Continuing the discussion about left versus right
Don Quixote on Jan 18 2011 at 10:20 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
We’ve been having a great discussion on another thread about the left and the right, thanks largely to a visit from Zachriel. I’m not sure how much we taught each other. We got a bit sidetracked into discussions about whether Pelosi is a socialist, although Zachriel couldn’t come up with a single example of a time she voted to decrease government power and increase individual freedom in the economic sphere (or any other sphere, for that matter). But one comment struck me as, perhaps, illustrating the difference between liberals and conservatives.
Zachriel said, apparently in support of Obamacare, “Those in low-income households were three times as likely to be uninsured as those with incomes above $75,000.” My gut reaction was “Yes, so?” But I think I know the answer. As a conservative I reject the notion that need = entitlement. I do not believe that just because I need something, like health care, I have a right to use the coercive power of government to reach into your pocket to pay for it. Zachriel, I suppose, and most liberals, for certain, would disagree.
Don’t misunderstand. I believe that everyone who wants to contribute their own money to help me afford health care is welcome to do so. If I need the help and people provide it I will be very appreciative. I just don’t believe that they should be able to force anyone else to do so.
Does anyone else, especially those who participated in the earlier discussion, have any response to this or any other insights to share?
Email This Post To A Friend
96 Responses to “Continuing the discussion about left versus right”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Healthcare and insurance are not related. the govt and insurance companies would like you think they are one and the same, insurance=healthcare. One of the arguments during the healthcare debate before the dem congress forced it down our throats, from the conservative side, was that the issue was one of cost. For some reason that has not been revisited. Cost is still the problem. It is too high. Why is it too high? Because there is not enough competition amongst insurance companies for one. This is fine for insurance co but not for us. The govt, via Medicare also upholds high costs because they, supposedly for consumer benefit, mandates prices to Big Medicine, again reducing competition. Legally mandated treatment by hospitals for all without consideration of their ability to pay increases costs.But the worst thing IMO is that Big Medicine and government work together to disallow true freedom for individuals to pursue the health treatment of their choice. How? By discouraging and/or hindering what is termed “alternative medicine”. Just about 1/2 of the healthcare dollars are spent on this alternative (I call it “cure” and “preventive” medicine). This means 1/2 of the dollars are not decided by govt on how it is spent or who it gets spent on (conventional medicine, Big Pharma). There is a bill pending in the senate, sponsored by of all people Sen. John McCain to put restrictions on nutritional supplements. Europe in the coming year is in fact having legal restrictions on supplements. The US is in favor of Codex Alimentarius, a UN drafted paper outlining if and how supplements can be used, among other medical issues. Ostensibly this being done, once again, to protect the consumer (or world citizen). BS. It is done to funnel all that “alternative” money to its “rightful” recipients, those permitted by government to exist and dispense medical wisdom (no matter how bad it is). This is another situation where a very basic and precious freedom is being destroyed, the right of control over our own bodies.
This touches tangentially on the discussion about atheism. In Christianity (Judaism, too), we have an obligation to help our neighbor, even if meeting it causes us strain or distress. But we must carry out that obligation voluntarily. God asks that we will the things we do, not do them because a government official can shoot, fine or imprison us if we don’t.
That is one of the great differences between leftists and free people. Leftists believe in the cheap grace that comes from pointing a gun at a person and saying, “You must help your fellow man. . .or else.” Free people say that real grace comes from understanding that God or conscience, not some bleeding heart wielding a means of coercion, should be the source of our desire to help our fellow man.
What I found most illuminating in that other thread is the difference between Zachriel’s argument style and that of the more conservative commenters who were engaging with him (her? I don’t believe gender was indicated, but for convenience I’ll say “he” and “him” while acknowledging that it could just as well be “she” and “her.”) On the one hand, Zachriel argued that the left is “egalitarian” while the right is focused on preserving the existing order. On the other, in argument, Zachriel consistently cited to authority — dictionary definitions, scholarly citations and such- and then insisted that others stop thinking for themselves and defer to the chosen authority as received truth. The commenters on the other side also cited various authorities but were far more likely than Zachriel to come up with their own arguments, supported with their knowledge of history and current events, and to feel intellectually free to challenge cited authorities that appeared to them to be wrong. In addition to appeals to authority, Zachriel used a lot of passive voice and condescension to achieve an authoritarian tone (“You were provided with sufficient citations to understand the basic concept”).
I was really struck by the contradiction between Zachriel’s concept of the left as egalitarian and his own elitist, authority-based style of thinking, as well as the contradiction between his characterization of the right as focused on preserving the existing order when his own reasoning style depends so fully on unquestioning adherence to intellectual authorities selected by him.
Zachriel said, apparently in support of Obamacare, “Those in low-income households were three times as likely to be uninsured as those with incomes above $75,000.” My gut reaction was “Yes, so?”
DQ, as one of those “uninsured” (unemployed and not willing to pay the high price for individual health-insurance) my gut reaction is to say:
STOP SPEAKING FOR ME, damn it!
I am getting so tired of so many on the left who claim to speak for many others. It is so clearly a part of their own self-importance. “See, I am a good person, I care about others; who are too stupid to know what’s good for themselves”
What we need is a job market economy - get the government out of the business of meddling in everything and let businesses (i.e., people; yes, people, for those on the left do not understand that a business is run by people) decide for themselves what they want to do. Only with business not burdened to the point of exhaustion by government will the job market improve in the US. Then, I can get health-insurance through my employer – without a massive government program that will eventually decide what services I get or don’t get.
When the government gets out of the business of mandating every single procedure and stops telling private companies what services they MUST offer then the market will allow companies to decide for themselves which services to offer and the customer demand will decide what folks are willing to pay for or not to pay for.
I’ve never taken a single econ 101 class in my life; but, even I get this simple concept. But, I’ve also never taken a Marxism 101 either, so, perhaps, that is why I don’t see things through the tinted glasses so typical of those on the left.
P.S. Here in NJ we had the highest car insurance rates in the country. While things are not the best today, they are much better than in the past. Why? Because the state government, under the direction of Jim McGreevey (yes, that Jim McGreevey, the one with the “beard” for a wife, a gay lover who wasn’t a US citizen put in charge of homeland security, and who proclaimed “I am a gay American” who now wants to become a priest, and who teaches ethics (ethics, really? no laughing at that!) and law at Kean University) relaxed many of the restrictions that forced many companies to leave the state. With the lessened restrictions, car insurance rates are more affordable – even GEICO is back!
Don Quixote: We got a bit sidetracked into discussions about whether Pelosi is a socialist, although Zachriel couldn’t come up with a single example of a time she voted to decrease government power and increase individual freedom in the economic sphere (or any other sphere, for that matter).
But that doesn’t make Pelosi a socialist, so you’re still having troubles with the concept. A socialist believes that the government should control the means of production. That means the government owns the factories, hires the workers, sets the prices, distributes the goods. There are very few socialists in the U.S. and they have almost influence in government.
Don Quixote: “Those in low-income households were three times as likely to be uninsured as those with incomes above $75,000.” My gut reaction was “Yes, so?” But I think I know the answer. As a conservative I reject the notion that need = entitlement. I do not believe that just because I need something, like health care, I have a right to use the coercive power of government to reach into your pocket to pay for it.
That is your position, and there is nothing inconsistent about it. It does leave the problem of the history of infectious diseases out of the equation, but perhaps you’ll make an exception for that. Nor does the government have to regulate food or drug safety. If people die, they will avoid those vendors. For that matter, government doesn’t have to run the fire departments or police. Let everyone be responsible for their own security.
There are very few socialists in the U.S. and they have almost {no} influence in government.
stanley: One of the arguments during the healthcare debate before the dem congress forced it down our throats, from the conservative side, was that the issue was one of cost.
Thought the bill had won a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate.
stanley: Legally mandated treatment by hospitals for all without consideration of their ability to pay increases costs.
Is it your position that people should be refused emergency care at hospitals if they can’t prove their ability to pay?
Zachriel, “controlling the means of production” does not equal “owning the means of production”. As far as your statement that there are “very few socialists in the U.S. and they have no influence in governments”, I think that we should let that statement stand on its own merits as a testimony to your world view.
In your spare time, you might want to ruminate on no-doubt strange and coincidental alignment of the platform statements of the CPUSA [http://www.cpusa.org/party-program/] and Socialist Party [ http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/ ] and the Democrat party platform and views expressed by very rich politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats.
Also, regarding Glenn Beck’s “weird conspiracy theories”, I don’t buy into all he says but, please, enlighten us on why his takes on George Soros, Cloward-Piven and Van Jones are wrong.
DQ: Most people that I have encountered on the left are Stage-1 thinkers. They don’t think beyond the first level.
For example, many people on the Liberal/Left tend to see a social problem and conclude “we must take care of that”. By that, of course, they mean “government”. They rarely question where government gets the resources to this and when they do, the answer is by “taxing others”. Taxing “others” means taxing people with more money than them. Government plays the role that the parent did when they were kids – parents gave them what they wanted but they never questioned where how the parents got the resources to do such.
