In defense of capitalism

[dragonfliet]

1. http://www.lifeanddebt.org/about.html Prime Minister Michael Manley did in fact agree to borrowing from the IMF. No objections there I hope.

2. You are right, I have no proof that Manley knew the terms of the contract. I am just assuming he read it before he signed it.

3. http://www.lifeanddebt.org/about.html The documentary says so itself, borrowing from the IMF and other lending agencies ushered in the economic trouble that Jamaica is currently facing.

This is the point that I'm making. The IMF is a capitalist force. They LOAN money (one of the pinnacles of capitalism: it is pure profit), not give it (socialism). Because of the loan, they were forced to accept a free market capitalism economy (rather than subsidies and tariffs as they had had before) and were immediately driven into ruin by monopolistic practices. See, this is an example of free market capitalism completely screwing the crap out of people. You will argue that look, people benefit, which is true; the problem is that a very few people benefit at the crushing poverty of very many people.

Don't tell the Romans or the Greeks that education wasn't valued. Almost the entire history of education has been that of private education, and yet it never got cheaper. You simply have no clue. Any facts on your side? I'd love to see your links.

"The boys of Sparta were obliged to leave home at the age of 7 to join sternly disciplined groups under the supervision of a hierarchy of officers." Mandatory, public education.

Yes, I used them as an example because they highly valued education, a refutation of you saying that until recently noone did.

In Athens, "The schools were private, but the tuition was low enough so that even the poorest citizens could afford to send their children for at least a few years."

http://www.greeceindex.com/greece-education/greek_education_ancient_greece.html

Interesting, but how about something a little more scholarly (and less trying to sell something? Unfortunately, wikipedia is the best that can be done on short notice (but is still much better than a tourism site): "For most of Greek history, education was private, except in Sparta. During the Hellenistic period, some city-states established public schools. Only wealthy families could afford a teacher."

You can't possibly argue the practical side because you have NOTHING. Show to me 3 persons who have risen through a capitalist society in which they were born in poverty and had ZERO access to a free educational system and you win. I am going to bet you can't.

Andrew Carnegie
John D. Rockefeller
Mark Twain

I win.

Andrew Carnegie

Andrew Carnegie was indeed an exceptional man. It's too bad he got 5 years of formal public education, which provided him the ability to go on and do the great things he did. In fact, "he believed the poor should be supported by education and training. In this way, they could take advantage of the same opportunities America had given him. Third, Carnegie felt it was the duty of the person who gave the money to ensure that it was used wisely." (from Carnegie institute). You're gonna have to look a bit deeper to find someone that rose mythically from poverty and lack of social aid.

John D. Rockefeller

Also quite a figure, but he came from a family that was moderately set financially, even if emotionally screwed up. From the wikipedia article you posted: "When he was a boy, his family moved to Moravia, New York and, in 1851, to Owego, New York, where he attended Owego Academy. In 1853, his family bought a house in Strongsville, a town close to Cleveland. In September 1855, when Rockefeller was 16 he got his first job as an assistant bookkeeper." It should be noted that Owego Academy was a free school.

Mark Twain

While I could not find any specific information on a very quick search of the internet about Mark Twain's early education, here is from the wikipedia article you showed: "In 1851, he began working as a typesetter and contributor of articles and humorous sketches for the Hannibal Journal, a newspaper owned by his brother, Orion. When he was 18, he left Hannibal and worked as a printer in New York City, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Cincinnati. He joined the union and educated himself in public libraries in the evenings, finding wider sources of information than he would have at a conventional school."

perhaps you misunderstand what I mean when I say coming from poverty and taking no advantage of socialist support mechanisms.

No! Completely, absolutely unquestionably wrong. Thomas Jefferson was one of the foremost advocates of the inalienable right to property. He wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [destructive of these rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." This means that when a government allows people to steal, it is the right and responsibility of the citizens to alter or abolish it in order to make themselves safer, not to do so to make stealing legal.

And here I thought that the Declaration of Independence said that the inalienable rights were to Life, Liberty and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. How odd of me... http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm don't worry, I'll wait. (Hint: it's in the second paragraph in front of the part you quoted)
I am not advocating an anarchic state but one in which tyranical monopolies do not have the right to keep the masses suppressed without the ability to rise.

1) by the time you realize, you're dead. 2) how on EARTH can you find out where that pepper came from? How would you have the resources to find it? 3) Large corporations have many, many interests on their side who want their money. Since all government is corrupt, how easy do you think it will be able to sue this company when there is no widely recognized organization to present your case?

1. Ok.
2. If 1 is true, your relatives can use an autopsy, and still sue.
3. Hire a private investigation team. Sure, most people can't, but rich people eat jalapenos too. I'd also be willing to bet that some would be willing to investigate without profit, just for the recognition (and maybe satisfaction as well) of helping to bring down a corrupt corporation.[/quote]
Sue over what? That a natural disease got on produce? It wasn't something malicious or due to neglect, it's simply something that can happen. There could be no settlement and the case would be dismissed (how many lawsuits are surrounding these cases and how many of them are won?). So there is no financial reparations for the MASSIVE amount of money that would have to be spent. Really, is this going to be kept in check?

Link to any sort of proof? I wonder why the people of those "inferior" social health systems live longer, healthier, more satisfied lives?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/hl856.cfm
Pay attention to number 6 especially. The American system is far from laissez-faire, and I think that contributes a lot to many of our problems today. The rest I would attribute to cultural choices. Aren't we still the fattest nation?

Geez, what's with you people? Athlete criticizes me for posting links, and you criticize me for not posting links to the statistics backing up every little statement I make...[/quote]

Never been the fattest nation, that belongs to a number of very small nations that are very, very poverty stricken, but yes, America is pretty fat.

This is a refutation of Canada's health care system not being perfect. I can follow that. I haven't ever trumpeted Canada's brilliant health care system, only said it's better than ours (which it is, read your article). Sure there are issues with queing, but there are issues with that no matter what. How many people have died while waiting in the ER to be seen (answer: a lot), how long does it take to get a non-emergency MRI (answer: quite a while)

Let's go through the list of the WHO's best health care systems:
1) France: government sponsored
2) Italy: government sponsored
3)San Marino: I think government sponsored, but I can't really tell.
4) Andorra: Government sponsored (page 17)
5)Malta: Government sponsored.
6) Singapore: A blend of public and private, but individuals are REQUIRED to set aside health care savings

You get the drift? (and BTW, Japan also provides universal health care, I remember you bringing them up before)

~Jason

[Mr. Happy]

Seems while I've been away on vacation this thread has gotten much longer and I'll have to read it all tommorow. But there's something that's been on my mind so I want to post it.

At any rate, the simple fact of the matter is that arguing for or against one single system is inane. Sorry, I meant stupid.

It's a simple and obvious fact when you look at the REAL world that you have to have a middle ground blending to create something that works.

Pure free-market capitalism inevitably causes the collapse of economies, and pure communism doesn't work on a large scale.

Let's look at America's economy, which under our current government's "conservative" (and I use that term very very lightly) hand has been spiraling down the gutter. If it was pure capitalist, it would be completely broken now.

Now look at China's economy, a communisty society (and I use that term very very lightly) which with capitalist reforms is booming louder than any boom any country has had before. If it was pure communist they would still be a mostly agrarian economy.

You need blending of socialism and capitalism. It's just like politics, countries are too large now to operate by pure democracy, and a pure republic is, by definition, a dictatorship. It's funny how socialist practices (re: the New Deal, re: Ronald Reagen & gasoline) always save our economy when some assholes get it in their mind that they need to remove the regulatory stop-blocks that are preventing some other assholes from completely dismantling it to their own gain. Of course sometimes it's the same person doing both (re: Reagen...sigh what a fool) Which is, of course, what will have to happen again here soon (re: Bush fucking everything up and causing a recession).

Oh, and about Carnegie, I sure love his steel. Nice how that worked out in the long run.

[Sacul15]

This is the point that I'm making. The IMF is a capitalist force. They LOAN money (one of the pinnacles of capitalism: it is pure profit), not give it (socialism). Because of the loan, they were forced to accept a free market capitalism economy (rather than subsidies and tariffs as they had had before) and were immediately driven into ruin by monopolistic practices. See, this is an example of free market capitalism completely screwing the crap out of people. You will argue that look, people benefit, which is true; the problem is that a very few people benefit at the crushing poverty of very many people.

The IMF isn't privately owned, it's a global money borrower and lender. It's like saying the Fed is a capitalist force because they do the same. Yes, they might make profit, but eventually all that money ends up back to its members, and not to the bank account of some company president. Because they chose (yes they did choose to borrow, regardless of whether it was their best option or not, which it probably wasn't, judging by the current state of things) to take money from the IMF, they must suffer the consequences, just like if a home-owner takes a loan he can't pay back. It was the Keynesian manipulation of incentives and the money supply that brought the Jamaican economy to its knees. By the way, you still failed to answer my question. If capitalism is truly to blame and those monopolies are keeping the Jamaican people in poverty, do you think that if all those greedy foreign exploiters left, Jamaica would be any better?

Yes, I used them as an example because they highly valued education, a refutation of you saying that until recently noone did.

I meant value education in today's sense: to prepare someone so that he is valuable in the work-force. The wikipedia article states "They studied not for a job, but to become an effective citizen," meaning education was not required to be successful financially.

