RE: Socialism

RE: Socialism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/18/2008 12:45:57 PM)
Asked why poor people should get inferior medical treatment Aswad replied quote: Why should anyone get jack shit, ever? The question really works either way, after all. You might as well ask why some guys don't get laid, and posit that random women be forced to spread their legs for them. One does not necessarily have the obligation to make sacrifices of that sort All true statements. . quote: A simple defense for the notion that they get anything at all, is that it keeps society running smoothly, and makes being a citizen a better option than being a criminal. Untrue, letting lots of poor die off would undoubtedly be, up to a certain number, economically advantageous for those remaining.. Poor people who are ill are unlikely to be criminals. quote: That benefits everyone, which is the point of a society. But it should not entail forcing people to make greater sacrifices than the losses they would inevitably incur if those sacrifices are not made. How would wealthy people be making a sacrifice if everyone had, as far as was possible , the same level of access to medical treatment ? Unless you characterise giving up an undeserved advantage as a sacrifice ? The root of the matter is this.... Compare hereditary wealth with hereditary poverty Both have the same disease , one gets better treatment. Why should that be allowed to continue.? Political/moral judgements can be made to rectify this. Is that wrong ?

Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/18/2008 1:38:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Untrue, letting lots of poor die off would undoubtedly be, up to a certain number, economically advantageous for those remaining.. Poor people who are ill are unlikely to be criminals. In my experience, illness is a spectrum, onset is not always immediate, and hospitals don't require cash-up-front. Desperate people do desperate things, so I rather prefer not to make people desperate around me. Oh, and it takes longer to breed and train a new worker than to fix an existing one. quote: How would wealthy people be making a sacrifice if everyone had, as far as was possible, the same level of access to medical treatment? They would be sacrificing money for services. And the cost savings from collectivization go into the collective. Give Cesar what is Cesar's, sort of. And I'm proposing that people pay individually for improvements over the baseline, while taxes cover the baseline. quote: Unless you characterise giving up an undeserved advantage as a sacrifice ? What's undeserved about possessing value? Somebody earned it at some point in time, after all. quote: Compare hereditary wealth with hereditary poverty Are you proposing we dispense with inheritance? Who, then, gets to appropriate the value you accumulate in your life? quote: Both have the same disease , one gets better treatment. Why should that be allowed to continue.? Why not? quote: Political/moral judgements can be made to rectify this. Is that wrong ? In my opinion, yes. Health, al-Aswad.

thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/18/2008 10:54:43 PM)
Aswad: Are you suggesting that on a life boat a rich person should be entitled to more food and water? thompson

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 1:31:53 AM)
I think the mighty Aswad is wilting under the onslaught of my remorseless logic and the colour of Thomsons text. lol Tho' I know have won on a TKO I must quote this. quote: Aswad Oh, and it takes longer to breed and train a new worker than to fix an existing one. We are speaking of the medical plight of poor people who are poor because they do low paid jobs that require NO training. On top of that there are too many of them so breeding most definately is not the problem. Aswad we are discussing here lack of access to medical treatment that affects human beings.in the most intimate way and can be life threatening. This difficulty IMO deserves a different economic approach to matters such as... is it right or wrong for some families to own big houses and many cars while others dont.

LadyEllen -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 3:42:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Aswad: Are you suggesting that on a life boat a rich person should be entitled to more food and water? thompson No one is entitled to anything The rich man's wealth is only of value because the rest of us say so - and in this situation the wealth any of us have is nullified; however each of us in the boat have an eye towards being rescued and at that point the rich man's wealth becomes more important a consideration if the rich man should offer to buy the food and water of the others by making their families rich when he is eventually the only rescued survivor........... if the rich man should offer money to some in the boat to push a few others overboard..... Personally, if he offered either scenario, he'd suffer the scenario if it was my choice, but others may have different ideas E

Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 4:47:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Are you suggesting that on a life boat a rich person should be entitled to more food and water? How would that improve resource utilization, net survival or anything else of relevance? You seem to have missed my point entirely. Health, al-Aswad.

meatcleaver -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 4:48:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Aswad: Are you suggesting that on a life boat a rich person should be entitled to more food and water? thompson No one is entitled to anything The rich man's wealth is only of value because the rest of us say so - and in this situation the wealth any of us have is nullified; however each of us in the boat have an eye towards being rescued and at that point the rich man's wealth becomes more important a consideration This is why countries have a military. Just in case some people think a country has a military to protect its citizens.

MasDom -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 5:10:05 AM)
Grapes of wrath mother fu**er...

meatcleaver -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 5:22:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: Unless you characterise giving up an undeserved advantage as a sacrifice ? What's undeserved about possessing value? Somebody earned it at some point in time, after all. My brother's father in law who is by no means on the bread line, advised my brother when it was clear that he was rogering his daughter, 'you don't get rich by working hard to earn a living, you get rich by working hard to accummulate wealth' The point being, if you don't get the point. We live in a society where hard work is not rewarded so in order to get rich, you need to play the system. I was listening to a discussion on the radio a couple of years ago between business men and economists and the consensus was, you have to work hard to get your first $250,000, after that if you are smart, you can accummulate wealth by playing in the capitalist casino. My point being, wealth doesn't necessarily reflect someones contribution to society nor their moral backbone. Many super rich families in the world have gained their money through illegal means and then turned it clean. Just take a look through the world's rich list. Many are no better than gangsters and look whose company our politicians keep. Don't tell me the rich are necessarily owed anything or deserve anything. They reason they are allowed to keep their wealth is that they buy our politicians.

Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 5:24:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I think the mighty Aswad is wilting under the onslaught of my remorseless logic and the colour of Thomsons text. lol More like sleeping and getting offline stuff done... quote: Tho' I know have won on a TKO I must quote this. Is there something for you to "win" here, online? quote: quote: Aswad Oh, and it takes longer to breed and train a new worker than to fix an existing one. We are speaking of the medical plight of poor people who are poor because they do low paid jobs that require NO training. On top of that there are too many of them so breeding most definately is not the problem. Well, if there is overpopulation, then you've got another problem to manage, of course. For instance, poverty increases breeding. Up here, at least, getting someone up to legal working age costs more than most medical treatments, even before factoring second order effects and the like. There is the time off from work for the parents, education for the kid, and so forth. If the investment didn't turn out well, it may be time to reconsider the investment strategy, wouldn't you say? quote: Aswad we are discussing here lack of access to medical treatment that affects human beings.in the most intimate way and can be life threatening. This difficulty IMO deserves a different economic approach to matters such as... is it right or wrong for some families to own big houses and many cars while others dont. That is your opinion. My opinion is that, regardless of how much we'd like to wave the magic wand and make everything all right for everyone, it doesn't work, and it's probably not a good idea, either. Particularly in the long run. If your reasoning is carried to its logical conclusion, then you're looking at a world government that throws all its good money after the bad money while letting the latter breed. Sounds like one of the few ways to realize the sort of thing that can justify Rand's otherwise quite questionable ideas. Health, al-Aswad.

thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 7:11:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Are you suggesting that on a life boat a rich person should be entitled to more food and water? How would that improve resource utilization, net survival or anything else of relevance? You seem to have missed my point entirely. Health, al-Aswad. Aswad: I understand your point completely. You have failed to answer my question. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 7:17:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Aswad: Are you suggesting that on a life boat a rich person should be entitled to more food and water? thompson No one is entitled to anything Wrong:...on a life boat everyone is entitled to equal shares. My question was does the rich mans economic status entitle him to more. It was not would or could he use said status to gain a greater share of the resources on the boat. The rich man's wealth is only of value because the rest of us say so - and in this situation the wealth any of us have is nullified; however each of us in the boat have an eye towards being rescued and at that point the rich man's wealth becomes more important a consideration if the rich man should offer to buy the food and water of the others by making their families rich when he is eventually the only rescued survivor........... if the rich man should offer money to some in the boat to push a few others overboard..... Personally, if he offered either scenario, he'd suffer the scenario if it was my choice, but others may have different ideas E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 7:52:39 AM)
With regard to the rich man in the lifeboat scenario, surely the logical course of action is for the poor to throw the rich man overboard. Why? because having used some of his wealth to purloin the best health services that his society can offer he is likely to have the largest mass. Therefore over he goes. With regard to the wealthy only being wealthy because the rest of us say so, would they become poor if we said they weren't wealthy? Wealth is more than mere tokens ie money it rests in land and production IMO. Striving to make society good for everyone by redistribution IMO is not a good in and of itself and is likely to produce bad results with one exception. Health care. If you believe that a slight reduction in standards for a minority of wealthy people is bad because the standards for the majority of poor to not particularly well off have been improved, then you will disagree. There is an exception even to this. Keeping too many old and diseased people alive will undoubtedly have a major negative economic impact when measured in terms of the amount of redistribution required. Harsh but true.

LadyEllen -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 8:04:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave With regard to the wealthy only being wealthy because the rest of us say so, would they become poor if we said they weren't wealthy? Wealth is more than mere tokens ie money it rests in land and production IMO. His money only has value if we all agree it does - and generally we do, because we possess and use the same sort of money, so if we say £100000-00 is worthless, then our £1000-00 is worthless too, and we wouldnt be too keen to say so. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 8:10:47 AM)
I say again wealth is more than mere tokens ie money. When currencies collapse, which they do, those who have land or can initiate production are still wealthy. Those with money are not.

Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 8:51:16 AM)
Assets are imperishable values and the means of production; this includes land, infrastructure, etc. Income is the increase in value from the stream of services and goods being produced. Wealth is more than tokens, yes. The tokens devaluate in a growing economy. But wealth definitely encompasses both money and other assets. Health, al-Aswad.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 10:36:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Are you suggesting that on a life boat a rich person should be entitled to more food and water? How would that improve resource utilization, net survival or anything else of relevance? Translation: the rich guy has to have someone to man the oars. Sorry, Aswad, couldn't help it ;-)

Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/19/2008 11:08:59 PM)
~lol~ No worries. We can all use a bit of levity now and then. [:D] Health, al-Aswad.

Page: << < prev 17 18 19 20 [21]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125