[QUOTE=s0beit;29079190]I think he was banned for alts
Well, to be completely fair, playing devil's advocate here, as i brought up earlier in the topic, if everyone in the world was educated and had no motives to do manual labor or otherwise shit jobs, how would society continue to function?
You could argue maybe they should be paid more, but really, its an interesting question.[/QUOTE]
Then we would probably have moved away from having "shit jobs" and perfected house robots or other various helping devices.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29079190]I think he was banned for alts
Well, to be completely fair, playing devil's advocate here, as i brought up earlier in the topic, if everyone in the world was educated and had no motives to do manual labor or otherwise shit jobs, how would society continue to function?
You could argue maybe they should be paid more, but really, its an interesting question.[/QUOTE]
A lot of people prefer manual labour actually
[QUOTE=s0beit;29079248]Yes but you're ignoring so many factors when using your own personal experiences you aren't really looking at the grand scheme of things.
You have to ask questions like, how come my parent's money couldn't afford enough goods to feed our family? Why didn't my parents get the proper education?[/QUOTE]
Because my mother was poor because her mother was poor and had to live in a drug filled place casing her brothers to get addicted to crack causing them to beat up my mother causing her to have to drop out of school and me not having a dad and her having to raise a mentally incapable child also helped.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29079292]Because my mother was poor because her mother was poor and had to live in a drug filled place casing her brothers to get addicted to crack causing them to beat up my mother causing her to have to drop out of school and me not having a dad and her having to raise a mentally incapable child also helped.[/QUOTE]
Please re-read my edited post, i didn't want to misrepresent myself so i cleaned it up to make it more clear.
Also, it's quite clear your mother is owed a debt by your father. Our debt collection services are horrible.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29079262]A lot of people prefer manual labour actually[/QUOTE]
i'm gonna let them get on with that while I'm over here not doing that
thank god for mexicans
I wish I didn't have to clarify that was a joke.
I have worked manual labor jobs plenty before, pay was alright, the pay was not commensurate with the agony, as Santa's elves might say.
I've done some labor jobs, not my thing, I enjoy them, but I could only do it for work, not a job or a career.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29079493]I've done some labor jobs, not my thing, I enjoy them, but I could only do it for work, not a job or a career.[/QUOTE]
Depends what kind of labour it is and where you work, if you're a contractor it wouldn't get as boring
[QUOTE=codemaster85;29075922]Still doesn't allow him to be a jackass when listening to people's opinions.[/QUOTE]
Wow he rated me disagree. That means he knows he is a jackass.
Maybe he thinks he has the right to be a jackass I dont know.
I have something to add to this healthcare.
It sure sucks when you are sick, you visit local hospital, they find out what's wrong and give you proper care. Then you are back to your feet and ready to go. It sure sucks when I don't have to pay for it!
Sure sucks to bump a topic that was at the end of it's lifespan, sure sucks to discuss things already discussed in topic past.
Sure sucks to make people have to repeat themselves..
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078988]im not referring to the collapse of the soviet union in that sense. im talking (mostly) about the russian financial crisis of 1998.[/QUOTE]
Estimates regarding quality of health service from WHO in 1997 ranks Russia at the 130th place, so it's still a bad example. The health care of Russia had (and still has) very poor quality. My point still stands, saying socialised health care is flawed and giving Russia as an example is like saying privatised health care is flawed and giving Chad as an example.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29084130]Estimates regarding quality from WHO in 1997 ranks Russia at the 130th place, so it's still a bad example. The health care of Russia had (and still has) very poor quality. My point still stands, saying socialised health care is flawed and giving Russia as an example is like saying privatised health care is flawed and giving Chad as an example.[/QUOTE]
Lol Chad. Such a weird name for a country.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;29084247]Lol Chad. Such a weird name for a country.[/QUOTE]
Not as bad as Swaziland
ah american politics
lulz
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29084130]Estimates regarding quality of health service from WHO in 1997 ranks Russia at the 130th place, so it's still a bad example. The health care of Russia had (and still has) very poor quality. My point still stands, saying socialised health care is flawed and giving Russia as an example is like saying privatised health care is flawed and giving Chad as an example.[/QUOTE]
Considering they defaulted on their debts the next year after free market blowhard shock therapy failed, yes.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078597]It's not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than one-party rule.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily.
I would rather have a fair and just king than a corrupt and ineffectual parliament.
[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29100451]Not necessarily.
I would rather have a fair and just king than a corrupt and ineffectual parliament.[/QUOTE]
You aren't a libertarian, :frog:
I don't blame people for their problems, but I do ask that they pay for them.
