Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[RKMBrown]

Tell me again about "cartel members" borrowing from the Fed.
Always funny.
Did you find out how much they're borrowing?
Let me know.

That's right dumb ass, just keep thinking that fed discount windows are just a figment of my imagination. What a POS dumb ass retard you are.

Tell me, dumb ass, how much are these "cartel members" (love that silly phrase) currently borrowing from the Fed Discount Window?

Don't worry, I won't think any less of you when you post the answer.

Retard.

 

[Londoner]

Do you see hope moving forward or will we continue to spiral downward from, as you noted, all the polemic that has devoured American politics?

Downward spiral. [I want to say something philosophically interesting that I got from the book After Virtue, which I barely understood in college... but here goes:] When the West replaced its fixed world (anchored by God then Reason) with the belief that reality was a chaotic void to be filled in by the creative self, we lost the overarching context for settling value disputes. [I'm a fan of pluralism to the bitter end, but I feel like] We've became victims of a cruel postmodern joke, one where we were all freed to travel headlong into our own tragically solipsistic freedom, and now, as a result, we spend all day insulated within the warm amniotic confines of websites, books, newspapers, virtual communities and radio stations that reinforce what we already believe. I can't imagine a way out, not least because there is a massive financial incentive to keep us stupid and balkanized.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's right dumb ass, just keep thinking that fed discount windows are just a figment of my imagination. What a POS dumb ass retard you are.

Tell me, dumb ass, how much are these "cartel members" (love that silly phrase) currently borrowing from the Fed Discount Window?

Don't worry, I won't think any less of you when you post the answer.

Retard.

Awwww.....did you find out just how small that number was?

You were wrong......you'll be okay......don't cry.

 

[gnarlylove]

We've became victims of a cruel postmodern joke, one where we were all freed to travel headlong into our own tragically solipsistic freedom, and now, as a result, we spend all day insulated within the warm amniotic confines of websites, books, newspapers, virtual communities and radio stations that reinforce what we already believe. I can't imagine a way out, not least because there is a massive financial incentive to keep us stupid and balkanized.

Excellent summary of our condition. I am a huge supporter of philosophy and especially critical thinking which I doubt 10% of people really know to apply critical thinking or applied ethics. Like you said, people have been told any desire is to be fulfilled and this is true freedom. I tried that and I nearly died, hedonism is the death of a person. Life fast and die young. Luckily I had grounding in Philosophical Christianity as a teen and more genuine philosophy in college so I was able to realize the essential requisite for having the good life: freedom entails responsibility. Freedom is not having a desire and then acting on it as long as its within legal confines (and thats hardly a deterrant, wasn't for me).

I agree with you it will continue to get worse. But the way out is to encourage responsibility and critical thinking. Also to stop the propaganda/ceaseless advertising that genuinely causes humans to believe their natural habitat is full of ads on a busy downtown street instead of a silent treetop or a beautiful nature scene--these things instill respect for nature. And that this everyday scene for most people is significantly damaging their minds, spirits, bodies. I know it did mine and I knew critical thinking!

I would advocate a required nature programs for kids. I worked on a wilderness discipline program for teens and adults and I tell you, most teenagers have 0 understanding of nature, or worse, they don't know anything outside the supermarket privileged lifestyle. It was scary since I grew up with this understanding nature is not infinite but is precious and must be sustained.

Lastly, I think somehow playing down the joys of consumerism as the ultimate joy will need to happen before we move forward. But this won't happen until capitalism shameless promotion is discontinued in a serious way. In other words, we need a revitalization of spiritual practices: a way to sternly teach one's own ego is not the greatest thing ever but that other human beings constitute the joy of existence and thus we must have compassion for all humans--not just fellow rich white ones. Ah, most would consider me crazy and that's part of the problem.

Another idea I heard the other day to possibly instill responsibility/vision the other day: it was bringing back the draft (not just military service but aide service abroad). I pondered and this seems decent to say the least.

