3 ms·

> This is the same with public education, public funding, public security, public healthcare. Wherever a private system exists that competes with the public (as

by seneca 5y ago

> This is the same with public education, public funding, public security, public healthcare. Wherever a private system exists that competes with the public (as in "it belongs to everyone") one, it'll consume resources and deprive the public one. This is a big part of the problem with the mindset that everything is about "equality". You are suggesting that a superior private option should not be allowed to exist because it will out-compete a public option (If it were not superior, why would anyone choose it?). I don't think your logic is wrong exactly, a public option will in fact be worse if people are not forced to invest in it, but the problem with this approach is that you're telling those with more resources that they must make due with less (or their children must, in the case of education) for some greater good. This is where "equality" thinking always seems to lead. You have to tear down those with more so that they don't have something better than those with less. Everyone gets the same mediocrity. The issue is that many people don't want to be collectivists, and they especially don't want to sacrifice their childrens' wellbeing for some utopian ideal. That's an inevitable conflict, and one I think we're seeing playing out right now. Again, I don't think you're wrong exactly. I just don't think this mindset is one that works outside of totalitarian societies. Implementing it in a society with any sense of individual libery is, to borrow your phrase, "one of the most dangerous threats to a well functioning society", in my opinion.

rbanffy 5y ago
> You are suggesting that a superior private option should not be allowed to exist because it will out-compete a public option One way to justify it is to highlight it negates meritocracy. A Boris Johnson who went to Eton becomes Prime Minister, for instance, while not exactly being an exceedingly bright student. Most likely, he's not even the top 50% of the Etonian population. I wouldn't bet in him being among the top 95%. Ideally, the state should invest sufficient resources to make a private option less advantageous and place it in the diminishing returns region of the curve. Just imagine what a workforce properly educated, who understands the Earth is round, that vaccines work, that wrong is wrong, among many other things, could do for any country. Equal opportunity is the only moral choice, since every person has the same rights and the same obligations. Allowing money to distort this principle is obviously undersirable. > Again, I don't think you're wrong exactly. I just don't think this mindset is one that works outside of totalitarian societies. We all sacrifice some freedoms in order to live in a better society. We can't kill people to take their possessions (or their families), for instance. There was a time we could and that was not only tolerated, but entire economies were built on top of that. Now we know better, of course. Eventually, we'll know even better, and all this childish "I deserve to be powerful because I'm rich" will be a thing of the past.
- sershe 5y ago
  The problem is that it actually doesn't work and never worked. The public option always ends up being crappy. Soviet Union/etc is an obvious example (the public system is still there after it collapsed, but on top of it there's now a private system that is far superior for general care, at least); however I've also lived in Canada (~2008-10) and it took me months to find a GP that takes patients and doesn't have garbage reviews, and then wait time for a non-urgent procedure was like 6 months. OTOH dental care in Canada is private and (as far as I can tell) no different than in the US. If a similar private system for regular care existed, I'd escape there in an instant... the only way to ensure it doesn't happen is to effectively prevent the private system from functioning, at least at scale - like they do in Canada; and force everyone to use the crappier system. I personally view the equal sharing of miseries as one of the most morally repugnant things in the world.

by seneca 5y ago

rbanffy 5y ago

> You are suggesting that a superior private option should not be allowed to exist because it will out-compete a public option One way to justify it is to highlight it negates meritocracy. A Boris Johnson who went to Eton becomes Prime Minister, for instance, while not exactly being an exceedingly bright student. Most likely, he's not even the top 50% of the Etonian population. I wouldn't bet in him being among the top 95%. Ideally, the state should invest sufficient resources to make a private option less advantageous and place it in the diminishing returns region of the curve. Just imagine what a workforce properly educated, who understands the Earth is round, that vaccines work, that wrong is wrong, among many other things, could do for any country. Equal opportunity is the only moral choice, since every person has the same rights and the same obligations. Allowing money to distort this principle is obviously undersirable. > Again, I don't think you're wrong exactly. I just don't think this mindset is one that works outside of totalitarian societies. We all sacrifice some freedoms in order to live in a better society. We can't kill people to take their possessions (or their families), for instance. There was a time we could and that was not only tolerated, but entire economies were built on top of that. Now we know better, of course. Eventually, we'll know even better, and all this childish "I deserve to be powerful because I'm rich" will be a thing of the past.

sershe 5y ago
The problem is that it actually doesn't work and never worked. The public option always ends up being crappy. Soviet Union/etc is an obvious example (the public system is still there after it collapsed, but on top of it there's now a private system that is far superior for general care, at least); however I've also lived in Canada (~2008-10) and it took me months to find a GP that takes patients and doesn't have garbage reviews, and then wait time for a non-urgent procedure was like 6 months. OTOH dental care in Canada is private and (as far as I can tell) no different than in the US. If a similar private system for regular care existed, I'd escape there in an instant... the only way to ensure it doesn't happen is to effectively prevent the private system from functioning, at least at scale - like they do in Canada; and force everyone to use the crappier system. I personally view the equal sharing of miseries as one of the most morally repugnant things in the world.