In my view, forcibly taking money from other people through taxation is wrong because it makes enforceable claims on the assets and labor of others (we used to call this slavery). Sure, the argument is made “but we are a Democracy, therefore we make these claims by consensus”. Not really, because we now have a majority, about half of whom pay no income tax but are net recipients of government largesse, making those claims on a minority (the top 10%, 5% or 1% of wage earners etc.). This is one reason that I believe the only fair tax is a flat tax.
So, basically, the answer I offer to your question is that many people see a social need among the uninsured and insist that “we” fix it. As Charles M points out, it’s cheap grace to make somebody else pay for it while claiming one’s own purity of intentions. However, even if this was valid…where does it stop. Many people lack their own homes…should other taxpayers buy them homes (oh, wait a minute…). How about cars (whoops, yet again….)? Day care for kids (?). health care (?). Energy (?). Reproductive and sexual identity choices (?). How about HDTV or football tickets? Someone “else” should pay for this.
I am with you. People need to take responsibility for their own choices and lives. Most of the so-called uninsured are uninsured because of their own choices. For those that deservedly need medical help, there are plenty of voluntary associations, neighborhood health clinics, Medicaid programs etc. to provide it. There is already a safety net. If it comes that the uninsured must pay high prices for emergency health care, then let it be: it all comes down to the value that an individual pays for their own health. Freedom means taking responsibility for your own life.
Finally, getting past stage-1 thinking, there is the consideration of a) consequences and b) alternatives. I happen to think that turning over our health care choices to a government monopoly run by a government that is fundamentally corrupt (as all governments are…it’s human nature) and broke is extremely dangerous. Unlimited demand combined with limited resources leads to catastrophe. Zachriel’s huffing and puffing aside, it really does come down to “death panel” choices, as has happened in Canada, the UK, Netherlands and France. People must take responsibilities for their own lives. The alternatives are far worse.
“The best day of your life is the one on which you decide your life is your own. No apologies or excuses. No one to lean on, rely on, or blame. The gift is yours – it is an amazing journey – and you alone are responsible for the quality of it. This is the day your life really begins.”
— Bob Moawad
stanley: One of the arguments during the healthcare debate before the dem congress forced it down our throats, from the conservative side, was that the issue was one of cost.
Zachriel’s response: Thought the bill had won a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate.
Yes, without analysis and debate of the bill in a top-down Democrat controlled majorities that went against every public opinion poll on the subject and resulting in a tsunami of conservative backlash in the recent election. Those majorities hardly represented the will of the people.
stanley: Legally mandated treatment by hospitals for all without consideration of their ability to pay increases costs.
Zachriel: Is it your position that people should be refused emergency care at hospitals if they can’t prove their ability to pay?
How about if they pay it back afterwards, provided that it truly is an “emergency”?
Mrs Whatsit: What I found most illuminating in that other thread is the difference between Zachriel’s argument style and that of the more conservative commenters who were engaging with him
We usually avoid responding to personal comments (which the last thread was replete with), but you raise a few points that might help put this to rest.
Mrs Whatsit: On the one hand, Zachriel argued that the left is “egalitarian” while the right is focused on preserving the existing order.
It’s not an argument. It’s the accepted definitions.
Mrs Whatsit: On the other, in argument, Zachriel consistently cited to authority — dictionary definitions, scholarly citations and such- and then insisted that others stop thinking for themselves and defer to the chosen authority as received truth.
When it comes to the way words are used, then citing dictionaries, encyclopedias and scholarship is appropriate.
Mrs Whatsit: The commenters on the other side also cited various authorities but were far more likely than Zachriel to come up with their own arguments, supported with their knowledge of history and current events, and to feel intellectually free to challenge cited authorities that appeared to them to be wrong.
Saw very few arguments, mostly either comments about Zachriel, misstatements of facts, or using terminology incorrectly. The best way to form an argument is by starting from a shared foundation. Don Quixote started to make an argument, but didn’t seem to follow up on it.
An equivalent statement to Zachriel’s original one: “Those in low-income households were three times as likely to have cut out the middle-man in obtaining health care than those with incomes above $75,000.”
In an economy without government interference in prices, that should mean a reduced cost for those who don’t have to pay the administrative overhead of an insurance company. It also provides a better differentiation between various sorts of medical care, in particular, routine medical care compared to catastrophic and chronic medical care.
With those distinctions in mind, one can more readily see how the system in the U.S. developed to increase the costs devoted to medical care of all sorts, and how Obamacare (including the increase in wage and price controls, which reduce medical care availability) is in the process of exacerbating the problems.
It really makes no never-mind if you call such programs socialist, or fascist, or crony-capitalist, or communist, or whatever. The key is that the separation between benefit and cost is increased.
Danny Lemieux: As far as your statement that there are “very few socialists in the U.S. and they have no influence in governments”, I think that we should let that statement stand on its own merits as a testimony to your world view.
Yes, other people on this blog will agree with you, but otherwise you admit to having no argument.
Danny Lemieux: In my view, forcibly taking money from other people through taxation is wrong because it makes enforceable claims on the assets and labor of others (we used to call this slavery).
Funny how the Constitution empowers the government to tax.
Danny Lemieux: How about cars (whoops, yet again….)? Day care for kids (?). health care (?). Energy (?). Reproductive and sexual identity choices (?). How about HDTV or football tickets? Someone “else” should pay for this.
Strawman.
Danny Lemieux: In your spare time, you might want to ruminate on no-doubt strange and coincidental alignment of the platform statements of the CPUSA [http://www.cpusa.org/party-program/] and Socialist Party [ http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/ ] and the Democrat party platform and views expressed by very rich politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats.
There are significant differences in the positions of the Democratic Party, Socialist Party and Communism. That you would seriously equate them is extraordinary and hard to take seriously. The Democratic Party doesn’t advocate that the government control the means of production.
Danny Lemieux: Unlimited demand combined with limited resources leads to catastrophe. Zachriel’s huffing and puffing aside, it really does come down to “death panel” choices, as has happened in Canada, the UK, Netherlands and France.
It was a falsehood, in fact. They pointed to a specific provision and claimed it was a death panel. In addition, all systems require rationing of some sort, and end-of-life issues. You are welcome to your position about free market health care, but not to misrepresent the position of others.
By the way, health, quality of care, and longevity are comparable in other developed countries, most of which have some sort of universal care.
Danny Lemieux: How about if they pay it back afterwards, provided that it truly is an “emergency”?
That’s the current system in the U.S. Families often lose their homes and go bankrupt because someone gets sick.
colorless.blue.ideas: The key is that the separation between benefit and cost is increased.
Odd then, that other developed nations provide universal health care, the costs are considerably less, and yet they have comparable levels of health, care and longevity.
Zachriel: That is your position, and there is nothing inconsistent about it. It does leave the problem of the history of infectious diseases out of the equation, but perhaps you’ll make an exception for that. Nor does the government have to regulate food or drug safety. If people die, they will avoid those vendors. For that matter, government doesn’t have to run the fire departments or police. Let everyone be responsible for their own security.
Danny Lemieux: How about cars (whoops, yet again….)? Day care for kids (?). health care (?). Energy (?). Reproductive and sexual identity choices (?). How about HDTV or football tickets? Someone “else” should pay for this.
Zachriel: Strawman.
I don’t think Danny’s examples are a “strawman” argument.
I think the examples the two of you provided in the back and forth illustrate the problem. *What* services are appropriate for a government to provide? Should the government then directly provide them; or contract them out for bids to private companies; or simply provide regulatory oversight over competing companies in the private sector?
Most of us here, I think, would accept the idea that the government should be in the business of *managing* services – but only those that are necessary and proper.
If it isn’t necessary, then the government should get out. That means to me: If the private sector is perfectly capable of providing such services, the government has no business providing them.
If it isn’t proper, then the government should get out. Proper should mean, basically, a legal responsibility of the government at the correct level within a federal republic. (Level = national, then state, then county, then various municipal levels.)
Proper also means Constitutional.
I think you could take each and every specific example listed by Danny L and Zachriel, and debate each one on its own merits: Is that specific service both necessarily and properly a function of government, at the level of government at which it is currently provided?
We know government spending is enormous (and to most of us, out of control), and government power over our lives is vast and increasing at an incredible rate as well. Most of us here want to see government spending reduced and government power reduced. We want the damn government out of our lives! Some others would like to see taxes increased even more, rather than spending slashed; and see the government as such an instrument for good, that they want it to have even more power over ever more areas within our lives.
Mrs Whatsit: On the one hand, Zachriel argued that the left is “egalitarian” while the right is focused on preserving the existing order.
Zachriel: It’s not an argument. It’s the accepted definitions.
The reason there is asymmetry in the definition is because social stratification is the primitive condition. For instance, Southern Democratic segregationists were considered on the right, and usually called conservatives.
Danny Lemieux: How about cars (whoops, yet again….)? Day care for kids (?). health care (?). Energy (?). Reproductive and sexual identity choices (?). How about HDTV or football tickets? Someone “else” should pay for this.
