Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Capitalist vs Socialist

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 12:48:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I pretty sure somebody might have post about this topic already but since I am new to this site I hope that you guy can give me some of the opinion about this topic.

When I was study in the university I was served as adjudicator in one of the debate competition. The proposition (opposition I am not sure) proposed something like the US should turn in to Communism. The chair judge said that it was the most stupid idea he ever heard of. May be he is right. However I am not quite convinced that capitalism should be the ultimate answer to all of the economic condition in the world and that become the topic I want to hear your opinion about.

For me socialist which I defined as all form of social benefit: free medication, free education, guaranteed employment, controlled wages etc. which is fund by the government whose in turn, taxed it from the business people like me. In purely economic sense (no concern whether it is democratic or tyranny), should somewhat be useful. The socialist program keep people happy (or at least try to) and so should reduce the risk of unrest and might even attract skilled or talented labor to our recruitment pool. Lower level of unemployment and extreme poverty should also reduced level of crime which by turn reduced what we have to pay for security and police force. If the economy is centrally planned it is also possible to eliminate the inflation (by make sure that population will have to paid for their necessities with all the wealth they gathered).
On the other hand it is our flesh and blood they are taking to feed all those welfare programs. I don"t know what the other feel but for me paying my hardship for someone else benefit is extremely bitter. Capitalism should also produce more in the long run since everybody will have fight for themselves. Free markets also have a lot of benefit which I guest is well known to all of us so I will skip.
Personally I am admired the concept of capitalism. It remind me of the quote from one of the song from Les Miserables "For those who follow part of the righteous shall have their reward".
But consider the situation of the world today I must now begin to doubt. If the capitalist that we know today is actually working.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 12:58:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is English your second language?

Anyway, a blended economy is ideal. The Free Market Fairy can't solve all of our problems, and the Randians out there don't realize that sometimes it's the cause of all of our problems. Healthcare is a good example in this.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 1:08:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 12:58:03 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
Is English your second language?


Anyway, a blended economy is ideal. The Free Market Fairy can't solve all of our problems, and the Randians out there don't realize that sometimes it's the cause of all of our problems. Healthcare is a good example in this.

That's the problem. We're not looking "out there" to have some system solve all our problems. Sure, a government can provide some infrastructure, but it is up to individuals if they want to work and provide for themselves and their family.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 4:13:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 12:58:03 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
Anyway, a blended economy is ideal. The Free Market Fairy can't solve all of our problems, and the Randians out there don't realize that sometimes it's the cause of all of our problems. Healthcare is a good example in this.

Why is a blended economy ideal? Why is healthcare a good example of a free market failure?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 5:07:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 4:13:37 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/12/2013 12:58:03 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
Anyway, a blended economy is ideal. The Free Market Fairy can't solve all of our problems, and the Randians out there don't realize that sometimes it's the cause of all of our problems. Healthcare is a good example in this.

Why is a blended economy ideal? Why is healthcare a good example of a free market failure?

Ooh, ooh, ooh...I got this one.

Let's start with Health Care:

1. I'm gonna point out that all Western Socialist, Single payer Healthcare states have both less cost per capita (private and public) and all have a better standard of care than The US, which is the last of the Western Industrialized states of any import to not have universal health care.

2. Now you're gonna bring up Singapore

3. Now I'm gonna point out that Singapore is a single payer system with all healthcare going through the government

4. You're gonna think you're clever here and note some statistics about how privatization and personal choice are the things that make Singapore's Health Care system so incredibly efficient

5. I'm then going to point out to you that the Singapore government actually owns and controls 60% or the private companies in that country, has RIGID price controls and functions like a dictatorship, and is about the farthest thing from private or choice based that anyone could possibly think of because Singapore is democratic in name only.

6. This is where I have no idea what the rebuttal is, because none of you Libertarians have ever made it this far, so if we could skip 1-5 and just begin on your end with whatever happens here at 6, that would be cool.

I'll teach you about mixed economies after you stumble your way through the Healthcare portion of our show.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 5:25:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If socialism is a good idea for health care, for roads, for schools, for justice, then why not for everything? Conversely if it is bad for housing, for food, for the production of automobiles, why would it not be a bad idea for the even more crucial industries of roads, justice, policing?

