I imagine the US healthcare is riddled with inefficiencies, too, due to things like pharmaceutical companies and their fucking vile intellectual property rights ownership. I doubt their system is anything to aspire to. Of course, this is just speculation.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36384018]I imagine the US healthcare is riddled with inefficiencies, too, due to things like pharmaceutical companies and their fucking vile intellectual property rights ownership. I doubt their system is anything to aspire to. Of course, this is just speculation.[/QUOTE]
Khrushev's health care system was very good. It also provided virtually free healthcare for everyone who needed it.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/pFBKT.png[/img]
Sadly this growth of this health care system wasn't maintained after Khrushev's death in an effective manner, with various health care budget cuts.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36384018]I imagine the US healthcare is riddled with inefficiencies, too, due to things like pharmaceutical companies and their fucking vile intellectual property rights ownership. I doubt their system is anything to aspire to. Of course, this is just speculation.[/QUOTE]
I agree, the heathcare here isn't perfect. But is universal healthcare the best option? I say no.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36384010]Utilitarian calculus was still made and adapted to be used with many intrinsic values. I'm not a supporter of the utilitarian philosophy, but I approve the use of utilitarian calculus. Utilitarian calculus wasn't made to be used only with utility as being the only intrinsic value.[/QUOTE]
It's not utilitarian... it's just consequentialism. Utilitarian thinkers most famously adopt it, but calling it 'utilitarian calculus' is extremely misleading since it's missing half of what makes utilitarianism, utilitarianism.
But anyway that's just splitting hairs. The main problem is, if you think there's more than one intrinsic good, you fall prey to all of the problems associated with pluralism. Moral calculus is much more difficult when you're dealing with more than one object. How do you perform calculations with 2 different moral kinds? Who decides how weighted the moral kinds are? What determines the weighting? Why are there even 2?
Maths can't solve all the problems of ethics. It can't even solve the interesting one (I don't think [I]anything[/I] can).
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36384100]I agree, the heathcare here isn't perfect. But is universal healthcare the best option? I say no.[/QUOTE]
Yup, I agree. At the moment, the dilemma that's being addressed (in any mainstream way) is universalised vs "private" healthcare. But of course, it's not really private because all of these US healthcare companies are intimately tied to the state with intellectual property, taxation, etc. I truly think a genuine free market would, if not solve all the problems, at least be presented as another genuine option. Unfortunately there isn't a body of statistics to test it's strengths, and there isn't going to be one in the foreseeable future. It's hugely problematic of course, since it would require some kind of global intellectual revolution for it to be tested in any meaningful way (which I'm all for). You can't [I]sort of[/I] have a free market; it can't be a compromise or a half-arsed pretend try: it's all or nothing.
I think there are mathematical models that show it should at least be considered more seriously. Most game theoretic models show that rational self-interest (given the right set of conditions) is an incredibly strong force for all players.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
Incidentally I think this is why liberalism fails so badly: it's trying to find a compromise half way between anarchy and the state, which just results in some horrible shitty mess that ultimately gets blamed on the free market or other anarchist concepts.
I really don't think the world is ready for anarchy; it won't be until there's enough rational people with the capacity to negotiate. However what this [I]doesn't[/I] mean, is that we should [I]settle[/I] for the state. We should oppose it even more, but recognise that best way to get rid of the state/physical violence is to help breed rationality (I mean literally breeding it; parenting has to be one of the biggest influences in social interactions), not by dismantling it violently or even worse, through the state itself with voting, etc.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36384143]
Yup, I agree. At the moment, the dilemma that's being addressed (in any mainstream way) is universalised vs "private" healthcare. But of course, it's not really private because all of these US healthcare companies are intimately tied to the state with intellectual property, taxation, etc. I truly think a genuine free market would, if not solve all the problems, at least be presented as another genuine option. Unfortunately there isn't a body of statistics to test it's strengths, and there isn't going to be one in the foreseeable future. It's hugely problematic of course, since it would require some kind of global intellectual revolution for it to be tested in any meaningful way (which I'm all for). You can't [I]sort of[/I] have a free market; it can't be a compromise or a half-arsed pretend try: it's all or nothing.
I think there are mathematical models that show it should at least be considered more seriously. Most game theoretic models show that rational self-interest (given the right set of conditions) is an incredibly strong force for all players.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
Incidentally I think this is why liberalism fails so badly: it's trying to find a compromise half way between anarchy and the state, which just results in some horrible shitty mess that ultimately gets blamed on the free market or other anarchist concepts.