Let’s look at this old canard more closely. If someone petitions to outlaw child labor, they are socialists. If people campaign to end segregation, they are communists. If activists lobby to restrict pollution in the waterways, they are collectivizing property. If a union tries to organize for safe working conditions, they want to control all aspects of the economy, probably through revolution.
It’s called the Fallacy of the False Dilemma. Someone can support some government intervention without supporting complete government control of all aspects of human existence.
Mike Devx: *What* services are appropriate for a government to provide? Should the government then directly provide them; or contract them out for bids to private companies; or simply provide regulatory oversight over competing companies in the private sector?
Those are all appropriate questions.
Mike Devx: Most of us here want to see government spending reduced and government power reduced.
That’s fine, but that doesn’t support the claim that Democrats = Socialists = Communists, or other such concoctions.
Have to work again, but I want to pick up on one comment by Zachriel before I go. Your definition of socialism as only having to do with the “means of production” is far too limited for the modern, post-industrial society. The battle between socialists (or, perhaps, more exactly “statists”) and conservatives today is a battle between visions of an economy run by government bureaucrats/politicians and an economy run by individual choices of free men and women.
You are right that citation to authority is appropriate and we should define our terms, lest we talk past each other. But that is the beginning of the conversation, not the end. For example, it is no answer at all to say that Pelosi has never seen an increase in government control she doesn’t love, but that doesn’t mean she’s a socialist because she hasn’t spoken to the 100-year-outdated concept of control over the means of production. Unlimited increases in government control and power do ultimately result in control over every aspect of our lives, including, but certainly not limited to (or even most importantly) the means of production.
By the way, in the earlier discussion, there were a few negative comments tossed your way, Zachriel, and I apologize for that. On the other hand, you started out by asking when Y-man and I would stop being delusional (necessarily implying that we were delusional) so it wasn’t all one-way. In any case, we in the Bookwormroom try very hard to maintain a civil exchange of ideas (unlike many blogs on the left and right) and I thank you for hanging in with us.
MrsWhatsit — good analysis and I noticed the same thing. I do think Zachriel and Danny are right that we need to define terms before we can engage in meaningful discussion. But I think Zachriel’s definitions are outdated, and I think he stops too easily at labels (for example, being content without further analysis to declare that Pelosi is not a socialist, without going beyond that label to explore what she does believe in (unlimited extensions of government power and control) and what she does vote for, regardless of what label is attached to it.
Zachriel does have a point, though. I use “socialist” as a convenient short-hand for a set of ideas that I think most readers understand. To the extent that Zachriel applies a different, more traditional, I would contend outdated, meaning to the word, we do talk past each other. To the extent that the changing meaning of words causes miscommunications, perhaps we should invent new words and just call Pelosi a “statist” or “governmentalist” and acknowledge that “socialist,” classicly defined as tied to the means of production, is not relevant to a post-industrial society. Maybe then we can get past the labels to a meaningful discussion of ideas such as government control versus individual freedom.
Zachriel says: Odd then, that other developed nations provide universal health care, the costs are considerably less, and yet they have comparable levels of health, care and longevity.
Actually, the survival rates for cancer and heart disease are much lower in the supposed developed (i.e. Western) nations and their economies and health care systems are unsustainable.
Zachriel says: “That’s the current system in the U.S. Families often lose their homes and go bankrupt because someone gets sick.”
That’s not what is overwhelming emergency rooms with indigent care – it is indigent people showing up for every conceivable disease (colds, etc.) because they know they can’t be refused. Conservatives were very much in favor of a program for catastrophic health insurance. However, everyone should have to pay…something.
Zachriel says: “The Democratic Party doesn’t advocate that the government control the means of production.”
Well, who are you going to believe…Democrat press releases or your own lyin’ eyes? Like I said, when you have time…
Zachriel says: “Funny how the Constitution empowers the government to tax.
It also guarantees equal protection under the law, property rights and protection against unjust confiscation.
In response to “death panels”, Zachriel says: “It was a falsehood, in fact. They pointed to a specific provision and claimed it was a death panel. In addition, all systems require rationing of some sort, and end-of-life issues.”
I invite everyone to contemplate how the inherent contradictions in this last statement are carefully hidden behind vague pablum, as “death panel” is diluted to “end of life issues” and the “necessity of rationing”.
I do commend Zachriel for apparently agreeing with Mrs. Watsit’s points, however…witnessing “his” evidentiary responses to her challenges.
Ah, I can’t resist before I go. Zachriel, you are stuck on labels again. The issue is not whether Democrats = Socialists = Communists. Some do and some don’t and, anyway, as discussed, the meaning of those terms changes over the years. Anyway, they are just labels. Let’s talk about ideas. Rather than talking about issues relevant 50-150 years ago, how about talking about issues relevant today, such as how we can possibly justify living high on the hog now and leaving the burden of paying for it all to our children? How can we morally justify adding ever more expensive programs that vastly increase the national debt which our kids will have to pay off? (Perhaps the political issue I personally care most deeply about, and am most disturbed by, is that this is not talked about as a moral issue. The left always uses kids to make their points, especially in the global warming nonsense, but they never mention what the national debt will do to our kids.)
Don Quixote: The battle between socialists (or, perhaps, more exactly “statists”) and conservatives today is a battle between visions of an economy run by government bureaucrats/politicians and an economy run by individual choices of free men and women.
If you mean statists, you should use that term, but most theoreticians avoid the term because it is nebulous and doesn’t really describe modern, developed economies, which are a mixture of a wide variety of different entitites networking at different levels.
No one of signficance in the U.S. government advocates anything but a strong private market sector. If you look at European models, which have even larger government sectors, they still maintain very strong markets.
Don Quixote: Unlimited increases in government control and power do ultimately result in control over every aspect of our lives, including, but certainly not limited to (or even most importantly) the means of production.
That’s a different argument, that too much government can undermine the foundations of a free society. There are reasons to believe that this is not likely to happen. The modern economy is much too diverse for any one entity, even the government which is itself comprised of a diverse number of entitites, to overwhelm the other sectors. The more likely threat is government secrecy and loss of due process.
Don Quixote: By the way, in the earlier discussion, there were a few negative comments tossed your way, Zachriel, and I apologize for that.
It’s nothing.
Don Quixote: On the other hand, you started out by asking when Y-man and I would stop beinging delusional (necessarily implying that we were delusional) so it wasn’t all one-way.
You’re still going on about that. You weren’t insulted. It was clearly a rhetorical example of plurium interrogationum.
Don Quixote: being content without further analysis to declare that Pelosi is not a socialist, without going beyond that label to explore what she does believe in (unlimited extensions of government power and control)
If someone believes in unlimited extensions of government power, that would include the markets, means of production, setting prices, distributing goods. That would certainly meet a reasonable definition of a socialist. As unlimited control means political organizations, clubs, speech, assembly, perhaps even a dictatorship of the proletariat. Please provide support that Pelosi believes in unlimited extensions of government power and control.
A socialist believes that the government should control the means of production.
That’s a communist. Socialists pride themselves on “being disgusted” with Mao and Stalin and tout themselves as a progressive, democratic, sort of socialist movement. Regardless of whether they are making it up as they go along, that is their public relations plan.
Yes, other people on this blog will agree with you, but otherwise you admit to having no argument.
I suppose you’d call your “accepted definitions” to be an argument, when it isn’t nearly so.
Funny how the Constitution empowers the government to tax.
To pay for military security, which you want to redistribute to your fat cats in DC and the big corporations. The Constitution never said the government was given the right to tax people so that they could fill the pockets of politicians, union thugs, and corporate sharks in the banking and housing industries. That was just part of the Leftist Utopia you think is going to come around any minute now.
Odd then, that other developed nations provide universal health care, the costs are considerably less, and yet they have comparable levels of health, care and longevity.
Yet they don’t have comparable levels of health. But it was never a question of health. It was a question of whether they live as free individuals or as slaves. You’re going with slavery, but I choose freedom over the fake security of a slave.
For instance, Southern Democratic segregationists were considered on the right, and usually called conservatives.
Robert Byrd, Bull Connors, and the KKK terrorists during Reconstruction were considered on the right? That’s like saying US conservatives can be considered Scottish MPs because some conservatives have Scottish blood in them. Get with the times and stop making stuff up as you go along.
If people campaign to end segregation, they are communists.
They were Republicans and conservatives. The Communists just took over the movement, as they usually do when the hard work is done.
That’s fine, but that doesn’t support the claim that Democrats = Socialists = Communists, or other such concoctions.
Sure it does. You yourself said socialists were communists when you claimed socialists want to acquire the means of production. You can use different words like command, control, or own, but you’re the one making the claim that they are all equal. This is not to mention your stumble over the Hitler=right wing issue. Which isn’t even an argument now given the weakness of the claim.
To the extent that Zachriel applies a different, more traditional
Snickers. More traditional indeed. Weren’t Zach’s often touted “accepted definitions” supposed to only allow conservatives to hold to tradition.
