7 ms·

Yes it should be questioned. Would I enjoy being filthy rich, while my neighbour is struggling with his hospital bills? Hell no. For me government is about taki

Yes it should be questioned. Would I enjoy being filthy rich, while my neighbour is struggling with his hospital bills? Hell no. For me government is about taking care of the sick, poor and vulnerable as much as taking care of wannabe millionairs.

logicchains 9y ago
>Would I enjoy being filthy rich, while my neighbour is struggling with his hospital bills? Hell no. Nobody would stop you from helping with your neighbour's hospital bill if you were filthy rich.
- scarface74 9y ago
  But couldn't his money go farther if we had a more efficient health care system? Do you realize that they passed a law specifically making it illegal for the government to negotiate the price for medicine.
  - spiderfarmer 9y ago
    If you lack compassion, like him probably, it's very easy to ignore how the system that's benefitting you is screwing over an awful lot of people.
- spiderfarmer 9y ago
  Sure, I could add if/thens to my apps for each specific undesirable scenario, but I would much rather prefer to solve the underlying bugs.
  - gepi79 9y ago
    I prefer a consistent reliable efficient health care system and social security system to philantropy, charity and donations as well. The USA is still the violent prudish religious DIY Wild West compared to most areas in Europe (East-Europe excluded that is more like the USA).
    - dnautics 9y ago
      > a consistent reliable efficient health care system what makes you think that this is reasonable for government to provide? How do you know that the era 1950-20xx is not an anomaly? If you look at the broad scope of history, governments are not very good at doing the things that you suggest they should be doing.
      - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
        If you look at the broad scope of history, cannibalism is a good thing. I suggest you revise your argument to one that's more plausible and convincing.
        dnautics 9y ago
        There's a mechanistic reason why it's a bad choice. Government is by necessity a hierarchical system, by its very nature its process of allocating resources requires a concentration of wealth and power. From first principles, there's no way around it. Any system that enforces 'good feels' top-down is unstable and has a half-life; systems of social support will eventually be redirected to benefit the wealthy. For example, if we go to single payer healthcare, it eventually will become a vector for lining the pockets of phamaceutical companies.
        spiderfarmer 9y ago
        'Good feels' there you have it. You think empathic people are just virtue signalling, totally ignoring the benefits of a more social democracy. You believe in a system that's totally unfair to a lot of people, ignoring that I am from a country that proves that there's absolutely another way.
        dnautics 9y ago
        you're not an ethnic minority, are you? You have no clue what it means for society to be unfair, and it has nothing to do with money.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    You can't solve the underlying bugs because it's impossible for you to force your neighbor to make good choices and to live a net productive life. The only question that needs answering is how much of your productive output should be diverted to someone else, someone whose life choices you get no influence on, but somehow they are allowed to have influence on yours.
    - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
      This is the standard myth of personal irresponsibility which excuses "punishment" for failure. The reality is that the opposite is not just possible, but encouraged - right-wing governments in the US consistently use economic policy to prevent social mobility, economic freedom, and the kind of collective social investment that generates long-term social, political, and economic benefits. It's all about concentrating economic power among an increasingly narrow sub-group, and economically disenfranchising the rest of the population. https://www.oecd.org/eco/Decoupling-of-wages-from-productivity-Macro-level-facts.pdf https://www.oecd.org/eco/Decoupling-of-wages-from-productivi...
    - spiderfarmer 9y ago
      Well, I am forced to pay for my jobless neighbor. I also pay for the road between me and him. I also pay for the guy on the corner with mental health problems and for the cops that are patrolling the streets at night. I am more than happy to pay for everyone, because it's this system that enables to me to focus on my job. And I voted for a system like this. Just like my parents, my neighbor, the guy on the corner and my jobless neighbor. It's not holding anyone back in any way.
      - kbutler 9y ago
        You're not paying for everyone - a significant chunk of the transfers you're endorsing are paid by deficit spending, so you're still signing up other people who don't get to vote to pay for what you want. Of course there are probably government spending you disapprove of (long-term prison sentences for drugs, war on drugs, "bridge to nowhere", and military/foreign wars are likely candidates) Everyone disapproves of some government spending, but it involves compromise between differing perspectives on what government should be doing.