I really don't think the world is ready for anarchy; it won't be until there's enough rational people with the capacity to negotiate. However what this [I]doesn't[/I] mean, is that we should [I]settle[/I] for the state. We should oppose it even more, but recognise that best way to get rid of the state/physical violence is to help breed rationality (I mean literally breeding it; parenting has to be one of the biggest influences in social interactions), not by dismantling it violently or even worse, through the state itself with voting, etc.[/QUOTE]
Any politician who suggests a theory that has no backing will be committing election suicide. And unfortunately, Romney isn't all the way there. He is going to give each state individual health care reforms. But I would rather have that, than universal health care.
The free market isn't something that can be built by politicians anyway. That's why Ron Paul would be a disaster; the function of the state is forcing people to do things, so how would it make sense to put your effort into the entity that is an antithesis to the thing you're trying to realize?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36384143]It's not utilitarian... it's just consequentialism. Utilitarian thinkers most famously adopt it, but calling it 'utilitarian calculus' is extremely misleading since it's missing half of what makes utilitarianism, utilitarianism.
But anyway that's just splitting hairs. The main problem is, if you think there's more than one intrinsic good, you fall prey to all of the problems associated with pluralism. Moral calculus is much more difficult when you're dealing with more than one object. How do you perform calculations with 2 different moral kinds? Who decides how weighted the moral kinds are? What determines the weighting? Why are there even 2?
Maths can't solve all the problems of ethics. It can't even solve the interesting one (I don't think [I]anything[/I] can).
[/QUOTE]
"Utilitarian thinkers most famously adopt it, but calling it 'utilitarian calculus' is extremely misleading since it's missing half of what makes utilitarianism, utilitarianism."
Sure, it might be misleading, but it's still the definition. The same electoral college is called this way, despite it not being an academic college.
"How do you perform calculations with 2 different moral kinds? Who decides how weighted the moral kinds are? What determines the weighting? Why are there even 2?"
You perform calculations by assigning different priorities. The same way you calculation a weighted mean in statistics. Weighting, like all the values, is entirely subjective, therefore each citizen would have different weighting priorities, and therefore different morally maximizing decisions.
The only rational action for someone is to ensure that their values, assigned with their priorities, will be fulfilled to the highest extent possible. I for example, believe that my values will be enforced the best by an expert-led democracy, along with a decentralized collective economic system. The difference in value priorities is the cause of all antagonisms. Something can only be right subjectively. There are no universal or 'natural' laws, or sacred and universal values.
It sounds like you don't believe in more than one intrinsic good at all; you just acknowledge that different people have different things that are instrumental to their goals. Sounds exactly like preference utilitarianism.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36384872]It sounds like you don't believe in more than one intrinsic good at all; you just acknowledge that different people have different things that are instrumental to their goals. Sounds exactly like preference utilitarianism.[/QUOTE]
I believe that the moral benefit of decisions is entirely relative to each person, and depends on the priority they give to each type of values they have, on their knowledge (which largely dictates their ability to fulfill these values), and on many other things. There are no universal moral laws to be followed, no universal liberties to be cherished. In some situations, it's often more beneficial to violate the commonly held values to ensure the greater good.
This can be calculated, and the calculation doesn't even have to have an ethical character. Simply the action, as well as the aggregated desirability of the consequences. Some would think that the consequences are more beneficial than not (then, the action is to be taken), some not. There's no reason to believe that the majority-chosen representatives should dictate these instead of elected experts, unless one believes that the majority-chosen representatives will produce more beneficial actions, which I don't believe at all. But then again - it's just a hypothesis. It has to be tested, and weighted against the representative democracy system. All the variables have to be controlled for.
Fair enough; I'd just note that your view is definitely compatible with preference utilitarianism (which imo is the most defensible kind of utilitarianism). But that aside,
I totally agree that elected experts could produce better results. I'm definitely in favour of experts being at the top, if anyone is. However I think their role would be better realised if their role was voluntarily nominated by everyone who opts in to the society, so they'd effectively be advisers, rather than the state. Obviously, if there's no threat of physical violence, you might be worried that people won't take this expert advice seriously. But I don't think we need the threat of physical violence to compel someone to conform to something like taxation.
Let's say we have a way of recording who's paid a voluntary taxation, where all the money goes to SCHEME X (this scheme being whatever you want; for example let's say tackling climate change), and everyone can access this record. Let's say I produce food for a living, and I really want to tackle climate change, and don't want to be associated with anyone who doesn't share this value. Given my access to this database, I can choose not to give those who don't pay this voluntary climate change tax. If enough people share this value and are willing to act on it, then suddenly life becomes very difficult for you if you don't share this particular value, without anyone having to resort to threats of physical violence.
