19 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThen we are in agreement. I'm not setting up anarchy as a benchmark, except as the diametric opposite of a statist tyranny, but it is likely as valid as a government which is so large and complex that it dictates every action and interaction, provides solutions for every problem, and denies personal liberty in the process.
[b]Anarchy is presumed to be ultimately evil, but is probably considerably less evil than most Statist tyrannies.
Are 'statist tyrannies' the benchmark now? 😵
Anarchy in a relatively simple society, with cultural similarities, and moral norms would work quite well.
Even if I granted you that point, then small functioning anarchies will be do rug use.[/b]
Obviously, not all laws are desirable. And? I'm just arguing that some are.[/b]
We have a lot more historical examples of the latter than of the former.
I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson's thought that "The government which governs least, governs best." How minimalist is the ideal, well that will have libertarians at each other's throats all night long. But those same folks will unanimously agree that we got too much right now, never mind adding layers.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by telerionYes, but in the example given, the two have a similar circumstance. What if their situation is different, such as one is guilt as charged, and the other innocent. Doesn't that change the entire set of calculations?
The two-person version captures the essence of the basic conflict. You can expand a PD to N>2 players.
In a society, the rich and poor have differing interests. They are not equals as the prisoners in the scenario presented.
Universal anything paid for by the government sounds pretty good to someone not making a nut.
For the guy who knows that he is going to be the one to pay, the freebies don't sound so appealing.
To the wealthy, even the middle class, the benefits of UHC for the poor present a marginal but intangible benefit, but with a significant tangible cost.
Before the last couple of months ask a GM retiree if he would trade in his retirement health care for UHC under a government program? With GM potentially going under it looks more promising.
Change always creates winners and losers, as does the free market, but the winners and losers aren't chosen or created by government bureaucrats.
19 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder"[/b]Yet, somehow universal health care is the standard solution in the developed countries of the world and actually manages to function quite well.[/b]"
Yet, somehow universal health care is the standard solution in the developed countries of the world and actually manages to function quite well.
It is too bad that reality doesn't reflect your dogmatic devotion to laissez faire. A less fanatical person might adjust their ideology, but hey, you're free to believe in Milton Friedman fairy tales if you insist.
Most Ponzi schemes appear successful in the early stages. Promise them everything, deliver as long as the money holds out, inducing more buyers. Long term, every socialized medicine system is failing. Most of them already have shortages, and rationing, and some are already proposing euthanasia as a solution. No Thanks!
"[/b] It is too bad that reality doesn't reflect your dogmatic devotion to laissez faire. A less fanatical person might adjust their ideology, but hey, you're free to believe in Milton Friedman fairy tales if you insist.[/b]"
My agreement for the most part with Milton Friedman is not based on dogma, but on reason. Talk about fairy tales, the promises of the Marxist workers eutopia hasn't emerged in reality after a century of testing. Instead everywhere it is tried, the rich are poor and the poor are poorer yet. Instead of labeling my notions "dogma" you might try actually arguing with refutations of the free market instead of ad hominem attacks on the messenger.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignMost universal health care systems are more than 50 years old; if that's "early stages" then I wonder what a "long term" would be to you. ALL economic systems ration, just some do it not based on how much money the buyer has. In health care, the inelasticity of the demand curve makes a market based system inefficient.
"Yet, somehow universal health care is the standard solution in the developed countries of the world and actually manages to function quite well.[/b]"
Most Ponzi schemes appear successful in the early stages. Promise them everything, deliver as long as the money holds out, inducing more buyers. Long term, every socialized medicine system is faili ...[text shortened]... ing with refutations of the free market instead of ad hominem attacks on the messenger.[/b]
I missed where euthanasia is being proposed as a "solution" for the so-called "failures" of universal health care. Then again, I don't read that much right wing lunatic fringe stuff.
Your assertions are groundless. Shutting your eyes and denying that universal health care systems have worked quite well because such a result is anathema to your political philosophy is self-delusion of the highest order.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignI didn't claim these goods can't be produced in the free market - of course they can. I'm just saying they are more efficiently produced through government control, and vice versa things like TVs are more efficiently produced through the free market even though they can be produced through government control.
"i.e. governments "only" have to construct and enforce laws to prevent exploitation, misleading, cartels and fraud, which occur naturally in the free market.
These all exist in controlled markets as well, in fact usually flourish as black markets under control systems. For example: There is no shortage of contraband drugs in places where they are pro ...[text shortened]... unfunded liabilities off the charts. If not altered it will consume all GDP in short order.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignIf you would have read what I posted, you would have seen that I claimed the contribution of the rich, when considering only the interests of the rich, should be up to the point where they lose more material wealth than they gain immaterial wealth from poor being better off. My PD comparison of this situation serves to illustrate that when there is no tax the rich will not act to maximize their own collective interests. The fact that material wealth gains drop off exponentially when income increases also implies that the contribution to the poor increases exponentially as they become poorer. A balance is somewhere in the middle, and since the free market cannot reach it due to the PD, the government must estimate the optimal tax for the rich and apply it.
What if their "contribution" is disproportionate to their benefit? And what if the beneficiaries contribution is nothing?
Does not this create poor incentives?
Of course, the optimal outcome for society is to tax the rich a bit more than they would themselves like to be taxed, because the government ideally would take the interests of all people into account.
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderSocial Security in the US began in 1933, making it 75 years old. It has been "saved" quite a number of times but remains actuarially unsound and going bankrupt. It's unfunded liabilities will consume 100% of US GDP in the next 50 years if left unchanged. That's a worse record of fraud than Enron.
Most universal health care systems are more than 50 years old; if that's "early stages" then I wonder what a "long term" would be to you. ALL economic systems ration, just some do it not based on how much money the buyer has. In health care, the inelasticity of the demand curve makes a market based system inefficient.
I missed where euthan ...[text shortened]... result is anathema to your political philosophy is self-delusion of the highest order.
It is also true that economic systems ration, but free markets do so voluntarily, and much of the rationing is simply restraint of the consumer which tends to result in lower costs, to include more consumers in the market.
I haven't got a clue to what you mean by "the inelasticity of the demand curve". The supply and demand curves remain elastic in a free market, but lose that elasticity in third party payor demand systems. Tell folks they can have everything they want for free and demand stiffens like the willy of a teenage boy looking at internet porn. Demand for expensive and marginally required services will fall when costs are too high. If you are saying that, extreme life saving procedures, and new technology may be in demand greater than the supply and therefore unaffordable, that's characteristic of markets. As the supply increases, the excess demand dwindles, and prices fall to include those who could not previously afford the commodity.
Google euthanasia. Not only has it been seriously proposed in the Netherlands, it is effectively being practiced in Canada, where people with advanced kidney disease are denied dialysis or have it postponed till after they are dead. Those who want and can afford to save their lives flee to a free market like the US to get their treatment.
Universal health care systems have not been shown to work better than market driven ones. In the US, most of the problems in our health care system if you look closely relate to the amount of nationalization already present in the system, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with Omni type coverage in many employer paid health "insurance" plans.
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy is it that some commodities and services are more efficiently produced and distributed by a free market and others require government?
I didn't claim these goods can't be produced in the free market - of course they can. I'm just saying they are more efficiently produced through government control, and vice versa things like TVs are more efficiently produced through the free market even though they can be produced through government control.
What are the characteristics that define such government goods and services?
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI've read it all, but much of it seems contradictory and not a proper analogy.
If you would have read what I posted, you would have seen that I claimed the contribution of the rich, when considering only the interests of the rich, should be up to the point where they lose more material wealth than they gain immaterial wealth from poor being better off. My PD comparison of this situation serves to illustrate that when there is no t ...[text shortened]... to be taxed, because the government ideally would take the interests of all people into account.
In the analogy, the prisoners are equal, and it seems if I read correctly both presumed guilty.
If they are not equals the whole thing falls apart as any supporting argument for socialism.
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignI already explained: if goods are consumed collectively (e.g. a road, the police, etc.) and/or there is a collective interest in having them (health care, education), they are more efficiently produced through goverrnment funding. The facts support this.
Why is it that some commodities and services are more efficiently produced and distributed by a free market and others require government?
What are the characteristics that define such government goods and services?
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignWhether they are guilty or not is irrelevant to the PD. They are equal, in my comparisons the players are (approximately) equal as well.
I've read it all, but much of it seems contradictory and not a proper analogy.
In the analogy, the prisoners are equal, and it seems if I read correctly both presumed guilty.
If they are not equals the whole thing falls apart as any supporting argument for socialism.
And I'm not a socialist, unless you want to categorize social-liberalism as such - though historically it stems from liberalism and not socialism.
20 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignAh, so you don't understand what elasticity means. Health care is relatively inelastic, because people will pay any amount they can not to die. This is another reason why the free market is inefficient in the case of health care, since providers can ask almost any amount they like. The surging costs of US health care reflect this.
Social Security in the US began in 1933, making it 75 years old. It has been "saved" quite a number of times but remains actuarially unsound and going bankrupt. It's unfunded liabilities will consume 100% of US GDP in the next 50 years if left unchanged. That's a worse record of fraud than Enron.
It is also true that economic systems ration, but fre edicaid, along with Omni type coverage in many employer paid health "insurance" plans.
It's unfunded liabilities will consume 100% of US GDP in the next 50 years if left unchanged.
The US barely has any social security, what do you base this bizarre statement on?
20 Dec 08
Ah, so you don't understand what elasticity means. food is relatively inelastic, because people will pay any amount they can not to die. This is another reason why the free market is inefficient in the case of food, since providers can ask almost any amount they like.
Ah, so you don't understand what elasticity means. Warm clothes are relatively inelastic (hehe), because people will pay any amount they can not to die. This is another reason why the free market is inefficient in the case of warm clothes, since providers can ask almost any amount they like.
Ah, so you don't understand what elasticity means. A house is relatively inelastic, because people will pay any amount they can not to die. This is another reason why the free market is inefficient in the case of a house, since providers can ask almost any amount they like.
etc etc for any thing that man uses to sustain his life.
The surging costs of US health care reflect this.
There are dozens of reasons that can effect this, not least is the amount of regulation, US health care is not free market.