You’re still going on about that. You weren’t insulted. It was clearly a rhetorical example of plurium interrogationum.
Haven’t you realized by now that you shouldn’t be using logical fallacies to prop up your claims.
Btw, you also shouldn’t use traditional methods to attempt to underly the power of progressive, egalitarian, social equality movements. Nor should you use greedy political hacks and their corporate special interest buddies as the foundation for a “strong market”. Whatever kind of market that is, it isn’t a free one. Not even by the standards of Cuba.
As unlimited control means political organizations, clubs, speech, assembly, perhaps even a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Since the claim was Pelosi on socialism, not on communism, you trying to paint Pelosi as being a Communist is based upon what again?
Yes, DQ has a habit of mistaking arguments for insults. But that’s just like you, Zach, and your definitions. It’s a personal issue. Has nothing to do with the facts at hand.
Gentlemen…
You are banging your heads against the proverbial wall. You are not engaging “Zachariel”…that is simply his nom de guerre. In reality, it’s Hal. He defines words as he is programmed to define words – and remember, he who controls language controls the discussion. He does not accept your definition because then he’d have to actually consider other possibilities…rather he _has_ the definition…the One and Only definition. It fits his views perfectly…amazing, isn’t it! Any other definitions or aspects of definitions are … unacceptable. _His_ definition is the _only_ acceptable definition.
And … by the way…I was always taught that you cannot prove a negative.
But you’re really good, and I’m enjoying the discussion thoroughly. And Mrs.Whatsit’s analysis is excellent.
Danny Lemieux: Actually, the survival rates for cancer and heart disease are much lower in the supposed developed (i.e. Western) nations …
Each country does better in some things than other things. Lifespan gives an overall picture.
Spain 80.9
Sweden 80.9
France 80.7
Canada 80.7
Italy 80.5
Norway 80.2
Netherlands 79.8
U.K. 79.4
Germany 79.4
Cuba 78.3
U.S. 78.3
Portugal 78.1
You might quibble over details, but obviously, they are comparable. Plus quality of life is improved because of access to primary care.
Danny Lemieux: … and their economies and health care systems are unsustainable.
Germany has had universal health care for a hundred years. In any case, some changes are probably going to be required, but they are spending much less than the U.S. and provide universal coverage. If they have problems, consider the situation in the U.S. where medical inflation is out of control.
Danny Lemieux: That’s not what is overwhelming emergency rooms with indigent care – it is indigent people showing up for every conceivable disease (colds, etc.) because they know they can’t be refused.
Yes, that’s right. And they get the bill, whether they can pay it or not. It’s not a workable system.
Danny Lemieux: In response to “death panels”, Zachriel says: “It was a falsehood, in fact. They pointed to a specific provision and claimed it was a death panel. In addition, all systems require rationing of some sort, and end-of-life issues.” I invite everyone to contemplate how the inherent contradictions in this last statement are carefully hidden behind vague pablum, as “death panel” is diluted to “end of life issues” and the “necessity of rationing”.
So that is your response to a demonstrable falsehood. End of life issues are not pablum to the dying and their families.
Don Quixote: The issue is not whether Democrats = Socialists = Communists.
Tell that to Danny Lemieux. It was his equivalence.
Don Quixote: Rather than talking about issues relevant 50-150 years ago, how about talking about issues relevant today, such as how we can possibly justify living high on the hog now and leaving the burden of paying for it all to our children?
Leaving debt to others is not a good thing for the children or the future of the United States. It’s best for people to have an open conversation about how to control costs and probably increase taxes at some point. That means leaving false equivalences at the door.
Don Quixote: How can we morally justify adding ever more expensive programs that vastly increase the national debt which our kids will have to pay off?
People are going to get old and sick regardless. The question is the best way to control costs. One way is to ignore the poor. But there are a variety of universal care models in developed nations, most of which involve some government intervention. However, not all countries are single-payer. The British are generally happy with their NHS, but the French have a mixed system. Both are low cost with a high success rate and low mortality.
>>Lifespan gives an overall picture.>>
Not comparable, I think. I don’t have the references, but the infant survival rate has to have some effect on this, and we already know that the infant survival rate isn’t comparable because of different standards used. When you skew one end of an average calculation though, you skew the whole thing.
How about the cancer rate survival, Zach?
Zachriel, two points quickly because I, too, need to earn my living:
Lifespan statistics are very misleading. Here is an example: when you correct for deaths from auto accidents, drug abuse, violence (none of which have to do with health care) and that fact that the U.S. catalogues the deaths of all infants (incl. preemies) in the statistics (while European countries don’t), longevity in the U.S. surpasses that of Europe. The cancer and other survival statistics for different disease conditions in the U.S. versus Europe are what they are. I leave it to you if you believe any statistics coming out of Cuba.
I agree with you that our healthcare system is not workable and needs reform. We disagree on how it should be done, I suspect. Our solution is to get government out of it, your solution is to turn consolidate it under more government. Also, the question is not whether governments can or should offer universal health care (farm animals and slaves had universal health care…and it was free!) but what kind of health care the government can or should provide, at what cost and whether it is sustainable. I am not opposed to some government involvement in healthcare (as a military family, we support the VA, for example). I certainly support some-type of safety net for the very poor. We just disagree over the details.
As far as Europe’s healthcare systems being sustainable, let’s see what the future brings, especially in Canada and UK.
Another question: how many years have you lived abroad and where? You certainly speak with great authority regarding Europe.
By the way, Zach…
If the Constitution gave Congress the authority to tax as they do presently, why did we have to pass the 16th Amendment?
Could we not also pass an amendment negating the 16th, as we did with Prohibition? If we did so, what would be the result?
Zachriel: A socialist believes that the government should control the means of production.
Ymarsakar: That’s a communist.
Yes, Mrs Whatsit, a dictionaries and encyclopedias are a proper authority for the meaning of words.
socialism, any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
Ymarsakar: I suppose you’d call your “accepted definitions” to be an argument, when it isn’t nearly so.
Definitions are not arguments.
Zachriel: Funny how the Constitution empowers the government to tax.
Ymarsakar: To pay for military security, which you want to redistribute to your fat cats in DC and the big corporations.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Yup, common defence is in there.
“The average poor American has more square footage of living space than does the average person living in London, Paris, Vienna, and Munich. Poor Americans have nearly three times the living space of average urban citizens in middleincome countries such as Mexico and Turkey.”
From http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america
“Search” for Table 4.
This was an interesting table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
Doesn’t look to me as if Europe is “the same standard of living” as the US…
But it does probably depend on how you define your standards…
Back to the gist of my original point: Costs are too high. There are too many vested interests who want to see these costs stay the same or go higher because they make more money under the guise of helping people. I do not advocate turning people away who are truly in need of medical care. However I also do not think that mandating something be “free” is a good idea either. People should be presented with a bill for services rendered. Whether or not they can pay it or not at least it creates the perception of accountability. If even 10% of that bill is paid, overall that is 10% off of the unpaid liabilities. With the cost of medical care that is a lot of money. It could also make people think twice about going to expensive emergency rooms for minor illnesses that can be self administered. The illusion that something is “free” is what exacerbates this situation. Whether or not the bill to control supplements was defeated or not, the issue is still why deny people the freedom to take responsibility for their own healthcare and stifle innovations to find solutions to healthcare? (at much reduced cost).
suek: How about the cancer rate survival,
You’re right. The U.S. does tend to overreport the cancer rate, such as with prostrate cancer. There’s problems with direct comparisons because there is no standard for reporting. The point was that health, care and longevity were comparable, but costs are much higher in the U.S.
suek: Could we not also pass an amendment negating the 16th, as we did with Prohibition? If we did so, what would be the result?
Presumably it would eliminate the income tax.
suek: “The average poor American has more square footage of living space than does the average person living in London, Paris, Vienna, and Munich. Poor Americans have nearly three times the living space of average urban citizens in middleincome countries such as Mexico and Turkey.”
The entire world could fit in Texas if each person were alloted the same average square feet of living space as in New York City.
Z: No one of signficance in the U.S. government advocates anything but a strong private market sector.
Who in government (of significance) is advocating for a strong private market for k-12 education?
Z: That’s a different argument, that too much government can undermine the foundations of a free society. There are reasons to believe that this is not likely to happen.
This IS taking place in the k-12 government school system.
Z: The modern economy is much too diverse for any one entity, even the government which is itself comprised of a diverse number of entitites, to overwhelm the other sectors.
The definition of public education: one entity overwhelming the other sectors
I wish I had time to formulate a better argument… however, if the government school system has taught us anything, it taught us the reasons why we should not have government produced and controlled healthcare. Obamacare needs to be repealed/defunded immediately.
Yup, common defence is in there.
You see sociality security in there from where you sit? Military security is the common defense.
Yes, Mrs Whatsit, a dictionaries and encyclopedias are a proper authority for the meaning of words.
So basically when you said you are against Socialist=Communist=Democrat, you meant to say the dictionary says they are equal.