Andrew Carnegie was indeed an exceptional man. It's too bad he got 5 years of formal public education, which provided him the ability to go on and do the great things he did. In fact, "he believed the poor should be supported by education and training. In this way, they could take advantage of the same opportunities America had given him. Third, Carnegie felt it was the duty of the person who gave the money to ensure that it was used wisely." (from Carnegie institute). You're gonna have to look a bit deeper to find someone that rose mythically from poverty and lack of social aid.

Yep, that fourth grade education (could you provide a link to the site that says public, please?) certainly did help him. Come on, he had no understanding of economics or business and he learned that through his own initiative and the charity of other people.

Also quite a figure, but he came from a family that was moderately set financially, even if emotionally screwed up. From the wikipedia article you posted: "When he was a boy, his family moved to Moravia, New York and, in 1851, to Owego, New York, where he attended Owego Academy. In 1853, his family bought a house in Strongsville, a town close to Cleveland. In September 1855, when Rockefeller was 16 he got his first job as an assistant bookkeeper." It should be noted that Owego Academy was a free school.

His father would often leave for long periods of time, leaving the family without a means to support themselves. While they weren't necessarily starving, they were far from "moderately set financially."

Owego wasn't free. "The tuition was $2, $3, $4 per quarter, according to the studies pursued." http://www.griffingweb.com/our_beloved_and_once_happy_hours.htm

While I could not find any specific information on a very quick search of the internet about Mark Twain's early education, here is from the wikipedia article you showed: "In 1851, he began working as a typesetter and contributor of articles and humorous sketches for the Hannibal Journal, a newspaper owned by his brother, Orion. When he was 18, he left Hannibal and worked as a printer in New York City, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Cincinnati. He joined the union and educated himself in public libraries in the evenings, finding wider sources of information than he would have at a conventional school."

I guess I overlooked that, but do you really think that without those libraries Mark Twain would never have made it? The article says he started going to public libraries at age 18 and a few years later he became a steamboat pilot, with a wage equivalent to $155,000 today, certainly enough to purchase books.

Yes it's probably impossible to find a person who fits those requirements perfectly. That's because there has never been a perfectly capitalist environment, and people are going to utilize those social programs regardless. These three examples clearly show that success out of poverty is possible, and you are rejecting them do to the tiniest influence of socialism in their lives.

And here I thought that the Declaration of Independence said that the inalienable rights were to Life, Liberty and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. How odd of me... http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm don't worry, I'll wait. (Hint: it's in the second paragraph in front of the part you quoted)
I am not advocating an anarchic state but one in which tyranical monopolies do not have the right to keep the masses suppressed without the ability to rise.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1550.htm
I suggest you do some research on the subject. Jefferson took his inalienable rights from John Locke's version, which included Life, Liberty, and Estate (commonly referred to as property). His decision to not state property in the Declaration of Independence was not that he disagreed with it, but that he thought it might be interpreted as "people have a right to property", rather than "people have a right of property"- that they would think they are entitled to objects rather than having to work for them. The right to own property is still implied in it though, under liberty and pursuit of happiness.

One quote that struck me as extremely relevant:
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'"

Sue over what? That a natural disease got on produce? It wasn't something malicious or due to neglect, it's simply something that can happen. There could be no settlement and the case would be dismissed (how many lawsuits are surrounding these cases and how many of them are won?). So there is no financial reparations for the MASSIVE amount of money that would have to be spent. Really, is this going to be kept in check?

If the FDA can remove a natural disease, then a company certainly can as well. That would be neglect, in my opinion. Besides suing, there is also the ever present check of demand. If people think a product is unsafe, they don't buy it. When the salmonella was really big in tomatoes, my family didn't buy them. Simple as that. If enough people don't buy the product, the company is forced to act.

Let's go through the list of the WHO's best health care systems:
1) France: government sponsored
2) Italy: government sponsored
3)San Marino: I think government sponsored, but I can't really tell.
4) Andorra: Government sponsored (page 17)
5)Malta: Government sponsored.
6) Singapore: A blend of public and private, but individuals are REQUIRED to set aside health care savings

From The World Health Organization's website:
"In the 21st century, health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats." Yep, sounds pretty unbiased to me. What are the factors that determine the "best" systems?

At any rate, the simple fact of the matter is that arguing for or against one single system is inane. Sorry, I meant stupid.

It's a simple and obvious fact when you look at the REAL world that you have to have a middle ground blending to create something that works.

Pure free-market capitalism inevitably causes the collapse of economies, and pure communism doesn't work on a large scale.

Why is it stupid? Because different "pure" systems failed? Did they fail because they were pure or because they were flawed?

Capitalism isn't perfect in the sense that it does not create a perfect world. There will still be criminals, power hungry politicians, and corrupt businessmen. You are right in asserting that there must be a balance, but not between socialism and capitalism. The balance must be between complete government power and anarchy, and the perfect compromise is a society that secures, or at least strives to secure the basic, inalienable rights of life, liberty, property (yes, property), and the most important of all, the right of a human being to pursue the things that make him happy, as long as his wants don't conflict with the rights of others.

Oh, and about Carnegie, I sure love his steel. Nice how that worked out in the long run.

Hmm, a business that had a president who gave away all of its profits didn't last 150 years. Yep, that just shows that capitalism doesn't work...

[Mr. Happy]

Capitalism isn't perfect in the sense that it does not create a perfect world. There will still be criminals, power hungry politicians, and corrupt businessmen. You are right in asserting that there must be a balance, but not between socialism and capitalism. The balance must be between complete government power and anarchy, and the perfect compromise is a society that secures, or at least strives to secure the basic, inalienable rights of life, liberty, property (yes, property), and the most important of all, the right of a human being to pursue the things that make him happy, as long as his wants don't conflict with the rights of others.

Thanks for restating my point for me with different words, you sure are so clever. I know it's frustrating for you to agree with me since I always end up being right, but it's ok, you can admit you were wrong!

As we have both agreed, pure free market capitalism is absolute crap that causes the complete collapse of economies, that is why there are regulations, that is why there is a touch of socialism, and that is why neo-cons go to hell, they destroy people's lives.

[Sacul15]

Capitalism isn't perfect in the sense that it does not create a perfect world. There will still be criminals, power hungry politicians, and corrupt businessmen. You are right in asserting that there must be a balance, but not between socialism and capitalism. The balance must be between complete government power and anarchy, and the perfect compromise is a society that secures, or at least strives to secure the basic, inalienable rights of life, liberty, property (yes, property), and the most important of all, the right of a human being to pursue the things that make him happy, as long as his wants don't conflict with the rights of others.

Thanks for restating my point for me with different words, you sure are so clever. I know it's frustrating for you to agree with me since I always end up being right, but it's ok, you can admit you were wrong!

As we have both agreed, pure free market capitalism is absolute crap that causes the complete collapse of economies, that is why there are regulations, that is why there is a touch of socialism, and that is why neo-cons go to hell, they destroy people's lives.

Hey man, nobody's making you argue with me. If you really find it that difficult you don't have to reply.

[dragonfliet]

The IMF isn't privately owned, it's a global money borrower and lender. It's like saying the Fed is a capitalist force because they do the same. Yes, they might make profit, but eventually all that money ends up back to its members, and not to the bank account of some company president. Because they chose (yes they did choose to borrow, regardless of whether it was their best option or not, which it probably wasn't, judging by the current state of things) to take money from the IMF, they must suffer the consequences, just like if a home-owner takes a loan he can't pay back. It was the Keynesian manipulation of incentives and the money supply that brought the Jamaican economy to its knees. By the way, you still failed to answer my question. If capitalism is truly to blame and those monopolies are keeping the Jamaican people in poverty, do you think that if all those greedy foreign exploiters left, Jamaica would be any better?

You seem to have a very tentative grasp on capitalism: if you spend money to make money, resulting in the net profit of your company of whose members are drawing a salary, that is a capitalist endeavor. All of the board members are drawing a (large) salary because of that profit.

I have no desire, however, to debate this specific point anymore. If you have any actual interest in learning, check out the documentary.

Yep, that fourth grade education (could you provide a link to the site that says public, please?) certainly did help him. Come on, he had no understanding of economics or business and he learned that through his own initiative and the charity of other people.

I have never debated that any of the great men of history have risen to their heights because of their keen intellect and hard work. I believe very firmly that hard work should be rewarded and that one has the right to profit from his work. Not having a massive Carnegie biography on hand, I couldn't give you definitive proof, but can only extrapolate it from his economic station and the earlier quote.

Owego wasn't free. "The tuition was $2, $3, $4 per quarter, according to the studies pursued." http://www.griffingweb.com/our_beloved_and_once_happy_hours.htm

Again, I point you to the first link(if an account by a person that actually attended the free academy doesn't count for something, you should be stoned to death), and then also the tourism website. No, it wasn't always free, but it was a school the provided free education to many.

I guess I overlooked that, but do you really think that without those libraries Mark Twain would never have made it? The article says he started going to public libraries at age 18 and a few years later he became a steamboat pilot, with a wage equivalent to $155,000 today, certainly enough to purchase books.

Yes it's probably impossible to find a person who fits those requirements perfectly. That's because there has never been a perfectly capitalist environment, and people are going to utilize those social programs regardless. These three examples clearly show that success out of poverty is possible, and you are rejecting them do to the tiniest influence of socialism in their lives.

I can say with absolute certainty that Mark Twain would not have existed if it weren't for the public library: an author must read (a lot) in order to learn to really write. It was, however, his entire early education that allowed for Mark Twain to succeed in his later life in all aspects.

