3 ms·

To simplify: to be entitled to something and to pay for it are some very different things. I'd argue that somebody who claims wealthy people paying for stuff i

To simplify: to be entitled to something and to pay for it are some very different things. I'd argue that somebody who claims wealthy people paying for stuff is the same as entitlement is the person who is actually destructive. As for the other German laws: I can't think of anything good that has come from them. Socialism has a way to sneak up on countries. That's all there is to it.

pell 8y ago
The problem is that you're simplifying in the first place. You seem to use "entitlement" only in a negative fashion akin to "freeloading" or "expecting something for free". I am using entitlement in a legal sense, in this case being entitled to/having a claim to/a right to buy at the highest price. The German word here would be "Anspruch". So, we can debate whether the highest bidder has a claim to something. I certainly understand the arguments for it. But there are scenarios where I do argue that this is something that should not be permitted or at least not for 100% of the available goods. As to your point about nothing good having come from such German laws, I disagree. Health care, legal counsel, medication, among other things are affordable in Germany while they can pose an existential risk in places without such limits.
- berlinerluft 8y ago
  You are of course not entitled to buy, as in general nobody is obliged to sell. If somebody should be forced to sell at a lower than their preferred price, the question is, by what rights should he be forced to do so? The government would effectively be stealing from that individual. By what rationale/right? As I said in another post, I personally did not get the benefit of a cheap place to rent in the center of Berlin. Why should I think other people have a right to it? You mention healthcare, but I don't think you can force physicians to work for an arbitrarily low fee. That's not how the system works in Germany, either. Public health insurance defines how much they are prepared to pay for things in the healthcare system. That is not the same as enforcing a maximum price. And especially with the German health care system, I'd argue that normal people have no idea of the actual upsides and downsides of the system. If there is a maximum price on health procedures, it means certain procedures won't be available. I've actually heard that there is already a health care tourism industry in Germany, which means the most skilled physicians might not be available for publicly insured people anymore, because they serve rich people from Saudi Arabia. Sure, in that sense it is bad for the normal people. On the other hand, highly skilled people might not even exist without high incentives, and in the end more people might decide to train to become highly skilled. Expensive machinery might be used for less solvent patients if there is a downtime. It's not so easy to claim benefits of limiting laws.

pell 8y ago

The problem is that you're simplifying in the first place. You seem to use "entitlement" only in a negative fashion akin to "freeloading" or "expecting something for free". I am using entitlement in a legal sense, in this case being entitled to/having a claim to/a right to buy at the highest price. The German word here would be "Anspruch". So, we can debate whether the highest bidder has a claim to something. I certainly understand the arguments for it. But there are scenarios where I do argue that this is something that should not be permitted or at least not for 100% of the available goods. As to your point about nothing good having come from such German laws, I disagree. Health care, legal counsel, medication, among other things are affordable in Germany while they can pose an existential risk in places without such limits.

berlinerluft 8y ago
You are of course not entitled to buy, as in general nobody is obliged to sell. If somebody should be forced to sell at a lower than their preferred price, the question is, by what rights should he be forced to do so? The government would effectively be stealing from that individual. By what rationale/right? As I said in another post, I personally did not get the benefit of a cheap place to rent in the center of Berlin. Why should I think other people have a right to it? You mention healthcare, but I don't think you can force physicians to work for an arbitrarily low fee. That's not how the system works in Germany, either. Public health insurance defines how much they are prepared to pay for things in the healthcare system. That is not the same as enforcing a maximum price. And especially with the German health care system, I'd argue that normal people have no idea of the actual upsides and downsides of the system. If there is a maximum price on health procedures, it means certain procedures won't be available. I've actually heard that there is already a health care tourism industry in Germany, which means the most skilled physicians might not be available for publicly insured people anymore, because they serve rich people from Saudi Arabia. Sure, in that sense it is bad for the normal people. On the other hand, highly skilled people might not even exist without high incentives, and in the end more people might decide to train to become highly skilled. Expensive machinery might be used for less solvent patients if there is a downtime. It's not so easy to claim benefits of limiting laws.