 

[dblack]

We've became victims of a cruel postmodern joke, one where we were all freed to travel headlong into our own tragically solipsistic freedom, and now, as a result, we spend all day insulated within the warm amniotic confines of websites, books, newspapers, virtual communities and radio stations that reinforce what we already believe. I can't imagine a way out, not least because there is a massive financial incentive to keep us stupid and balkanized.

Excellent summary of our condition. I am a huge supporter of philosophy and especially critical thinking which I doubt 10% of people really know to apply critical thinking or applied ethics. Like you said, people have been told any desire is to be fulfilled and this is true freedom. I tried that and I nearly died, hedonism is the death of a person. Life fast and die young. Luckily I had grounding in Philosophical Christianity as a teen and more genuine philosophy in college so I was able to realize the essential requisite for having the good life: freedom entails responsibility. Freedom is not having a desire and then acting on it as long as its within legal confines (and thats hardly a deterrant, wasn't for me).

I agree with you it will continue to get worse. But the way out is to encourage responsibility and critical thinking. Also to stop the propaganda/ceaseless advertising that genuinely causes humans to believe their natural habitat is full of ads on a busy downtown street instead of a silent treetop or a beautiful nature scene--these things instill respect for nature. And that this everyday scene for most people is significantly damaging their minds, spirits, bodies. I know it did mine and I knew critical thinking!

I would advocate a required nature programs for kids. I worked on a wilderness discipline program for teens and adults and I tell you, most teenagers have 0 understanding of nature, or worse, they don't know anything outside the supermarket privileged lifestyle. It was scary since I grew up with this understanding nature is not infinite but is precious and must be sustained.

Lastly, I think somehow playing down the joys of consumerism as the ultimate joy will need to happen before we move forward. But this won't happen until capitalism shameless promotion is discontinued in a serious way. In other words, we need a revitalization of spiritual practices: a way to sternly teach one's own ego is not the greatest thing ever but that other human beings constitute the joy of existence and thus we must have compassion for all humans--not just fellow rich white ones. Ah, most would consider me crazy and that's part of the problem.

Another idea I heard the other day to possibly instill responsibility/vision the other day: it was bringing back the draft (not just military service but aide service abroad). I pondered and this seems decent to say the least.

And what becomes of those who won't submit to your vision of the good life? Parents who refuse to send their children to your required nature programs? People who evade your national service draft? Arrest? Imprisonment? Re-education? What if they continue to resist?

 

[RKMBrown]

Tell me, dumb ass, how much are these "cartel members" (love that silly phrase) currently borrowing from the Fed Discount Window?

Don't worry, I won't think any less of you when you post the answer.

Retard.

Awwww.....did you find out just how small that number was?

You were wrong......you'll be okay......don't cry.

^retard thinks the fed doesn't do anything. What a dumb ass.

 

[georgephillip]

That's a matter of opinion. I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice. I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.

What part of "justice" does this fall under?

"As West Virginians were learning Thursday of a devastating chemical spill in the Elk River that has rendered water undrinkable for 300,000 people, the US House of Representatives was busy gutting federal hazardous-waste cleanup law.

The House passed the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act that would ultimately eliminate requirements for the Environmental Protection Agency to review and update hazardous-waste disposal regulations in a timely manner, and make it more difficult for the government to compel companies that deal with toxic substances to carry proper insurance for cleanups, pushing the cost on to taxpayers."

The part where corporations privatize their coal-related profits while socializing their cleanup costs on the backs of taxpayers?

US House passed bill ravaging toxic-waste law - on same day as W. Virginia chemical spill ? RT USA

I'm a vegetarian. I have a membership to PETA, and I donated money to the Animal Legal Defense Fund. I travel the world, and have spoken to congress on behalf of animal rights.

Yesterday I went to Texas Roadhouse, and ate a massive steak.

Regardless of what others say, regardless of what I say, regardless of anything else I've done...... am I a vegetarian?

No. I'm not a vegetarian. Doesn't matter what others says, or even I say... I'm not a vegetarian, because I ate meat, and the very definition of Vegetarian excludes the action of eating meat.

Back to your post.....

Is this capitalism? If you privatize the profits, but socialize the cost... is that Capitalism?

