There are a complex set of conditions that must be met before anarchism can be a viable option for the organisation of society. [I]Obviously[/I] a recently collapsed dictatorship like Somalia is going to be a horrendous example of anarchy.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36401102]There are a complex set of conditions that must be met before anarchism can be a viable option for the organisation of society. [I]Obviously[/I] a recently collapsed dictatorship like Somalia is going to be a horrendous example of anarchy.[/QUOTE]
Anarchism doesn't work, people will just create their own governments inside the state.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36401086]You have an unsympathetic, shallow view of poor people, like most free market supporters.
The free market only benefits the companies, everyone else gets buggered due to a lack fo regulation.[/QUOTE]
There is no way that you even read my posts.
I'm a little tired of my words being twisted round in a way that totally betrays the sorts of premises I'm trying to make. Can't be bothered to debate right now.
All I'll say is that I think money is a piss-poor representation of somebody's value in society, therefore 'wealth', and hence the rich/poor distinction you're talking about, isn't even remotely representative of the sort of society I envisage anarchy working in. Until wealth converges with the value of one's labour, I totally, fully agree that healthcare shouldn't be allocated on its merits.
I don't think the government should just fuck off in the morning and leave us with our existing power relationships, and pretend that it would magically be an anarchist's utopia. I just think people should recognise where value lies, and appreciate the notion that if wealth and value converge (which they absolutely have not, in society today), then a coercive body like the state becomes undesirable and unnecessary (once society has [I]collectively[/I] recognised that money isn't truly valuable unless it represents labour).
[editline]19th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36401156]Anarchism doesn't work, people will just create their own governments inside the state.[/QUOTE]
Oh, why didn't you just say that in the first place. If someone had told me right from the start 'sorry you're wrong' I wouldn't have gone to all of this fuss trying to make substantial arguments in favor of my position. While I'm at it I should let my philosophy department know that they shouldn't bother writing complex, sound arguments, since apparently saying 'X is false' is a good enough argument.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36401198]There is no way that you even read my posts.
I'm a little tired of my words being twisted round in a way that totally betrays the sorts of premises I'm trying to make. Can't be bothered to debate right now.
All I'll say is that I think money is a piss-poor representation of somebody's value in society, therefore 'wealth', and hence the rich/poor distinction you're talking about, isn't even remotely representative of the sort of society I envisage anarchy working in. Until wealth converges with the value of one's labour, I totally, fully agree that healthcare shouldn't be allocated on its merits.
I don't think the government should just fuck off in the morning and leave us with our existing power relationships, and pretend that it would magically be an anarchist's utopia. I just think people should recognise where value lies, and appreciate the notion that if wealth and value converge (which they absolutely have not, in society today), then a coercive body like the state becomes undesirable and unnecessary (once society has [I]collectively[/I] recognised that money isn't truly valuable unless it represents labour).
[/QUOTE]
But that isn't anarchism, maybe a form of anarchism, but not pure anarchism.
[editline]19th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36401198]
Oh, why didn't you just say that in the first place. If someone had told me right from the start 'sorry you're wrong' I wouldn't have gone to all of this fuss trying to make substantial arguments in favor of my position. While I'm at it I should let my philosophy department know that they shouldn't bother writing complex, sound arguments, since apparently saying 'X is false' is a good enough argument.[/QUOTE]
It's true in regard to pure anarchism, which I'm going to assume since you haven't specified on which type of anarchism you follow.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36400667]Longing for your old Soviet state?[/QUOTE]
No? What kind of reasoning is that? I hope you do know South Korea, and its economic miracle is, for example. And how it was brought about.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36401910]No? What kind of reasoning is that? I hope you do know South Korea, and its economic miracle is, for example. And how it was brought about.[/QUOTE]
I would [I]never[/I] sacrifice civil rights for economic miracles.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36402339]I would [I]never[/I] sacrifice civil rights for economic miracles.[/QUOTE]
I'd say that entirely depends on the rights
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36402339]I would [I]never[/I] sacrifice civil rights for economic miracles.[/QUOTE]
Tell that to the starving South Koreans of the 1950. Also, tell that to those who are dying because they can't afford proper health care. Tell this to those who are homeless because they can't afford an adequate shelter.
