508 replies to this topic

[MichaelAnissimov]

Nanofactory's are currently a fantasy. I thought we were dealing with reality and the "here & now".

Not really a fantasy. And anyway, the coming decades should be within our planning horizon, not dismissed from it, because of all the important risks we must avoid and benefits we must exploit.

Nuclear terrorism is a fantasy! Desktop manufacturing is a fantasy! Increasing transparency is a fantasy! Etc... in reality, most wild-out-sounding events are hardly fantasy, but in fact inevitable players in the game of the near-future.

[drus]

I agree that nanotechnology will revolutionize the world. Socialism or something like it will be inevitable.

[kgmax]

Yes, Nanofactories are theoretically possible. But they are not a realistic thing to plan on. We have no ideas how they would be regulated or dispersed. We have no ideas on the energy consumption or in what ways energy will be available by the time that they are available (if ever).

I don't want to sidetrack this debate by theorizing how a nanofactory would effect the economy let alone the global political impact. That is a VERY interesting and fun topic, but I do not believe it belongs in this thread.

Nanotech is indeed the most promising and frightening technology since nuclear fission.

[halcyondays]

Yes, Nanofactories are theoretically possible. But they are not a realistic thing to plan on. We have no ideas how they would be regulated or dispersed. We have no ideas on the energy consumption or in what ways energy will be available by the time that they are available (if ever).

I don't want to sidetrack this debate by theorizing how a nanofactory would effect the economy let alone the global political impact. That is a VERY interesting and fun topic, but I do not believe it belongs in this thread.

Nanotech is indeed the most promising and frightening technology since nuclear fission.

I think that the topic plays a part in this discussion considering this website is really about the future, technological and otherwise.

[AaronCW]

1) Can you please point me to evidence of socialized healthcare offering inferior technology and/or lagging behind private healthcare systems at this point in time?

2) Choice? That's a jaded view of democracy, and it's awful pessimistic to assume that the gov't would install sub-par healthcare.

3) That's fair. However I believe healthcare is something worth investing in and dealing with some inflated costs, if that's what you're getting at.

4) One of my personal rights as a citizen of my country is full access to healthcare, along with every other citizen.

1. It is easy for countries with socialized healthcare to keep pace technologically with the US; that's where they get it from.

2. Choice is what holds producers accountable for the quality of their products, whether it is private or the government. The difference is between private producers and the government (which is not a producer of anything) is that there is only one government, and it weilds the power of a gun to enforce its will.

4. This is not a primary right as it requires that the government violate the individual rights of everyone (the fact that everyones rights are violated, rather than just one group or individual, makes no difference).

Okay, that's neat. Keep shooting for the stars, Donald Trump.  I assume, out of realism, that you are talking about some sort of future nanotechnology biznass disrupting the worldwide economy and "money" in general? If we all become that wealthy, I see no reason at all to continue with private healthcare in non-universal systems.

The kind of healthcare I am referring to requires no specific futuristic technology (though such technology may be developed so long as the incentive is not eliminated through the privitazation of healthcare in the US).

[AaronCW]

No, you can have the appearance of a healthy economy if the rich are doing well, they bring up then overall numbers making things look better on the outside. It has nothing to do with government subsidizing anyone.

Of course it does. The US contains large populations of people living in a state of poverty that is directly subsidized by the government. The result of this policy is that a 'culture of poverty' has developed in most of these communities. There is very little intercommunity support or encouragement for young people to value education or to improve themselves, thus they end up staying in these communties and living off of government money and meager incomes. Two additional factors which propogate this situation is the minimum wage laws, which inflate the value of wage labor and reduce the number of available jobs, and the criminalization of many drugs, which creates an enormously profitable and dangerous illiegal market that resides largely in these communities.

I would argue that the US isn't the only country to achieve economic success, and these other countries do not have the same model. Look at the Nordic countries. They constantly have the best ratings for their economies and societies in terms of health not size. Size isn't everything, quality is also important. You have economic growth in all Industrialized nations and they all don't follow the US model in terms of social welfare.

I also don't agree with you that science funded by the government is inappropriate, but that is just a philosophical disagreement and neither of us is right or wrong on the matter.

Economic success is relative. Many of the corporations and businesses in those Nordic countries are sliding into bankruptcy due to massively inflated wages and benefits.

My point was that if people were driven just by money they would all go into business. That isn't the case.

As for all Communist countries are dictatorships.  I can argue that the US is a dictatorship too, it's run by the richest 1% of people and they are the ones with the true power. They manipulate everyone else to make them docile and apathetic about their lives so they don't make waves while they get on with getting richer.

I would also argue that any society needs some form of control, so all societies are dictatorial if you want to really get into it. They all limit what you can and cannot do in order to keep peace and try to produce a society that is relatively fair and free.

Not everyone is creative or motivated enough to start or manage a successful business, and whatever they do with their lives is their business.

The notion that the US is a dictatorship ruled by the rich is absurd. In fact, it is this small minority of ambitious risk-takers at the top of the big corporations that are driving force of our economy, and should be recognized for their immeasurable contribution to society. As private citizens they have no political power, and cannot force anyone to do anything. The extent to which they have any political influence is a consequence of our mixed economy, and the devastating creation of the Anti-trust laws.

No, I'm suggesting they won't need money once they have a nanofactory that can produce whatever they need or want for their family without needing any extra money. The trade of ideas over something like the internet would come about as it does in the open source community.

