mean, sure I didn't cite a specific case, but I was pretty certain that most people acknowledge that a lack of innovation and risk taking was a well known flaw of command economics. I suppose you're some kind of exception.

You claimed that treatments come from risk taking, I asked you to prove that point. Please do.

Revnak:
It sure as fuck does. Good schools cost good money.

Yeah, no it doesn't.

Revnak:
Well considering most innovation in medicine already occurs here I'm going to have to ask you where these innovations come from.

Where does come from then?

Revnak:
I suppose your answer will be universities since I believe you already mentioned that, but considering how much of that is based around private investment I would say that's still based pretty heavily around the free market.

Could you prove that claim? "Innovation" is a relatively loose term for how treatments and drugs are created.

PercyBoleyn:

Revnak:
It sure as fuck does. Good schools cost good money.

Yeah, no it doesn't.

What? Since when? When did higher education become easy to afford? I have absolutely no clue how you came to the conclusion that it isn't expensive.

The rest of you argument can be answered pretty easily. The research that has been done in the field of medicine over the past few decades at the very least has usually occurred in the United States, including the majority of the most important discoveries in recent years. The vast majority of the funding for that research came from private sources, who made the risky decision of funding the research (public funding accounts for roughly 10% at most if Wikipedia is to be believed). Research is equated with innovation here, and the research takes risk.

Revnak:

The distribution issues? WHO bases almost all of their rankings on fairness (essentially over 50%). Considering that the other main marker, life expectancy, is largely based on distribution as well and is generally too complex to simply break down to, "this medical system sucks, this one doesn't," I'm going to go ahead and ignore it. The U.S. ranks terribly in those areas. However, the only other category, quality of response, is almost always led by the U.S. The issue is distribution.

As for innovative medical industry, well it is obviously the largest considering we're the only first-world country with a private pharmaceutical industry and we spend so much money on it. It is also innovative because of how short of a period of time it takes for any drug to no longer be profitable. There's a reason there's fifty different types of Tylenol when only one is necessary, new ones have to be made so that they can keep making a profit (not certain why, I'll have to ask my professor about it tomorrow).

The high standards for doctors is obvious considering just how incredible U.S. higher education is. Considering that most surveys put the majority of the world's best universities in the United States it really isn't that hard of a jump to conclude the education of doctors at these high level universities would follow suit.

First problem: these aren't citations. These are still assertions without any backing. Germany also has an innovative private pharmaceutical industry, bound to a socialized medicine system. US higher education is impressive, but once again I have to ask - is it really so much better than the education standard in other first-world countries that it would truly make a difference? You've failed to provide any evidence for your claims.

Second problem: distribution matters just as much as technology. If I have cancer, I'm just as fucked in the USA if I can't afford treatment for it as I am in a country that doesn't have it. The fact is that the best medical technology in the world doesn't matter if people can't access it. A cure for AIDS would be completely worthless if it involved leaving the solar system. In fact, when it comes to medical care, I think distribution is just about the most important thing. Or is there something that other countries aren't doing that only a non-socialized medicine system can do?

Revnak:
What? Since when? When did higher education become easy to afford? I have absolutely no clue how you came to the conclusion that it isn't expensive.

I was trying to point out that most of the money you pay when you go into higher education is for the name, not necessarily for the quality of the education.

Revnak:
The research that has been done in the field of medicine over the past few decades at the very least has usually occurred in the United States

Prove it.

Revnak:
The vast majority of the funding for that research came from private sources, who made the risky decision of funding the research (public funding accounts for roughly 10% at most if Wikipedia is to be believed).

Data? Evidence? Statistics?

Revnak:
Research is equated with innovation here, and the research takes risk.

And what proof do you have that other countries do not take risks with their researching?

randomsix:

Magichead:

Not G. Ivingname:
Free market economics is actually detromential to getting obscene amounts of wealth. If the market was truly free, staying rich and keeping the largest company would be very, VERY difficult, since new businesses are constantly popping up to challenge the big boys. I cannot even begin to count the amount of regulations that actually make it easier for a tiny few companies to be able to sit happily and let the government stop new competition from sprouting up and challenging them.