- drewbuschhorn 9y ago
  Maybe his neighbor would? If the culture of self reliance is so important, shouldn't people who take handouts from others be shamed and vilified? Sure seems like that's the Republican party line. Whereas if healthcare was properly regulated, his neighbor could pay for it himself and actually be independent in his community. I'd rather be independent among my peers and neighbors even if I have to rely on a supra entity to regulate my food quality and organize my warfighting than the other way around. We're all dependent at some level even if just to the past, no matter what "Atlas Shrugged" says.
- awj 9y ago
  That's quite possibly the most inefficient way to handle such a thing. As a reminder: there's a very good chance that, with healthcare, inefficiency => people die. Beyond that, it's an insulting way to avoid having a real discussion on this issue. If the charity of the rich were enough to solve this social problem, we wouldn't be talking about it. Why are you participating in these discussions if the only solution you have to offer has been tried and failed for most of human history?
  - wooter 9y ago
    > Why are you participating in these discussions if the only solution you have to offer has been tried and failed for most of human history? So you agree we should stop massive government programs that have always resulted in centralization, bankruptcy, and systemic poverty? Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, Greece, Spain, Italy, China, ... How much more failure do you need to realize Government isnt the answer?
    - braythwayt 9y ago
      Let me know when Canada fails. Or Germany. Or Sweden. Or Norway. Or... Or... Or...
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - wooter 9y ago
        https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-state... they would be amongst the poorest states by median household income, purchasing power parity, cost of living, and gdp per capita
        braythwayt 9y ago
        So your argument is that these statistics "prove" that Sweden and Germany's people are worse off than the citizens of most US states? First, it would seem that all those people are too ignorant to understand how much better their lives would be if they were, for example, living in Michigan. If only we could teach them how unhappy they are! Second, the claim that the people are "poorer" is not a cogent claim that their countries are failures. Your argument reminds me of something I tell my children: "Human beings are the most successful form of life on Earth, by all the metrics that humans choose to measure success."
Jedd 9y ago
> For me government is about taking care of the sick, poor and vulnerable as much as taking care of wannabe millionairs. For me, I'd say that society is about taking care of everyone -- government should merely (!) play the role of the administrator in that process. I always feel that way too many people I speak to think that 'the government' is some kind of independent force, rather than a reflection of what society wants. (Sure, in many cases, it really is a reflection of what a tiny handful of people orchestrate -- but since we're talking idealism here...)
- spiderfarmer 9y ago
  For me, I don't think the driving forces of capatilism are always compatible with 'caring for people' and that there are tasks that are better left to governmental organizations.
  - Jedd 9y ago
    Yes, agreed entirely -- I didn't mean that more things should be privatised (I actually think many things should either remain, or be re-, nationalised). I meant that government should be acting in a way that reflects the will of an informed, thoughtful, responsible, empathetic society ... rather than 'inflicting' responsibility upon its citizens.
- mcv 9y ago
  Exactly. The government should represent the will of the people. Too often I see people argue from the point that government is intrinsically some alien entity they have no control over, but when that's the case, that just means your government is wrong. Government should represent the people, and any government that doesn't, needs to be fixed. (The US government certainly needs to be fixed.)
  - dnautics 9y ago
    that's really dangerous, because the will of the people can get really hairy. Besides, if the will of the people is to take care of everyone through social services, then why do you need a government to do it? It should just happen naturally. What you are saying, is that a few select people that are chosen by a popularity contest should be given the authority to make people do things against their will.
oreo81 9y ago
>For me government is about taking care of the sick, poor and vulnerable as much as taking care of wannabe millionairs. You're free to donate as much of your income to people in need as you want, but you need to stop thinking you should be able to make other people do the same thing. You may not like it but we have a right to our labor and freedom to spend it how we please.