[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29101541]I don't blame people for their problems, but I do ask that they pay for them.[/QUOTE]
You now the rich get rich off of the poor and many times the reason why the poor are poor is because of the rich. Not to mention your argument is just an argument out of greed and you believe you deserve your money more then a man with broken legs. Also heres something the worse the poor get the higher the crime rates, suicide, health problems, depression and drug addiction rise for all wages.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29102390]You now the rich get rich off of the poor and many times the reason why the poor are poor is because of the rich. Not to mention your argument is just an argument out of greed and you believe you deserve your money more then a man with broken legs. Also heres something the worse the poor get the higher the crime rates, suicide, health problems, depression and drug addiction rise for all wages.[/QUOTE]
While his argument is almost nonexistent, i don't agree the poor are poor "because of the rich", while his argument may very well be out of "greed", and a person with broken legs might very well use the money to more practical ends, i don't think it's your right to decide who's money belongs to who, especially since somebody voluntarily gave them that money in exchange for a service.
Your view however is that because they spend their money in a way you find displeasing, in a way that might not benefit the disadvantaged, or in a way that might only benefit themselves, they have forfeited their rights to it.
I don't believe any person has a right to rob any other person for any reason. I believe you can ask or suggest to a person they might be more charitable, and that's fine and something i agree with.
Like i said earlier in the topic, the only way taxation could not be considered robbery is if the person who is paying the taxes could choose which services to fund with their tax money, or even opt out of the process altogether (of course, bringing upon certain penalties that would compel the person to pay, if you wish, such as not granting them access to public services and things of that nature)
[QUOTE=s0beit;29102724] i don't think it's your right to decide who's money belongs to[/QUOTE]
You can think this but it really doesnt change that we kind of need taxes if we want a functioning country,
[editline]10th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29102724]Your view however is that because they spend their money in a way you find displeasing, [/QUOTE]
No I believe a poor person needs it more. In other words I would say robin hood was a cool guy. I dont want many people starving because you simply see it as wrong to tax people.
[editline]10th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29102724] (of course, bringing upon certain penalties that would compel the person to pay, if you wish, such as not granting them access to public services and things of that nature)[/QUOTE]
yea but since they are rich they dont need public stuff. Sorry but either wya you slice it this system would cause the death or horrible life of unlucky people.
[editline]10th April 2011[/editline]
Sorry but I dont think rich people deserve more because they were lucky enough to be raised in such an environment to cause them to be rich or be lucky enough to get it out of chance. Really you are saying you would want rich people to have a few extra bucks even if it means the starvation of millions.
[editline]10th April 2011[/editline]
Also there is the health, crime and other things I was talking about. Oh and happiness raises as equality does as well.
Im mean really explain why you believe even though it stops national happiness and health statistically that some people just dont deserve to eat. I believe all humans deserve food and health.
It sure does suck having the NHS over in Britain, where you can go to a doctor, get seen to, get what pills you need (yeah, prescription charges are a tad bullshit) and then get better for nothing more than your taxes and a small charge for prescriptions which helps pay for the chemist's shop. Yeah, that DOES suck. Also, the free A&E does suck when you get hurt badly by accident too!
Oh wait, NO IT DOESN'T!
Enjoy paying for basic medical help, americans! I'll be rocking my free health care!
[QUOTE=CMDBob;29103194]
Oh wait, NO IT DOESN'T!
Enjoy paying for basic medical help, americans! I'll be rocking my free health care![/QUOTE]
Well they pay for insurance if they can
But I don't understand how that's better, why do you guys prefer paying a private corporation that you have no control over instead of a government that you can kick out if you don't like
Universal healthcare is so much more democratic
why did the libertarian fail calculus
[sp]because he refused to solve inequalities[/sp]
[QUOTE=esalaka;28983277]Libertarian party.
Because only rich people deserve human rights.
[editline]4th April 2011[/editline]
Also guns everywhere[/QUOTE]
Why the gun hate?
[QUOTE=CMDBob;29103194]It sure does suck having the NHS over in Britain, where you can go to a doctor, get seen to, get what pills you need (yeah, prescription charges are a tad bullshit) and then get better for nothing more than your taxes and a small charge for prescriptions which helps pay for the chemist's shop. Yeah, that DOES suck. Also, the free A&E does suck when you get hurt badly by accident too!
Oh wait, NO IT DOESN'T!
Enjoy paying for basic medical help, americans! I'll be rocking my free health care![/QUOTE]
Yeah, and enjoy the government telling what you can do with your body in short order when smokers start costing you out of your ears. Drinking is pretty unhealthy too, maybe we should get rid of that. Would save a whole lot of taxpayer money.
Like i described earlier, when you give the government of all people the incentive to make you live a healthy life, it is probably the most expedient means to which freedom is destroyed.
It may very well be a risk you might want to take since to you, the reward might outweigh the risk, but giving the sole entity who has a monopoly on force in our society, who has previously (and currently) been known to ban things for [i]your[/i] own good brings up all kinds of horrible scenarios.