You're right, there has never been a pure form of capitalism, but the reason you can't find any figures that succeeded without any hope isn't because of that, it's because every single person needs that first step in order to even begin.

Those three examples DO clearly show that success out of poverty is possible and I hail them as brilliant men who truly seized hold of their destinies and good for them! They are shining examples and inspirations and we should strive after their examples. I am not rejecting their accomplishments, I am simply saying that they would not have been possible without the public generosity of free or subsidized education and free libraries. This is why I am ALL in favor for a capitalist society that is mixed with socialist supports: so that ALL people have the opportunities in life to rise up and if they fail, then it is their fault.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1550.htm
I suggest you do some research on the subject. Jefferson took his inalienable rights from John Locke's version, which included Life, Liberty, and Estate (commonly referred to as property). His decision to not state property in the Declaration of Independence was not that he disagreed with it, but that he thought it might be interpreted as "people have a right to property", rather than "people have a right of property"- that they would think they are entitled to objects rather than having to work for them. The right to own property is still implied in it though, under liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Listen you arrogant little twat: get over yourself. You get into a huff and accuse me of not having read a book I talk very accurately about because I made minor plot errors in a 1,000+ page polemic. Quit suggesting I do some research on subjects that everyone knows about. Every idiot knows about Locke, you are not privy to any special information. It is a very important point that Jefferson deviated from Locke's "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." The pursuit of happiness is as inalienable right as the right to property--which people also have. One does not have the right to squash another's ability to rise from the lowest rungs of society. While there can be no definitive answer, it is easy to assume that this clarification that the right is to the pursuit of happiness rather than of owning property is not one to be brushed aside with sophomoric snobbery.

Also, if you are going to quote Jefferson in the context of his belief that men deserve what they earn, you're going to also show that he didn't believe in freely sponsored education, among other social endeavors. Well, while he did want to limit taxes and eliminate government redundancy (good man that Jefferson), he truly, completely does not support you:

"A bill for the more general diffusion of learning... proposed to divide every county into wards of five or six miles square;... to establish in each ward a free school for reading, writing and common arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subjects from these schools, who might receive at the public expense a higher degree of education at a district school; and from these district schools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects, to be completed at an University where all the useful sciences should be taught. Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every condition of life, and completely prepared by education for defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:399 from HERE.

If the FDA can remove a natural disease, then a company certainly can as well. That would be neglect, in my opinion. Besides suing, there is also the ever present check of demand. If people think a product is unsafe, they don't buy it. When the salmonella was really big in tomatoes, my family didn't buy them. Simple as that. If enough people don't buy the product, the company is forced to act.

How was this figured out? It was because the FDA was there, tabulating all of the data (a MASSIVE process) that it was figured out. THEY figured it out, not any individual or lawyer or the company. How will people notice the problem if there is noone to watch for it?

Let's go through the list of the WHO's best health care systems:
1) France: government sponsored
2) Italy: government sponsored
3)San Marino: I think government sponsored, but I can't really tell.
4) Andorra: Government sponsored (page 17)
5)Malta: Government sponsored.
6) Singapore: A blend of public and private, but individuals are REQUIRED to set aside health care savings

From The World Health Organization's website:
"In the 21st century, health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats." Yep, sounds pretty unbiased to me. What are the factors that determine the "best" systems?

From the WHO:
WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population.


Oh, also, life expectancy is better for countries with the more socialist systems

Seriously. Point to a better system. Where is your triumph of pure(er) capitalism? People are HAPPIER in countries with a stronger domination of socialism (previous posts), people are HEALTHIER, people LIVE LONGER, yet you continue to insist that pure capitalism is better. It is no fluke that socialist policies integrated into capitalist societies (because despite high taxes, universal health care, very cheap/free education, etc. these countries very much encourage economic competition with successful industries making lots of money and the individuals at the top of such making LOTS of money and the unsuccessful failing and many individuals having only the bare essentials of life) lead the pack of all of these significant things. Is there something better than being happier, living longer and being healthier?

~Jason

[Sacul15]

Wow, seriously you need to calm down. I am trying to have an intelligent discussion with you and if my reasoning is so flawed, you should be able to defeat it easily, rather than resorting to vulgarities and personal attacks. That said, I accused you of never having read Atlas Shrugged not because you made some minor plot errors, but because nearly everything you said about the book was false. You also made some erroneous references to the book's philosophical ideas, which led me to believe, if you had actually read it, that you didn't fully grasp the meaning behind it. As far as Jefferson goes, yes, everyone who has taken 8th grade US history should know about Locke's influence on Jefferson, which was why I was so surprised when you denied property as being an inalienable right. Also, people do not have the right to rise up in society, they have the right to attempt to, and to succeed or fail. Hence the phrase "pursuit of happiness."

As for that quote, and Jefferson's stance on education, let me first say that I hold him in extremely high regard. He was one of our nation's most brilliant politicians and was far more intelligent than I am. But, that does not make him infallible. His stance on education, that it should be funded through involuntary taxation, contradicts his own belief that each man is entitled to all the profits of his efforts. I think that the necessity of education for all people is one that should be emphasized, but not forced onto people. By showing people that educating the populace is better for all, many would be inclined to donate to private charities and scholarships. I certainly would be willing to donate under a completely capitalist society. I just don't want to be forced to.

How was this figured out? It was because the FDA was there, tabulating all of the data (a MASSIVE process) that it was figured out. THEY figured it out, not any individual or lawyer or the company. How will people notice the problem if there is noone to watch for it?

The FDA (or it's private equivalent) could still exist under capitalism, except that it would be funded by hundreds of corporations and private donations, rather than through the forced seizure of private wealth.

From the WHO:
WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population.

Notice anything suspicious about those indicators? Keywords: inequalities, distribution within the population, etc. With the exception of responsiveness, all of those categories have to do with equity, not quality, which makes it an incredibly subjective study.

Seriously. Point to a better system. Where is your triumph of pure(er) capitalism? People are HAPPIER in countries with a stronger domination of socialism (previous posts), people are HEALTHIER, people LIVE LONGER, yet you continue to insist that pure capitalism is better. It is no fluke that socialist policies integrated into capitalist societies (because despite high taxes, universal health care, very cheap/free education, etc. these countries very much encourage economic competition with successful industries making lots of money and the individuals at the top of such making LOTS of money and the unsuccessful failing and many individuals having only the bare essentials of life) lead the pack of all of these significant things. Is there something better than being happier, living longer and being healthier?

Of course the average happiness level is higher in countries with higher taxation. They take money from the rich, who are still rich afterwards so while they might be a little ticked they aren't unhappy, and give to a lot of poor people, who get handouts and have easier lives, so they are a lot happier. The same effect would be achieved under a system that allowed people to steal from the rich. That doesn't make it acceptable, though, just because the majority is better off. Also, life expectancy and population health is more dependent on culture and personal habits than it is on health care (no amount of treatment will make up for a life time of smoking or obesity). Generally, Europeans have healthier lifestyles than Americans do, and that is far more influential than their respective health care systems.

And even if all of this weren't true, you are still avoiding the fact that socialism wrongfully steals from individuals and gives to others, which is unjustifiable in any and every scenario.

Edit:I also found out that the average salary of a professional IMF staff member is $94,341, along with some other benefits and perks, which isn't a large salary by any means for those types of jobs, and is consistent with the market wage. The IMF makes money, which it uses to invest in its member nations. It's goal isn't profit, but to benefit society (at which, the documentary shows, it has failed). The promotion of business and competition is not a characteristic of pure laissez-faire capitalism.

[dragonfliet]

The last from me as this topic has pretty much exhausted itself:

1) I am perfectly calm, but I refuse to let pass your snide remarks. My inaccuracy in Atlas Shrugged? A misspelling and mistakenly calling someone who was farming (though I still feel it was something related to manning a store of some sort) a cash register person--the point being that they were doing a mundane task and were happy about it because they were working hard and getting paid. It was most certainly not something to excel at. The Thomas Jefferson bit was actually your error, seeing as we had referred to Jefferson and you had claimed he defended life liberty and property, I merely corrected you and pointed out that what he said (pursuit of happiness) was extremely germane to the conversation.

Also, I don't think it is a contradiction to say that one is entitled to what they earned less the amount to provide for a stable and educated government.

Yes, the average happiness is higher. Also the average lifespan and the average level of health. A system in which stealing is allowed would NOT lead to happiness (do you see any third world countries on that list of being happy? I think not), as you need stability and expectation. The happiness is because they are not working themselves to death, and because of the nice systems set up to take care of everyone, they have peace of mind. But then again: the average is all that matters. Government is ENTIRELY about the average. The individual is important, yes, but only in that he contributes to the whole. Government is allowed by the majority to so that it may benefit the majority. That is the entire reason for its existence. If it ceases to satisfy the masses, then they overthrow it. This is how it works, this is the entire point.

But we're going to have to disagree on the point. You feel that it is some sort of a crime for everyone to be helped out to the small degree that is health and education and I feel that it is a prerequisite to humanity and civilization. You believe that removing all safe guards will somehow benefit society (See: Atlas Shrugged), and I believe that without wise restrictions and safeguards and education/health that society itself will collapse into brutal tyranny (See: Bioshock). I can keep showing you exactly how people benefit (living longer, healthier and happier) under socialist capitalism and you can keep thinking up ways to say I'm wrong(but not providing any real countering facts). So we have run the circle and we will simply not see eye to eye. No worries.