If not enough people value SCHEME X, then on what grounds should we even be morally compelled to support it? If enough people DO value it, then in a transparent system of honesty and free association, we don't need physical violence. Obviously there'd still be sociopaths etc, who are just violent for violence's sake, but at least the violence would be on a small, local scale that's easy to deal with, rather than an international scale.
I'm still developing this idea so I've probably failed to articulate it as well as I'd hope. I'm just trying to develop a system that's compatible with the non-aggression principle and offers hope of fulfilling lives for everyone.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
Just realised how off topic I've actually gone, but never mind. Once I've started my dissertation for real I'll post a new thread documenting all my ideas in a way that's more coherent.
Ill just leave this here
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPq6_7AFsp4&list=PL39879C27CAFE5561&index=4&feature=plpp_video[/media]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36385257]Fair enough; I'd just note that your view is definitely compatible with preference utilitarianism (which imo is the most defensible kind of utilitarianism). But that aside,
I totally agree that elected experts could produce better results. I'm definitely in favour of experts being at the top, if anyone is. However I think their role would be better realised if their role was voluntarily nominated by everyone who opts in to the society, so they'd effectively be advisers, rather than the state. Obviously, if there's no threat of physical violence, you might be worried that people won't take this expert advice seriously. But I don't think we need the threat of physical violence to compel someone to conform to something like taxation.
Let's say we have a way of recording who's paid a voluntary taxation, where all the money goes to SCHEME X (this scheme being whatever you want; for example let's say tackling climate change), and everyone can access this record. Let's say I produce food for a living, and I really want to tackle climate change, and don't want to be associated with anyone who doesn't share this value. Given my access to this database, I can choose not to give those who don't pay this voluntary climate change tax. If enough people share this value and are willing to act on it, then suddenly life becomes very difficult for you if you don't share this particular value, without anyone having to resort to threats of physical violence.
If not enough people value SCHEME X, then on what grounds should we even be morally compelled to support it? If enough people DO value it, then in a transparent system of honesty and free association, we don't need physical violence. Obviously there'd still be sociopaths etc, who are just violent for violence's sake, but at least the violence would be on a small, local scale that's easy to deal with, rather than an international scale.
I'm still developing this idea so I've probably failed to articulate it as well as I'd hope. I'm just trying to develop a system that's compatible with the non-aggression principle and offers hope of fulfilling lives for everyone.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
Just realised how off topic I've actually gone, but never mind. Once I've started my dissertation for real I'll post a new thread documenting all my ideas in a way that's more coherent.[/QUOTE]
" However I think their role would be better realised if their role was voluntarily nominated by everyone who opts in to the society, so they'd effectively be advisers, rather than the state. Obviously, if there's no threat of physical violence, you might be worried that people won't take this expert advice seriously. But I don't think we need the threat of physical violence to compel someone to conform to something like taxation."
"and don't want to be associated with anyone who doesn't share this value. Given my access to this database, I can choose not to give those who don't pay this voluntary climate change tax."
This is the problem. I believe that my values will be better achieved if there would be a legal system in place, which would still use force rather than free association, as to compel anyone who doesn't share my values to follow them. I don't care if they don't want to. I still believe that the result would justify the means. And this is the exact reason why I'm not an anarchist. I believe that a legal system which applies force when necessary is essential to fulfill my values.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=MalwareOhMy!;36385367]Ill just leave this here
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPq6_7AFsp4&list=PL39879C27CAFE5561&index=4&feature=plpp_video[/media][/QUOTE]
What a stupid garbage video.
[QUOTE=MalwareOhMy!;36385367]Ill just leave this here
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPq6_7AFsp4&list=PL39879C27CAFE5561&index=4&feature=plpp_video[/media][/QUOTE]
Saw your fascist avatar and didn't even bother to open the link.
you didnt even watch it, you disagreed with it so you automatically think it is stupid.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36384100]I agree, the heathcare here isn't perfect. But is universal healthcare the best option? I say no.[/QUOTE]
It's the most ethical one, and it has been proven to work.
So in itself, unless something more ethical and better working comes along which I doubt, this is the best option.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36385420]Saw your fascist avatar and didn't even bother to open the link.[/QUOTE]
Good
[QUOTE=MalwareOhMy!;36385429]you didnt even watch it, you disagreed with it so you automatically think it is stupid.[/QUOTE]
No, I've already seen it. It's from that libertarian retard "HowTheWorldWorks".