Way too go with the argument scale here, Zach.
http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2011_01_16_archive.html#7988080905511474622
For an actual historical account of liberalism and its variants over the centuries.
esurio: Who in government (of significance) is advocating for a strong private market for k-12 education?
Some sectors of the economy, such as education, fire, police, military, food safety, workplace safety, etc. are considered government responsibilities by most. However, that doesn’t preclude a thriving market in other areas.
You may have missed the original discussion, which concerned the conflation of advocating government involvement in one sector, and advocating government control of the entire economic and social system.
Here’s a comparison between living standards in the EU versus USA published by a Swedish Think Tank. It rather disputes Zachriel’s notion of equivalence. You can just scan through it to review the graphs and catch the flavor of it.
http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf
Zachriel, how long have you lived in the EU?
I can assure you that the poor in EU do not own their own homes, drive their own cars, have dishwashers and HDTVs in their homes like many of the “poor” do here. And, contrary to popular mythology, despite the EU welfare state, there are many, many homeless people in Western Europe.
Danny is correct on the life span issue. Quality or standard of life has little to do with life span. For example, if you worked in the fields for 3 decades, you might or might not expire sooner. In so far as Europe has less stress, it’s because they can afford to take government paid vacations for half the year. (almost) They’ll run out of tax money precisely because you can’t sustain a 5 billion economy when 75% are on vacation, and the 25% are paying for the other 75% along with themselves. It’s cause the 25% will start taking vacations too. And then what happens.
Much akin to the idea that government jobs are “real net plus jobs” in the economy. Not so. It’s just a kickback from taxation. Produces no taxes, no revenue, and no net add in to the base economy.
The other issue is with authority. People who take other people’s words and statistics without qualification, are basically cogs. Zach has not cataloged people’s life span issues in Europe. Thus he can only “trust” in the veracity of studies carried out by others. “Trust”? In humans? Got to be kidding me. Even if this could be done, how well do you judge Zach’s ability here to separate con men from the sheep, eh?
Poor people exist in Europe, Danny? Aren’t they like second class citizens or something, immigrants who can’t be naturalized even if their grand fathers were born in Europe?
You may have missed the original discussion, which concerned the conflation of advocating government involvement in one sector, and advocating government control of the entire economic and social system.
So basically, Zach here is okay with someone taking a 25% ownership of his home and his private property. When another 20% gets added to that, he considers it a situation where the person in question isn’t advocating total control of his economic and social status.
Then you add another 20%. And another 20%. At what point do you think Zach would realize that he’s getting taken and controlled, rather than some “partially” controlling his stuff?
Danny Lemieux: Here’s a comparison between living standards in the EU versus USA published by a Swedish Think Tank. It rather disputes Zachriel’s notion of equivalence.
We were discussing comparable health, care and longevity. Europeans have some advantages, work less, longer vacations, better social support, often have less need for cars, smaller gap between rich and poor, but have generally less disposable income. But accepting your conservative think-tanks conclusions, what that means is that poorer countries than the U.S. manage to provide universal health care for its citizens. Is that what you wanted to say?
Ymarsakar: So basically, Zach here is okay with someone taking a 25% ownership of his home and his private property. When another 20% gets added to that, he considers it a situation where the person in question isn’t advocating total control of his economic and social status. Then you add another 20%. And another 20%. At what point do you think Zach would realize that he’s getting taken and controlled, rather than some “partially” controlling his stuff?
Just because government enforces laws against child labor, or taxes people to build roads, doesn’t necessarily mean that the government will control the entire economy.
During the Middle Ages, taxes were used to virtually enslave the people. The solution was to have taxation raised only through an elected parliament. The Americans were deprived of their just representation, hence revolted under the banner of No Taxation Without Representation. It wasn’t a revolt against taxation.
But you do have representation. You and your compatriots just don’t agree on exactly at what level taxation should be. There was a huge outcry over raising the marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans by just 3 points, even while everyone agrees the deficits are out of control.
Yeah, well… people who don’t make at least $250,000 a year aren’t likely to drive Ferraris, either. Does that mean society should buy it for any such person who wants one?
You’re history’s a little shaky there, Zach (#43). The lack of representation annoyed the educated firebrands, sure – Adams, Jefferson, Rutledge, et al – but the average nascent American didn’t care about the philosophical issues any more then than he does now: having to pay is what pissed off the masses. Most of Washington’s army was not philosophers.
There was a huge outcry over raising the marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans by just 3 points, even while everyone agrees the deficits are out of control.
1) What was the response of the Democratic Party controlled lame duck Congress to that issue?
2) What percentage of federal income taxes are paid by the highest 1% of earners?
3) What percentage of federal income taxes are paid by the highest 5% of earners?
4) What percentage of federal income taxes are paid by the highest 10% of earners?
5) What percentage of federal income taxes are paid by the lowest 50% of earners?
6) What percentage of income tax filers no pay income tax?
7) How does spending as a percentage of GNP today compare with what it was four years ago?
Before you find those figures: what are your pre-research estimates of those figures?
IMHO, no one who is ignorant of the above is capable of making any valid statements on the spending/taxes/deficit issue.
>>The point was that health, care and longevity were comparable, but costs are much higher in the U.S.>>
They’re only comparable if you’re one of the ones who survives. Costs are much higher in the US because the care is better – that is, the survival rate is higher, due to early diagnosis, treatment, and medications available.
As one person pointed out somewhere…the US medical professionals make good profits off seniors. It’s profitable for them to keep seniors alive – so they do. In Europe, it is costly to the system to keep seniors alive. There’s no profit in it, only cost. What’s the point of keeping an old person alive? So as the budgets tighten, the seniors will be denied care “due to conservation of resources”.
Darn. If we just had enough ice floes. But then…when globe cooling finally sets in, we’ll have _lots_ of ice floes. Many of our medical expense problems will be solved!
Some sectors of the economy, such as education, fire, police, military, food safety, workplace safety, etc. are considered government responsibilities by most. However, that doesn’t preclude a thriving market in other areas.
You may have missed the original discussion, which concerned the conflation of advocating government involvement in one sector, and advocating government control of the entire economic and social system.
No, I have not missed the original discussion, go back and reread the post at the top of the page. The post is about Obmacare. The U.S. universal education system is a good analogy to universal health care because it is what the Left would like health care to become; a government monopoly. Public education in the U.S. has been tooted as a noble & grand experiment; isn’t wonderful that everyone is educated; you wouldn’t deny someone an education would you – when in reality it was/is about controlling the lower classes and removing the Catholic(school)/Christian influence on the population.
You can think what ever you want. I reject that k-12 education is the responsibility of the government – it is the responsibility of the parents, similarly health care is the responsibility of the individual. By over taxation the government removed the competition of private schools, by zoning and over priced housing children are stuck in failing schools, with unions it’s impossible to remove bad teachers, etc. And now the government intends to monopolize our health care choices – taxes, zoning, unions – the analogy fits. Obamacare needs to be repealed.
Socialist, Communist, fascist, Statist… all have definitions that are hard to agree upon.
Here’s my attempt:
Communist: Rule by Man, not by Law. Dictatorship. No elections by voters. Direct government control of the means of production. People exist to serve the State. No private sector.
Socialist: Rule by Law, not by Man. Not a dictatorship. Elections by voters. Government control of the means of production may or may not be direct, but exists and is absolute. People exist to serve the State. There may or may not be a private sector, but government, not the nominally private sector, gets the final say.
Fascist: Rule by Man, not by Law. Dictatorship. People exist to serve the State. Private sector exists, but due to Rule by Man instead of by Law, it doesn’t really matter.
Statist: Rule by Law, not by Man. Dictatorship is irrelevant – doesn’t matter whether it’s a dictatorship or not. Elections are irrelevant – it just doesn’t matter whether there are elections or not. Government control is to always be preferred and expanded over the private sector. All tax increases are good. All government spending is good. If the government can do it, then the government should do it – which means the private sector cannot compete against it, because the government will always win in the end. People don’t exist to serve the State, but the more the State controls any aspect of their lives, the better for all of us. Because anything the government does is for the benefit of us all, because everything is being done with the best of intentions.
I was looking for a particular “parable” I found online once upon a time, and though I couldn’t find it, I found this one instead. It’ll serve the purpose. I’ll find the other one eventually.
There was once a pretty chicken;
> But his friends were very few,
> For he thought that there was nothing
> In the world but what he knew:
> So he always, in the farmyard,
> Had a very forward way,
> Telling all the hens and turkeys
> What they ought to do and say.
> “Mrs. Goose,” he said, “I wonder
> That your goslings you should let
> Go out paddling in the water;
> It will kill them to get wet.”
>
> “I wish, my old Aunt Dorking,”
> He began to her, one day,
> “That you wouldn’t sit all summer
> In your nest upon the hay.
> Won’t you come out to the meadow
> Where the grass with seeds is filled?”
> “If I should,” said Mrs. Dorking,
> “Then my eggs would all get chilled.”