My vision of a fair society is so far from Social Darwinism it's not even funny. If anything proponents of a free market economy are the supporters of Social Darwinism. I would also argue that Selfishness is not a moral virtue and that it is only a good thing as long as you are not hurting other people. When you lay 20,000 people off to make another 50 million dollars in stock options that isn't a moral virtue in my mind. Altruism is what society is all about. Helping each other to help yourself. it's supposed to be the best mix of selfishness and altruism. Countries like Canada and even more so Norway and Sweden are examples were the selfish nature of humans and the altruism that makes societies work for everyone  come together.

Exactly; selfishness is a good thing when you are not hurting other people, as guaranteed by an objective system of laws. A corporation laying off 20,000 people is not morally wrong; the people that took those jobs did so voluntarily with the knowledge that their employment was not guaranteed.

Altruism, when used as a political doctrine, is not about helping anyone, it is about the sacrifice of individual rights.

[bgwowk]

According to rasputin, mitkat wrote:

1) Can you please point me to evidence of socialized healthcare offering inferior technology and/or lagging behind private healthcare systems at this point in time?

There are numerous medical therapies/technologies/services available in the U.S. that are not available in Canada at any price. (I wouldn't even be able to say "price" were it not for the Supreme Court decision last year that declared laws preventing Canadians from purchasing health care privately were a violation of their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)

2) Choice? That's a jaded view of democracy, and it's awful pessimistic to assume that the gov't would install sub-par healthcare.

It's a faulty premise to believe there is a "par" for healthcare. Health care quality exists on a continuum. In the U.S., motivated people with lots of money can get $2000 worth of preventative screening tests and intensive health counselling at places like Kronos Institute every year, and prompt access to cutting edge therapy, including radical stuff like proton radiotherapy (not done anywhere else in the world). Poor people in the U.S. covered by Medicaid will get care that is very different. Government healthcare in Canada is somewhere in between. In socialized healthcare, it's politically convenient to create the impression that there is par and sub-par medicine, acceptable and unaccepable waiting times, current and not-current technology, so that a level of service that is essentially arbitrary can be justified. But it is still arbitrary. Same healthcare for all requires compromises the same way that "same housing for all" would.

On balance, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, the Canadian system has a lot to be said for it. In service and waiting times, it's not unlike U.S. HMOs, and everyone has access to it. But to believe that it's the best that there is, or that medical progress would continue at the rate it is without freer medical economies elsewhere propelling it, is not correct.

By the way, mitkat, one of the reasons you personally may have never heard anyone in Canada complain about government healthcare in general (as opposed to specifics, like how much money is spent where) is because government healthcare is now part of Canadian culture. It's politically incorrect to question it, some would even say un-Canadian. You may recall that the winner of CBC's recent "Greatest Canadian" poll was Tommy Douglas (the founder of Medicare). I was floored.

Edited by bgwowk, 19 November 2006 - 01:10 AM.

[xanadu]

The notion that the US is a dictatorship ruled by the rich is absurd. In fact, it is this small minority of ambitious risk-takers at the top of the big corporations that are driving force of our economy, and should be recognized for their immeasurable contribution to society. As private citizens they have no political power, and cannot force anyone to do anything. The extent to which they have any political influence is a consequence of our mixed economy, and the devastating creation of the Anti-trust laws.

I would not go so far as to say we are ruled by the rich but they clearly have much political power contrary to your statement. The political system in USA is a mess and bribery is totally legal as long as you follow the mishmash of rules and regulations or are adept enough to sidestep those rules.

Let me take one example that anyone with money could do. Lets say you want a law changed in a way that would help mostly you and your business but would directly or indirectly cost society as much as you are gaining or a lot more. You simply go to the movers and shakers and buy them off. You don't do anything so crude as to say to your rep or senator "I will pay you a million if you get this bill filed and passed" You might be working for the FBI. He will order you out of his office. No, you say "I believe in the principles you espouse and I would like to help see that you are reelected. I would like to donate $1 million to that end." He of course is amenable to that idea but wonders what you really want. You then explain that it would be very nice if a certain bill was passed. No quid pro quo is expressed and he directs you to his bag man, I mean to his favorite lobbyist, and you make the arrangements with him to transfer the money. Money goes from you to the lobbyist and from him to the senator making it nice and legal or at least hard to prosecute. Lobbyist takes around 20% off the top and you pay $1.2 mill.

Actually it's a little more complicated than that. You may have to pay off a number of other pols and if there is opposition from entrenched interests, the cost goes way up or is almost undoable. There is also the treachery factor. Just because you bought him off does not mean he will always deliver. Assuming you are dealing with an "honest" politician, one that once bought stays bought, then you get your law passed and make many many millions off your million or so investment.

Is this not power, political power? I say it is and only the rich have this power while the poor do not.

[mitkat]

According to rasputin, mitkat wrote:

1) Can you please point me to evidence of socialized healthcare offering inferior technology and/or lagging behind private healthcare systems at this point in time?

There are numerous medical therapies/technologies/services available in the U.S. that are not available in Canada at any price. (I wouldn't even be able to say "price" were it not for the Surpreme Court decision last year that declared laws preventing Canadians from purchasing health care privately were a violation of their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)

2) Choice? That's a jaded view of democracy, and it's awful pessimistic to assume that the gov't would install sub-par healthcare.