~Jason

[Sacul15]

I am perfectly calm, but I refuse to let pass your snide remarks. My inaccuracy in Atlas Shrugged? A misspelling and mistakenly calling someone who was farming (though I still feel it was something related to manning a store of some sort) a cash register person--the point being that they were doing a mundane task and were happy about it because they were working hard and getting paid. It was most certainly not something to excel at. The Thomas Jefferson bit was actually your error, seeing as we had referred to Jefferson and you had claimed he defended life liberty and property, I merely corrected you and pointed out that what he said (pursuit of happiness) was extremely germane to the conversation.

You brought up the book again. I hadn't even mentioned it when you made that little outburst. I was willing to let the misspellings and plot errors go, as they are trivial, but you didn't understand the meaning of the word Objectivism (capital "O"), and that is why I corrected you. Also, I never phrased Jefferson's inalienable rights as "life, liberty, and property". I just said that he defended the inalienable right of property. You wrote "And here I thought that the Declaration of Independence said that the inalienable rights were to Life, Liberty and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. How odd of me...", implying that you did not accept property as one of those rights. I responded given the (albeit false) information that you were not knowledgeable about Locke, which you had presented. My remark wasn't to insult your intelligence or boast about mine, but to present information of which you had given no indication you were aware. I was correcting you, not the other way around.

Yes, the average happiness is higher. Also the average lifespan and the average level of health. A system in which stealing is allowed would NOT lead to happiness (do you see any third world countries on that list of being happy? I think not), as you need stability and expectation. The happiness is because they are not working themselves to death, and because of the nice systems set up to take care of everyone, they have peace of mind. But then again: the average is all that matters. Government is ENTIRELY about the average. The individual is important, yes, but only in that he contributes to the whole. Government is allowed by the majority to so that it may benefit the majority. That is the entire reason for its existence. If it ceases to satisfy the masses, then they overthrow it. This is how it works, this is the entire point.

Yeah, I think I know why we can't see eye to eye. I am proposing that the government's role is not to satisfy the majority of people or better its average. The best form of government is not a democracy. Democracy ordered Socrates to be put to death because he had opposing views and democracy allowed Hitler to come to power. If the will of the majority is more important than the right of the individual, then that means that the people can vote to have someone put to death or enslaved. Is that the sort of society you want? The founding fathers feared this tyranny of the majority, which is why they created the system of checks and balances in our government, not just so that a tyrant wouldn't take over, but so that a mob (even one dressed in suits and called congressmen) couldn't either.

You feel that it is some sort of a crime for everyone to be helped out to the small degree that is health and education and I feel that it is a prerequisite to humanity and civilization.

I have never said that. I did say that it was a crime to force people to "help out". If people are financially set and have themselves taken care of first, then I think they should want to help their neighbor out (if he truly deserves it). But it is not the right of the neighbor (or a mob of his friends) to demand that the person forfeit his money.

You believe that removing all safe guards will somehow benefit society (See: Atlas Shrugged), and I believe that without wise restrictions and safeguards and education/health that society itself will collapse into brutal tyranny (See: Bioshock).

This isn't a response to this comment so much as it is to the notion that Bioshock represents the ideas of Atlas Shrugged or the system I am advocating. While the game does take many ideas from Rand, its problems come from the philosophy that is more Nietzschean than anything else, in my opinion. Andrew Ryan did not follow the ideas of Rand, as he was obsessed with power and used force to maintain it. When he imposed a restriction (!) on the city of Rapture (no outside trade), that is when the civil war broke out. Now I'm not saying there should be no restrictions or rules. Genetically modified wall climbers who kill people should be regulated obviously, but specifically because they harm other people (violating their right to life), not because they aren't "benefiting the whole of society".

I can keep showing you exactly how people benefit (living longer, healthier and happier) under socialist capitalism and you can keep thinking up ways to say I'm wrong(but not providing any real countering facts).

Ok, perhaps I haven't presented enough facts. I will start now.

1. The US health care system is not market based, or even close to it. In fact, as of 2004 the government (meaning taxpayers) payed for 45% of all health costs.

2. As of 2004, the US spent a higher percentage of GDP (15.3%) on health care than did either Norway (9.7%), Sweden (9.1%), or Canada (9.9%).

3. Like I said before, in the WHO's ranking system, the only factor that is representative of actual quality is Responsiveness. And guess which country is number one? Yep, you guessed it: The good ol' US of A.

4. Hong Kong has a system with a lot of private financing, like in the US, yet has a very high life expectancy and low infant mortality rate.

5. The US leads the world in medical research. "Continental Europe, which had a robust pharmaceutical industry even as late as 1975, now produces less than one third of the world’s new drugs. In 2005, the U.S. biotech industry invested $17 billion in R&D, while the European industry invested $4 billion that same year."

6. "Since stringent drug-approval procedures were enacted in 1962, the cost of developing new drugs has doubled and the number of drugs approved each year has plummeted by two-thirds."

Sources:
1-2: OECD Health Data 2008 (Excel spreadsheet)
3: http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html
4: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
5: http://www.wyeth.com/aboutwyeth/whoweare/executivespeeches?rid=/wyeth_html/home/aboutwyeth/who_we_are/bpoussot07252007.html
6: http://www.nationalcenter.org/TPRegulations.html

Starting to get the picture yet?

[dragonfliet]

You brought up the book again. I hadn't even mentioned it when you made that little outburst. I was willing to let the misspellings and plot errors go, as they are trivial, but you didn't understand the meaning of the word Objectivism (capital "O"), and that is why I corrected you. Also, I never phrased Jefferson's inalienable rights as "life, liberty, and property". I just said that he defended the inalienable right of property. You wrote "And here I thought that the Declaration of Independence said that the inalienable rights were to Life, Liberty and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. How odd of me...", implying that you did not accept property as one of those rights. I responded given the (albeit false) information that you were not knowledgeable about Locke, which you had presented. My remark wasn't to insult your intelligence or boast about mine, but to present information of which you had given no indication you were aware. I was correcting you, not the other way around.

What I said: "which she called Objectivisim. This is always a bad sign. When someone calls a completely subjective idea objective, you know you're in for insane arguments"

What the Ayn Rand Institute (Ayn Rand specifically)says: "My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

Here is the rub: While reality CERTAINLY exists as an absolute, facts are only facts in so much as they are interpreted a certain way. Unfortunately, there are MANY ways in which to look at something. Ayn Rand's second point is that reason is the only way to perceive reality. This is also well and good, only a VERY great many people who are perfectly intelligent, reasonable people will perceive things very differently.

Finally: When you call a philosophy Objectivism, you are asserting that it is objective. Of course, it is a completely subjective idea. Titling it Objective (therefore indisputable) is a linguistic trick that belies the fact that most reasonable people will disagree with it. It is not a lack of knowledge of what the "philosophy" is, it is an attack on the absurdity of a philosophy that touts itself (by it's very name) as an objective reasoning system, which it is certainly not.

What I said: "To answer your question though: If you are being oppressed by a system which forbids you to rise from your station and holds you and your family hostage, is it okay to steal?

YES. It's also okay to overthrow that entire system. Ask Thomas Jefferson"

What you said: "No! Completely, absolutely unquestionably wrong. Thomas Jefferson was one of the foremost advocates of the inalienable right to property. He wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, 'that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [destructive of these rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.' This means that when a government allows people to steal, it is the right and responsibility of the citizens to alter or abolish it in order to make themselves safer, not to do so to make stealing legal."
It should be noted that this means if the GOVERNMENT infringes upon people's right to LIFE LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, then the people have the right to overthrow the government. You left that out and assumed along the lines of property rights, so I corrected you:

What I said: "And here I thought that the Declaration of Independence said that the inalienable rights were to Life, Liberty and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS."

What you said: "http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1550.htm
I suggest you do some research on the subject. Jefferson took his inalienable rights from John Locke's version, which included Life, Liberty, and Estate (commonly referred to as property). His decision to not state property in the Declaration of Independence was not that he disagreed with it, but that he thought it might be interpreted as "people have a right to property", rather than "people have a right of property"- that they would think they are entitled to objects rather than having to work for them. The right to own property is still implied in it though, under liberty and pursuit of happiness."

And here is the problem: My statement said that if you are being crushed and unable to rise up, you have the right to rebel against the system. The declaration of independence supports my claim (in the second paragraph you skipped over the pursuit of happiness and then later claimed that it essentially means right to own property) and if that ability is taken away by oppressive means, the people have a right to overthrow.

This is petty, I know: but I will not have you condescend to tell me to "do some research" when the basic problem is that you cannot follow the thread of the conversation.

Yeah, I think I know why we can't see eye to eye. I am proposing that the government's role is not to satisfy the majority of people or better its average. The best form of government is not a democracy. Democracy ordered Socrates to be put to death because he had opposing views and democracy allowed Hitler to come to power. If the will of the majority is more important than the right of the individual, then that means that the people can vote to have someone put to death or enslaved. Is that the sort of society you want? The founding fathers feared this tyranny of the majority, which is why they created the system of checks and balances in our government, not just so that a tyrant wouldn't take over, but so that a mob (even one dressed in suits and called congressmen) couldn't either.

Democracy!=mob. However the fact that you are against a democracy is painfully evident in your belief that there should be no protection or help for the people on the bottom but what is graciously offered from those at the top. The point of a government is to serve its people, not just the richest of the people.

