|
OwlFancier posted:Also it is kind of heading towards a problem because the government keeps cutting funding to it Well sorry if they're not doing a good job, then they should be punished with less money as an incentive to improve quality of care and customer experience. Once they improve, taxpayers will be willing to fork over more.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
YF19pilot posted:That's an argument that I got to hear a lot growing up. That "socialist thing only works in 'x' country because they're all white and in the US we're much more diverse." It's constantly painted that the reason socialized medicine in the UK is failing is because 1) it's state run, and 2) immigrants. I think the modern conservative right would probably make fast friends with UKIP, the way they keep going. Wait why don't you think these things are largely true? Socialist policy tends to be more politically appealing in countries which are more racially uniform. Opposition to social programs in the U.S. for example is highly racialized. And the history of civilization and the resulting cultural and institutional capital is probably one of the largest factors determining national stability and success. Contrast the fact that the U.S. was able to pummel and occupy non-white and deeply disliked Japan while helping them become an economic Juggernaut with with the U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Japan had human and institutional capital as a nation, Iraq and Afghanistan have little or none. And it turns out we have no clue how to create that, even with billions of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
It is true, but not for the reasons conservatives give. They argue that it's a racial/genetic/culture problem of inferior races refusing to work and just milking the system and thereby bankrupting the country, when of course as you note it's a political issue that stupid racists will willingly gently caress themselves over as long as they think they're hurting the blacks or whoever more by doing so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
In other words, racial diversity dividing working people might be a reason why it's a hard sell electorally, but it's not a reason why implementing it is inherently unfeasible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Strawman posted:What makes you think the NHS is failing, last time I check it was consistently as one of the highest quality and most efficient systems in the world? To the Conservative mindset, NHS and the Canadian equivalent have been failing since day one. It could be doing absolutely peachy, and all we'll hear from the talkers is how horrible death panels and waiting lists are, and how overburdened the system is. If your conservative MPs are purposely sabotaging it, then it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. asdf32 posted:Wait why don't you think these things are largely true? Basically my point, that opposition to it is racially charged. quote:And the history of civilization and the resulting cultural and institutional capital is probably one of the largest factors determining national stability and success. Contrast the fact that the U.S. was able to pummel and occupy non-white and deeply disliked Japan while helping them become an economic Juggernaut with with the U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Japan had human and institutional capital as a nation, Iraq and Afghanistan have little or none. And it turns out we have no clue how to create that, even with billions of dollars. I know that stability of a nation relies on many factors, but I've heard from more than one conservative source who will argue that a constitutional republic akin to what we have in the US just won't work in some countries because they don't have a "civil society". Many of these countries tend to be African nations or nations that are majority Islamic. There's nothing to analyze in that statement as it's just an empty hand-wave of why brown people can't have democracy, while coming across as educated and not-racist to the average person. It's also a great springboard into arguing against letting people from those countries immigrate to the US.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What is very funny to me in a way is that this is usually cited as some kind of axiomatic fact, as opposed to say a post-hoc rationalization of many Americans being quite racist, and being unwilling to improve their situation if it will also help minorities. What's worse is that it's assumed axiomatically because said homogeneous populations are too biologically alien for Western/American medicine so as to be incompatible for single-payer healthcare here. That was more or less the response I got in an argument about nationalized healthcare some odd years ago with a conservative friend of mine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Strawman posted:What makes you think the NHS is failing, last time I check it was consistently as one of the highest quality and most efficient systems in the world? That is true, but the Tories have been deliberately underfunding it - it's currently haemorrhaging billions of pounds due to budget cuts and hasn't been able to expand to cope with our growing population. Last year we saw mass deaths during the winter period as the cold and slippery weather overloaded the service, and their infrastructure still hasn't recovered even now as we go into the next winter. There's a slightly alarmist article on this here. I say alarmist but it is a worrying thing to go into when you have enough elderly friends and relatives to think it's statistically likely something will happen to one of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:To the Conservative mindset, NHS and the Canadian equivalent have been failing since day one. It could be doing absolutely peachy, and all we'll hear from the talkers is how horrible death panels and waiting lists are, and how overburdened the system is. If your conservative