3 ms·

> It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words. This sentiment is at the core of Amer

> It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words. This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. We have a Constitution because individuals have human rights that cannot be violated no matter how many people vote on it. Pure democracy is evil. > Please let me know which of the communist regimes of the 20th century that started out democratic. What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy > That's a sociopathic response to why on earth 71k people should die every year in a country of abundance simply because they don't have any money. This is a utopian response which is actually indicative of sociopathy. "There are three questions which will destroy most of the arguments on the left: 1. Compared to what? 2. At what cost? 3. What hard evidence do you have?" – Thomas Sowell

jahaja 6y ago
> This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. It's not a secret no, but it's certainly not part of the propaganda. > Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. Why is that? Maybe you should be blunt here too and just say private-property enforcement instead of human rights? > What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union? Are you really going argue that it was a democracy because of the name? Why are you doubling down on your own ignorance? Even the link you yourself posted contains this: "After Lenin's party, the Bolsheviks, only got a minority of the votes in the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly, he disbanded it by force after its first meeting". The Bolsheviks took power in a coup for themselves and never let go of it. > This is a utopian response which is actually indicative of sociopathy. What? There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now. That also sounds like a means to an end argument which is sociopathic if anything is.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  > There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now Universal healthcare necessarily means rationing of healthcare resources. Universal healthcare does not mean that every person who has an ailment gets treated. A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). When you remove the market it's up to government to do this matching process which means rationing.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    Sorry, but if you ignore existing facts and reality around the western world just too parrot some libertarian free market bullshit you're clearly far too deep into dogma.
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      It's not dogma it's just logic. Finite resource, no market, means rationing. Why is that dogmatic? This has nothing to do with libertarian ideals, it's just a logical almost tautological statement. Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that?
      - jahaja 6y ago
        > Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that? It's an irrelevant distraction. What's important is not to deprive people of care to such an extent that 71k people dies every year in a country fully capable of providing universal healthcare. You're using dogma to justify that. What you're calling "get the treatment they want" is just to allow rich people to get priority.
        googthrowaway42 6y ago
        > You're using dogma to justify that. I'm not using dogma at all, let alone using it to "justify" anything. It simply is how it is. There is no panacea. You're totally captured by a utopian vision which is why you can't comprehend that. Even countries with universal healthcare can't provide healthcare services to everyone who needs it or wants it. Healthcare resources are finite. No amount of arguing on your part will change that.
        jahaja 6y ago
        You are very careful about which parts of each message you like to answer aren't you? I haven't argued that healthcare resources aren't finite. But what kind of pointless argument is that? "Housing is finite", "Clothing is finite", "Food is finite". Well, yes? But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not? And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure, even the poor? What's utopian about not having 71k people per year die due to lack of healthcare coverage? Do you think all of these 71k would end up on some brain surgery queue and die anyway? You're just making pointless statements without any depth. Dilettante.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> We have a Constitution because individuals have human rights that cannot be violated no matter how many people vote on it. That's implausible, since sufficient people voting on it can change the Constitution. > What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union? It means “council”. Leninism was vanguardist, not democratic; vanguardism is a top-down paternalistic elite-led structure based on the idea that the masses aren't ready to lead themselves, and would lead to bad outcomes if allowed to do so without guidance from their more sophisticated betters to direct them to observe proper ideological constraints. Basically, the same position your espousing, but differing only in what the right-thought is that it is feared the masses would depart from if not constrained.

jahaja 6y ago

> This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. It's not a secret no, but it's certainly not part of the propaganda. > Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. Why is that? Maybe you should be blunt here too and just say private-property enforcement instead of human rights? > What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union? Are you really going argue that it was a democracy because of the name? Why are you doubling down on your own ignorance? Even the link you yourself posted contains this: "After Lenin's party, the Bolsheviks, only got a minority of the votes in the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly, he disbanded it by force after its first meeting". The Bolsheviks took power in a coup for themselves and never let go of it. > This is a utopian response which is actually indicative of sociopathy. What? There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now. That also sounds like a means to an end argument which is sociopathic if anything is.

googthrowaway42 6y ago
> There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now Universal healthcare necessarily means rationing of healthcare resources. Universal healthcare does not mean that every person who has an ailment gets treated. A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). When you remove the market it's up to government to do this matching process which means rationing.
- jahaja 6y ago
  Sorry, but if you ignore existing facts and reality around the western world just too parrot some libertarian free market bullshit you're clearly far too deep into dogma.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    It's not dogma it's just logic. Finite resource, no market, means rationing. Why is that dogmatic? This has nothing to do with libertarian ideals, it's just a logical almost tautological statement. Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that?
    - jahaja 6y ago
      > Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that? It's an irrelevant distraction. What's important is not to deprive people of care to such an extent that 71k people dies every year in a country fully capable of providing universal healthcare. You're using dogma to justify that. What you're calling "get the treatment they want" is just to allow rich people to get priority.
      - googthrowaway42 6y ago
        > You're using dogma to justify that. I'm not using dogma at all, let alone using it to "justify" anything. It simply is how it is. There is no panacea. You're totally captured by a utopian vision which is why you can't comprehend that. Even countries with universal healthcare can't provide healthcare services to everyone who needs it or wants it. Healthcare resources are finite. No amount of arguing on your part will change that.
        jahaja 6y ago
        You are very careful about which parts of each message you like to answer aren't you? I haven't argued that healthcare resources aren't finite. But what kind of pointless argument is that? "Housing is finite", "Clothing is finite", "Food is finite". Well, yes? But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not? And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure, even the poor? What's utopian about not having 71k people per year die due to lack of healthcare coverage? Do you think all of these 71k would end up on some brain surgery queue and die anyway? You're just making pointless statements without any depth. Dilettante.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> We have a Constitution because individuals have human rights that cannot be violated no matter how many people vote on it. That's implausible, since sufficient people voting on it can change the Constitution. > What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union? It means “council”. Leninism was vanguardist, not democratic; vanguardism is a top-down paternalistic elite-led structure based on the idea that the masses aren't ready to lead themselves, and would lead to bad outcomes if allowed to do so without guidance from their more sophisticated betters to direct them to observe proper ideological constraints. Basically, the same position your espousing, but differing only in what the right-thought is that it is feared the masses would depart from if not constrained.