This isn't a response to this comment so much as it is to the notion that Bioshock represents the ideas of Atlas Shrugged or the system I am advocating. While the game does take many ideas from Rand, its problems come from the philosophy that is more Nietzschean than anything else, in my opinion. Andrew Ryan did not follow the ideas of Rand, as he was obsessed with power and used force to maintain it. When he imposed a restriction (!) on the city of Rapture (no outside trade), that is when the civil war broke out. Now I'm not saying there should be no restrictions or rules. Genetically modified wall climbers who kill people should be regulated obviously, but specifically because they harm other people (violating their right to life), not because they aren't "benefiting the whole of society".

The point I am making is that your system simply cannot work and if followed can only lead to a tragic breakdown, a la Bioshock.

Ok, perhaps I haven't presented enough facts. I will start now.

1. The US health care system is not market based, or even close to it. In fact, as of 2004 the government (meaning taxpayers) payed for 45% of all health costs.

2. As of 2004, the US spent a higher percentage of GDP (15.3%) on health care than did either Norway (9.7%), Sweden (9.1%), or Canada (9.9%).

3. Like I said before, in the WHO's ranking system, the only factor that is representative of actual quality is Responsiveness. And guess which country is number one? Yep, you guessed it: The good ol' US of A.

4. Hong Kong has a system with a lot of private financing, like in the US, yet has a very high life expectancy and low infant mortality rate.

5. The US leads the world in medical research. "Continental Europe, which had a robust pharmaceutical industry even as late as 1975, now produces less than one third of the world’s new drugs. In 2005, the U.S. biotech industry invested $17 billion in R&D, while the European industry invested $4 billion that same year."

6. "Since stringent drug-approval procedures were enacted in 1962, the cost of developing new drugs has doubled and the number of drugs approved each year has plummeted by two-thirds."

Sources:
1-2: OECD Health Data 2008 (Excel spreadsheet)
3: http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html
4: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
5: http://www.wyeth.com/aboutwyeth/whoweare/executivespeeches?rid=/wyeth_html/home/aboutwyeth/who_we_are/bpoussot07252007.html
6: http://www.nationalcenter.org/TPRegulations.html

Starting to get the picture yet?

1)No, the US market is very market based. However, because of that, a VAST number of people cannot afford health care and so can't get to doctors to get small things taken care of. This results in a higher number of emergency room visits which are even more expensive and they also cannot afford and so (because it is illegal to turn away people who cannot pay--And I ask you, seriously: do you propose that if people cannot pay for a life-saving surgery that they should be allowed to die?--the state ends up eating those costs as those people can never afford to pay the thousands and thousands of dollars of debt they have accrued.

2) Do you know WHY the US people spent a higher % of GDP? I'm glad you asked. The reason is twofold: A) Private health care companies are grossly overcharging for their services. B) Since a great number of people can't afford small doctor visits they put it off--unfortunately when you put things off they get worse, which exponentially causes the cost to rise. You'll notice that these other countries have higher life spans and higher levels of health and greater happiness? It's because less of the money they earn goes towards health care and they're HEALTHIER to boot.

3) Huh, you'd think that overall level of health would be more important than responsiveness, don't you? Also, what does responsiveness mean? Hmm? Just curious.

4) Good for them.

5) A point where other countries need to catch up. Good for our pharmaceutical industry.

6) Also, dangerous drugs are kept from getting onto the market and closely regulated when on the market. That things are more expensive is a given. I, however, would rather pay triple for something that will get rid of my cough that DOESN"T give me cancer, thanks.

~Jason

[Sacul15]

What I said: "which she called Objectivisim. This is always a bad sign. When someone calls a completely subjective idea objective, you know you're in for insane arguments"

What the Ayn Rand Institute (Ayn Rand specifically)says: "My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

Here is the rub: While reality CERTAINLY exists as an absolute, facts are only facts in so much as they are interpreted a certain way. Unfortunately, there are MANY ways in which to look at something. Ayn Rand's second point is that reason is the only way to perceive reality. This is also well and good, only a VERY great many people who are perfectly intelligent, reasonable people will perceive things very differently.

Finally: When you call a philosophy Objectivism, you are asserting that it is objective. Of course, it is a completely subjective idea. Titling it Objective (therefore indisputable) is a linguistic trick that belies the fact that most reasonable people will disagree with it. It is not a lack of knowledge of what the "philosophy" is, it is an attack on the absurdity of a philosophy that touts itself (by it's very name) as an objective reasoning system, which it is certainly not.

I still think you are missing the point. Ayn Rand did not create her philosophy in the idea that there is a certain "right" choice for every issue. There is, however, a certain right way to argue those points, and that is through reason and logic. If you go to the ARI website articles, for instance, you will see that some of the articles are pro-Iraq war and some are anti-war. Both have plenty of reasonable arguments, but neither one is necessarily "right". There are many topics which have reasonable arguments for both sides, but this is not one of them. All of your arguments basically boil down to "oh, those poor exploited people": an appeal to emotion, not to reason. The fact (yes fact) is that in order to fund any kind of socialist program, you must first steal wealth from those who had first earned it. If you accept Jefferson and Locke's ideas that we have those inalienable rights (inalienable, meaning they absolutely cannot be taken away, regardless of how well doing so would benefit society), then you have to accept pure laissez-faire capitalism. The two go hand in hand, there is no getting around it. So choose, do you want socialism or do you want rights?

What I said: "To answer your question though: If you are being oppressed by a system which forbids you to rise from your station and holds you and your family hostage, is it okay to steal?

YES. It's also okay to overthrow that entire system. Ask Thomas Jefferson"

What you said: "No! Completely, absolutely unquestionably wrong. Thomas Jefferson was one of the foremost advocates of the inalienable right to property. He wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, 'that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [destructive of these rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.' This means that when a government allows people to steal, it is the right and responsibility of the citizens to alter or abolish it in order to make themselves safer, not to do so to make stealing legal."
It should be noted that this means if the GOVERNMENT infringes upon people's right to LIFE LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, then the people have the right to overthrow the government. You left that out and assumed along the lines of property rights, so I corrected you:

What I said: "And here I thought that the Declaration of Independence said that the inalienable rights were to Life, Liberty and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS."

What you said: "http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1550.htm
I suggest you do some research on the subject. Jefferson took his inalienable rights from John Locke's version, which included Life, Liberty, and Estate (commonly referred to as property). His decision to not state property in the Declaration of Independence was not that he disagreed with it, but that he thought it might be interpreted as "people have a right to property", rather than "people have a right of property"- that they would think they are entitled to objects rather than having to work for them. The right to own property is still implied in it though, under liberty and pursuit of happiness."

And here is the problem: My statement said that if you are being crushed and unable to rise up, you have the right to rebel against the system. The declaration of independence supports my claim (in the second paragraph you skipped over the pursuit of happiness and then later claimed that it essentially means right to own property) and if that ability is taken away by oppressive means, the people have a right to overthrow.

This is petty, I know: but I will not have you condescend to tell me to "do some research" when the basic problem is that you cannot follow the thread of the conversation.

Perhaps there was some failure of communication, but all of your assertions contribute to my argument. You say if you are being crushed by the system, then you have a right to overthrow it. True, but who exactly is being crushed? Pushing someone down is not the same as refusing to help him up. The former is your instance of "being crushed", the latter is not. Jefferson, in that paragraph (which I left out for simplicity's sake, not because it was irrelevant. I assumed you were knowledgeable about it) stated that when a government violates one or some of the rights of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, then you can overthrow it. When you steal someone's property, you violate his right to enjoy the product of his labors, and thus his happiness. Taxes have the same effect. Since a violation of the right of property is also a violation of these other rights, it's violation in turn allows a people to overthrow the government which does so, or allows others to do so.

Democracy!=mob. However the fact that you are against a democracy is painfully evident in your belief that there should be no protection or help for the people on the bottom but what is graciously offered from those at the top. The point of a government is to serve its people, not just the richest of the people.

I'm not against democracy. I just think that our individual freedoms and our rights come before what any majority dictates. The point of a government is to protect it's people, not serve some of them at the expense of others, which is what you are advocating and which is what you still fail to realize.

The point I am making is that your system simply cannot work and if followed can only lead to a tragic breakdown, a la Bioshock.

Without a justice system that protects the rights of people (a system Rapture lacked), then yes it will fail. As soon as Andrew Ryan violated the rights of his people, the people (or rather, a court on behalf of the people) should have thrown him out (overthrow the government).

1)No, the US market is very market based. However, because of that, a VAST number of people cannot afford health care and so can't get to doctors to get small things taken care of. This results in a higher number of emergency room visits which are even more expensive and they also cannot afford and so (because it is illegal to turn away people who cannot pay--And I ask you, seriously: do you propose that if people cannot pay for a life-saving surgery that they should be allowed to die?--the state ends up eating those costs as those people can never afford to pay the thousands and thousands of dollars of debt they have accrued.

I think that the law that emergency situations must be taken care of is a good one (just because the person might be able to afford it, but cannot prove it at the time, not because it is the hospital's responsibility to keep everyone alive), but people should still be expected to pay. Health care is not a right, it is a service provided by other people and is therefore up to them to decide who gets how much. On the other hand, if you need a surgery but it isn't an emergency (immediate) situation, then the hospital should have the right to turn down people. If your car breaks down, should the nearest mechanic be forced to fix it even if you can't afford it? It's the same idea. The same metaphor applies that I said in regards to pushing someone down. Refusing to keep someone alive is not the same as murdering him. The fact that it is someone's life has nothing to do with it. That is an appeal to emotion, not to reason.