How is drug debate supposed to work in your country? Is the potential for rising cost in the social medicine sector a roadblock to mature, rational discussion on the issue of drug legalization? What about how people live their everyday lives? Such as eating foods which might be destructive to your body or acting a certain way or working a certain job?
You can say, yes, your system does not have these stipulations, and likely it never will. You can't deny however that the government wouldn't be given the incentive to impose such stipulations, and that scares the fuck out of me, personally.
You might also say "yes, but we can vote them out of office!", so? This is a general government problem. It isn't unique to any one party. If you want to cover people who use harmful drugs or decide to take part in harmful activities then you must bare the cost no matter how bad it might get. However, if you decide you might not want to cover those people, or that they should pay more to exercise certain rights then you have just sold your own virtues down the river.
There are also many more problems than this but this is my primary concern.
You also run into the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem]Economic calculation problem[/url], thus making costs rise more internally since governments are paying for services only they can pay for. If there is only one consumer and no other consumers, there is no way to determine the least amount of money one might pay for product (X), your best bet is to guess and more often than not, you will guess wrong and pay exorbitant prices for a service that might otherwise be cheaper.
You might also pay for services there was never really any demand for in the first place.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29103146]You can think this but it really doesnt change that we kind of need taxes if we
want a functioning country,[/quote]
Depends upon which type of taxes we're talking about and what it's being used for.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29103146]No I believe a poor person needs it more. In other words I would say robin hood was a cool guy. I dont want many people starving because you simply see it as wrong to tax people.[/quote]
You at least conceed it is wrong, thats fair enough. Saying it's a necessary evil in society is a step in the right direction. I disagree that people would be starving because wealth wasn't being redistributed, except in rare cases, though.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29103146] yea but since they are rich they dont need public stuff. Sorry but either wya you slice it this system would cause the death or horrible life of unlucky people.[/quote]
The choice aspect or the opting out aspect? Not all social services are just to redistribute wealth, i know in your eyes that should be the primary service of the government however, there are many ways to compel people to pay taxes without actually forcing them to do so with the threat of imprisonment.
Services sure are utilized by the rich, plenty, and plenty could go wrong without the utilization of those services.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29103146]
Sorry but I dont think rich people deserve more because they were lucky enough to be raised in such an environment to cause them to be rich or be lucky enough to get it out of chance. Really you are saying you would want rich people to have a few extra bucks even if it means the starvation of millions.[/quote]
Them being lucky is totally irrelevant to the problem. The problem is the gap in income, the bizzare monetary system we have going on, the numerous regulations and barriers to entry in the workplace. People are people, if you conceed that all people are equal then you must also conceed given the right circumstances, in the proper environment, they all have the [i]potential[/i] to succeed. That is what I'm advocating.
I'm not advocating we don't tax people at all, to the contrary, I'm advocating we destroy the income tax. This would assist the poor and middle class just as it would assist everyone else. Poor and middle class individuals are being harmed in the same sense, often to pay for services somebody of the same income class are utilizing. Some they may never personally utilize themselves. (Such as social security, which it is known statistically to benefit the poorest people less than people in the middle class. Poorer individuals often die before they ever collect any money on social security and they often pay for longer periods of time than people in the middle class, since they enter the workforce earlier than people in the middle or upper classes)
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29103146]
Also there is the health, crime and other things I was talking about. Oh and happiness raises as equality does as well.
Im mean really explain why you believe even though it stops national happiness and health statistically that some people just dont deserve to eat. I believe all humans deserve food and health.[/QUOTE]
All humans should have food and good health, but the question is what means would you use to achieve that goal?
Would you have a society based on volentary, mutually beneficial exchange or a society based on robbery and cocercion?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29103261]Well they pay for insurance if they can
But I don't understand how that's better, why do you guys prefer paying a private corporation that you have no control over instead of a government that you can kick out if you don't like
Universal healthcare is so much more democratic[/QUOTE]
First of all, you're right. I would prefer to not pay a private [i]corporation[/i]. To libertarians, corporations do not exist. (In the sense the very term "corporation" implies government recognition of an entity with the same rights of an individual without any one physical individual being personally responsible for it's actions)
Second, we have [b]enormous[/b] control over private entities. More so than the government. Government may have voting cycles and representatives but they're often the same parties.
The free market, and by that i mean a true free market is [b]far[/b] more democratic than an elected legislature. I'll give you an example.
Let's say the barrier for entry is low, anybody can start a business and maintain it for whatever cost they can afford, so long as workers agree to the pay and so long as the cost is low enough for people to pay for it's services, provided there is enough demand.
Then let's say evil, greedy capitalist (A) runs an insurance company at a higher cost, or it's contractual obligations are unfavorable.
You simply stop paying for it, you convince others to stop paying for it and you find a better suited plan for you. The company falls apart due to it's own incompetence and you now have a better company offering a more favorable service to you, perhaps at a cheaper price or with more favorable contractual obligations. The entire marketplace has been made better because of it.