MPs are purposely sabotaging it, then it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. First, some countries aren't civilized like Somalia and nobody understand how to create civil society there. So the statement is largely correct, in the short or medium term that these countries can't just manufacture constitutional republics. Second, it's dumb to pretend that a good grasp of developmental politics/economics only lends itself to conservative arguments. Here is an anti-war forumation: "Don't invade Iraq and Afghanistan because you think you can construct civil democracy in like 5 years". I'll admit that I got that one wrong. At the time I thought that invading Iraq would probably work out ok in the long run regardless of the transparently propagandized immediate pretense because I thought we could do better than Saddam Hussein. I was basically wrong. And Afghanistan has turned out even worse. The fact is we don't understand all the prerequisites for modern democratic states but some places don't have them and we haven't figured out how to manufacture them on demand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:First, some countries aren't civilized like Somalia and nobody understand how to create civil society there. So the statement is largely correct, in the short or medium term that these countries can't just manufacture constitutional republics. That's not the argument. The argument is that people from Somalia shouldn't be allowed into the United States because they're incapable of adapting to a nice form of government like ours; "if they could handle our system of government then they'd already have it". It allows the users of this argument to oppose immigration from country X without simply stating that they think their country already has enough black people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's not the argument. The argument is that people from Somalia shouldn't be allowed into the United States because they're incapable of adapting to a nice form of government like ours; "if they could handle our system of government then they'd already have it". It allows the users of this argument to oppose immigration from country X without simply stating that they think their country already has enough black people. Not the argument I was responding to which was about what would work "in" other countries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Not the argument I was responding to which was about what would work "in" other countries. The argument that you were responding to is what's brought up in order to lead to the "don't let them in" argument. That's the point. Conservatives who use this line of reasoning aren't responding to liberals who are eager to bring democracy to a war-torn nation in Africa, they're using this to suggest that we shouldn't accept refugees from those nations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The argument that you were responding to is what's brought up in order to lead to the "don't let them in" argument. That's the point. Conservatives who use this line of reasoning aren't responding to liberals who are eager to bring democracy to a war-torn nation in Africa, they're using this to suggest that we shouldn't accept refugees from those nations. A largely true statement that doesn't only lend itself to conservative arguments has been misused by conservatives....and?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:A largely true statement that doesn't only lend itself to conservative arguments has been misused by conservatives....and? It's not largely true, though. "No one knows how to bring democracy to Somalia" is not the same as "the people of Somalia are too uncivil to ever participate in a democracy". The first one is largely a true statement. The second one is a bullshit racist opinion used by conservatives as a reason to oppose immigration
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's not largely true, though. "No one knows how to bring democracy to Somalia" is not the same as "the people of Somalia are too uncivil to ever participate in a democracy". The first one is largely a true statement. The second one is a bullshit racist opinion used by conservatives as a reason to oppose immigration Stop being dumb. You slightly altered the argument I was replying too again. quote:that a constitutional republic akin to what we have in the US just won't work in some countries because they don't have a "civil society". It's important for people to recognize that yes this is probably true in the short or medium term in a lot of places and to understand why. No it's not due to race. Nor is it necessarily due to capitalism or imperialism or colonialism. It's a bunch of complicated factors which on the whole result in the fact that you can't plop democracy anywhere you want on short notice and means that we need to still keep working on figure out what those factors are. Lots of bad ideology revolves around pretending it already knows the answers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's important for people to recognize that yes this is probably true in the short or medium term in a lot of places and to understand why. No it's not due to race. Nor is it necessarily due to capitalism or imperialism or colonialism. It's a bunch of complicated factors which on the whole result in the fact that you can't plop democracy anywhere you want on short notice and means that we need to still keep working on figure out what those factors are. Lots of bad ideology revolves around pretending it already knows the answers. We're not arguing the merits of this. What we're saying is, racist shitheels co-opt parts of this argument in a very intellectually shallow and empty manner to justify their anti-immigration stances, and why we shouldn't help these countries, but rather just turn them to glass - or at least carpet bomb the whole country. They ignore the deep complexities of the situations just to go to a simple conclusion that will fulfill the basic