I would rather capitalism in everything. No state. Anarchy!
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 5:29:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
very convenient that you can have that entire debate all by yourself malcolm!

In Canada, where I live, we have single payer health care. Because their is so much inefficiency when the government pays for everything, and because tax increases are not politically acceptable to Canadians, they have taken to rationing health care. So much for those 'better results' you were talking about. You know what Canadian politicians do when they get sick? They hop on the first flight to the States. They use the money they stole from the taxpayers to finance their own health care in the states, despite making it illegal for Canadians who do not have the resources to fly to America to have a health care market here at home. A lot of Canadians run to the hospital any time they get a cold, since after all IT'S FREE, and the standard of care in our hospitals is just atrocious. You wait for 7 hours just to see someone and even then they are pretty crappy.

Socialism doesn't work. It's never worked and it never will work. Doesn't work for health care, doesn't work for justice, doesn't work for anything else.

Privatize everything.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:47:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 5:29:42 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
very convenient that you can have that entire debate all by yourself malcolm!


In Canada, where I live, we have single payer health care. Because their is so much inefficiency when the government pays for everything, and because tax increases are not politically acceptable to Canadians, they have taken to rationing health care. So much for those 'better results' you were talking about. You know what Canadian politicians do when they get sick? They hop on the first flight to the States. They use the money they stole from the taxpayers to finance their own health care in the states, despite making it illegal for Canadians who do not have the resources to fly to America to have a health care market here at home. A lot of Canadians run to the hospital any time they get a cold, since after all IT'S FREE, and the standard of care in our hospitals is just atrocious. You wait for 7 hours just to see someone and even then they are pretty crappy.

Socialism doesn't work. It's never worked and it never will work. Doesn't work for health care, doesn't work for justice, doesn't work for anything else.


Privatize everything.

Well, let's go ahead and look at the privatized healthcare system of the United States. 50 million people were uninsured, those who needed healthcare the most were dropped or denied coverage, and healthcare costs were in the stratosphere. The Free Market Fairy failed us. :(
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 10:14:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 5:25:50 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
If socialism is a good idea for health care, for roads, for schools, for justice, then why not for everything? Conversely if it is bad for housing, for food, for the production of automobiles, why would it not be a bad idea for the even more crucial industries of roads, justice, policing?

I would rather capitalism in everything. No state. Anarchy!

Because some markets function better in a Capitalist model?

Why do you believe that it is the best and only choice for all markets?

It has broken down and disintegrated on several occasions, and as much as there are lame excuses for why listed on mises-mices.com, the reality remains and no amount of crying wolf can change that.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 11:25:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Capitalist vs Socialist

I want to point out that this is a diametrically opposing state of being.

Capitalism prioritizes the capitalist, businesspeople like yourself. Profit maximization and everything you learned in economics becomes paramount. Marginalization of cost is key to profit maximization. Labor is by far the largest cost in nearly any capitalist system, and thus labor is by far subject to the most amount of marginalization.

Socialism prioritizes the laborer, everyone EXCEPT businesspeople like yourself. "Happiness", or what economists call "utility", becomes the prime concern. Economist that advocate a socialist state advocate a "golden rule", where optimal investment is not defined by maximizing overall growth in the economy, but by maximizing overall utility, i.e. "happiness".

China is a model of a capitalistic state - they could care less about what laborers want, as long as they don't overthrow the ruling party. The US is a model of the socialist state - our entire political system is built upon achieving "happiness" for the electorate.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 12:26:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:47:58 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:

Well, let's go ahead and look at the privatized health care system of the United States.

Your first problem the U.S. doesn't have a privatized health care system. Enforcement of IP (non-market State policy) gives pharmaceutical companies access to monopoly pricing, regulation and certification is State-mandated which ups the cost of training health care professions (whose cost is passed on to consumers), etc. Various State practices up the cost of health care in the U.S. Say it's bad, say it isn't ideal, I'll agree with all of that. But don't call it private.