> “No, they won’t,” replied the chicken,
> “And no matter if they do;
> Eggs are really good for nothing;
> What’s an egg to me or you?”
>
> “What’s an egg!” said Mrs. Dorking,
> “Can it be you do not know
> You yourself were in an eggshell
> Just one little month ago?
> And, if kind wings had not warmed you,
> You would not be out to-day,
> Telling hens, and geese, and turkeys,
> What they ought to do and say!”
>
> “To be very wise, and show it,
> Is a pleasant thing, not doubt;
> But, when young folks talk to old folks,
> They should know what they’re about”
>
> Marian Douglas – from McGuffey’s Third Eclectic Reader
I would add that for Socialists and Statists, any wealth you have is not considered to be your own. Not really. Any wealth you have is what the government ALLOWS you to keep. First, they control all the wealth you’ve generated – then they take the part they consider proper for all the needs of the government – and then they ALLOW you to keep anything that is left over.
Also, the government ALLOWS you those freedoms and liberties they think you can be trusted with. Rights are granted to you BY the government – they are not yours intrinsically. Because the government should do everything it CAN do, you have freedom and liberty only where the government hasn’t figured out how to control.
Hell on Earth.
Mike D #50
Seems like the antithesis to a Government for the People, By the People and of the People. No wonder they think the Constitution ought to be flushed, er,uh, that’d be ”changed” – yeah, that’s it. They can keep hopin’.
Call them or us whatever.
Bottom line questions:
What federal programs have been successful?
Who did they benefit? Were they cost effective?
Did everyone participate (politicians included)?
Who benefited? Who didn’t benefit?
T. Jefferson was way ahead of his time in predicting our future (now present). The socialists among us must have read this quotation and said “yeah, that’s what we want to do”, and have done it for the past 70 or so years:
“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Zach, (I guess that is what we are calling him now; feel free to call me Old) says the hue and cry was raised over raising the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans by just 3 points when the deficit is already out of control.
Right out of the Pelosi/Reid/Obama talking points memo. In the first place, Zach we are not talking about the wealthiest Americans. As you should know the wealthiest, that is the Oprahs, Buffets, Gates, Pelosis, and such, don’t take most of their income in taxable $$. Thanks to the convoluted tax laws, largely enacted by Democrats, they are sheltered in a myriad of ways. That is why Accountants, tax Lawyers and money manipulators live large, and have so much clout with the Democrat Congress. You know very well that there are two primary issues: 1. more taxes fuels larger, more intrusive government. 2. The Democrat tax proposals impact the very entrepreneurs and small businesses needed to fuel the economy. It really is that simple when you cut away the nonsense.
Zach, your point gets lost. You are obsessed with revolution. There is no revolt in the U.S. The Tea Party movement is an attempt to gain the attention of the government. I believe it has been successful in the short-term. Although we all know that the elected portion of government will forget as soon as they think it is safe to do so. The bureaucratic part really doesn’t give a damn. So far they are beyond reach. The Democrats and their media accomplices have worked very hard to make the Tea Party seem to be all about taxes, and alone about taxes. That is simply not true. The Tea Party is very much about regaining control of government growth–out of control growth. The TP has been remarkably civil, peaceful and persistent. One might say is is a model for citizens petitioning government in a Representative Republic.
.
Just because government enforces laws against child labor, or taxes people to build roads, doesn’t necessarily mean that the government will control the entire economy.
Government is made out of individuals. And it is these individuals that have their own personal motivations. It’s why PillowC was brought up as one topic of import.
The government does what the PillowCs tell them to do and the PillowCs want government power to be extended over social and economic spheres involving people in America.
The proof is already there. Some of it out of their own mouths. Maybe you just weren’t listening, Zach.
Stanley, nice quote
Old, I see the TP as analogous to Jefferson and Franklein on negotiating with Britain on a political solution. Some of the FOunding Fathers didn’t go for war until they decided there was no hope of a peaceful resolution with Britain on taxes and control of the colonies. In furtherance of the chance for a deal, the Founding Fathers used diplomacy and courtesy, much as you see with the Tea Party.
But once the efforts failed, beyond all reasonable doubt, then you saw something a little bit fiery. There were the Patric Henrys and other firebrands that were calling for war and violence before hand, but they weren’t backed by the mainstream leaders. Until Britain overstepped themselves permanently.
Same with TP. They will only tolerate federal abuses for so long, before they realize that they must either act or lose their freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of self defense.
Oldflyer, you wrote “As you should know the wealthiest, that is the Oprahs, Buffets, Gates, Pelosis, and such, don’t take most of their income in taxable $$.”
Funny that…I remember when Jean Francois Kerry decided to run and (partially) revealed he and Teresa Kerry’s tax statements, I researched what was known about their asset holdings and calculated that they probably paid taxes at a rate of less-than 5%, based on very conservative estimates of what their incomes were generating. Plus, let’s not forget Kerry’s “boat” in Rhode Island. I understand the Kennedy fortune is safely sequestered in Fiji Trusts.
Taxes are for the little people.
Well, I meant to delete that previous post, but got confused and couldn’t stop it. Oh, for an edit/cancel button. I was going to delete it because I thought this had gone on long enough and on reflection my post didn’t add anything that hasn’t been hashed over.
This is what I would have added instead. It is hard to believe that there have been something like a hundred posts now on two threads, and the argument still revolves around semantics; and for the most part out-dated theory and philosophy. I say outdated, because the folks who are running the country do not have any philosophy whatsoever, nor do they adhere to any theory. All they know is more government, more control and more intrusion into the lives of the citizens. Call it what you will; I, for one, don’t care. I just want it brought under control.
But, if there is to be a continued argument about terms, I do stand by the one I used earlier. Statism is certainly no more nebulous than any other term of reference. The terms Liberal, or Progressive for instance, have become so nebulous as to be meaningless. The meaning of Statism should be just about self-evident, and perfectly describes for me what is going on today–far advanced in Europe and the Totalitarian regimes of Asia, etc; but gaining ground in the U.S.
One of the reasons that Zachriel and I were talking past one another is that he has very different definitions for terms like “socialism”, “fascism”, “naziism”, “communism” that most of us do, as evidenced on his/her/their blog.
I see the spectrum very differently, with free, individual libertarian government (defined by minimum government and maximum individual responsibility) on one end and controlled, collective authoritarian government (defined by minimum individual responsibility and maximum government intrusion) on the other.
The terms “socialist”, “statist”, “progressive”, “communist”, and “fascist” all belong well towards one end of that spectrum and really don’t differ that much from one another.
Same thugs, different gang colors.
Danny, let’s be honest. Zach’s entire world view is 180 degrees from yours.
It’s not just a “few definitions”.
Lol “their”. The Leftist Utopia will be engendered on Earth with Hive Mind 2.0.
WE Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For
Get it, ‘we’?
Taxes are for the little people.
You know me. I’m fine with high taxes. First people I’ll tax are the politicians and federal bureaucrats. 90% of their total assets. Not income. Total assets. Including their private property, their jewels, their land, and the air they use up every day.
They want high taxes? I’ll give them high taxes. They want to tax the rich, I’ll show them what it truly means to “tax the rich’.
jj: The lack of representation annoyed the educated firebrands, sure – Adams, Jefferson, Rutledge, et al – but the average nascent American didn’t care about the philosophical issues any more then than he does now: having to pay is what pissed off the masses.
Cool. An anarchist. Do you really think the people risked rebellion thinking that the new government wouldn’t have taxes?
Gringo: What percentage of federal income taxes are paid by the highest 1% of earners?
To determine the federal tax burden, the correct measure should include income tax, tax credits, and payroll taxes. Here is the federal tax burden for a few ranges, in thousands of dollars per year (2005):
30-40, 13.6%
50-75, 17.4%
200-500, 21.5%
Please note that the distribution is only somewhat progressive, and all but the lowest income groups are contributing.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1024&DocTypeID=1
suek: They’re only comparable if you’re one of the ones who survives.
In the U.S., fifty million people don’t have access to primary medical care. That means problems can’t be checked early.
suek: Costs are much higher in the US because the care is better – that is, the survival rate is higher, due to early diagnosis, treatment, and medications available.
In most cases, care in the U.S. is only marginally better. However, the U.S. does excel in certain areas.
esurio: The U.S. universal education system is a good analogy to universal health care because it is what the Left would like health care to become; a government monopoly. ‘
The U.S. has had public education for over a century. They have grown to be the most technologically advanced nation in the world. Perhaps you could argue that the old model of education no longer works, but the history doesn’t go away just because you ignore it. If you don’t understand why public education worked for so long, it’s doubtful you will understand how to change it to meet modern challenges.
Oldflyer: You are obsessed with revolution.
Have no idea what you’re talking about.
Oldflyer: we are not talking about the wealthiest Americans.
People making over $250,000 are in the top 5% of the population. Even then, the tax rate is margin, so it only increases 3 points on the income over $250,000.
Zachriel says:
In the U.S., fifty million people don’t have access to primary medical care. That means problems can’t be checked early.