I'm mostly a supporter of democracy, but not all of its aspects. Some aspects do more harm than good.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36401260]But that isn't anarchism, maybe a form of anarchism, but not pure anarchism.[/QUOTE]
What even is 'pure anarchism'? You're an anarchist if you come to believe in the non-aggression principle through some channel. I've came to believe it through game theoretic models, and there's inherently only certain conditions where NAP really applies, and I don't think these conditions have been met. So in the mean time all the anarchist can do is motivate the set of conditions required to make it applicable. Just because I don't have an absolute, religious faith in the NAP it doesn't mean I'm not an anarchist.
That being said, there's some strands of anarchism I'm not very fond of, like anarcho-capitalism, since the homestead principle really betrays the strengths anarchism offers.
I reject statism because I think adopting it requires you to accommodate for certain irrational beliefs, such as the belief that we can be alienated from our labour. It fails to appreciate the fact that we are so much in control of what we do with our lives. In order for the state to sustain itself, certain true beliefs have to be forgotten or ignored (which I think is achieved through cultural hegemonic domination). I'm deeply distrusting of a family of theories that requires you to ignore something as basic as your autonomy and self-ownership.
There is 'free' healthcare in Sweden, and it works really good. I wouldn't see my self paying 10,000 SEK for a surgery a patient needs, or to save his/her life. Seems kinda immoral to me. I'd gladly pay high taxes for a well paid society.
[QUOTE=MILKE;36404167]There is 'free' healthcare in Sweden, and it works really good. I wouldn't see my self paying 10,000 SEK for a surgery a patient needs, or to save his/her life. Seems kinda immoral to me. I'd gladly pay high taxes for a well paid society.[/QUOTE]
UHC probably works better in small countries than in large countries. I mean, America has 300 million +, isn't that gonna be an issue?
Well, generally, I guess small democracies are better than large democracies.
This would never work in the USA because of how shitty peoples lifestyles are. A huge reason why people in France have great health is because they have higher standards of living, NOT because they have free healthcare. With the capitalist society of the USA, a change in lifestyle is essentially impossible.
[QUOTE=MalwareOhMy!;36407896]This would never work in the USA because of how shitty peoples lifestyles are. A huge reason why people in France have great health is because they have higher standards of living, NOT because they have free healthcare. With the capitalist society of the USA, a change in lifestyle is essentially impossible.[/QUOTE]
While socio-economic status does affect general well-being (through diet among other things) that is unrelated to the availability and affordability of healthcare, which is what is being discussed. Also, it's not like social mobility doesn't exist in America. Also you have the symbol of Italian Fascism as your avatar which isn't a good sign
[QUOTE=MILKE;36404167]There is 'free' healthcare in Sweden, and it works really good. I wouldn't see my self paying 10,000 SEK for a surgery a patient needs, or to save his/her life. Seems kinda immoral to me. I'd gladly pay high taxes for a well paid society.[/QUOTE]
good. if you would gladly pay taxes, do it. dont force everybody in your country with the threat of violence to.
another person assuming that without welfare people are going to die
[QUOTE=Kentz;36410486]good. if you would gladly pay taxes, do it. dont force everybody in your country with the threat of violence to.[/quote]
More placing greater value on preserving money over life under a moral banner of coercion is bad
[quote]another person assuming that without welfare people are going to die[/QUOTE]
People will die no matter what system you have, without UHC people (specifically in the US in this example) are more [I]likely[/I] to die due to being uninsured and the monetary pressures seeking treatments imparts upon them.
[quote="CNN"]The researchers examined government health surveys from more than 9,000 people aged 17 to 64, taken from 1986-1994, and then followed up through 2000. They determined that the uninsured have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The researchers then extrapolated the results to census data from 2005 and calculated there were 44,789 deaths associated with lack of health insurance.[/quote]
[url]http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-18/health/deaths.health.insurance_1_health-insurance-david-himmelstein-debate-over-health-care?_s=PM:HEALTH[/url]
[quote="reuters"]Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.[/quote]
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917[/url]
There is no assumption in saying UHC is a better system than the current US model, as most other 1st world countries can attest to.