[QUOTE=MalwareOhMy!;36385429]you didnt even watch it, you disagreed with it so you automatically think it is stupid.[/QUOTE]
It's obvious to everyone where you and the video is going.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36385464]It's obvious to everyone where you and the video is going.[/QUOTE]
Keeping healthcare the way it is?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36385386]" However I think their role would be better realised if their role was voluntarily nominated by everyone who opts in to the society, so they'd effectively be advisers, rather than the state. Obviously, if there's no threat of physical violence, you might be worried that people won't take this expert advice seriously. But I don't think we need the threat of physical violence to compel someone to conform to something like taxation."
"and don't want to be associated with anyone who doesn't share this value. Given my access to this database, I can choose not to give those who don't pay this voluntary climate change tax."
This is the problem. I believe that my values will be better achieved if there would be a legal system in place, which would still use force rather than free association, as to compel anyone who doesn't share my values to follow them. I don't care if they don't want to. I still believe that the result would justify the means. And this is the exact reason why I'm not an anarchist. I believe that a legal system which applies force when necessary is essential to fulfill my values.[/QUOTE]
Hm. Well, I definitely think it's a testable hypothesis; I think there are at least some reasons to think that you [I]might[/I] be wrong (even though you might also be right). People tend to be happier and lead more fulfilled lives without threats of violence, so if a similar material effect can be managed without violence, it would be preferable.
I personally trust the recommendations of game theory; I think we should definitely test the hypothesis that mutual gain through peaceful cooperation can be widespread; even (almost) universally accepted and beneficial. I just wish it was possible to test the hypothesis, which doesn't seem likely in any timeframe the anarchist can look forward to.
This article thoroughly goes through many points for boths ides.
I found it interesting because it has strong views FOR Universal hc
[url]http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm[/url]
Absolutely for it. People should have the right to be looked after no matter their economic situation.
[QUOTE=MalwareOhMy!;36385489]Keeping healthcare the way it is?[/QUOTE]
yeah? Which doesn't really work.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36385744]Absolutely for it. People should have the right to be looked after no matter their economic situation.[/QUOTE]
Who is going to pay for it though? Does any individual really have any right to receive goods and services provided at other people's expense?
[QUOTE=Noble;36385787]Who is going to pay for it though? Does any individual really have any right to receive goods and services provided at other people's expense?[/QUOTE]
You know there are these things called taxes right?
And uh, yeah they do.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36385759]yeah? Which doesn't really work.[/QUOTE]
prove that it will work better than what we have now.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36385820]You know there are these things called taxes right?
And uh, yeah they do.[/QUOTE]
Why? Why do you have the right to spend my money?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36385820]You know there are these things called taxes right?[/quote]
Yeah, tax is money that the government takes by force from individuals (it's called "theft" when it's done at a personal level) and redistributes elsewhere to pay for things without their consent.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36385820]And uh, yeah they do.[/QUOTE]
They do? Well then I want the government to start providing me with healthy food and a gym membership. I think I have a right to these things. I don't know why I have a right to it, but I just do. And I want you to pay for it with your tax dollars, which will be taken from you with threats of imprisonment.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36386002]Why? Why do you have the right to spend my money?[/QUOTE]
Because you already spend my money and vice versa?
This, uh, isn't a new concept.
[QUOTE=MalwareOhMy!;36385844]prove that it will work better than what we have now.[/QUOTE]
The US isn't exactly a good healthcare system.
[editline]18th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;36386083]Yeah, tax is money that the government takes by force from individuals (it's called "theft" when it's done at a personal level) and redistributes elsewhere to pay for things without their consent.[/QUOTE]
If you want, I'll buy you a ticket to Somalia so you can avoid paying a few dollars to keep society from falling apart.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36385578]Hm. Well, I definitely think it's a testable hypothesis; I think there are at least some reasons to think that you [I]might[/I] be wrong (even though you might also be right). People tend to be happier and lead more fulfilled lives without threats of violence, so if a similar material effect can be managed without violence, it would be preferable.
I personally trust the recommendations of game theory; I think we should definitely test the hypothesis that mutual gain through peaceful cooperation can be widespread; even (almost) universally accepted and beneficial. I just wish it was possible to test the hypothesis, which doesn't seem likely in any timeframe the anarchist can look forward to.[/QUOTE]
My values don't include not using legal sanctions for tax evasion, or not using proper intervention when necessary, unless there's a justification not to do so. I believe that the action of relocation of wealth from the richer classes to health care systems, education, science and technology is fully justified.
If you believe that the state can't collect taxes because the action brings the consequence of coercion which you think is negative, and outweighs the benefits of collective projects, then you can believe so. Your beliefs simply don't coincide with mine, and I will do everything for my values to be enforced rather than yours. That's how social antagonisms work.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.