50 million people were uninsured, those who needed health care the most were dropped or denied coverage, and health care costs were in the stratosphere. The Free Market Fairy failed us. :(

Methinks we should look more closely at why this is the case rather than calling it a symptom of free markets and then leaving it.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 1:05:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Almost every government has some level of socialism. You really have to go by a case-by-case basis for these types of policies. Not to mention one has to consider transitional effects.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:25:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 12:26:49 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:47:58 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:

Well, let's go ahead and look at the privatized health care system of the United States.

Your first problem the U.S. doesn't have a privatized health care system. Enforcement of IP (non-market State policy) gives pharmaceutical companies access to monopoly pricing, regulation and certification is State-mandated which ups the cost of training health care professions (whose cost is passed on to consumers), etc. Various State practices up the cost of health care in the U.S. Say it's bad, say it isn't ideal, I'll agree with all of that. But don't call it private.


Fair enough. A for-profit healthcare system versus a not-for-profit healthcare system. Without universal coverage, it isn't really fair to call our system socialistic. I'd call it private because it is for-profit, privately owned, and privately operated. The certification requirement is common in several different private practices (you can't have your mechanic neighbor suddenly open up a clinic for obvious reasons).

50 million people were uninsured, those who needed health care the most were dropped or denied coverage, and health care costs were in the stratosphere. The Free Market Fairy failed us. :(

Methinks we should look more closely at why this is the case rather than calling it a symptom of free markets and then leaving it.

This is the case because insurance companies were not regulated for consumer-protection, which is part of the reason 50 million people were uninsured. The other reason is because it's out of the cost-range for most people, as premiums were sky-rocketing. The costs were high because 50 million people without health insurance used a hospital and got treatment that they couldn't pay for. The hospital passes that cost onto the insurance companies, which pass that cost onto those who are insured. To bring healthcare costs down, you need universal coverage (which is why single payer is ideal).
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:51:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:25:50 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:

Fair enough. A for-profit healthcare system versus a not-for-profit healthcare system. Without universal coverage, it isn't really fair to call our system socialistic. I'd call it private because it is for-profit, privately owned, and privately operated. The certification requirement is common in several different private practices (you can't have your mechanic neighbor suddenly open up a clinic for obvious reasons).

I'd call it what everyone else calls it, mixed.

This is the case because insurance companies were not regulated for consumer-protection, which is part of the reason 50 million people were uninsured.

Could ye be more specific?

The other reason is because it's out of the cost-range for most people, as premiums were sky-rocketing.

I talked about that. Look at why they're sky-rocketing. Don't just acknowledge it and then yell for more government intervention.

The costs were high because 50 million people without health insurance used a hospital and got treatment that they couldn't pay for. The hospital passes that cost onto the insurance companies, which pass that cost onto those who are insured.

So a government policy didn't help? K.

To bring healthcare costs down, you need universal coverage (which is why single payer is ideal).

I say you need to roll back pro-corporate government policies which only serve entrenched interests at the expense of consumers.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:04:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:51:11 PM, Noumena wrote:

The other reason is because it's out of the cost-range for most people, as premiums were sky-rocketing.

I talked about that. Look at why they're sky-rocketing. Don't just acknowledge it and then yell for more government intervention.

The costs were high because 50 million people without health insurance used a hospital and got treatment that they couldn't pay for. The hospital passes that cost onto the insurance companies, which pass that cost onto those who are insured.

So a government policy didn't help? K.


He's talking about the difference of not being a cruel society, thus allowing for acute medical care when someone is in acute distress, regardless of if they have the means to pay for it or not, which is the most expensive, labor intensive medical treatment available.

Because many people can't afford medical care, or find that they prefer heat in the winter over a routine medical check-up, you get a large contingent of people who end up using this last medical resort as their ONLY medical resort.

That leaves 2 choices for lowering health costs:

1. Start letting people die if they can't pay the doctor, despite having infinitely curable conditions.

2. Universal healthcare which focuses on prevention.

Since he's not a heartless prick, he went with option #2.