needs of propping up their arguments and supporting their stances. They don't want to help these people in any way, so they have to find some justification for it that seems plausible to the average person who doesn't ponder on these matters very much. The argument from these people isn't "this country lacks a stable civil society, so democracy won't work until we can find the reasons why and how to make it work." It's "this country is full of uncivilized murderers and terrorists who hate democracy, how do we know that they're not already sending their terrorists into our country to kill us!?!" e: I should probably add to clarify, most of the people I hear use this argument aren't using it to foster or encourage discussion of ideas on how to help people - they use this line of thinking to condemn their targets. It's the sort of circular logic that fed into Chicago's racially segregated neighborhoods, that there is a complex problem, but instead of solving the problem people just focus on the end results of that problem, which feeds back into the problem itself. CovfefeCatCafe fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Stop being dumb. You slightly altered the argument I was replying too again. You're still not getting it. It doesn't matter whether these regions are ready to adopt a democratic government tomorrow, they're examples raised for racist talking points almost exclusively No one is arguing that Somalia is ready to adopt Democracy right now, doofus
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
What happened to Somalia being a libertarian paradise? Did Mises lie to me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's great how up their own rear end Libertarians are about how non-aggression is the only rational, universal, logically consistent principle on which to base our legal and moral systems, and everyone else's philosophy is some arbitrary self-serving mish-mash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What happened to Somalia being a libertarian paradise? No Mises would be like "my god you can't just have anarchy. You have to have a functioning state to have prosperity and liberal values. Who are these slovenly mutants, why are they wearing undershirts with images printed on them and why are they asking me for an autograph?" e: he would be like quote:A shallow-minded school of social philosophers, the anarchists, chose to ignore the matter by suggesting a stateless organization of mankind. They simply passed over the fact that men are not angels. They were too dull to realize that in the short run an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples’ long-run interests. A society that is not prepared to thwart the attacks of such asocial and short-sighted aggressors is helpless and at the mercy of its least intelligent and most brutal members. While Plato founded his utopia on the hope that a small group of perfectly wise and morally impeccable philosophers will be available for the supreme conduct of affairs, anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability. They failed to conceive that no system of social cooperation can remove the dilemma between a man’s or a group’s interests in the short run and those in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Mises was also a utilitarian and he thought ontological ethics are dumb made-up bullshit, not that Libertarians actually care about anything he wrote except the part where you don't have to pay any taxes for anything
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Mises was also a utilitarian and he thought ontological ethics are dumb made-up bullshit, not that Libertarians actually care about anything he wrote except the part where you don't have to pay any taxes for anything This doesn't really signify much though. Rawls was a Kantian, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Mises was also a utilitarian and he thought ontological ethics are dumb made-up bullshit, not that Libertarians actually care about anything he wrote except the part where you don't have to pay any taxes for anything b-but what about "humans act"??
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Animals act. Therefore, animals would naturally get along through voluntary exchange if it weren't for the presence of a state. Animals that hurt others would be shunned by the market, and quickly die out. Alpha predators don't exist without fiat currency or taxation to back them up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Animals act. Therefore, animals would naturally get along through voluntary exchange if it weren't for the presence of a state. Animals that hurt others would be shunned by the market, and quickly die out. Alpha predators don't exist without fiat currency or taxation to back them up. By giving the apple to Adam in an act of liberal redistribution, Eve created the first state and the animals were forever doomed to lives of predation
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Mises was also a utilitarian and he thought ontological ethics are dumb made-up bullshit, not that Libertarians actually care about anything he wrote except the part where you don't have to pay any taxes for anything How do you go from utilitarianism to libertarianism? As a utilitarian that is really confusing to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Here, take a minute and read this primer on DROs that jrod posted in an earlier incarnation of this thread. As you're reading it, keep in mind that it is an argument in favor of DROs and stateless law enforcement. So a libertarian society would have an easy time catching a criminal who says "Hey, I'm gonna commit a crime, peace out" then kills his wife and tries to take the bus to another town and check into a hotel. I'm very impressed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
The hilarious part is that it fails to address the reality that quitting your DRO would thusly be considered admitting to criminal intent. Hope you like that company store...