Utter, total, complete fantasy. If the market was "totally free", the only outcome is monopoly, whether through one corporate entity completely obliterating all competition, or through price-fixing consortia. Fucking hell, people say Communists are fantasists who take no account of human behaviour in reality; ladies and gentlemen I give you Libertarian economics, so fantastical it belongs in a Disney movie.

Except that once you have a monopoly or price fixing the market is no longer free. "Totally free" does not mean "totally unregulated."

Baseless equivocation. Libertarians say stuff like this, but each time you propose an individual regulation to them they say "No". Unless said regulation would exclusively benefit large corporate entities, then suddenly they think it's a fantastic idea.

Vegosiux:

Well. Does "free" mean "not controlled by a government" or "not controlled by anyone at all"? That's the crux of the issue I think. If a monopoly is established, that monopoly does control the market to an extent. That monopoly will try to do its damnest to stay ahead and not let anyone contest.

If we wanted a market to work as you put it, with no non-market barriers, that market would have to be completely detached and separate from everything. Lobbying should not be allowed. Private donations to campaigns should not be allowed. Basically, a business should not be allowed to affect anything but itself and other businesses, and it should only be allowed to affect other businesses directly, with all indirect means of influence taken away.

The moment a business can establish any extent of an indirect influence over the market, I would argue that market is not free, since someone is pulling the strings from outside it. And at this point I'm kind of tempted to say "So much for the fabled invisible hand."

There would be no point companies lobbying government if the government took no role at all in the market. It'd be throwing money at people who couldn't affect anything.

As to certain indirect controls exerted by businesses themselves, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you could explain or give examples, I might have a better idea.

However, tangentially, the point you make that a monopoly will try its damnedest to stay ahead is an interesting one. It highlights a difference between pro-business and pro-market. A business would kill a free market without a moment's notice if it were profitable to do so.

Revnak:

As for innovative medical industry, well it is obviously the largest considering we're the only first-world country with a private pharmaceutical industry and we spend so much money on it. It is also innovative because of how short of a period of time it takes for any drug to no longer be profitable.

Stagnant:

First problem: these aren't citations. These are still assertions without any backing. Germany also has an innovative private pharmaceutical industry, bound to a socialized medicine system.

I think you're both wrong, in different ways.

Firstly to Revnak specifically, as Stagnant pointed out, The USA is obviously not the only country with a private pharmaceutical industry. All the European big pharma (Glaxo, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi as I recall) are private companies. In fact, offhand I'm not aware of a single state-owned pharmaceutical company. If they exist, they're small.

Secondly to both, there is no particularly major national link here. Major pharmaceutical companies are global concerns. A German pharmaceutical company has as much access to the US market as a US company, and a US company has as much access to the German market as a German company.

The high standards for doctors is obvious considering just how incredible U.S. higher education is. Considering that most surveys put the majority of the world's best universities in the United States it really isn't that hard of a jump to conclude the education of doctors at these high level universities would follow suit.

Actually, it is quite a hard jump if you consider what's going on.

Global university rankings methodologies are usually heavily slanted towards criteria involving the number of eminent academics and the quality of research and other intellectual output.

For various reasons, neither necessarily equate to a superior undergraduate education. Most simply, because undergraduates don't do much if any research and will barely see or be taught by the eminent academics (who are too busy doing more eminent stuff like research and might be crummy educators anyway).

That said, a good university probably will produce better graduates, but that's in no small way because its reputation gives it more opportunity to select out the creme de la creme of students when they apply after high school. However, that does not give the best university in the USA any advantage over the best university in nearly any other country. Both get their pick of the best their country has to offer.

Magichead:

randomsix:

Magichead:

Utter, total, complete fantasy. If the market was "totally free", the only outcome is monopoly, whether through one corporate entity completely obliterating all competition, or through price-fixing consortia. Fucking hell, people say Communists are fantasists who take no account of human behaviour in reality; ladies and gentlemen I give you Libertarian economics, so fantastical it belongs in a Disney movie.