Me? I don't care. I just want someone to choose.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:13:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:04:36 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

He's talking about the difference of not being a cruel society, thus allowing for acute medical care when someone is in acute distress, regardless of if they have the means to pay for it or not, which is the most expensive, labor intensive medical treatment available.

Because many people can't afford medical care, or find that they prefer heat in the winter over a routine medical check-up, you get a large contingent of people who end up using this last medical resort as their ONLY medical resort.

That leaves 2 choices for lowering health costs:

1. Start letting people die if they can't pay the doctor, despite having infinitely curable conditions.

2. Universal healthcare which focuses on prevention.

Since he's not a heartless prick, he went with option #2.

Me? I don't care. I just want someone to choose.

You're unnecessarily restricting the options available. I already laid out reasons for why certain government policies boost health care costs. Removing those would allow them to drop to manageable levels.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:32:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:13:38 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/12/2013 3:04:36 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

He's talking about the difference of not being a cruel society, thus allowing for acute medical care when someone is in acute distress, regardless of if they have the means to pay for it or not, which is the most expensive, labor intensive medical treatment available.

Because many people can't afford medical care, or find that they prefer heat in the winter over a routine medical check-up, you get a large contingent of people who end up using this last medical resort as their ONLY medical resort.

That leaves 2 choices for lowering health costs:

1. Start letting people die if they can't pay the doctor, despite having infinitely curable conditions.

2. Universal healthcare which focuses on prevention.

Since he's not a heartless prick, he went with option #2.

Me? I don't care. I just want someone to choose.

You're unnecessarily restricting the options available. I already laid out reasons for why certain government policies boost health care costs. Removing those would allow them to drop to manageable levels.

No I'm not. We have a system that we have seen work in a Universal, single payer plan, and we have your malformed theories.

I am necessarily restricting the options to the tenable ones.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:41:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 12:26:49 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:47:58 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:

Well, let's go ahead and look at the privatized health care system of the United States.

Your first problem the U.S. doesn't have a privatized health care system. Enforcement of IP (non-market State policy) gives pharmaceutical companies access to monopoly pricing, regulation and certification is State-mandated which ups the cost of training health care professions (whose cost is passed on to consumers), etc. Various State practices up the cost of health care in the U.S. Say it's bad, say it isn't ideal, I'll agree with all of that. But don't call it private.

50 million people were uninsured, those who needed health care the most were dropped or denied coverage, and health care costs were in the stratosphere. The Free Market Fairy failed us. :(

Methinks we should look more closely at why this is the case rather than calling it a symptom of free markets and then leaving it.

When not abused (which the FDA could easily stop if they weren't funded by the same companies abusing the system...which is why self-regulation doesn't work.), this is actually the one piece of the current system that we should be proud of and keep.

WE CURED F*CKING AIDS through pharmaceuticals. We have cured a virus...granted, what we have really done is suppress it with constant drug treatment, but tell that to the people who were about to die and I think they'll tell you that the different is one of semantics as far as they're concerned.

Research, because of the risk involved, should remain in the model in which we have it. Basic treatment should not.

BIG difference, and two completely disparate markets.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 4:15:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:32:12 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/12/2013 3:13:38 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/12/2013 3:04:36 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

He's talking about the difference of not being a cruel society, thus allowing for acute medical care when someone is in acute distress, regardless of if they have the means to pay for it or not, which is the most expensive, labor intensive medical treatment available.

Because many people can't afford medical care, or find that they prefer heat in the winter over a routine medical check-up, you get a large contingent of people who end up using this last medical resort as their ONLY medical resort.

That leaves 2 choices for lowering health costs:

1. Start letting people die if they can't pay the doctor, despite having infinitely curable conditions.

2. Universal healthcare which focuses on prevention.

Since he's not a heartless prick, he went with option #2.

Me? I don't care. I just want someone to choose.

You're unnecessarily restricting the options available. I already laid out reasons for why certain government policies boost health care costs. Removing those would allow them to drop to manageable levels.

No I'm not. We have a system that we have seen work in a Universal, single payer plan, and we have your malformed theories.

I am necessarily restricting the options to the tenable ones.