2) Do you know WHY the US people spent a higher % of GDP? I'm glad you asked. The reason is twofold: A) Private health care companies are grossly overcharging for their services. B) Since a great number of people can't afford small doctor visits they put it off--unfortunately when you put things off they get worse, which exponentially causes the cost to rise. You'll notice that these other countries have higher life spans and higher levels of health and greater happiness? It's because less of the money they earn goes towards health care and they're HEALTHIER to boot.

A. They, I assume, are charging the best price to make profit (They are health care companies, not health care donators). If they grossly overcharge, they don't get enough customers and lose money and go out of business.
B. Are you saying that they can't afford checkups, but they can afford expensive surgeries? Your conclusion might be true, but it isn't a result of expensive health care, but a result of individual and lifestyle choices.

3) Huh, you'd think that overall level of health would be more important than responsiveness, don't you? Also, what does responsiveness mean? Hmm? Just curious.

I'm saying that distribution of health care is not equal to quality of health care. "Responsiveness includes two major components. These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider)."

4) Good for them.

This shows that the quality of life in such countries such as Sweden and Canada is not dependent on socialized medicine and that such quality is possible under a system which doesn't have it.

5) A point where other countries need to catch up. Good for our pharmaceutical industry.

Yes, but you fail to see why exactly they are failing and we are (somewhat) prevailing. The restrictions they place on their industry hurts innovation and takes away the incentive of businesses to enter such a high-risk market.

6) Also, dangerous drugs are kept from getting onto the market and closely regulated when on the market. That things are more expensive is a given. I, however, would rather pay triple for something that will get rid of my cough that DOESN"T give me cancer, thanks.

What is your definition of a safe drug? No drug is 100% safe, as different people always react differently to chemicals. Personally, if my choice is die of some disease now or die of cancer later, I would rather take the drug that gives me cancer later. Besides, drug companies don't want people to die. If one of their drugs turns deadly, their reputation is destroyed and they go out of business.

A little different scenario, but related, is the banning of DDT. Yes, in some instance, food treated with DDT causes some people to develop cancer. But it also saved the lives of millions who could have died from Malaria. Don't you think that's a good trade off? The same goes with drugs. They might harm a few individuals but save the lives of thousands more. And if you don't trust a certain company or a certain drug, don't buy it. It really is that simple.

[dragonfliet]

Perhaps there was some failure of communication, but all of your assertions contribute to my argument. You say if you are being crushed by the system, then you have a right to overthrow it. True, but who exactly is being crushed? Pushing someone down is not the same as refusing to help him up. The former is your instance of "being crushed", the latter is not. Jefferson, in that paragraph (which I left out for simplicity's sake, not because it was irrelevant. I assumed you were knowledgeable about it) stated that when a government violates one or some of the rights of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, then you can overthrow it. When you steal someone's property, you violate his right to enjoy the product of his labors, and thus his happiness. Taxes have the same effect. Since a violation of the right of property is also a violation of these other rights, it's violation in turn allows a people to overthrow the government which does so, or allows others to do so.

I am not talking about people not being helped up, we have gone over this many, many times in this argument. I am saying there there are millions of people who are forced into extremely low paying manual labor jobs because they do not have ANY access to education and corporate monopolies have swallowed up all other means to earn a living. These people have literally no choice except 1) die 2) work for extremely low wages that they can never rise from, giving birth to children who are born into the same situation and can also never rise from their station.

I am not talking about people getting free waffle irons, I am talking about people getting the basics in life so that they CAN help themselves. You seem to forget that one of the points of society is to better all members of society. This is also the point of government.

I'm not against democracy. I just think that our individual freedoms and our rights come before what any majority dictates. The point of a government is to protect it's people, not serve some of them at the expense of others, which is what you are advocating and which is what you still fail to realize.

I don't disagree with the basic concept of this: yes, individual rights SHOULD come before what the majority dictates. With rights, however, come obligations: We have the right to freedom, but we have the obligation to give up a minute amount of that freedom. An example is: In order to have freedom of speech to talk about what is important, we must simultaneously give up the freedom to shout FIRE! in a crowded room (if there is no fire). We have the right to our money, but we must give up a small portion of it for the infrastructure of our government (which protects us) and to provide the basic needs of others (which is how we also got to where we are--ESPECIALLY you with your public education and parents who are DIRECTLY FUNDED by such socialist means).

Without a justice system that protects the rights of people (a system Rapture lacked), then yes it will fail. As soon as Andrew Ryan violated the rights of his people, the people (or rather, a court on behalf of the people) should have thrown him out (overthrow the government).

You misunderstand: This is what I am saying: A pure capitalist society CANNOT EXIST. The world portrayed in Bioshock TRIED to get to it but because of the flawed nature of humanity, it is impossible. It is important to note that if the characters in Atlas Shrugged had not been so UNBELIEVABLY inhuman (no doubts, no fears, all beautiful, all freakishly intelligent, etc.), that book couldn't have supported its own weight.

I think that the law that emergency situations must be taken care of is a good one (just because the person might be able to afford it, but cannot prove it at the time, not because it is the hospital's responsibility to keep everyone alive), but people should still be expected to pay. Health care is not a right, it is a service provided by other people and is therefore up to them to decide who gets how much. On the other hand, if you need a surgery but it isn't an emergency (immediate) situation, then the hospital should have the right to turn down people. If your car breaks down, should the nearest mechanic be forced to fix it even if you can't afford it? It's the same idea. The same metaphor applies that I said in regards to pushing someone down. Refusing to keep someone alive is not the same as murdering him. The fact that it is someone's life has nothing to do with it. That is an appeal to emotion, not to reason.

Wow. You're really a monster. It is truly your opinion that people should die because they're not rich enough to afford brain surgery? Because they were stupid enough to get prostate cancer? You are telling me that the inconvenience of not having a car is exactly the same as someone DYING? The only reason that a life-saving surgery should be performed isn't because it's the HUMAN thing to do-to save another human being, but because they may have forgotten their wallet?

If you aren't even human enough to feel empathy, I really have no idea how to respond to this question. I am not some hysteric tugging at your heart string, I am a human being saying that the life of another person is worth more than the cost of medicine.

Are you saying that they can't afford checkups, but they can afford expensive surgeries? Your conclusion might be true, but it isn't a result of expensive health care, but a result of individual and lifestyle choices.

No, I am saying that they cannot afford checkups and they especially cannot afford expensive surgeries. A visit to a doctor's office is $70+ (for a CHEAP doctor visit), medicines are SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive. X-Rays cost HUNDREDS of dollars, MRIs THOUSANDS, etc. And these things are often ordered just in case--because it's cheaper to use them and CATCH the problem early than to wait until something terrible happens.

When something happens, it is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive (an overnight stay at the hospital--a university hospital mind you, not a private one--is $700, and that does not include any of the tests, which generally cost about $50 each, so that complete blood (a very simple and standard thing) costs upwards of $200-300).

These people do not have their debts (in the tens of thousands VERY quickly) forgiven in the US. They are simply in that much debt. It is a staggering number and they simply cannot pay it. How do you expect someone who can't afford $150/mo for health insurance and is being paid near minimum wage to pay back $40,000 in debt? They will be paying off this debt for their entire lives, but it simply cannot be finished off and so when they die the government has to swallow that debt.

It is actually cheaper to pay for everybody to have full health care so that if they have something very small wrong with them they'll get it checked out instead of putting it off, thus negating the need (in many cases) for extremely expensive surgeries/hospitalizations/medications. THAT is why the US (a free market health care situation) spends a higher percentage of our GDP on health care even though it is very far from the top of overall health/lifespan/infant mortality.

I'm saying that distribution of health care is not equal to quality of health care. "Responsiveness includes two major components. These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider)."

And I am saying that OVERALL LEVEL OF HEALTH is an objective measurement that shows how far down the US. I mean, congratulations us for having clean hospitals and keeping people's confidentiality but that is very far down compared to the actual health of people.

This shows that the quality of life in such countries such as Sweden and Canada is not dependent on socialized medicine and that such quality is possible under a system which doesn't have it.

Okay, I tried to let it slide. You were talking about Hong Kong having low infant mortality rates etc? They also only spend 4% of GDP on health care (VERY low) and do very well for overall health. I wonder why?

Because: "Hong Kong's health care system provides general access to medical care and pharmaceuticals, health benefitsare not linked to employment, out-of-pocket costs aremanageable, and there is good access to most preventiveand therapeutic services.
Background of the Health Care System
The basic principle of the health care system is that"Hong Kong has a safety net under a 'no turn away' policy,which ensures that no one is denied adequate medicaltreatment through lack of means. This is the law" (minutesof the Hong Kong Legislative Council, October 13,1993). Although most of the costs of health care are paidby the government, some costs are borne by the citizensof Hong Kong ("Health for All: The Way Ahead"). Forthose who cannot afford to pay, the government providesthe funds. Health care is not linked to employment, sothat workers are free to change jobs without fear of losingaccess to health care."
This is the paper from which your little world-factbook blurb was pulled from.

So the REASON why Hong Kong was so high? Despite having a robust private sector, they have an extensive infrastructure to provide medical care to all, no matter what, that is paid for by the government. You will notice from your little link you provided that Hong Kong is flanked by socialist countries and the US is way down at #47. So what it REALLY shows is that socialized health care IS ABSOLUTELY a prerequisite to a quality health care system.

Yes, but you fail to see why exactly they are failing and we are (somewhat) prevailing. The restrictions they place on their industry hurts innovation and takes away the incentive of businesses to enter such a high-risk market.