It's a faulty premise to believe there is a "par" for healthcare. Health care quality exists on a continuum. In the U.S., motivated people with lots of money can get $2000 worth of preventative screening tests and intensive health counselling at places like Kronos Institute every year, and prompt access to cutting edge therapy, including radical stuff like proton radiatherapy (not done anywhere else in the world). Poor people in the U.S. covered by Medicaid will get care that is very different. Government healthcare in Canada is somewhere in between. In socialized healthcare, it's politically convenient to create the impression that there is par and sub-par medicine, acceptable and unaccepable waiting times, current and not-current technology, so that a level of service that is essentially arbitrary can be justified. But it is still arbitrary.

On balance, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, the Canadian system has a lot to be said for it. In service and waiting times, it's not unlike U.S. HMOs, and everyone has access to it. But to believe that it's the best there is, or that medical progress would continue at the rate it is without freer medical economies elsewhere propelling it, is not correct.

By the way, mitkat, one of the reasons you personally may have never heard anyone in Canada complain about government healthcare in general (as opposed to specifics, like how much money is spent where) is because government healthcare is now part of Canadian culture. It's politically incorrect to question it, some would even say un-Canadian. You may recall that the winner of CBC's recent "Greatest Canadian" poll was Tommy Douglas (the founder of Medicare). I was floored.

Sorry, I am off to see a movie tonight, but I want to respond more later Brian. I do not want to come off as elitist or especially patriotic (because I personally am neither) in this argument. I watched the Greatest Canadian, and I personally was quite happy with the outcome, my entire family was actually. And I wouldn't say it's un-Canadian to speak out against healthcare, but the only people I have ever heard rambling about it has been libertarians on some web-forums I've been scouring recently.

[halcyondays]

Of course the US is ruled by the rich. In order to become a president or even a senator you need millions of dollars. You need to be rich, and you need money from the rich. The only way you get that money is by favoring issues that will benefit them. Just look at all the corruption in the last Congress. Look at the tax breaks given to big oil, even though they are making record profits. The entire system is set up to benefit the rich.

I think your ideas are a little naive. They sound nice on paper but the reality is much different. Countless people will tell you that there is a class war going on right now in the US and it has been going on since the 1970's. Money is shifting to the Rich and the power is shifting more and more into the hands of the rich.

As for the Nordic Countries. There are lots of Big corporations in the US filing for bankruptcy. But that doesn't matter in any case. What matters, and the issue I was bringing up was quality not quantity. Those countries aren't the richest, but their standard of living from rich to poor is higher than anywhere else in the world. I think that's important.

[xanadu]

What I found ironic recently was the fact that the democrats are rapidly cooling off in their ardor to clean up ethics. They were breathing fire and brimstone over republican excesses during the election but now they realise that any new rules they make will apply to themselves, not just to the other guy. There is no surprise in that for anyone who has watched the two major parties for a while.

Of course the US is ruled by the rich. In order to become a president or even a senator you need millions of dollars. You need to be rich, and you need money from the rich

That unfortunately seems to be the case.

The only way you get that money is by favoring issues that will benefit them. Just look at all the corruption in the last Congress. Look at the tax breaks given to big oil, even though they are making record profits. The entire system is set up to benefit the rich.

There lies the problem, candidates become endebted to donors and must do as they are told. This creates corruption because the public gets shafted with bad bills as the politician stuffs his pockets and fattens up his campaign fund.

Money is shifting to the Rich and the power is shifting more and more into the hands of the rich.

If we do away with PAC's, large campaign donations by any group and all the other loopholes, then the politicians wont be able to sell their vote. Right now there are so many loopholes that they can do it legally and semi openly. If I know how it's done then anyone who wants to know can find out. Eliminate the bribery and you eliminate corruption. There would be no reason to spend 10's of millions of dollars for a senate seat if all you will ever get is your salary and a few perks. It was the bribe money that made it worth while. It will still be the rich for the most part who will run but there would be less bad bills out of congress. Unfortunately, it seems that both major parties are united in opposition to really cleaning things up.

[halcyondays]

Of course the US is ruled by the rich. In order to become a president or even a senator you need millions of dollars. You need to be rich, and you need money from the rich. The only way you get that money is by favoring issues that will benefit them. Just look at all the corruption in the last Congress. Look at the tax breaks given to big oil, even though they are making record profits. The entire system is set up to benefit the rich.

I think your ideas are a little naive. They sound nice on paper but the reality is much different. Countless people will tell you that there is a class war going on right now in the US and it has been going on since the 1970's. Money is shifting to the Rich and the power is shifting more and more into the hands of the rich.

And I care because?

Because it isn't fair and just. It isn't a true representation of what democracy is supposed to be about, That's why you should care. As for people who don't gain power not being able to use it. That's just patently false. There are countless people who would be good leaders, and anyone in a position of power will use that power. You can argue if that use of power would be good or bad, but we have seen countless times that people who are capable of gaining power do not necessarily use it wisely.

[william7]

Capitalism, as well as religion, has hindered progress so much in so many fields in society

I agree that capitalism is hindering progress and immortality research and various religions are participants in this exploitation and holding back of progress. However, you must identify these particular religions as false religions not practicing what Jesus Christ actually taught. In fact, a few religious organizations will teach that the major religions of the world are pagan, and, where they profess to be Christian, are not truly Christian at all but are actually satan's counterfeit Christianity. See, for example, http://www.tomorrows...item=1140203084.

Some socialists have recognized the major contradiction involved where wealthy capitalists and their supporters will profess to be Christian in spite of the fact that Christ clearly taught against wealth and private property. My favorite socialist writer, Gustav Bang, pointed out this contradiction in his booklet Crises In European History on pages 20-23, at http://www.slp.org/p...s/crises_eh.pdf. He correctly described early Christianity as a religion for the oppressed and communist in its practice. On page 23 of the booklet he summed it up in the end saying:

"And even today the accounts given in the “Acts” are condemnatory of the
hypocrisies of our time, of the hypocrites who endeavor to show, Bible in
hand, the right and justification for private property, whereas no socialist
agitator has used stronger language against nor more mercilessly
denounced this right than did Christ and his disciples."

Whereas false Christianity has supported and participated in the exploitation and oppression of humanity throughout history, true Christianity would support and strengthen a socialist society if the Scriptures are correctly interpreted and applied. Where false Christianity and capitalism lead to death, pain and suffering, true Christianity and socialism would bring long, healthy and happy life.

I realize I'm not likely to receive a response from Mangala due to the age of the post. I just felt it necessary to set the record straight on the matter. Most people opposed to religion and Christianity fail to distinguish between the false versions and the true version.

[halcyondays]

Capitalism, as well as religion, has hindered progress so much in so many fields in society

I agree that capitalism is hindering progress and immortality research and various religions are participants in this exploitation and holding back of progress. However, you must identify these particular religions as false religions not practicing what Jesus Christ actually taught. In fact, a few religious organizations will teach that the major religions of the world are pagan, and, where they profess to be Christian, are not truly Christian at all but are actually satan's counterfeit Christianity. See, for example, http://www.tomorrows...item=1140203084.

Some socialists have recognized the major contradiction involved where wealthy capitalists and their supporters will profess to be Christian in spite of the fact that Christ clearly taught against wealth and private property. My favorite socialist writer, Gustav Bang, pointed out this contradiction in his booklet Crises In European History on pages 20-23, at http://www.slp.org/p...s/crises_eh.pdf. He correctly described early Christianity as a religion for the oppressed and communist in its practice. On page 23 of the booklet he summed it up in the end saying:

"And even today the accounts given in the “Acts” are condemnatory of the
hypocrisies of our time, of the hypocrites who endeavor to show, Bible in
hand, the right and justification for private property, whereas no socialist
agitator has used stronger language against nor more mercilessly
denounced this right than did Christ and his disciples."

Whereas false Christianity has supported and participated in the exploitation and oppression of humanity throughout history, true Christianity would support and strengthen a socialist society if the Scriptures are correctly interpreted and applied. Where false Christianity and capitalism lead to death, pain and suffering, true Christianity and socialism would bring long, healthy and happy life.

I realize I'm not likely to receive a response from Mangala due to the age of the post. I just felt it necessary to set the record straight on the matter. Most people opposed to religion and Christianity fail to distinguish between the false versions and the true version.

I completely agree with this. I have always argued that Jesus was a Socialist, and that current Conservative Christianity is a farce of true christianity. Jesus wouldn't have been involved in politics in the first place.

[drus]

Halcyon, I completely agree with you and Eli. It's refreshing to know that I'm not alone on this. I was taking a merciless pounding in the other thread trying to defend socialist ideals. Anyway, like I said, It's good to know there are more of us here.

[william7]

Thanks for agreeing halcyondays and drus. It is good to know there are others who see Jesus Christ as a socialist. Perhaps true socialsm would've been established long ago and endured to this day had Karl Marx and the Soviet Union recognized and promoted this truth instead of atheism. See http://en.wikipedia....Atheism#History

[AaronCW]

The notion that the US is a dictatorship ruled by the rich is absurd. In fact, it is this small minority of ambitious risk-takers at the top of the big corporations that are driving force of our economy, and should be recognized for their immeasurable contribution to society. As private citizens they have no political power, and cannot force anyone to do anything. The extent to which they have any political influence is a consequence of our mixed economy, and the devastating creation of the Anti-trust laws.

I would not go so far as to say we are ruled by the rich but they clearly have much political power contrary to your statement. The political system in USA is a mess and bribery is totally legal as long as you follow the mishmash of rules and regulations or are adept enough to sidestep those rules.

Let me take one example that anyone with money could do. Lets say you want a law changed in a way that would help mostly you and your business but would directly or indirectly cost society as much as you are gaining or a lot more. You simply go to the movers and shakers and buy them off. You don't do anything so crude as to say to your rep or senator "I will pay you a million if you get this bill filed and passed" You might be working for the FBI. He will order you out of his office. No, you say "I believe in the principles you espouse and I would like to help see that you are reelected. I would like to donate $1 million to that end." He of course is amenable to that idea but wonders what you really want. You then explain that it would be very nice if a certain bill was passed. No quid pro quo is expressed and he directs you to his bag man, I mean to his favorite lobbyist, and you make the arrangements with him to transfer the money. Money goes from you to the lobbyist and from him to the senator making it nice and legal or at least hard to prosecute. Lobbyist takes around 20% off the top and you pay $1.2 mill.

Actually it's a little more complicated than that. You may have to pay off a number of other pols and if there is opposition from entrenched interests, the cost goes way up or is almost undoable. There is also the treachery factor. Just because you bought him off does not mean he will always deliver. Assuming you are dealing with an "honest" politician, one that once bought stays bought, then you get your law passed and make many many millions off your million or so investment.

Is this not power, political power? I say it is and only the rich have this power while the poor do not.