Tell you what. I'll leave for a little while to let you actually find an argument. Then when I come back we'll talk like grown ups.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 5:02:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 4:15:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/12/2013 3:32:12 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/12/2013 3:13:38 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/12/2013 3:04:36 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

He's talking about the difference of not being a cruel society, thus allowing for acute medical care when someone is in acute distress, regardless of if they have the means to pay for it or not, which is the most expensive, labor intensive medical treatment available.

Because many people can't afford medical care, or find that they prefer heat in the winter over a routine medical check-up, you get a large contingent of people who end up using this last medical resort as their ONLY medical resort.

That leaves 2 choices for lowering health costs:

1. Start letting people die if they can't pay the doctor, despite having infinitely curable conditions.

2. Universal healthcare which focuses on prevention.

Since he's not a heartless prick, he went with option #2.

Me? I don't care. I just want someone to choose.

You're unnecessarily restricting the options available. I already laid out reasons for why certain government policies boost health care costs. Removing those would allow them to drop to manageable levels.

No I'm not. We have a system that we have seen work in a Universal, single payer plan, and we have your malformed theories.

I am necessarily restricting the options to the tenable ones.

Tell you what. I'll leave for a little while to let you actually find an argument. Then when I come back we'll talk like grown ups.

Your ideas are stupid. It's the best I care to put forth at the moment, though I did specify why one of them, particularly, lacked any and all merit (look up...).

You must have skipped over that in favor of your flippant retort because your ideas are so poorly thought out and illogical. whatevs...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 5:48:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:51:11 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/12/2013 2:25:50 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
This is the case because insurance companies were not regulated for consumer-protection, which is part of the reason 50 million people were uninsured.

Could ye be more specific?


Sure. People could lose coverage for having a preexisting condition, or be denied coverage for that.

The other reason is because it's out of the cost-range for most people, as premiums were sky-rocketing.

I talked about that. Look at why they're sky-rocketing. Don't just acknowledge it and then yell for more government intervention.


If you'd have read what I wrote, I did acknowledge the very reason they broke the ionosphere.

The costs were high because 50 million people without health insurance used a hospital and got treatment that they couldn't pay for. The hospital passes that cost onto the insurance companies, which pass that cost onto those who are insured.

So a government policy didn't help? K.


Where do you get that idea? The ACA has only been law for a couple of years.


To bring healthcare costs down, you need universal coverage (which is why single payer is ideal).

I say you need to roll back pro-corporate government policies which only serve entrenched interests at the expense of consumers.

We can look to the healthcare systems of other countries to get an idea as to how it works. A single payer system has a better level of healthcare, lower costs, and a more universal coverage. We've more or less had the Libertarian healthcare plan with minimal regulations on healthcare providers (offering a bare minimum of protection to consumers).
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:24:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 12:58:03 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
Is English your second language?


Anyway, a blended economy is ideal. The Free Market Fairy can't solve all of our problems, and the Randians out there don't realize that sometimes it's the cause of all of our problems. Healthcare is a good example in this.

There isn't some sort of "fairy" involved with the free market. A free market is simply the voluntary exchange of goods and services between individuals. So, when someone supports a free market, they basically are saying that voluntary exchanges between people are the solution.

Now, if you want to see a fairy, you need to look at the fairy that statists expect to run people's lives better than they can run their own lives.

I also find it odd that you cite our health care, a sector with more government involvement than almost any other, as an example of a free market failing.

I would say health care demonstrates the opposite. There is quite a bit that our health care system could learn from less regulated, less intervened sectors like technology, food, etc.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 1:29:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think we are focused too mush on model and case here. I mean, of course every system has its own advantage and consequence (citizen in capitalistic state has less economic security but I wouldn't say that socialist country like France where business tax is 70 percent is good either). It will be endless if we keep going this way.

Actually what I ask is that which of this two principle should have priority. Should the state prioritize economic growth with socialist policy at minimum and if the two are in direct conflict, which one is to stand.

By the way, yes, English is not my first language. Sorry if it sounds that bad...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:06:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 12:48:25 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I pretty sure somebody might have post about this topic already but since I am new to this site I hope that you guy can give me some of the opinion about this topic.