Except that once you have a monopoly or price fixing the market is no longer free. "Totally free" does not mean "totally unregulated."

Baseless equivocation. Libertarians say stuff like this, but each time you propose an individual regulation to them they say "No". Unless said regulation would exclusively benefit large corporate entities, then suddenly they think it's a fantastic idea.

What does it mean for an equivocation to be baseless? And yes it is something of an equivocation; that is why I felt it necessary to make the distinction.

A lot of the regulations the government proposes are bad, so of course you're going to have people resisting them, but that doesn't mean that all are. Anti-collusion and anti-monopoly regulations are necessary to keep many markets healthy, and the government is the only entity we have that can enforce those regulations. In some cases, the government may even need to enforce a monopoly; there are only so many power lines and water pipes that can fit in a given area, so it doesn't make sense to have fifty companies all laying their own infrastructure.

Imthatguy:
Overly dramatic title? Check

I have a question for the 'Libertarians' here on the escapist, particularly the american flavor of them. Why does your party and/or vein of political thought equate the ability to amass ungodly sums of money with liberty?

[No arguments about what the word libertarian actually means please. I'm well familiar with it being a libertarian socialist (mutualist anarchist)]

People who make it deserve to keep all they amass. Consider all the advancements the world got out of the creation of the PC by Microsoft. Rich people help the world much more than they hurt it.

Big_Willie_Styles:

People who make it deserve to keep all they amass. Consider all the advancements the world got out of the creation of the PC by Microsoft. Rich people help the world much more than they hurt it.

Interesting you would bring up microsoft.

"I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice -- where everybody would feel like they're doing their part," Gates went on to tell the BBC. "And right now, I don't feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should."

...And of course, that's ignoring the fact that Bill Gates is kind of the poster boy for "I got rich on my own"... And still fails, seeing as his family was not exactly middle class. Never mind the Wells Fargo execs who got rich mostly because their companies scammed people out of their homes. This whole line of thinking is one huge "Just World Fallacy".

Agema:

There would be no point companies lobbying government if the government took no role at all in the market. It'd be throwing money at people who couldn't affect anything.

Exactly, that's what I meant by having the market completely detached.

As to certain indirect controls exerted by businesses themselves, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you could explain or give examples, I might have a better idea.

Well, maybe a little clumsily worded, but again talking about how a "free" market needs to be essentially completely separate from anything else, so that it can only be shaped by itself. A pricing war would be a direct way to put pressure on your competitors.

Patent enforcement, however, would be an indirect one - as it would be done via a non-market entity. I'm not sure I want to say that if you want a truly free market you need to abolish even patent policies, but patents are a way by which businesses can influence competition via channels other than the market itself, so...yeah. Thin ice.

However, tangentially, the point you make that a monopoly will try its damnedest to stay ahead is an interesting one. It highlights a difference between pro-business and pro-market. A business would kill a free market without a moment's notice if it were profitable to do so.

That's why I have a problem with the notion of "free marked" as proposed by economic liberals. What they argue for is "free business". And well, there's a rather fresh wound that was inflicted after deregulation of a certain business sector...don't usually like going post hoc ergo propter hoc, but here I'd say it's not a coincidence.

Vegosiux:

Well, maybe a little clumsily worded, but again talking about how a "free" market needs to be essentially completely separate from anything else, so that it can only be shaped by itself. A pricing war would be a direct way to put pressure on your competitors.

Patent enforcement, however, would be an indirect one - as it would be done via a non-market entity. I'm not sure I want to say that if you want a truly free market you need to abolish even patent policies, but patents are a way by which businesses can influence competition via channels other than the market itself, so...yeah. Thin ice.

I don't think patents / copyrights infringe a free market.

It's just a form of property. Having a patent gives advantages making stuff; but then having land suitable for grape-growing gives you an advantage making wine; having a factory gives you an advantage manufacturing widgets.