In most cases, care in the U.S. is only marginally better. However, the U.S. does excel in certain areas.
Care to elaborate, Zachriel? These are flippant kerchief-waves, not answers.
Nobody in the United States is denied primary care…all they have to do is walk into an emergency room. They don’t even have to be legal immigrants. The issue has been, who pays for it?
A statement like “in most cases, care in the U.S. is only marginally better” is so vague and unsubstantiated…and plain flat wrong!
As you have already been challenged to address, look at the survivability rates for life-threatening disease states like cancer, stroke, heart disease, kidney disease, the wait times for major surgeries in the U.S. versus other countries, the rates of in-hospital infections (esp. look at Quebec and the UK), the amounts of advanced equipment available in respective countries, like PET and MIR scanning equipment, kidney dialysis machines, etc. Look at emergency room statistics for the U.S. versus other countries. Look at how the elderly are treated in hospitals (you might want to scan the UK news sites or Google [France heat wave deaths].
There is no “marginally better”. Zachriel, I’ve asked you a number of times to tell me how long you have lived in Europe or any other country for that matter. I am assuming that you have not and that all your mental perambulations on the subject of how life is in Europe are based upon a few odd statistics here and there and dreams of Shangri-La. Believe me, it is not what you think it is. Not even close. Don’t worry, though. You are not alone. I know many Liberal /Lefties (some in my wife’s family) who harbor similar delusions about Europe. They are quite comfortable living in their dream castles but it just ain’t real.
Ymarsakar: There were the Patric Henrys and other firebrands that were calling for war and violence before hand, but they weren’t backed by the mainstream leaders. Until Britain overstepped themselves permanently.
Just like the British. Except for having your own parliament legislature. So, it really comes down to if you can’t win at the ballot box, you’ll support violence.
Oldflyer: It is hard to believe that there have been something like a hundred posts now on two threads, and the argument still revolves around semantics;
“There’s glory for you!”
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’ ” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty. “which is to be master—that’s all.”
“Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk.”
—Dwight D. Eisenhower, circa 1954
Danny Lemieux: I see the spectrum very differently, with free, individual libertarian government (defined by minimum government and maximum individual responsibility) on one end and controlled, collective authoritarian government (defined by minimum individual responsibility and maximum government intrusion) on the other.
Then you should use the term authoritarian. Most European socialists, for instance, are not authoritarian, but democratic.
Danny Lemieux: Nobody in the United States is denied primary care…all they have to do is walk into an emergency room.
Sorry, that is not true. Most U.S. hospitals will not see patients for primary care visits without some method of payment. Hospitals are required by law only to treat them until stabilized, and will often discharge people with very serious illnesses.
Danny Lemieux: There is no “marginally better”.
Measuring Overall Health System Performance for 191 Countries: The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world’s health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.
World’s Best Medicine?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/welfare-tab-children-illegal-immigrants-estimated-m-la-county/
>>So, it really comes down to if you can’t win at the ballot box, you’ll support violence.>>
If it really comes down to “you can’t win at the ballot box”, and if the reason we can’t win at the ballot box is due to illegal actions by those who wish to pervert our form of government, then yes…I’d support violence. If the reason we can’t win at the ballot box is because the majority of people _choose_ a government which will destroy the capitalistic base of the nation, then so be it. The end will come soon enough.
The question, of course, is whether we’ll know the difference or not.
In the very long run, whether by hook or by crook, or whether by choice, I doubt that violence will be avoided. When the producers no longer produce, who will feed the masses? Even food that grows on trees has to be picked and transported.
Wow, Zach.
With all that evidence on how much better life is everywhere else, why are you still here? Never learned a second language?
Wolf…You’re much too modest…
You shoulda linked…!
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2011/01/andrew-klavan-nail-it-robotic-argument.html
The U.S. has had public education for over a century. They have grown to be the most technologically advanced nation in the world. Perhaps you could argue that the old model of education no longer works, but the history doesn’t go away just because you ignore it. If you don’t understand why public education worked for so long, it’s doubtful you will understand how to change it to meet modern challenges.
Zachriel you are typical of a leftist who cannot comment with out being condescending. You do not know me to say what I know and don’t know. I said it is the parents responsibility to educate their children, not the governments, is that so hard for you to understand?
Over the past century our country has been blessed with an abundance of highly (most likely privately) educated European immigrants from the WWII generation, the brain drain from the Asian immigrants, a vibrant Catholic k-12 school system (which is being squeezed dried by the subsidies of public schools) and private higher education universities all of which up until now have contributed to our countries progress in technology. Government k-12 education is not what you claim it to be; it is has always been a barely function system and now a failing system gasping for it’s last breath because its crutches have been removed. You can bet with the retirement of our older generation the technological advancement of the U.S. will now decline in 3,2,1.. years.
Again….. and again…like education, government will not be able to support a vibrant health care system in the U.S.. A universal health care system controlled by the government will stifle innovation and suck the life(literally) out of our country. Obamacare must be repealed.
esurio…
Do you happen to have any links to the efficacy of the public education system of 50 years ago compared to the same system today??
I seen references to them, but haven’t seen them…
esurio: you are typical of a leftist who cannot comment with out being condescending. You do not know me to say what I know and don’t know. I said it is the parents responsibility to educate their children, not the governments, is that so hard for you to understand?
Yes, you said that and you also said it was ineffective. Did you answer the point? Let’s take another look.
esurio: By over taxation the government removed the competition of private schools, by zoning and over priced housing children are stuck in failing schools, with unions it’s impossible to remove bad teachers, etc.
Here you are saying that lack of competition has led to bad results. Okay, that could be true. But for that claim to be universally true, as you seem to be suggesting, you have to explain why most historians believe universal public education helped underpin America’s rise to world dominance. Perhaps, public education worked during earlier periods, but not in the modern world, because today, people and education must be more flexible. But instead of responding to this, you ignored the point.
esurio: I said it is the parents responsibility to educate their children, not the governments, is that so hard for you to understand?
Perhaps. But sometimes parents may want to band together politically to create public schools or at least have experts establish minimum standards. Again, we have evidence that universal public education can be effective in some situations, so a claim based around it always being ineffective isn’t tenable.
esurio: … immigrants …
Most immigrants to the United States, including most European immigrants, had little education, little money, and didn’t speak English. Hence, many of them worked at manual labor or in factories. Many never learned English — but their children did.
esurio: A universal health care system controlled by the government will stifle innovation and suck the life(literally) out of our country.
As the U.S. health care system is still largely private, you don’t have to worry.
Zachriel, old chum…good show!
The 2001 WHO report ranking 191 countries on their health care systems.
First, understand that many of us that participate in the blog just don’t think much of the UN as a reliable source of information. It is a very political, hence flawed, organization. This is with good reason: just look at its historical record. I realize that what I say may be considered anathema in the Temple of Orthodoxy. One of the problems with heavily walled compounds, as the young Siddhartha discovered, is it makes the outside world very difficult to conceive.
Now, in the rarified worlds of abstract academia, a WHO report like this could be taken as prima facie conclusive evidence. After all, one needs not to have experienced health care in countries like France or the UK or Canada (or Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, etc.) in order to loftily conclude that, because it is the WHO /UN, it must be right (after all, they’ve certainly been right about so much).
However, for an alternative point of view, you might want to consider this unorthodox perspective as well:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html
>>universal public education helped underpin America’s rise to world dominance.>>
And you think we are still in a position of dominance?
Do you think that American dominance is a good thing?
Danny Lemieux: Now, in the rarified worlds of abstract academia, a WHO report like this could be taken as prima facie conclusive evidence.
That is incorrect. All scientific claims are considered tentative and subject to review and revision. The researchers were extensively published scientists, including in the field of health metrics, so attacking WHO is rather irrelevant.
Danny Lemieux: However, for an alternative point of view, you might want to consider this unorthodox perspective as well: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html
“More recent efforts to rank national health systems have been inconclusive. On measures such as child mortality and life expectancy, the U.S. has slipped since the 2000 rankings.”
Is that your point?
“The 37th place ranking is often cited in today’s overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S. actually ranked a lot higher. Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the five criteria.”
15th is better than 37th.
“But some researchers say that factors beyond the control of the health-care system are to blame, such as dietary habits. Studies that have attempted to exclude these factors from the equation don’t agree on whether the U.S. system looks better or worse.”
Okay, so they are comparable enough that it was hard to distinguish between them. Is that your point?
By the way, the authors responded to Musgrove here: “Since the departure of Musgrove from WHO, constructive scientific debate has evolved with the active contributions of many specialists. WHO has encouraged critical input on the concepts, methods, and data involved in the WHR 2000 through a series of technical and regional consultations, involving more than 170 scientists and policy-makers from more than 69 countries. The organisation has engaged in an exhaustive scientific peer review, including the establishment of the Scientific Peer Review Group (SPRG), chaired by Professor Sudhir Anand of Oxford University and consisting of 13 external specialists, representing all geographic regions of WHO. The process of peer review was overseen by an external advisory group, which reported that the review process had been comprehensive, objective, transparent, and informative.”
suek: Do you think that American dominance is a good thing?