Milton Friedman: "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. Profit encourages risk taking. Loss encourages prudence"

Is this Capitalism? No. It's not. You can bring up a thousand articles of government engaging in Socialism... and my response will be exactly the same every single time.

Yes georgephillip, Socialism is unjust, and doesn't work. Stop electing socialists that socialize the loss.

Gutting the EPA would not have done anything. Nor would having the EPA pass more regulations do anything.

So how does Free-Market Capitalism work?

Real simple. The company caused an economic loss, just like me hitting your car would cause a loss. The solution would be for me to pay for the repairs to your car. Similarly, the company should pay for the repairs to the damaged water supply. If the company can't afford it, then it closes, thus eliminating them from the economy. Other companies seeing what happens to the bankrupted and eliminated company, would voluntarily without regulations, pay for insurance, or pay for reasonable tighter safety standards.

Instead, because of you socialists, socializing the costs, and passing regulations, small companies will go out of business under the weight of regulations they can't afford. Big wealthy companies will become even wealthier, while at the same time drastically increasing cost to the consumer (supply goes down from less competition, demand stays the same, price goes up).

Meanwhile companies are less likely to make wiser choices, knowing all they have to do is follow regulations, and socialists in government will bail them out.

It's exactly what happened in Banking. Socialism has the same effect regardless of industry.

And by the way, the socialists in government play you people like a fiddle, and use you repeatedly.

I read about an EPA site, of an old factory. The clean up of the site was so clean, that a child who could climb the metal fence, and get on to the abandoned property, miles away from any residential area, could eat dirt... literally eat dirt for 10 days, before getting sick.

The politicians stirred up the public, and debate ensued until finally, additional millions of dollars were spent to the wealthy clean up company, who also happened to back the politicians, in order to make the dirt at the fenced off site clean enough that if a child scaled the fence, they could eat dirt for 41 days before getting sick. (an adult wouldn't be affected at all).

Score for the rich wealthy clean up company, the politicians, and the lawyers. Fail for the tax payers, whose children would never have been able to scale the fence, and honestly if your child is so brain damaged that he shovels dirt in his mouth for days on end, you likely have bigger problems than the toxicity of dirt at an abandoned factory site.

This is socialism at work. Government regulation, control, and dictation to the economy. This is how socialism works around the world, and throughout human history. Just read the stories coming of out Russia over the recent games.

So what?
The next time you and Milton visit that Texas steakhouse, order pork.
Capitalism uses government to suck up vast amounts of taxpayer cash at the job or at the pump, then doles out the dollars to private contractors (capitalists) who, like pigs at the trough, never stop asking for more.

Possibly you're not ignorant of how 19th century capitalists used government to subsidize the building of canals, the establishment of a merchant marine, the laying of the first transcontinental railroad which brought millions of acres public land under the control of a handful of private tycoons for free.

Who got the profits, and who paid the cost?

A generation earlier a similar collusion between capitalists and government appropriated taxpayer dollars for private profits in the construction of roadways, public buildings, navy yards and army posts all outsourced to private contractors (capitalists)

Today "privatization" still ensures capitalists pursuing private gain with little or no regard for social consequences, and only pathic fools who've digested decades of Milton Friedman's night soil believe any capitalist will ever self-regulate.

 

[georgephillip]

Ironically, I would agree with you on most of that.

Of course I'm talking about the ideal of Capitalism, in what it actually refers to, over what Capitalism can and sometimes does end up.

Just like people who support Socialism, refer to the ideal of Socialism, and ignore that in practice Socialism always, every single time, ends up a tyranny.

Of course there is no perfect Capitalistic Utopia, and there certainly isn't a Socialist Workers Paradise.

That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse. And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.

China was the leading country on the face of the planet. They moved towards Socialism, and ended up a 3rd world impoverished hell. Now they are moving towards Capitalism, and will likely retake their spot as leading the world.

India move towards Socialism after independence, and declined. Now they are moving towards Capitalism and are succeeding.

Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America. They moved towards socialism, and now are the worst performing economy in all of Latin America.