That's why I have a problem with the notion of "free marked" as proposed by economic liberals. What they argue for is "free business". And well, there's a rather fresh wound that was inflicted after deregulation of a certain business sector...don't usually like going post hoc ergo propter hoc, but here I'd say it's not a coincidence.

It varies by economic liberal, I think. I think many (particularly in the US) are actually surprisingly suspicious of or hostile to (big) business.

But I agree generally. I think most of the right wing consciously or unknowingly just parrot "pro-business" positions, and frequently, erroneously don't distinguish it from "free market". Your average conservative, for instance, is very keen on government regulation when it relates to, say, labour unions.

Good question actually. I think a large chunk of Americans are unclear as to what a libertarian is. Hell, i'm not entirely clear. Some people, possibly due to that nutjob Ron Paul's influence, seem to confuse libertarianism with some weird flavor of objectivism, others only seem to know libertarians are opposed to U.S intervention in foreign wars and legalization of drugs.

Pyramid Head:
Good question actually. I think a large chunk of Americans are unclear as to what a libertarian is. Hell, i'm not entirely clear. Some people, possibly due to that nutjob Ron Paul's influence, seem to confuse libertarianism with some weird flavor of objectivism, others only seem to know libertarians are opposed to U.S intervention in foreign wars and legalization of drugs.

Odd, I think Libertarians are unclear as to what a libertarian is. Probably due to the differences of opinion on what freedom actually means or the views on when "freedom" makes people less free.

Big_Willie_Styles:

People who make it deserve to keep all they amass.

Onyl if they manage it without [huge list of all the benefits rich people and corporations get from living in a functioning civilization fueled by taxes SNIPPED]. Otherwise they need to pay back for all the services they got.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Consider all the advancements the world got out of the creation of the PC by Microsoft. Rich people help the world much more than they hurt it.

Microsoft didn't 'create' PCs. Before them was Apple, TRS-80, Altair... Bill gates got handed a license to print money by IBM, and they ran with it.

Stagnant:

Big_Willie_Styles:

People who make it deserve to keep all they amass. Consider all the advancements the world got out of the creation of the PC by Microsoft. Rich people help the world much more than they hurt it.

Interesting you would bring up microsoft.

"I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice -- where everybody would feel like they're doing their part," Gates went on to tell the BBC. "And right now, I don't feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should."

...And of course, that's ignoring the fact that Bill Gates is kind of the poster boy for "I got rich on my own"... And still fails, seeing as his family was not exactly middle class. Never mind the Wells Fargo execs who got rich mostly because their companies scammed people out of their homes. This whole line of thinking is one huge "Just World Fallacy".

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? And the sweat of his employees' brows as well?"

arbane:

Big_Willie_Styles:

People who make it deserve to keep all they amass.

Onyl if they manage it without [huge list of all the benefits rich people and corporations get from living in a functioning civilization fueled by taxes SNIPPED]. Otherwise they need to pay back for all the services they got.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Consider all the advancements the world got out of the creation of the PC by Microsoft. Rich people help the world much more than they hurt it.

Microsoft didn't 'create' PCs. Before them was Apple, TRS-80, Altair... Bill gates got handed a license to print money by IBM, and they ran with it.

I love the Elizabeth Warren rhetoric. See, that whole "social contract" logic is a sham so liberals can claim the high ground on taxes when they don't have any ground to stand on.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/26/the-moochers-credo

It doesn't stop y'all from making it, though.

Hilarious. A refresher may be needed. The PC that Microsoft introduced changed the world forever. That's undeniable. It's software is used by an astounding number of the world's personal computers.

Big_Willie_Styles:

I love the Elizabeth Warren rhetoric. See, that whole "social contract" logic is a sham so liberals can claim the high ground on taxes when they don't have any ground to stand on.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/26/the-moochers-credo

"You don't have to look any further to see why Obamaism points straight towards Greece."

God, do I HAVE to keep reading this?

"We're the ones who made you what you are!" "You never would have gotten anywhere without us!" "You owe us!" These are the common cries of people who are afraid they will come up short. And of course all this glides easily into, "You're not going anywhere unless you take us."