Now, you'd say what about people with pre-existing conditions, or, why should people have to pay for healthcare at all?
To that i say, pre-existing conditions are an untapped market resource. There are a growing number of individuals out there without insurance coverage due to pre-existing conditions, what i would propose is offering tax incentives to health-lending companies or even insurance companies who would grant you money to fund your health, betting on you getting better, to yield a return in the form of monetary compensation in the same way a real loan works. The person gets better, pays off his debt slowly, lives to see another day.
If you're of the free-healthcare persuasion i would say such a concept isn't impossible in the free market either.
Once again, you can offer tax incentives to non-profit entities, non-profit pooled resource companies who have no incentive to actually make money and are shared by the people investing into it (the consumer), it would be more like how social security is supposed to work. Each consumer pays into a pool of accumulated resources and when somebody gets sick, the company pays for it. It's the same way your social government would work, with the exception that it isn't forcing anyone to pay for anything against their own will.
Competing insurance companies would have to offer lower prices, or other incentives to entice consumers to use their service over your own. Perpetually cheap insurance.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29103716]People are people, if you conceed that all people are equal then you must also conceed given the right circumstances, in the proper environment, they all have the [i]potential[/i] to succeed. That is what I'm advocating.[/QUOTE] Yea but in your world it would be almost impossible to become rich out of being poor. Think about it like the early 19th century. Without regulation people got payed very little, there were monopolies everywhere and life sucked for the worker. I would like government to help pay for school because without it there would be no way at all for a poor person to at least have children to grow up and be success. Even today almost everyone stays in the class they are born in and in your world it will definitely stay that way. With no food stamps there will be a lot of starving people. If you want to raise everyone to there highest potential then you want to aloow them to all get as fair a head start as possible. This is why we need public things. Also you might not have the same view but I believe everyone is should have some form of health care because everyone deserves to live as much as everyone else.
And again studies show that division of wealth is the main cause of many problems through out all wealth groups.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29103716]Would you have a society based on volentary, mutually beneficial exchange or a society based on robbery and cocercion?[/QUOTE]
I like how you worded it. Theres no reason to help people if you cant make money in your world. Sorry but no ones going to want to help the homeless especially when they fallow rands its there fault ideas.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
Heres another thing you guys dont get about vote with your wallets. FIrst rich people get more votes and 2nd you vote to make sure you save the most money. This is why walmart is still making money because poor people have to buy stuff from them even if it destroys small businesses.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29103716]
Let's say the barrier for entry is low, anybody can start a business and maintain it for whatever cost they can afford, so long as workers agree to the pay and so long as the cost is low enough for people to pay for it's services, provided there is enough demand.[/quote]
Well as soon as you start paying employees and offering affordable services the barrier for entry gets a lot higher. Even in a completely free market not just anyone could start up a health insurance company.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29103716]Then let's say evil, greedy capitalist (A) runs an insurance company at a higher cost, or it's contractual obligations are unfavorable.
You simply stop paying for it, you convince others to stop paying for it and you find a better suited plan for you. The company falls apart due to it's own incompetence and you now have a better company offering a more favorable service to you, perhaps at a cheaper price or with more favorable contractual obligations. The entire marketplace has been made better because of it.[/quote]
This would only work if there are multiple options available, in many rural areas there may only be one insurance company that people can choose from. And since a lot of money is required to start an insurance company (and you have to admit - it would be immensely expensive), there may not be anyone available to step up and offer some competition.
I always hear that monopolies would be impossible in a libertarian society but I don't see how.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29103716]To that i say, pre-existing conditions are an untapped market resource. There are a growing number of individuals out there without insurance coverage due to pre-existing conditions, what i would propose is offering tax incentives to health-lending companies or even insurance companies who would grant you money to fund your health, betting on you getting better, to yield a return in the form of monetary compensation in the same way a real loan works. The person gets better, pays off his debt slowly, lives to see another day.[/quote]
The cost to that person would still be much higher than to other people regardless of income, and it's simply unfair (and stupid) to punish someone for a condition they were born with. I'd say it flies in the face of what a free society stands for, as well.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29103716]If you're of the free-healthcare persuasion i would say such a concept isn't impossible in the free market either.
Once again, you can offer tax incentives to non-profit entities, non-profit pooled resource companies who have no incentive to actually make money and are shared by the people investing into it (the consumer), it would be more like how social security is supposed to work. Each consumer pays into a pool of accumulated resources and when somebody gets sick, the company pays for it. It's the same way your social government would work, with the exception that it isn't forcing anyone to pay for anything against their own will.[/quote]
Do you think any healthy people would actually pay into a healthcare co-op? Not likely. Not enough to fund its continued operation, anyway.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