You fail to see the endgame: Yeah, we invest more money on research and we put out more drugs but 1) most of the drugs researched are for such cottage industries as cold treatment (there is no cure for the cold and there never will be) and erectile disfunction. This is because the market demands these things. 2) Again, I agree that Europe needs to invest much more heavily in drug research; but doesn't it go to show that a stronger health care support system trumps a pharmaceutical-heavy system? Health statistics say yes.

What is your definition of a safe drug? No drug is 100% safe, as different people always react differently to chemicals. Personally, if my choice is die of some disease now or die of cancer later, I would rather take the drug that gives me cancer later. Besides, drug companies don't want people to die. If one of their drugs turns deadly, their reputation is destroyed and they go out of business.

A little different scenario, but related, is the banning of DDT. Yes, in some instance, food treated with DDT causes some people to develop cancer. But it also saved the lives of millions who could have died from Malaria. Don't you think that's a good trade off? The same goes with drugs. They might harm a few individuals but save the lives of thousands more. And if you don't trust a certain company or a certain drug, don't buy it. It really is that simple.

DDT is a great scenario. It's wonderful at killing mosquitoes, I'll give you that. Here's the thing: It is NOT THE ONLY PESTICIDE IN EXISTENCE. In fact, there are TONS of effective pesticides that exist, but because it was so available and cheap, people used it. You're right--I WOULD rather get rid of Malaria at the risk of getting cancer somewhere down the road. Absolutely. Here's the thing: How about I use something ELSE to get rid of the mosquitoes--getting rid of malaria risks AND avoiding cancer? How about, I don't know, 90% of the United States where Malaria isn't an issue PERIOD? Since it's not an issue, they were spreading a cancer-causing agent DESPITE the lack of danger averted. Because of publicly funded studies, we were able to yank DDT off the market and stop cancer from continuing to mount. Any massive outbreaks of Malaria in the US since then? No? Huh, well maybe they just switched over to another pesticide that didn't happen to kill people.

The same goes with drugs.

~Jason

[Sacul15]

I am not talking about people not being helped up, we have gone over this many, many times in this argument. I am saying there there are millions of people who are forced into extremely low paying manual labor jobs because they do not have ANY access to education and corporate monopolies have swallowed up all other means to earn a living. These people have literally no choice except 1) die 2) work for extremely low wages that they can never rise from, giving birth to children who are born into the same situation and can also never rise from their station.

I am not talking about people getting free waffle irons, I am talking about people getting the basics in life so that they CAN help themselves. You seem to forget that one of the points of society is to better all members of society. This is also the point of government.

Nobody is "forced" into anything. Those jobs are offered to them, not thrust upon them. The fact that they might die if they don't take it does not imply force of any sort. Originally, humans died very early. It is not unnatural for people who cannot provide for themselves to die. Also, having children is optional. If you can't afford a child don't have one. Yes, the government is there to better all (not the majority) of its citizens. Protecting them from invaders and criminals is good for all citizens. Taking one person's wealth, which he earned through free and honest trade, is not in the benefit of all citizens. For about the sixth post, you elude this fact.

I don't disagree with the basic concept of this: yes, individual rights SHOULD come before what the majority dictates. With rights, however, come obligations: We have the right to freedom, but we have the obligation to give up a minute amount of that freedom. An example is: In order to have freedom of speech to talk about what is important, we must simultaneously give up the freedom to shout FIRE! in a crowded room (if there is no fire). We have the right to our money, but we must give up a small portion of it for the infrastructure of our government (which protects us) and to provide the basic needs of others (which is how we also got to where we are--ESPECIALLY you with your public education and parents who are DIRECTLY FUNDED by such socialist means).

People cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded area because it directly endangers other people. The government protects us from harmful entities because they are directly endangering us. Businesses are not directly endangering poor people. We have unlimited freedom until our actions endanger the rights of others. Nobody has a right to a job or a right to food or a right to healthcare, and therefore refusing to give a person those goods and services is not an infringement upon their rights.

You misunderstand: This is what I am saying: A pure capitalist society CANNOT EXIST. The world portrayed in Bioshock TRIED to get to it but because of the flawed nature of humanity, it is impossible. It is important to note that if the characters in Atlas Shrugged had not been so UNBELIEVABLY inhuman (no doubts, no fears, all beautiful, all freakishly intelligent, etc.), that book couldn't have supported its own weight.

You are correct in one sense. While people think that they have a right to steal from others, a perfect capitalist society can never exist. That is precisely why the justice system is necessary, to stop those who believe they do have such a right. People do not need to be perfect for the system to work. Those who are exceptional will succeed greatly, but their efforts will benefit those who aren't. They create new products, improve old ones, lower the price of said products, and make life better for everyone.

Wow. You're really a monster. It is truly your opinion that people should die because they're not rich enough to afford brain surgery? Because they were stupid enough to get prostate cancer? You are telling me that the inconvenience of not having a car is exactly the same as someone DYING? The only reason that a life-saving surgery should be performed isn't because it's the HUMAN thing to do-to save another human being, but because they may have forgotten their wallet?

If you aren't even human enough to feel empathy, I really have no idea how to respond to this question. I am not some hysteric tugging at your heart string, I am a human being saying that the life of another person is worth more than the cost of medicine.

See, this is exactly what Ayn Rand was against. Your argument is complete emotion, and no practicality. Let's say hospitals are forced to treat everyone. Surgeries are extremely costly. You expect the hospital to take it as a loss. People see that others get surgeries for free, and they demand them for free as well. Soon, the hospital is losing way more money than it is making, so it is forced to shut down. Since there are less jobs, nobody wants to become a doctor or a nurse or any other related profession. Now there is no one to treat anyone, and nobody gets healthcare. But it's okay because it was the "human thing to do."

No, I am saying that they cannot afford checkups and they especially cannot afford expensive surgeries. A visit to a doctor's office is $70+ (for a CHEAP doctor visit), medicines are SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive. X-Rays cost HUNDREDS of dollars, MRIs THOUSANDS, etc. And these things are often ordered just in case--because it's cheaper to use them and CATCH the problem early than to wait until something terrible happens.

When something happens, it is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive (an overnight stay at the hospital--a university hospital mind you, not a private one--is $700, and that does not include any of the tests, which generally cost about $50 each, so that complete blood (a very simple and standard thing) costs upwards of $200-300).

These people do not have their debts (in the tens of thousands VERY quickly) forgiven in the US. They are simply in that much debt. It is a staggering number and they simply cannot pay it. How do you expect someone who can't afford $150/mo for health insurance and is being paid near minimum wage to pay back $40,000 in debt? They will be paying off this debt for their entire lives, but it simply cannot be finished off and so when they die the government has to swallow that debt.

It is actually cheaper to pay for everybody to have full health care so that if they have something very small wrong with them they'll get it checked out instead of putting it off, thus negating the need (in many cases) for extremely expensive surgeries/hospitalizations/medications. THAT is why the US (a free market health care situation) spends a higher percentage of our GDP on health care even though it is very far from the top of overall health/lifespan/infant mortality.

Your argument falls apart with this statement: "so when they die the government has to swallow that debt." How exactly is that a "free market health care situation"? Here's a solution. Don't pay off someone else's debt (with my money!). If a hospital accepts a customer that can't afford his bill, it's their problem, not the taxpayers'.

And I am saying that OVERALL LEVEL OF HEALTH is an objective measurement that shows how far down the US. I mean, congratulations us for having clean hospitals and keeping people's confidentiality but that is very far down compared to the actual health of people.

True, responsiveness isn't the only factor that goes into quality, but "overall level of health" has very little to nothing to do with quality. You wouldn't say that Ford is a better quality car than Ferrari because more people have access to it, so why would you make the same error when comparing the health care quality of two nations?

Okay, I tried to let it slide. You were talking about Hong Kong having low infant mortality rates etc? They also only spend 4% of GDP on health care (VERY low) and do very well for overall health. I wonder why?

Because: "Hong Kong's health care system provides general access to medical care and pharmaceuticals, health benefitsare not linked to employment, out-of-pocket costs aremanageable, and there is good access to most preventiveand therapeutic services.
Background of the Health Care System
The basic principle of the health care system is that"Hong Kong has a safety net under a 'no turn away' policy,which ensures that no one is denied adequate medicaltreatment through lack of means. This is the law" (minutesof the Hong Kong Legislative Council, October 13,1993). Although most of the costs of health care are paidby the government, some costs are borne by the citizensof Hong Kong ("Health for All: The Way Ahead"). Forthose who cannot afford to pay, the government providesthe funds. Health care is not linked to employment, sothat workers are free to change jobs without fear of losingaccess to health care."
This is the paper from which your little world-factbook blurb was pulled from.

So the REASON why Hong Kong was so high? Despite having a robust private sector, they have an extensive infrastructure to provide medical care to all, no matter what, that is paid for by the government. You will notice from your little link you provided that Hong Kong is flanked by socialist countries and the US is way down at #47. So what it REALLY shows is that socialized health care IS ABSOLUTELY a prerequisite to a quality health care system.

If you read through this, you'll see that the private sector is rapidly growing, as many patients and doctors are seeing that it is far better than the public system (access to better technologies, not so many waits to use said technologies, etc. etc.)