Except that this is complete and utter horseshit. In fact, the article forgets a few crucial parts of Warren's quote:

"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless -- keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

She's not saying "Hey! You can't get anywhere if you don't drag us along with you!" She's saying "Hey! If you're going to get rich off the system, then you'd better give a little bit back into the system!" The comparison to the "third-world mentality" is also utter horseshit for similar reasons - these aren't people being robbed of their savings. These are people using resources given to them by society at large being asked "please give back some to the society that made it possible for you". The premises used in that article are completely misinterpreting Warren's actual meaning and taking it to be something entirely beyond what it is meant to be. Is it any wonder then, that taking down such a straw man is easy? Hell, if that was what she meant, it would be easy. The bad news for you is, it isn't.

Yeah but it is in their best interest to have an educated workforce and consumer base as well as a well to do populace to sell their products to whether they relaize it or not.

Agema:

I don't think patents / copyrights infringe a free market.

It's just a form of property. Having a patent gives advantages making stuff; but then having land suitable for grape-growing gives you an advantage making wine; having a factory gives you an advantage manufacturing widgets.

Hmm, putting it that way, it does make sense. Guess I was too focused on the point that every influence on the market that doesn't come from within the market itself makes it less free; which I still believe to be the case, though, since imposing rules "from the outside" kind of limits its freedom almost by definition.

Stagnant:

Big_Willie_Styles:

I love the Elizabeth Warren rhetoric. See, that whole "social contract" logic is a sham so liberals can claim the high ground on taxes when they don't have any ground to stand on.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/26/the-moochers-credo

"You don't have to look any further to see why Obamaism points straight towards Greece."

God, do I HAVE to keep reading this?

You can ALWAYS just say 'fuck it' and walk away.

Imthatguy:
Yeah but it is in their best interest to have an educated workforce and consumer base as well as a well to do populace to sell their products to whether they relaize it or not.

YOU think that. Judging from the policies we see coming out of the Republican Party and the rightwing propaganda mills think-tanks, they don't agree.

Remember, academics, journalists, and educated people have a 'Liberal Bias'. This is entirely due to Communist Brainwashing, and certainly not in any way due to being well-informed exposing the flaws in Conservative arguments.

Stagnant:

Big_Willie_Styles:

I love the Elizabeth Warren rhetoric. See, that whole "social contract" logic is a sham so liberals can claim the high ground on taxes when they don't have any ground to stand on.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/26/the-moochers-credo

"You don't have to look any further to see why Obamaism points straight towards Greece."

God, do I HAVE to keep reading this?

"We're the ones who made you what you are!" "You never would have gotten anywhere without us!" "You owe us!" These are the common cries of people who are afraid they will come up short. And of course all this glides easily into, "You're not going anywhere unless you take us."

Except that this is complete and utter horseshit. In fact, the article forgets a few crucial parts of Warren's quote:

"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless -- keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

She's not saying "Hey! You can't get anywhere if you don't drag us along with you!" She's saying "Hey! If you're going to get rich off the system, then you'd better give a little bit back into the system!" The comparison to the "third-world mentality" is also utter horseshit for similar reasons - these aren't people being robbed of their savings. These are people using resources given to them by society at large being asked "please give back some to the society that made it possible for you". The premises used in that article are completely misinterpreting Warren's actual meaning and taking it to be something entirely beyond what it is meant to be. Is it any wonder then, that taking down such a straw man is easy? Hell, if that was what she meant, it would be easy. The bad news for you is, it isn't.

$5 trillion in debt in less than four years, genius. The reason Greece is collapsing is because it can no longer pay its debt obligations. How hard is it to connect the two, really?

Yes, and they do. It's called taxes. Her argument seems to be making the claim that rich people don't pay any taxes.

Imthatguy:
Yeah but it is in their best interest to have an educated workforce and consumer base as well as a well to do populace to sell their products to whether they relaize it or not.

Yes, it is, but really, how much of that falls on the individual and how much of it on the government?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked