5 ms·

> I wish people didn't yell out dogmatic axioms like this. It is your opinion that the greatest good is achieved through the state; I can provide counterexampl

> I wish people didn't yell out dogmatic axioms like this. It is your opinion that the greatest good is achieved through the state; I can provide counterexamples where this has historically not been true. But we're not discussing historically. We're discussing modern first world economies where the poor have been incessantly squeezed by 'free market' ideology. The NHS is a refreshing example of how to do things right.

josh2600 13y ago
> But we're not discussing historically. We're discussing modern first world economies where the poor have been incessantly squeezed by 'free market' ideology. Yes, let's ignore the past because it doesn't fit our current narrative of the future. My main disagreement is your assertion that your opinion is fact.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  > Yes, let's ignore the past because it doesn't fit our current narrative of the future. Could you please explain how funding the NHS, a system helping millions and costing less than the average American already pays in taxes, is somehow immoral or wrong or warned against by history? Can you suggest some strict lessons that show how the NHS can't possibly exist as it does?
  - josh2600 13y ago
    Could you please explain how your one specific example invalidates my opinion? I am not going to answer a strawman attack; the NHS is not what we're discussing and has little to do with the topic at hand. You can't just suggest one federal agency thats performing well as indicative of all money that goes to the government being well-spent. Your position was that money given to the government is invariably good, my position is that your statement is a bit of a reach at best and ridiculous at worst. Your response is to cite one particular organization that has performed well which does nothing to validate or refute my argument. In short, no straw men please.
    - hahainternet 13y ago
      > Could you please explain how your one specific example invalidates my opinion? > the NHS is not what we're discussing and has little to do with the topic at hand. You can't just suggest one federal agency thats performing well as indicative of all money that goes to the government being well-spent So I can't point out a historic success story to bolster my point, but you can point out historic failures to bolster yours? It seems like you're stacking the deck in your favour there. > Your position was that money given to the government is invariably good, my position is that your statement is a bit of a reach at best and ridiculous at worst That was not my position. In the US or the UK, the government is the ideal means to reduce suffering as they already have programs doing just this that are short on funding. On Mars, or in Africa, or in the 1840s this perhaps would not be true. It is however true now.
      - josh2600 13y ago
        >So I can't point out a historic success story to bolster my point, but you can point out historic failures to bolster yours? It seems like you're stacking the deck in your favour there. Once again, not what I said sir. I said you can't pick out one specific agency to validate your catch-all theory. You didn't say "Giving money to the government is sometimes good", you said "The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved through the state. Witholding taxes for the purposes of greed is immoral and unpatriotic." That's wrong if I can find a single counter example. The same isn't true of my position. Your supposition that the government is ideal is only true in places where corruption and bureaucracy don't reign supreme. This is not the world we live in. I am not arguing that Government cannot do good, I am arguing that government does not invariably do good, as your quote would suggest. Do you understand that you are attacking a position I did not carve out? I didn't say all government is bad, I said some government can be bad. YOU said government is invariably good which I can prove is false with a single example. The converse argument is not true. Does that make sense? Edit: To be specific, it is the dogmatic way in which you state your position that makes it difficult to accept. If you would back off just slightly and say that Government MAY be the best allocation of money, I could agree, but there's no way that the government is invariably the best distribution method for the public good. One need only look to Zimbabwe or even China to understand the error of this logic.

josh2600 13y ago

> But we're not discussing historically. We're discussing modern first world economies where the poor have been incessantly squeezed by 'free market' ideology. Yes, let's ignore the past because it doesn't fit our current narrative of the future. My main disagreement is your assertion that your opinion is fact.

hahainternet 13y ago
> Yes, let's ignore the past because it doesn't fit our current narrative of the future. Could you please explain how funding the NHS, a system helping millions and costing less than the average American already pays in taxes, is somehow immoral or wrong or warned against by history? Can you suggest some strict lessons that show how the NHS can't possibly exist as it does?
- josh2600 13y ago
  Could you please explain how your one specific example invalidates my opinion? I am not going to answer a strawman attack; the NHS is not what we're discussing and has little to do with the topic at hand. You can't just suggest one federal agency thats performing well as indicative of all money that goes to the government being well-spent. Your position was that money given to the government is invariably good, my position is that your statement is a bit of a reach at best and ridiculous at worst. Your response is to cite one particular organization that has performed well which does nothing to validate or refute my argument. In short, no straw men please.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    > Could you please explain how your one specific example invalidates my opinion? > the NHS is not what we're discussing and has little to do with the topic at hand. You can't just suggest one federal agency thats performing well as indicative of all money that goes to the government being well-spent So I can't point out a historic success story to bolster my point, but you can point out historic failures to bolster yours? It seems like you're stacking the deck in your favour there. > Your position was that money given to the government is invariably good, my position is that your statement is a bit of a reach at best and ridiculous at worst That was not my position. In the US or the UK, the government is the ideal means to reduce suffering as they already have programs doing just this that are short on funding. On Mars, or in Africa, or in the 1840s this perhaps would not be true. It is however true now.
    - josh2600 13y ago
      >So I can't point out a historic success story to bolster my point, but you can point out historic failures to bolster yours? It seems like you're stacking the deck in your favour there. Once again, not what I said sir. I said you can't pick out one specific agency to validate your catch-all theory. You didn't say "Giving money to the government is sometimes good", you said "The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved through the state. Witholding taxes for the purposes of greed is immoral and unpatriotic." That's wrong if I can find a single counter example. The same isn't true of my position. Your supposition that the government is ideal is only true in places where corruption and bureaucracy don't reign supreme. This is not the world we live in. I am not arguing that Government cannot do good, I am arguing that government does not invariably do good, as your quote would suggest. Do you understand that you are attacking a position I did not carve out? I didn't say all government is bad, I said some government can be bad. YOU said government is invariably good which I can prove is false with a single example. The converse argument is not true. Does that make sense? Edit: To be specific, it is the dogmatic way in which you state your position that makes it difficult to accept. If you would back off just slightly and say that Government MAY be the best allocation of money, I could agree, but there's no way that the government is invariably the best distribution method for the public good. One need only look to Zimbabwe or even China to understand the error of this logic.