I don't think anyone here is making the mistake of thinking that the US healthcare system is anything but a total joke. The sort of private healthcare someone like an anarchist is talking about is too radically different from the US private healthcare to even warrant the comparison. Unfortunately there's never been a society where things like healthcare isn't ultimately wrapped up in the government, with pharmaceutical patents, lobbying, etc. This makes statistics relatively useless in attesting anarchism. I definitely think that the lack of a body of statistics is a big problem for anarchism, but the best we can do is appeal to untested mathematical models.
So sadly appealing to statistics - certainly any belonging to a society like the US - isn't the right way to attack anarchism. If you want to attack it, attack the game theoretic arguments that are trying to show peaceful cooperation is the dominant strategy in a game of rational agents. Because I think if its findings genuinely can be correlated to real social life on a large scale, anarchy simply wins.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36403955]What even is 'pure anarchism'? You're an anarchist if you come to believe in the non-aggression principle through some channel. I've came to believe it through game theoretic models, and there's inherently only certain conditions where NAP really applies, and I don't think these conditions have been met. So in the mean time all the anarchist can do is motivate the set of conditions required to make it applicable. Just because I don't have an absolute, religious faith in the NAP it doesn't mean I'm not an anarchist.
That being said, there's some strands of anarchism I'm not very fond of, like anarcho-capitalism, since the homestead principle really betrays the strengths anarchism offers.
I reject statism because I think adopting it requires you to accommodate for certain irrational beliefs, such as the belief that we can be alienated from our labour. It fails to appreciate the fact that we are so much in control of what we do with our lives. In order for the state to sustain itself, certain true beliefs have to be forgotten or ignored (which I think is achieved through cultural hegemonic domination). I'm deeply distrusting of a family of theories that requires you to ignore something as basic as your autonomy and self-ownership.[/QUOTE]
How can you hate anarcho capitalism when your ideology is pretty much identical to it?
[editline]20th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=MalwareOhMy!;36407896]This would never work in the USA because of how shitty peoples lifestyles are. A huge reason why people in France have great health is because they have higher standards of living, NOT because they have free healthcare. With the capitalist society of the USA, a change in lifestyle is essentially impossible.[/QUOTE]
The UK has a pretty shitty life style and it works pretty well here.
[editline]20th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36410912]I don't think anyone here is making the mistake of thinking that the US healthcare system is anything but a total joke. The sort of private healthcare someone like an anarchist is talking about is too radically different from the US private healthcare to even warrant the comparison. Unfortunately there's never been a society where things like healthcare isn't ultimately wrapped up in the government, with pharmaceutical patents, lobbying, etc. This makes statistics relatively useless in attesting anarchism. I definitely think that the lack of a body of statistics is a big problem for anarchism, but the best we can do is appeal to untested mathematical models.
So sadly appealing to statistics - certainly any belonging to a society like the US - isn't the right way to attack anarchism. If you want to attack it, attack the game theoretic arguments that are trying to show peaceful cooperation is the dominant strategy in a game of rational agents. Because I think if its findings genuinely can be correlated to real social life on a large scale, anarchy simply wins.[/QUOTE]
But patents are essential to fair play so people can't flat out steal another persons idea.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36410762]More placing greater value on preserving money over life under a moral banner of coercion is bad
People will die no matter what system you have, without UHC people (specifically in the US in this example) are more [I]likely[/I] to die due to being uninsured and the monetary pressures seeking treatments imparts upon them.
[url]http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-18/health/deaths.health.insurance_1_health-insurance-david-himmelstein-debate-over-health-care?_s=PM:HEALTH[/url]
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917[/url]
There is no assumption in saying UHC is a better system than the current US model, as most other 1st world countries can attest to.[/QUOTE]
i am not talking about preserving money. i am saying that everybody should be free to spend their money how they desire. i myself would without taxes gladly give a lot of my income to charity, which in many ways would be more effective than a welfare state (less bureaucracy et cetera).