You fail to see the endgame: Yeah, we invest more money on research and we put out more drugs but 1) most of the drugs researched are for such cottage industries as cold treatment (there is no cure for the cold and there never will be) and erectile disfunction. This is because the market demands these things. 2) Again, I agree that Europe needs to invest much more heavily in drug research; but doesn't it go to show that a stronger health care support system trumps a pharmaceutical-heavy system? Health statistics say yes.

Why is what the market determines bad? If you had a choice between curing a sickness that affects everyone, or curing an obscure disease that kills a few each year, which would you choose? I guess that's not a very strong argument but since you are so for the betterment of the majority at the expense of a few, I imagine that you would pick the former. And I wouldn't be so sure about ever curing the cold. Sure, probably no pill will ever be able to stop it, but there are some promising new technologies that one could be optimistic about (nanotechnology, etc.)

DDT is a great scenario. It's wonderful at killing mosquitoes, I'll give you that. Here's the thing: It is NOT THE ONLY PESTICIDE IN EXISTENCE. In fact, there are TONS of effective pesticides that exist, but because it was so available and cheap, people used it. You're right--I WOULD rather get rid of Malaria at the risk of getting cancer somewhere down the road. Absolutely. Here's the thing: How about I use something ELSE to get rid of the mosquitoes--getting rid of malaria risks AND avoiding cancer? How about, I don't know, 90% of the United States where Malaria isn't an issue PERIOD? Since it's not an issue, they were spreading a cancer-causing agent DESPITE the lack of danger averted. Because of publicly funded studies, we were able to yank DDT off the market and stop cancer from continuing to mount. Any massive outbreaks of Malaria in the US since then? No? Huh, well maybe they just switched over to another pesticide that didn't happen to kill people.

The same goes with drugs.

You are right, there are choices. So if you could why would you choose the prescription that gives you cancer over the one that has no side effects? In a free market industry such superior goods would phase out inferior ones. But what if there is a significant price difference? What if the better one cost $10,000 dollars while the cheaper one cost $100? Should a person be denied that option just because there is a better one?

[dragonfliet]

Nobody is "forced" into anything. Those jobs are offered to them, not thrust upon them. The fact that they might die if they don't take it does not imply force of any sort. Originally, humans died very early. It is not unnatural for people who cannot provide for themselves to die. Also, having children is optional. If you can't afford a child don't have one. Yes, the government is there to better all (not the majority) of its citizens. Protecting them from invaders and criminals is good for all citizens. Taking one person's wealth, which he earned through free and honest trade, is not in the benefit of all citizens. For about the sixth post, you elude this fact.

It's sad that you honestly believe that if someone is born into poverty they deserve absolutely zero chance of rising out. After all, you have said again and again, they have a choice between slavery and death--they should be happy for that choice

People cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded area because it directly endangers other people. The government protects us from harmful entities because they are directly endangering us. Businesses are not directly endangering poor people. We have unlimited freedom until our actions endanger the rights of others. Nobody has a right to a job or a right to food or a right to healthcare, and therefore refusing to give a person those goods and services is not an infringement upon their rights.

Business' ARE endangering people. Through monopolistic practices they have cornered markets and taken over all forms of jobs--providing no choice for people except to toil under ludicrously low wages or die. Everyone has a right to opportunity, and without access to basic support system, that has been taken away from them.

You are correct in one sense. While people think that they have a right to steal from others, a perfect capitalist society can never exist. That is precisely why the justice system is necessary, to stop those who believe they do have such a right. People do not need to be perfect for the system to work. Those who are exceptional will succeed greatly, but their efforts will benefit those who aren't. They create new products, improve old ones, lower the price of said products, and make life better for everyone.

Anyone that believes that any pure system can exist is simply delusional. I'm sorry, but there has never, ever existed a pure system and the only thing that has come close has been genocidal dictatorships.

Wow. You're really a monster. It is truly your opinion that people should die because they're not rich enough to afford brain surgery? Because they were stupid enough to get prostate cancer? You are telling me that the inconvenience of not having a car is exactly the same as someone DYING? The only reason that a life-saving surgery should be performed isn't because it's the HUMAN thing to do-to save another human being, but because they may have forgotten their wallet?

If you aren't even human enough to feel empathy, I really have no idea how to respond to this question. I am not some hysteric tugging at your heart string, I am a human being saying that the life of another person is worth more than the cost of medicine.

See, this is exactly what Ayn Rand was against. Your argument is complete emotion, and no practicality. Let's say hospitals are forced to treat everyone. Surgeries are extremely costly. You expect the hospital to take it as a loss. People see that others get surgeries for free, and they demand them for free as well. Soon, the hospital is losing way more money than it is making, so it is forced to shut down. Since there are less jobs, nobody wants to become a doctor or a nurse or any other related profession. Now there is no one to treat anyone, and nobody gets healthcare. But it's okay because it was the "human thing to do."

Yes, basic human empathy WAS exactly what Ayn Rand was against. That you are completely unable to feel empathy is a pitiful thing. Emotion is one of the most powerful things that make us human.

But let's talk about your argument. Go back to your little how much of the GDP people are spending on health care. Look again at the more socialist countries. OH MY GOD, THEY'RE SPENDING LESS! That is correct sir. The hospitals are making money, the people are living safe, happy lives and EVERYONE IS DOING IT WITH LESS WASTE. Where are these closed hospitals? Where are these bankrupt nations? Please inform the entire European Union that even though its people are happy, healthy, living long lives and their economy is booming that they're in danger of imminent collapse. You see, all of the facts support the idea that HELPING PEOPLE IS ECONOMICALLY SOUND. Honestly: look at what you just said, now look at the information I've laid out for you. Do you see the disconnect? The more socialist systems are doing BETTER. Try again to find something wrong with it.

But let's go to another point that there is no practicality in having emotion and keeping people from dying senseless deaths: PEOPLE are the greatest resource. Intelligent, inspiring, important people are constantly rising from poverty through social mechanisms-schools and health care particularly-to revolutionize the world. By educating everyone, then everyone has the opportunity to rise up and succeed. If you let people just die because you don't feel like paying for their flu-shot, then you lose them. You'll dismiss this argument, but then again, you believe that it's better to let people die than help them and that emotions are apparently bad.

Your argument falls apart with this statement: "so when they die the government has to swallow that debt." How exactly is that a "free market health care situation"? Here's a solution. Don't pay off someone else's debt (with my money!). If a hospital accepts a customer that can't afford his bill, it's their problem, not the taxpayers'.

Your argument falls apart when you say that no one should receive any medical aid if they can't immediately pay for it.

True, responsiveness isn't the only factor that goes into quality, but "overall level of health" has very little to nothing to do with quality. You wouldn't say that Ford is a better quality car than Ferrari because more people have access to it, so why would you make the same error when comparing the health care quality of two nations?

Let me be a little more blunt: responsiveness, while important, has the absolute LEAST effect on quality. Level of health is.

If you read through this, you'll see that the private sector is rapidly growing, as many patients and doctors are seeing that it is far better than the public system (access to better technologies, not so many waits to use said technologies, etc. etc.)[/quote]

My apologies for not linking that article, but that was what I was referring to. I noticed that it is growing, but what I DIDN'T see was the paper from the future which showed the overall health of the people of Hong Kong getting better and cheaper. You see, when you look at a system and say: hey! Look how healthy they are! You have to look at what system is IN PLACE, NOT what is in the future. As it stood at the writing of that paper, the people of Hong Kong were very healthy and long living with a very publicly funded system. Show me that the system has gotten better, more private and cheaper AFTERWARD and you'll have an argument.

Why is what the market determines bad? If you had a choice between curing a sickness that affects everyone, or curing an obscure disease that kills a few each year, which would you choose? I guess that's not a very strong argument but since you are so for the betterment of the majority at the expense of a few, I imagine that you would pick the former. And I wouldn't be so sure about ever curing the cold. Sure, probably no pill will ever be able to stop it, but there are some promising new technologies that one could be optimistic about (nanotechnology, etc.)

I'm not saying the market is bad, but how many drugs are being produced and how much money is being spent (your previous point) is an inane and worthless statistic. What does it matter if people have patented 20 different hay fever medicines- all with about the same level of non-effectiveness? That's simply more competition, not more improvement. The point remains (STILL) that the more government funded a health care system is, the better it is. It is simple fact and you haven't found a single measure to say otherwise.

You are right, there are choices. So if you could why would you choose the prescription that gives you cancer over the one that has no side effects? In a free market industry such superior goods would phase out inferior ones. But what if there is a significant price difference? What if the better one cost $10,000 dollars while the cheaper one cost $100? Should a person be denied that option just because there is a better one?

Tell me: who discovered that DDT was dangerous? How was that funded? Tell me: How did the latest Salmonella scare get detected? How was that funded? You see, you make these (completely erroneous) assumptions that there is a magical system that is going to spring up out of nowhere to monitor effects of something 10 years down the road, but these sorts of programs are so massive and so expensive that they are not going to be profitable as far as capital goes, but they are INVALUABLE as far as human life goes. But then, you have already mentioned that human life matters so little to you.

But I've wasted enough of my time on a 16 year old who: was educated on the public system, who's parents are teachers--teaching in the public system with government sponsored health care--who will go to a state university and heed warnings from the FDA, etc.; and yet persists that education isn't needed, there are no people being essentially enslaved because of monopolistic practices, that statistics proving his arguments wrong should be ignored and that human life has no value and shouldn't be preserved without a cash reward. Let me know if I missed anything there.

~Jason

[Mephasto]

Now, release your anger. Only your hatred can destroy him!

*breathing sound* *Khhhhkkk* *khhhkkkkk*