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:The hilarious part is that it fails to address the reality that quitting your DRO would thusly be considered admitting to criminal intent. conflicting DRO rules? what are those
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What happened to Somalia being a libertarian paradise? I'm assuming you've encountered this already but they literally special plead this one away as "oh that doesn't count that's not anarcho-capitalism that's just chaos" and wave it away as "no real ancapism" the same way we apparently wave away the Soviet Union. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Libertarians gushing about the wonderful surveillance Caros posted:This is a combination of actual Murray Rothbard quotes by the way. RocketLunatic posted:Those insane DRO imagined societies resemble North Korea more than any sort of free society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:A DRO society would be like North Korea, except less stable, and the cannibalism would be perfectly legal. You've convinced me, BRING ON THE LIBERTARIAN FUTURE *dons human flesh as clothes, scuttles sideways out the door*
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:You've convinced me, BRING ON THE LIBERTARIAN FUTURE *dons human flesh as clothes, scuttles sideways out the door* 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How do you go from utilitarianism to libertarianism? If you think that libertarians actually reason from first principles, and happily follow inferences from their foundations wherever they may lead, then you will always find them confusing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:If you think that libertarians actually reason from first principles, and happily follow inferences from their foundations wherever they may lead, then you will always find them confusing. That's unfair. I logically inferred an entire worldview from first principles; it just happened to line up perfectly with everything I already believed and wanted to be true. It's not my fault I'm a perfectly rational economic actor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
theshim posted:No, being without a DRO is. If you were unfairly treated by your DRO, all you would have to do is transfer your Ah, but they have only your word that you are going to another DRO if you quit. You have no contractual obligation to give them accurate information beyond severing your relationship with them. So clearly, anyone who seeks to leave the corporate fold is a commie mutant traitor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
What's to stop someone from just claiming they're a DRO and printing out their own DRO card? Would there be an over-arching authority for DROs to be accredited, like doctors or teachers? What if you set up your own accreditation service? e:For that matter, who registers doctors or teachers? Who handles stuff like 'working with kids' cards? WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:What's to stop someone from just claiming they're a DRO and printing out their own DRO card? Would there be an over-arching authority for DROs to be accredited, like doctors or teachers? What if you set up your own accreditation service? There's no accreditation system, and it's totally fine for you to run your own DRO. But DROs get to pick and choose which other DROs they recognize and do business with, so if you're in an area where one company or a small network of them control a sizable majority of the customer base, they have no reason to accept you and can bar you from using any services of any of their clients. This is different than a state because of reasons. As for licensing schemes for doctors or teachers or people who work with children, it's called "the free market." Doctors who have no training at all will simply provide a discounted service for poorer clientele. And if a doctor fucks up and kills
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Something something caveat emptor
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:What's to stop someone from just claiming they're a DRO and printing out their own DRO card? Would there be an over-arching authority for DROs to be accredited, like doctors or teachers? What if you set up your own accreditation service? Well clearly independent verification agencies would arise, and market competition would naturally result in the best of them becoming the gold standard* from which no DRO would dare to deviate lest people take their business elsewhere, which I think is an arrangement you'd agree would never, ever be corrupted by collusion, bribery, or force. *because what other standard would libertarians ever really respect?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
I think you'll find reputation agencies can't have problems with collusion, bribery or force, because there will be competing reputation agencies that report on the reputations of the reputation agencies. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:34
|
|