Yes, this is political power, but it is the consequence of the political system in the US being a "mess". Private individuals and corporations are able to have political influence to the extent that the government empowers them with it. The extent to which laws and bills are passed that favor some businesses over others are inappropriate to begin with. The only law regarding business that needs to be on the books is one which states that legislators and bureaucrats are forbidden to grant money to or pass special legislation favoring any special interest group. Problem solved.

[AaronCW]

I completely agree with this. I have always argued that Jesus was a Socialist, and that current Conservative Christianity is a farce of true christianity. Jesus wouldn't have been involved in politics in the first place.

Halcyon, I completely agree with you and Eli. It's refreshing to know that I'm not alone on this. I was taking a merciless pounding in the other thread trying to defend socialist ideals. Anyway, like I said, It's good to know there are more of us here.

This is plainly true, and I am glad we all have a point of agreeance!!

The Christian ethics promote altruism as the moral ideal, and is only compatible with a socialist system of government (ideally a theocracy). This was stated plainly in an encyclical issued by Pope Paul VI in the 60's. In this encyclical he stated that, according to the bible, when you give charity to someone you are not doing out of kindness; you are giving someone something that is rightfully theirs. He also stated that it is the proper function of governments to facilitate this process.

'Conservative Christians' is a rediculous concept. A Christian that supports Capitalism does so for the wrong reasons; they argue that Capitalism is the best way to acheive their goal of an egalitarian society, but this is impossible, and they know it. They may know that Capitalism is the only way to guarantee a steady increase in the standard of living for everyone, but they can't figure out a way to argue against the socialist policies that the 'Liberals' promote (it is remarkably ironic that the Liberals are the ones that claim to support freedom and liberty, while eroding the only guarantees we have for them). The truth is that both the Liberals and Conservatives have the same philosophical base.

Capitalism is destroyed by altruism, as it regards acting in one's own rational self-interest as evil. It is the ethics of altruism, and the irrationality of mysticism, that must be rejected in favor of a rational moral standard; respect for individual life and individual rights, and the rational concern for one's own self-interest as a moral virtue.

[halcyondays]

'Conservative Christians' is a rediculous concept. A Christian that supports Capitalism does so for the wrong reasons; they argue that Capitalism is the best way to acheive their goal of an egalitarian society, but this is impossible, and they know it. They may know that Capitalism is the only way to guarantee a steady increase in the standard of living for everyone, but they can't figure out a way to argue against the socialist policies that the 'Liberals' promote (it is remarkably ironic that the Liberals are the ones that claim to support freedom and liberty, while eroding the only guarantees we have for them). The truth is that both the Liberals and Conservatives have the same philosophical base.

I'm not sure how you can argue that Liberalism removes liberties. Isn't it Conservativism that bans gay marriage? Isn't it Conservativism under George Bush that created the patriot act, not to mention all the other rights and freedoms that Bush has undermined.

It seems to me that Liberals are unfairly when people say they take away freedoms. I guess it depends on what you mean by free. A gun vs gay marriage?

[AaronCW]

I'm not sure how you can argue that Liberalism removes liberties. Isn't it Conservativism that bans gay marriage? Isn't it Conservativism under George Bush that created the patriot act, not to mention all the other rights and freedoms that Bush has undermined.

It seems to me that Liberals are unfairly when people say they take away freedoms. I guess it depends on what you mean by free. A gun vs gay marriage?

I understand that the current political landscape is difficult to sort out and interpret. Here is how I interpret the situation;

Both parties (Democratic and Republican) are hypocritical;

- The so called 'Conservatives' are largely religious fundamentalists that have bought into the idea that Capitalism (which is not what the Republican party really espouses, but thats what they call it) is consistent with Christian philosophy. This is not true; Christianity is consistent with Socialism, as I explained earlier.

- The 'Liberals' claim to be advocates of civil rights, while advocating socialist policies that violate the fundamental principles of the US Constitution and individual rights. Between the two parties, the Liberals are on the faster track in regards to which party is going to lead us to the edge of the cliff (a totalitarian government). Although it is commendable to combat such evils as bigotry and racism, the solutions they propose (such as racial quotas and welfare programs) are not only adding to the problem, they are evil in and of themselves.

- Between the two parties it would be much more philosophically consistent if it were the 'Liberals' which advocated both socialist policies and fundamental Christian principles, and the 'Conservatives' which advocated free markets as well as civil rights.

- The only political party which advocates principles in line with my philosophy is the Libertarian party (I don't personally support or endorse that party, and I don't recognize Libertarianism as a true philosophy).

Your points about the current Republican 'Conservative' administration are accurate, although I don't think it's a choice between a gun vs. gay marraige. You should have access to both, as guaranteed by the Constitution (an accurate interpretation of which, anyways).

[xanadu]

The 'Liberals' claim to be advocates of civil rights, while advocating socialist policies that violate the fundamental principles of the US Constitution and individual rights. Between the two parties, the Liberals are on the faster track in regards to which party is going to lead us to the edge of the cliff (a totalitarian government). Although it is commendable to combat such evils as bigotry and racism, the solutions they propose (such as racial quotas and welfare programs) are not only adding to the problem, they are evil in and of themselves.

Very true and very well said! I would add to that that the conservatives also pay at least lip service to racial and sex quotas along with welfare. Bush himself does the usual photo ops kissing black babies that seem to be required for politicians nowdays of any stripe. He has enforced the quotas at the same time denying they were quotas just as Clinton did. Setting quotas for certain races and not others is clearly racist and idiotic. Why not have a quota for red heads? Do a survey and you may find red heads are underrepresented in top management. Clearly this is discrimination and must be corrected according to liberal philosophy. But no one cares about red heads, tall people, fat people or any groups other than blacks, women, homos and a few other "special" groups.

I am neither liberal nor conservative. Conservatives today seem to be mostly selfish hypocrites while liberals seem to be well intentioned hypocrites. Either group will gladly give the constitution the deep six without hesitation if it gives them the slightest advantage to do so. As has been pointed out before, the "patriot" act strips us of many constitutional protections. This is clearly unconstitutional but how many people care? The old saying that the last refuge of a scoundrel is patiotism is amply proven by the naming of the "patriot" act

[DJS]

Wow, this thread predates ImmInst. Talk about an ancient thread.

[biknut]

Kinky Friedman said it best. Politicians are disgusting. Poly, meaning more than 1, and tics, meaning blood sucking parasites.

[Karomesis]

Kinky Friedman said it best. Politicians are disgusting. Poly, meaning more than 1, and tics, meaning blood sucking parasites.

[lol] that's an understatement.

I actually prefer to think of the whole lot as fraudulent sonsofbitches [mellow] that's not to say there aren't noble politicians, but the rarity of them, similar to that of the chaste pornographer is not enough to warrant even the breifest consideration.

The operate with machiavellian ruthlessness but attempt to let everyone know that they're as honest as abe and american as apple pie. Imbecilles believe their self serving promises to their own dismay.

I can only wait in earnest anticipation of the glorious day when politicians and religious charlatans are no more, and the edifice of their lies and fraud crumbles before the awesome power of reason and science. [thumb]

[mitkat]

Sorry it took me so long to reply, it's been a busy week at school.

There are numerous medical therapies/technologies/services available in the U.S. that are not available in Canada at any price.  (I wouldn't even be able to say "price" were it not for the Supreme Court decision last year that declared laws preventing Canadians from purchasing health care privately were a violation of their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)

Of course putting healthcare on the free market drives innovation. But not necessarily for the benefit of the public at large who use those services. It turns medicine into a mere business, which means treatments that are not profitable don't get persued, an excellent example of this are orphan diseases. We all know you can make a lot more money by treating a disease than by curing it. The faster a drug gets out on the market, the more money a pharmaceutical comapny makes; tests for drug safety are frequently insufficient, and sometimes even falsified. Is that progress?

It's a faulty premise to believe there is a "par" for healthcare.  Health care quality exists on a continuum.  In the U.S., motivated people with lots of money can get $2000 worth of preventative screening tests and intensive health counselling at places like Kronos Institute every year, and prompt access to cutting edge therapy, including radical stuff like proton radiotherapy (not done anywhere else in the world).  Poor people in the U.S. covered by Medicaid will get care that is very different.  Government healthcare in Canada is somewhere in between.  In socialized healthcare, it's politically convenient to create the impression that there is par and sub-par medicine, acceptable and unaccepable waiting times, current and not-current technology, so that a level of service that is essentially arbitrary can be justified.  But it is still arbitrary.  Same healthcare for all requires compromises the same way that "same housing for all" would.

Using the term "par" was just a figure of speech. I meant par as a general state of quality service and affordability in healthcare, what that means could be considered subjected I suppose. I totally agree with what you say about healthcare existing in a continuum, it was simply semantics. My use of par I do not consider to be highly politicalized, but only influenced because I share a hort. research methods class with turfgrass majors [glasses]

Motivated, rich people in the U.S spending $2000 on preventitive screening tests and intensive health counselling are not what the majority of the people in North America are, not to speak of the world on a whole. Are we talking about quality health care for all, or simply extended the best to those most financially well-off?

Poor people in the U.S. covered by Medicaid will get care that is very different.

As in none. Often this care is non-existant. Many have to choose between putting food on the table and visiting a doctor. In my mind, the U.S. system offers the elite benefits that nowhere near outweigh the way millions are essentially denied access to basic health care services. Maybe that's enough to be considered "sub-par". The Canadian system may be far from perfect, but it doesn't discriminate based on the thickness of a patient's wallet.

But to believe that it's the best that there is, or that medical progress would continue at the rate it is without freer medical economies elsewhere propelling it, is not correct.

"Freer" only in the most basic sense of capitalism, not at all for the common person. The "free market" ones are the most expensive to obtain healthcare in, and it's still not free from government constraints, and it's governed by economic constraints. And how many people actually get to use any of these progressive technologies? 1/5 of people in a private system, probably less? And if it doesn't make the companies money, forget it, even if it saves lives, it wouldn't be worth it to release it - back to the drawing board for the R+D department. Knowing things like this makes me believe the healthcare system is something much too important to be entrusted to the free market.

By the way, mitkat, one of the reasons you personally may have never heard anyone in Canada complain about government healthcare in general (as opposed to specifics, like how much money is spent where) is because government healthcare is now part of Canadian culture.  It's politically incorrect to question it, some would even say un-Canadian.  You may recall that the winner of CBC's recent "Greatest Canadian" poll was Tommy Douglas (the founder of Medicare).  I was floored.

If healthcare has become such a part of the Canadian identity, and indeed something that the vast majority of Canadians are proud of, is there not a solid reason why this is such an item in our cultural identity? If there was as much discontent with the Canadian system as you suggest there is, you would expect to see more individuals willing to speak out against it. The fact that so many Canadians felt strongly enought to vote for Tommy Douglas as the "Greatest Canadian" is a testament to the public healthcare system. The founder of socialized healthcare in Canada was voted the greatest Canadian, by Canadians.