logicchains 9y ago

>Would I enjoy being filthy rich, while my neighbour is struggling with his hospital bills? Hell no. Nobody would stop you from helping with your neighbour's hospital bill if you were filthy rich.

scarface74 9y ago
But couldn't his money go farther if we had a more efficient health care system? Do you realize that they passed a law specifically making it illegal for the government to negotiate the price for medicine.
- spiderfarmer 9y ago
  If you lack compassion, like him probably, it's very easy to ignore how the system that's benefitting you is screwing over an awful lot of people.
spiderfarmer 9y ago
Sure, I could add if/thens to my apps for each specific undesirable scenario, but I would much rather prefer to solve the underlying bugs.
- gepi79 9y ago
  I prefer a consistent reliable efficient health care system and social security system to philantropy, charity and donations as well. The USA is still the violent prudish religious DIY Wild West compared to most areas in Europe (East-Europe excluded that is more like the USA).
  - dnautics 9y ago
    > a consistent reliable efficient health care system what makes you think that this is reasonable for government to provide? How do you know that the era 1950-20xx is not an anomaly? If you look at the broad scope of history, governments are not very good at doing the things that you suggest they should be doing.
    - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
      If you look at the broad scope of history, cannibalism is a good thing. I suggest you revise your argument to one that's more plausible and convincing.
      - dnautics 9y ago
        There's a mechanistic reason why it's a bad choice. Government is by necessity a hierarchical system, by its very nature its process of allocating resources requires a concentration of wealth and power. From first principles, there's no way around it. Any system that enforces 'good feels' top-down is unstable and has a half-life; systems of social support will eventually be redirected to benefit the wealthy. For example, if we go to single payer healthcare, it eventually will become a vector for lining the pockets of phamaceutical companies.
        spiderfarmer 9y ago
        'Good feels' there you have it. You think empathic people are just virtue signalling, totally ignoring the benefits of a more social democracy. You believe in a system that's totally unfair to a lot of people, ignoring that I am from a country that proves that there's absolutely another way.
        dnautics 9y ago
        you're not an ethnic minority, are you? You have no clue what it means for society to be unfair, and it has nothing to do with money.
- wang_li 9y ago
  You can't solve the underlying bugs because it's impossible for you to force your neighbor to make good choices and to live a net productive life. The only question that needs answering is how much of your productive output should be diverted to someone else, someone whose life choices you get no influence on, but somehow they are allowed to have influence on yours.
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    This is the standard myth of personal irresponsibility which excuses "punishment" for failure. The reality is that the opposite is not just possible, but encouraged - right-wing governments in the US consistently use economic policy to prevent social mobility, economic freedom, and the kind of collective social investment that generates long-term social, political, and economic benefits. It's all about concentrating economic power among an increasingly narrow sub-group, and economically disenfranchising the rest of the population. https://www.oecd.org/eco/Decoupling-of-wages-from-productivity-Macro-level-facts.pdf https://www.oecd.org/eco/Decoupling-of-wages-from-productivi...
  - spiderfarmer 9y ago
    Well, I am forced to pay for my jobless neighbor. I also pay for the road between me and him. I also pay for the guy on the corner with mental health problems and for the cops that are patrolling the streets at night. I am more than happy to pay for everyone, because it's this system that enables to me to focus on my job. And I voted for a system like this. Just like my parents, my neighbor, the guy on the corner and my jobless neighbor. It's not holding anyone back in any way.
    - kbutler 9y ago
      You're not paying for everyone - a significant chunk of the transfers you're endorsing are paid by deficit spending, so you're still signing up other people who don't get to vote to pay for what you want. Of course there are probably government spending you disapprove of (long-term prison sentences for drugs, war on drugs, "bridge to nowhere", and military/foreign wars are likely candidates) Everyone disapproves of some government spending, but it involves compromise between differing perspectives on what government should be doing.
drewbuschhorn 9y ago
Maybe his neighbor would? If the culture of self reliance is so important, shouldn't people who take handouts from others be shamed and vilified? Sure seems like that's the Republican party line. Whereas if healthcare was properly regulated, his neighbor could pay for it himself and actually be independent in his community. I'd rather be independent among my peers and neighbors even if I have to rely on a supra entity to regulate my food quality and organize my warfighting than the other way around. We're all dependent at some level even if just to the past, no matter what "Atlas Shrugged" says.
awj 9y ago
That's quite possibly the most inefficient way to handle such a thing. As a reminder: there's a very good chance that, with healthcare, inefficiency => people die. Beyond that, it's an insulting way to avoid having a real discussion on this issue. If the charity of the rich were enough to solve this social problem, we wouldn't be talking about it. Why are you participating in these discussions if the only solution you have to offer has been tried and failed for most of human history?
- wooter 9y ago
  > Why are you participating in these discussions if the only solution you have to offer has been tried and failed for most of human history? So you agree we should stop massive government programs that have always resulted in centralization, bankruptcy, and systemic poverty? Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, Greece, Spain, Italy, China, ... How much more failure do you need to realize Government isnt the answer?
  - braythwayt 9y ago
    Let me know when Canada fails. Or Germany. Or Sweden. Or Norway. Or... Or... Or...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - wooter 9y ago
      https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-state... they would be amongst the poorest states by median household income, purchasing power parity, cost of living, and gdp per capita
      - braythwayt 9y ago
        So your argument is that these statistics "prove" that Sweden and Germany's people are worse off than the citizens of most US states? First, it would seem that all those people are too ignorant to understand how much better their lives would be if they were, for example, living in Michigan. If only we could teach them how unhappy they are! Second, the claim that the people are "poorer" is not a cogent claim that their countries are failures. Your argument reminds me of something I tell my children: "Human beings are the most successful form of life on Earth, by all the metrics that humans choose to measure success."