When I was study in the university I was served as adjudicator in one of the debate competition. The proposition (opposition I am not sure) proposed something like the US should turn in to Communism. The chair judge said that it was the most stupid idea he ever heard of. May be he is right...

No, he wasn't right, he merely has a rather simplistic and stereotypical notion of communism, i.e., he automatically identifies it with the counterfeit authoritarian communism of the defunct Soviet model and its bygone boosters. Like many he has no concept whatsoever that the term can also refer to other socioeconomic forms of life that aim through communalism at actualizing principles such as universal access to human well-being, universal human dignity, and universal human liberation from a dominant owning class. Such a form of society would indeed be preferable to American-style capitalism, and to those systems (i.e., mixed economies) whose economic base is still the capitalist market but who mask and soften this fact with a higher degree of sensible regulation and a humanitarian welfare state that palliates the manifestations of the inherent inequities and contradictions of capitalism. Btw, see my post on the concept of earning and the alternative of a system based on the principle of equitably distributing material resources and well-being.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:34:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 1:29:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I think we are focused too mush on model and case here. I mean, of course every system has its own advantage and consequence (citizen in capitalistic state has less economic security but I wouldn't say that socialist country like France where business tax is 70 percent is good either). It will be endless if we keep going this way.

Actually what I ask is that which of this two principle should have priority. Should the state prioritize economic growth with socialist policy at minimum and if the two are in direct conflict, which one is to stand.

By the way, yes, English is not my first language. Sorry if it sounds that bad...

Answer: It depends on the circumstances. There's not one-size-fits-all answer to such a question.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:23:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:47:58 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/12/2013 5:29:42 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
very convenient that you can have that entire debate all by yourself malcolm!


In Canada, where I live, we have single payer health care. Because their is so much inefficiency when the government pays for everything, and because tax increases are not politically acceptable to Canadians, they have taken to rationing health care. So much for those 'better results' you were talking about. You know what Canadian politicians do when they get sick? They hop on the first flight to the States. They use the money they stole from the taxpayers to finance their own health care in the states, despite making it illegal for Canadians who do not have the resources to fly to America to have a health care market here at home. A lot of Canadians run to the hospital any time they get a cold, since after all IT'S FREE, and the standard of care in our hospitals is just atrocious. You wait for 7 hours just to see someone and even then they are pretty crappy.

Socialism doesn't work. It's never worked and it never will work. Doesn't work for health care, doesn't work for justice, doesn't work for anything else.


Privatize everything.

Well, let's go ahead and look at the privatized healthcare system of the United States. 50 million people were uninsured, those who needed healthcare the most were dropped or denied coverage, and healthcare costs were in the stratosphere. The Free Market Fairy failed us. :(

The awkward moment when you realize that the U.S. healthcare system is a combination of the worst ideals from a socialist and a capitalist system fused together into one bureaucratically inept nation-wide organization. The U.S. healthcare system is most definitely not "free market."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 12:59:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:23:36 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:47:58 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/12/2013 5:29:42 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
very convenient that you can have that entire debate all by yourself malcolm!


In Canada, where I live, we have single payer health care. Because their is so much inefficiency when the government pays for everything, and because tax increases are not politically acceptable to Canadians, they have taken to rationing health care. So much for those 'better results' you were talking about. You know what Canadian politicians do when they get sick? They hop on the first flight to the States. They use the money they stole from the taxpayers to finance their own health care in the states, despite making it illegal for Canadians who do not have the resources to fly to America to have a health care market here at home. A lot of Canadians run to the hospital any time they get a cold, since after all IT'S FREE, and the standard of care in our hospitals is just atrocious. You wait for 7 hours just to see someone and even then they are pretty crappy.

Socialism doesn't work. It's never worked and it never will work. Doesn't work for health care, doesn't work for justice, doesn't work for anything else.


Privatize everything.