[AaronCW]

Not to discourage bgwowk to respond to this post, I just had a few of my own comments...

As in none. Often this care is non-existant. Many have to choose between putting food on the table and visiting a doctor. In my mind, the U.S. system offers the elite benefits that nowhere near outweigh the way millions are essentially denied access to basic health care services. Maybe that's enough to be considered "sub-par". The Canadian system may be far from perfect, but it doesn't discriminate based on the thickness of a patient's wallet.

Actually the US system does discriminate on the basis of the thickness of a persons wallet; a person like me that makes $30K a year cannot afford private health insurance or qualify for welfare, but is forced to pay for the health services of jobless losers that live at their parents' home or spend their time doing crack in an alley. Sound fair?

"Freer" only in the most basic sense of capitalism, not at all for the common person. The "free market" ones are the most expensive to obtain healthcare in, and it's still not free from government constraints, and it's governed by economic constraints. And how many people actually get to use any of these progressive technologies? 1/5 of people in a private system, probably less? And if it doesn't make the companies money, forget it, even if it saves lives, it wouldn't be worth it to release it - back to the drawing board for the R+D department. Knowing things like this makes me believe the healthcare system is something much too important to be entrusted to the free market.

As I have said in other posts, the inflated cost of healthcare in the US is not a result of the market being free, it is a result of the following factors; the unnecessary and unjustified high cost and long time to bring a new technology (drug, imaging device, etc.) to market created by government agencies subsuming far more powers than appropriate, numerous other government regulations and interventions, and the poorly controlled epidemic of lawsuits being brought against physicians and hospitals that fail to protect themselves with appropriate legal paperwork. These factors not only drive the cost of healthcare up, they also destroy the incentives for companies to develop innovative technologies that are not as profitable as the ones seen today.

If healthcare has become such a part of the Canadian identity, and indeed something that the vast majority of Canadians are proud of, is there not a solid reason why this is such an item in our cultural identity? If there was as much discontent with the Canadian system as you suggest there is, you would expect to see more individuals willing to speak out against it. The fact that so many Canadians felt strongly enought to vote for Tommy Douglas as the "Greatest Canadian" is a testament to the public healthcare system. The founder of socialized healthcare in Canada was voted the greatest Canadian, by Canadians.

Do not pretend that Canadians, or Americans for that matter, are immune to the same socio-psychological processes that cause people living under dictatorships such as Iran or North Korea to value and defend the systems which they must obey upon pain of death. Also, rule by majority vote does not equal a moral right.

[mitkat]

Actually the US system does discriminate on the basis of the thickness of a persons wallet; a person like me that makes $30K a year cannot afford private health insurance or qualify for welfare, but is forced to pay for the health services of jobless losers that live at their parents' home or spend their time doing crack in an alley. Sound fair?

I wrote "The Canadian system may be far from perfect, but it doesn't discriminate based on the thickness of a patient's wallet." I am fully saying a privatized system does discriminate, whereas a public one does not - I am not discussing welfare. Can you explain what you're getting at?

As I have said in other posts, the inflated cost of healthcare in the US is not a result of the market being free, it is a result of the following factors; the unnecessary and unjustified high cost and long time to bring a new technology (drug, imaging device, etc.) to market created by government agencies subsuming far more powers than appropriate, numerous other government regulations and interventions, and the poorly controlled epidemic of lawsuits being brought against physicians and hospitals that fail to protect themselves with appropriate legal paperwork. These factors not only drive the cost of healthcare up, they also destroy the incentives for companies to develop innovative technologies that are not as profitable as the ones seen today.

You make the system sound pretty dang flawed!

If healthcare has become such a part of the Canadian identity, and indeed something that the vast majority of Canadians are proud of, is there not a solid reason why this is such an item in our cultural identity? If there was as much discontent with the Canadian system as you suggest there is, you would expect to see more individuals willing to speak out against it. The fact that so many Canadians felt strongly enought to vote for Tommy Douglas as the "Greatest Canadian" is a testament to the public healthcare system. The founder of socialized healthcare in Canada was voted the greatest Canadian, by Canadians.

Do not pretend that Canadians, or Americans for that matter, are immune to the same socio-psychological processes that cause people living under dictatorships such as Iran or North Korea to value and defend the systems which they must obey upon pain of death. Also, rule by majority vote does not equal a moral right.

Oh please! [lol] That is a absolutely ridiculous comparison - are you comparing a socialized healthcare system, that medically leaves no one behind (as opposed to quite literally dying in the streets) to the human rights crushing totalitarian regime that is North Korea? Maybe you could flesh this point out a little more , because I'm not sure I'm feeling you on this one. You could speak out against socialized healthcare if you'd like to - but almost no one does! Not because it's unpatriotic, but because it works. And no, rule by majority vote certainly does not equal a moral right, but The Greatest Canadian, if you'd like to acknowledge that important piece of information about the public's perception of Tommy Douglas, was a call-in program on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a few years back. You could choose from a huge number of candidates, some important, some not as. And if you didn't vote, they didn't care, and you remained unharmed!