Jedd 9y ago

> For me government is about taking care of the sick, poor and vulnerable as much as taking care of wannabe millionairs. For me, I'd say that society is about taking care of everyone -- government should merely (!) play the role of the administrator in that process. I always feel that way too many people I speak to think that 'the government' is some kind of independent force, rather than a reflection of what society wants. (Sure, in many cases, it really is a reflection of what a tiny handful of people orchestrate -- but since we're talking idealism here...)

spiderfarmer 9y ago
For me, I don't think the driving forces of capatilism are always compatible with 'caring for people' and that there are tasks that are better left to governmental organizations.
- Jedd 9y ago
  Yes, agreed entirely -- I didn't mean that more things should be privatised (I actually think many things should either remain, or be re-, nationalised). I meant that government should be acting in a way that reflects the will of an informed, thoughtful, responsible, empathetic society ... rather than 'inflicting' responsibility upon its citizens.
mcv 9y ago
Exactly. The government should represent the will of the people. Too often I see people argue from the point that government is intrinsically some alien entity they have no control over, but when that's the case, that just means your government is wrong. Government should represent the people, and any government that doesn't, needs to be fixed. (The US government certainly needs to be fixed.)
- dnautics 9y ago
  that's really dangerous, because the will of the people can get really hairy. Besides, if the will of the people is to take care of everyone through social services, then why do you need a government to do it? It should just happen naturally. What you are saying, is that a few select people that are chosen by a popularity contest should be given the authority to make people do things against their will.

oreo81 9y ago

>For me government is about taking care of the sick, poor and vulnerable as much as taking care of wannabe millionairs. You're free to donate as much of your income to people in need as you want, but you need to stop thinking you should be able to make other people do the same thing. You may not like it but we have a right to our labor and freedom to spend it how we please.