Well, let's go ahead and look at the privatized healthcare system of the United States. 50 million people were uninsured, those who needed healthcare the most were dropped or denied coverage, and healthcare costs were in the stratosphere. The Free Market Fairy failed us. :(

The awkward moment when you realize that the U.S. healthcare system is a combination of the worst ideals from a socialist and a capitalist system fused together into one bureaucratically inept nation-wide organization. The U.S. healthcare system is most definitely not "free market."

You "libertarian" types are ideological Johnny One Notes, i.e., all you're interested in is defending your precious and vastly, dishonestly overrated "free market".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 1:18:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 12:59:04 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:23:36 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:47:58 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/12/2013 5:29:42 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
very convenient that you can have that entire debate all by yourself malcolm!


In Canada, where I live, we have single payer health care. Because their is so much inefficiency when the government pays for everything, and because tax increases are not politically acceptable to Canadians, they have taken to rationing health care. So much for those 'better results' you were talking about. You know what Canadian politicians do when they get sick? They hop on the first flight to the States. They use the money they stole from the taxpayers to finance their own health care in the states, despite making it illegal for Canadians who do not have the resources to fly to America to have a health care market here at home. A lot of Canadians run to the hospital any time they get a cold, since after all IT'S FREE, and the standard of care in our hospitals is just atrocious. You wait for 7 hours just to see someone and even then they are pretty crappy.

Socialism doesn't work. It's never worked and it never will work. Doesn't work for health care, doesn't work for justice, doesn't work for anything else.


Privatize everything.

Well, let's go ahead and look at the privatized healthcare system of the United States. 50 million people were uninsured, those who needed healthcare the most were dropped or denied coverage, and healthcare costs were in the stratosphere. The Free Market Fairy failed us. :(

The awkward moment when you realize that the U.S. healthcare system is a combination of the worst ideals from a socialist and a capitalist system fused together into one bureaucratically inept nation-wide organization. The U.S. healthcare system is most definitely not "free market."

You "libertarian" types are ideological Johnny One Notes, i.e., all you're interested in is defending your precious and vastly, dishonestly overrated "free market".

That's not entirely true, we are interested in defending our liberties, and capitalist free markets are a component of that.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 6:04:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 1:18:34 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:59:04 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:23:36 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:47:58 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
Well, let's go ahead and look at the privatized healthcare system of the United States. 50 million people were uninsured, those who needed healthcare the most were dropped or denied coverage, and healthcare costs were in the stratosphere. The Free Market Fairy failed us. :(

The awkward moment when you realize that the U.S. healthcare system is a combination of the worst ideals from a socialist and a capitalist system fused together into one bureaucratically inept nation-wide organization. The U.S. healthcare system is most definitely not "free market."

You "libertarian" types are ideological Johnny One Notes, i.e., all you're interested in is defending your precious and vastly, dishonestly overrated "free market".

That's not entirely true, we are interested in defending our liberties, and capitalist free markets are a component of that.

Capital is an entitlement, not a liberty, so this statement could be further generalized: we are interested in defending our rights, and the free exchange of exclusive access is a component of that. I'm not a libertarian socialist or anything, just a plain socialist observing a glaring contradiction.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:18:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 6:04:17 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/14/2013 1:18:34 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:59:04 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/14/2013 12:23:36 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:47:58 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
Well, let's go ahead and look at the privatized healthcare system of the United States. 50 million people were uninsured, those who needed healthcare the most were dropped or denied coverage, and healthcare costs were in the stratosphere. The Free Market Fairy failed us. :(

The awkward moment when you realize that the U.S. healthcare system is a combination of the worst ideals from a socialist and a capitalist system fused together into one bureaucratically inept nation-wide organization. The U.S. healthcare system is most definitely not "free market."

You "libertarian" types are ideological Johnny One Notes, i.e., all you're interested in is defending your precious and vastly, dishonestly overrated "free market".

That's not entirely true, we are interested in defending our liberties, and capitalist free markets are a component of that.

Capital is an entitlement, not a liberty, so this statement could be further generalized: we are interested in defending our rights, and the free exchange of exclusive access is a component of that. I'm not a libertarian socialist or anything, just a plain socialist observing a glaring contradiction.

True. Most Fascist-type government did use capitalist model of economy but rule with fist.