[xanadu]

a person like me that makes $30K a year cannot afford private health insurance or qualify for welfare, but is forced to pay for the health services of jobless losers that live at their parents' home or spend their time doing crack in an alley

Blue Cross, just to pick an exmaple, is fairly cheap. Depending on the deductible and coverage, your age and so on, the monthly premiums might be $100 or less. Are you saying that's totally out of reach? With a large enough deductible your premiums might be less than $50. Yes, you would have out of pocket expenses but the doctors and hospitals will accept the insurance and you can pay them so much a month afterwards. Having no insurance at all means that if you must use the health care system, particularly for emergencies, you will be socked double or more what an insured patient will be charged. They gouge the hell out of you so stay healthy or have insurance because if you can't afford insurance you sure can't afford to get sick or hurt.

the inflated cost of healthcare in the US is not a result of the market being free, it is a result of the following factors; the unnecessary and unjustified high cost and long time to bring a new technology (drug, imaging device, etc.) to market created by government agencies subsuming far more powers than appropriate, numerous other government regulations and interventions, and the poorly controlled epidemic of lawsuits being brought against physicians and hospitals that fail to protect themselves with appropriate legal paperwork. These factors not only drive the cost of healthcare up, they also destroy the incentives for companies to develop innovative technologies that are not as profitable as the ones seen today.

Bingo! you just hit the nail on the head. I hate to admit it but the legal system, the tort system in the USA, is a major cause of health care costs and other costs. The government in it's bumbling and cash influenced legislation and regulation is the other hidden cost of doing business.

Mitkat, you have some points but you get off into hysterics when you say the poor are left to die in the streets here. They get better care than rasputin does, they just send the bill to those who pay taxes.

The legalised or winked at corruption in government that I keep harping on is one of the root causes of our problems. Why do you think it's so hard to clean things up? Because those with a financial interest in keeping things the way they are are able to stymie any progress with a well placed donation or outright bribe. Clean up the politics first and the other things will become easier.

[kgmax]

The legalised or winked at corruption in government that I keep harping on is one of the root causes of our problems. Why do you think it's so hard to clean things up? Because those with a financial interest in keeping things the way they are are able to stymie any progress with a well placed donation or outright bribe. Clean up the politics first and the other things will become easier.

AMEN to that !!!

I make about 30k a year and am a contractor, so I have no employer paid health benefits. It sucks because I am not poor enough to qualify for government sponsored health care but private insurance is a rip off. A large part of the insurance rip off is legislation.

[AaronCW]

Actually the US system does discriminate on the basis of the thickness of a persons wallet; a person like me that makes $30K a year cannot afford private health insurance or qualify for welfare, but is forced to pay for the health services of jobless losers that live at their parents' home or spend their time doing crack in an alley. Sound fair?

I wrote "The Canadian system may be far from perfect, but it doesn't discriminate based on the thickness of a patient's wallet." I am fully saying a privatized system does discriminate, whereas a public one does not - I am not discussing welfare. Can you explain what you're getting at?

Discrimination is a word often used to serve a particular purpose. Is discrimination based on race, sex, etc. morally right? Obviously no. Is discrimination between a person that has money and a person that doesn't, when that person wants to purchase my services or goods, morally right? Certainly yes. A person that has no money has no claim to anyone elses services or goods, and it is immoral for them to use the government to acquire them by force.

As I have said in other posts, the inflated cost of healthcare in the US is not a result of the market being free, it is a result of the following factors; the unnecessary and unjustified high cost and long time to bring a new technology (drug, imaging device, etc.) to market created by government agencies subsuming far more powers than appropriate, numerous other government regulations and interventions, and the poorly controlled epidemic of lawsuits being brought against physicians and hospitals that fail to protect themselves with appropriate legal paperwork. These factors not only drive the cost of healthcare up, they also destroy the incentives for companies to develop innovative technologies that are not as profitable as the ones seen today.

You make the system sound pretty dang flawed!

The point, which you insist on ignoring, is that the healthcare system is flawed as a result of government intervention.

If healthcare has become such a part of the Canadian identity, and indeed something that the vast majority of Canadians are proud of, is there not a solid reason why this is such an item in our cultural identity? If there was as much discontent with the Canadian system as you suggest there is, you would expect to see more individuals willing to speak out against it. The fact that so many Canadians felt strongly enought to vote for Tommy Douglas as the "Greatest Canadian" is a testament to the public healthcare system. The founder of socialized healthcare in Canada was voted the greatest Canadian, by Canadians.

Do not pretend that Canadians, or Americans for that matter, are immune to the same socio-psychological processes that cause people living under dictatorships such as Iran or North Korea to value and defend the systems which they must obey upon pain of death. Also, rule by majority vote does not equal a moral right.

Oh please!  That is a absolutely ridiculous comparison - are you comparing a socialized healthcare system, that medically leaves no one behind (as opposed to quite literally dying in the streets) to the human rights crushing totalitarian regime that is North Korea? Maybe you could flesh this point out a little more , because I'm not sure I'm feeling you on this one. You could speak out against socialized healthcare if you'd like to - but almost no one does! Not because it's unpatriotic, but because it works. And no, rule by majority vote certainly does not equal a moral right, but The Greatest Canadian, if you'd like to acknowledge that important piece of information about the public's perception of Tommy Douglas, was a call-in program on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a few years back. You could choose from a huge number of candidates, some important, some not as. And if you didn't vote, they didn't care, and you remained unharmed!

It is a matter of degree, and there is a dramatic degree of difference between the totalitarian regimes I mentioned and Canada. Nontheless, I maintain that my point is valid and relevant. It is also true that people generally accept the status quo as an ideal, and fail to have an objective, fact-based understanding of the principles that are involved.