A strong an prosperous America leading free nations is a good thing. Dominance of one nation by another is undemocratic and inherently unstable. If, as many Americans agree, Washington is detached from the concerns of the people of Aberdeen or Bangor, then why would anyone expect Washington to be able to run the affairs of people in Kandahar or Fallujah.
We are actually going to base our comparison of health care systems on “inequality in health-care outcomes?” What does that phrase mean? If everyone in some country got exactly the same level of care but that care was terrible and everybody with even minor illnesses died, would that country rank first on this indicator? How can we take any such study seriously?
One of the other criteria was individual spending, which, again, has nothing to do with the quality of the care. Then the good folks who did the survey made a second adjustment for overall spending. These criteria may be appropriate in a survey of which health care system is most cost effective, but they obviously have nothing to do with which system provides the best care, which is what the survey was purportedly about.
Don Quixote: We are actually going to base our comparison of health care systems on “inequality in health-care outcomes?” What does that phrase mean?
It means that if some groups get lower levels of health care, such as the poor or minorities, then it’s a problem and results in a lower score.
Don Quixote: If everyone in some country got exactly the same level of care but that care was terrible and everybody with even minor illnesses died, would that country rank first on this indicator?
Yes, but lower on every other indicator. But in real life, the ruling class has quality health care, even if they have to fly it in from Germany, so countries with poor health care systems, also usually have health care inequality.
Don Quixote: One of the other criteria was individual spending, which, again, has nothing to do with the quality of the care.
“The aim is to ensure that poor households should not pay a higher share of their discretionary expenditure on health than richer households, and all households should be protected against catastrophic financial losses related to ill health.”
This is illustrated even in the wealthy United States. The loss of jobs due to the recession has often meant the loss of health insurance. Even if they find employment later, they may not be able to get insurance due to a preexisting condition.
Of course poor households will pay a higher share of their discretionary income on health than rich households, just as they do on everything important. That is the nature of being poor and having less discretionary income. Actually, if you restricted the comment to “catastrophic financial losses” as the last part of the sentence does, I’d be more included to agree with you.
But, again, this has nothing to do with the quality of care, but rather its cost or some abstract measure of its fairness. We can talk about which system is better, or fairer or more cost effective, but if we are just measureing which provides higher quality of care, none of those factors may properly be considered.
Your comment prompted one other thought. You treat “poor” as if it is a static condition. Perhaps the most important attribute that has led to America’s economic success is the ability of the “poor” to, by hard work and talent, become rich, or at least not-poor. The American capitalist system provides the opportunity for people to do this. The fact that life is tougher for the poor provides the motivation for the poor to do this. If the poor can get all the services and things they need or want without working for them, why work?
Don Quixote: But, again, this has nothing to do with the quality of care, but rather its cost or some abstract measure of its fairness.
According to that measure, if the King has the best possible health care, perhaps flown in from Europe, and everyone else has none, then you would rate the health care system as the best. (The King, of course, would agree that it’s just some egghead and her abstract measure of fairness.) For medical professionals who care about people’s health, the distribution of health care services is an essential part of the health care system.
Don Quixote: The American capitalist system provides the opportunity for people to do this.
Other developed countries have thriving market economies, compete successfully against the U.S. in global markets, and yet still manage to provide universal health care to its citizens.
>>“The aim is to ensure that poor households should not pay a higher share of their discretionary expenditure on health than richer households, and all households should be protected against catastrophic financial losses related to ill health.”>>
It always amazes me that those who are most likely to believe in evolution are also those who are most likely to dismiss Darwin’s Theory…
Zach…
I repeat…why do you live in the US?
Suek, because Leftists talk the talk, but they still know which side of the bread theirs is buttered on.
They want to stay because they believe they can change you for the better. History has been full of people with grand delusions about how they are going to bring utopia on Earth for the betterment of their “fellows”.
It’s not just your garden variety manifestation fantasy. It’s a little bit grander than that.
Suek, they are using Darwin’s theory. Remember the post birth abortions they like so much? Survival of the fittest.
The thing is, they do so by controlling the economy. They don’t really give a damn about who suffers in a bad economy. They only care about getting power so that they can control other people’s lives. Such is the common goal that unites the members of the Leftist alliance.
So, it really comes down to if you can’t win at the ballot box, you’ll support violence.
As opposed to your faction, the Left, which supports all violence, all the time. And you think you have a horse to stand on here, don’t you.
Zachriel #79
> The organisation has engaged in an exhaustive scientific peer review, including the establishment of the Scientific Peer Review Group (SPRG), chaired by Professor Sudhir Anand of Oxford University and consisting of 13 external specialists, representing all geographic regions of WHO. The process of peer review was overseen by an external advisory group, which reported that the review process had been comprehensive, objective, transparent, and informative.”
Merely a word of warning here.
When something is a dog and pony show, it’s nothing more than a dog and pony show.
I’m not sure that the process cited here is a dog and pony show, but it certainly could be. Always be skeptical. Of *course* the overseers are going to say “the review process had been comprehensive, objective, transparent, and informative.” They always say that. It’s merely a rubber stamp conclusion. It means nothing taken by itself, and can be discarded. You have to determine whether the entire effort is valid, or is merely a political show. That’s often difficult to do.
As a reference point I can give you the Jihadist attack known as the Ft. Hood Massacre. The Army followup report was nothing more than a political dog and pony show. The review and report are utterly worthless except as light comic reading. Shame on Dr. Gates!
(The airbrushing out of the seriousness of jihadist murderous intentions is remarkably correlated to a look at villains in Hollywood blockbusters in the 1980s,1990s, 2000s.
In the 80s, there were a goodly number of Middle Eastern/Islamic villains, about 15%. It increased slightly in the 1990s. Then in the 2000s, they disappeared completely. ZERO. I point this out because I’m talking about political dog and pony shows causing such citations to be completely worthless, and this is evidence of the political nature of such things. We could also look at ClimateGate, and East Anglia’s whitewashing oversight report on THAT one concerning AGW. ”Ah yes, our internal investigation of our own controversial unit results in the understanding that nothing went wrong at all!” When politics – and huge sums of money – are involved, keep your skeptic hat firmly in place.)
Professor Devx, let me caution you that if thou dost continue so to proselytize outside of the confines of the most holy Temple of Orthodoxy with such common sense, thou riskest severe remonstrations and a declaration of anathema.
You’re giving me a chill, Professor Lemieux. It must be those political winds, and the way they’re blowing.
Here’s a recent blurb concerning the Australian flooding…
A report on the flood disaster and climate change will be undertaken by an expert on the federal government’s multi-party committee which is investigating ways to price carbon. Professor Will Steffen, a member of the climate change committee set up by the Gillard government in September last year, told AAP he was working on a report covering the floods.
This is the man who already believes that “climate change” made the floods worse. Just the man to do a nice, impartial report.’
How much do you want to bet *that* report on Flood Disaster and Climate Change will be, ahem, comprehensive, objective, transparent, and informative.”
It doesn’t matter, Prof. Devx. It shall be a tome of considerable heft and proportion, agreed to in advance by all self-proclaimed learned authorities, that shall make a pleasing thump when laid on the table. Thus can we be assured that it shall not be read beyond the the most cursory of abstracts. By these virtues can we be assured that it shall be proclaimed as “orthodoxy”.
In Asimov’s Foundation sci-fi series, one of the signs of the galactic empire’s decay was that scholars no longer did original work. Instead, they would read the works of earlier scholars and synthesize their findings. Voila, the frontiers of knowledge pushed further out!
These days you run into a lot of “meta-analyses” where scholars will do what Asimov’s did, going through earlier studies in a relational databasing spree. IF the underlying data are good, this is not a bad thing given the immense number of studies that have been done on everything from diabetes to electromagnetism.
The problem, though, is when bad data, or shaky data, or skimpy data, or unreliable data, or suspect data become the basis for meta-studies that perpetuate misleading conclusions. Climategate is one example.
While only one person here disputes that Climategate has shot a pretty big hole through the heart of AGW, the more interesting question AGW proponents never ask themselves is why they have lost the goodwill and assent of so many intelligent people. If an AGW proponent like Zach can come in here and get plastered right and left with arguments from his intellectual equals regarding the actual existence of AGW, does this cause him to stop and think that he might be wrong?
Apparently not.
Mike, Mike. There you go again, talking about people thinking for themselves. That’s entirely forbidden by the government for people’s own good.
I mean, think of the chaos and risks with freedom that would result if people started thinking for themselves. Can you imagine the horror.
Apparently not.
So long as the money flows ,they don’t have to admit their perfidy.
I haven’t read all the comments, but here’s what I think generally:
The “healthcare” bill is NOT about “health” or “care.”
Cap-and-trade is NOT about the environment.
The “stimulus” bill did NOT stimulate anything.
The Employee Free Choice Act REMOVES the employees’ free choice.
In other words, The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the Revolution.
Always watch what the other hand is doing.