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36410968]How can you hate anarcho capitalism when your ideology is pretty much identical to it?[/QUOTE]
Because one of the central differences is their adoption of the homestead principle, which I think is absolutely absurd and irrational.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36400140]I won't even reply to you. I will just let you think on what you've just said.
Here's a tip:
Government-ran collectivized economy and free market aren't the only economic models out there.
That's like me coming up to someone and offering them a Vanilla ice cream, and then when they say that they don't like Vanilla ice cream, saying "So you like shit flavored ice cream then? But hey, some people enjoy eating other people's feces."[/QUOTE]
i am sorry, perhaps your red flag avatar, citing soviet charts of healthcare and wanting to restrict my liberty in your society confused me.
[QUOTE=Kentz;36411075]i am not talking about preserving money. i am saying that everybody should be free to spend their money how they desire. i myself would without taxes gladly give a lot of my income to charity, which in many ways would be more effective than a welfare state (less bureaucracy et cetera).[/QUOTE]
I disagree, I feel it's perfectly fine for a government to take money from you and put it to better use as long as they leave you with a decent amount (for example, taxing someone on a £25,000 wage 40% would be wrong, however a 40% tax rate for someone who has a £400,000 wage would be absolutely fine).
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36410968]But patents are essential to fair play so people can't flat out steal another persons idea.[/QUOTE]
Sure, in principle, but do you seriously think that's how they operate in practice? They're essentially a way for companies to in some sense buy the right to get the state to threaten competing businesses.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36411158]Sure, in principle, but do you seriously think that's how they operate in practice? They're essentially a way for companies to in some sense buy the right to get the state to threaten competing businesses.[/QUOTE]
If you think the idea of patents should exist then you're not an anarchist in any real way. Although I do agree that the patenting system does need a rehash
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411143]I disagree, I feel it's perfectly fine for a government to take money from you and put it to better use as long as they leave you with a decent amount (for example, taxing someone on a £25,000 wage 40% would be wrong, however a 40% tax rate for someone who has a £400,000 wage would be absolutely fine).[/QUOTE]
and i think no amount of violence will ever solve our social problems and it doesnt matter who the target is, the rich or the poor.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;36407180]UHC probably works better in small countries than in large countries. I mean, America has 300 million +, isn't that gonna be an issue?
Well, generally, I guess small democracies are better than large democracies.[/QUOTE]
It's all scaleable. More people = more patients. But more people also = more tax dollars.
Also, the government will never take money for you just for someone's surgery. Western capitalist/democratic mix systems just don't function that way.
[QUOTE=Kentz;36411243]and i think no amount of violence will ever solve our social problems and it doesnt matter who the target is, the rich or the poor.[/QUOTE]
What violence?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411240]If you think the idea of patents should exist then you're not an anarchist in any real way. Although I do agree that the patenting system does need a rehash[/QUOTE]
I don't think it should exist. It can't exist without the state.
[editline]20th June 2012[/editline]
What's the deal with you always trying to trip me up and prove I'm not an anarchist? I don't really care what I'm called; I believe the state shouldn't exist, do I need to pass any more of your tests before I get to associate myself with anarchism?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36411492]I don't think it should exist. It can't exist without the state.
[editline]20th June 2012[/editline]
What's the deal with you always trying to trip me up and prove I'm not an anarchist? I don't really care what I'm called; I believe the state shouldn't exist, do I need to pass any more of your tests before I get to associate myself with anarchism?[/QUOTE]
So people should be allowed to leech of others ideas?
Also if you don't believe that there should be a state then how can you also believe that things like the police shouldn't be privately owned?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36411430]What violence?[/QUOTE]
The violence associated with non-voluntary taxes. If you don't pay your taxes you get thrown in prison. That's violence.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36411513]The violence associated with non-voluntary taxes. If you don't pay your taxes you get thrown in prison. That's violence.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't, violence is going in, punching the guy in his face and stealing his bank card, not taking him to court.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.