Brazil has embraced Capitalism, and is now the leading economy in Latin America. And I could list hundreds of other examples. Cuba, Jamaica, East and West Berlin, North and South Korea, Hong Kong and China, the list of examples is endless.

The more people move towards the ideal of Capitalism, the better off they end up. The more they move towards Socialism, the worse off they are.

Does that mean we don't have pockets of socialism in a generally capitalistic country, like the USA? Of course not. We most certainly do. And all of those areas, are the areas we have problems. Do you see problems in the paper supply, or office supply areas? Nope. Very little regulations, controls, subsidies, on pencils and copier paper. How about Health Care, or Banking? Yes, and both have massive issues and problems.

And all Capitalism requires the enforcement of property rights, and stability. Has nothing to do with Oil, as much as it has to do with all business is hard to conduct when people are shooting each other, and bombs are going off. When rockets are flying over head, people generally don't go to the dealership to check out a new Volvo. Just saying.

And of course companies support intervention that supports their companies. Whether they fund libertarian think tanks, I don't give a crap. I'm against government intervention, no matter who funds what.

Just because a company wants regulations that benefit themselves, happens to fund some group somewhere, doesn't matter to me. Sometimes I think you people on the left say stuff like that, because if that company was funding your group, you would support them.... thus you assume us on the right, are the same. Sorry. Not true.

FDIC is exactly the kind of bank supporting system, that I'm against. Ironically FDR was against it. Even the big banks were against it at the time. But dumb as hell leftists in the 30s, demanded this program which screws themselves over, at the benefit of the banks.

It's ironic that you bring up the exact policies I'm against, to counter my point. That's a fail dude.

I'm even against Intellectual Property rights, because the idea of patenting a 'thought' is fruit cake nonsense.

What I am in favor of is enforcing property rights. Without the right to property, you might as well be slaves. Look at Haiti. That's what you end up with, without property rights.

Subsidies are a different matter. When I talk about Subsidies, I'm talking about government taxing one person, and taking the money from them, and giving it to another person. Money has to be removed from one individual, and given to another individual, for me to call that a "subsidy".

When a leftist refers to a "subsidy", they typically mean a tax deduction, and yet ironically, they never refer to the taking money from one, to give to another.

So when the tax payers pay their taxes, and government gives out money that money to rich companies, or farmers, to grow corn for Ethanol, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies. When Government gives out billions in grants, taxed from the public, given to a company to make Solar Panels, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.

But if you happen to give an oil company a tax deduction, for the depreciation of their drilling equipment, so they pay tax, but just a little less tax..... suddenly the left starts screaming about subsidies to evil oil! Bull crap. That's not a subsidy, anymore than deducting my Student loans from my taxes, so I saved $100 from my tax bill, means the American public is subsidizing me.

If a tax deduction is a subsidy, then the entire population of the whole country, is being subsidized. In which case, the word is meaningless, and the argument is self defeating.

Still whining about Allende? LOL!
Who is better off today, the people of Chile or the people of Cuba?

The people who are not subject to a US embargo, Idiot.

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They can trade with the other 200 countries in the world, but they're an economic basket case because they can't trade with 1?
Nothing to do with the socialist blood suckers draining them for the last 50 plus years? LOL! Idiot.

Do you have an Allende poster on your wall?

Do you have an autographed picture of Hank Paulson under your bed?
Why don't you ask it how the "economic basket case" manages to pay for free education and health care for all its citizens?
Punk.

 

[georgephillip]

Of course it can't. All you're really saying here is perfection can't be achieved. A perfect socialist state will never be achieved either. So what? My point is that if we can't agree on the ideal, we can't determine which way to proceed.

I didn't say it can't be achieved. I said it was dubious; to make the point we need to be aware that we don't live there. If we better educated people and spent more time considering the needs of society instead of wants of the affluent we might develop a better society that can achieve far more.

Instead, millions think we live in a capitalist system that will continue providing the world better and better life but the precise opposite is happening. People have been displaced and struggling all over the globe and capitalism is part of the problem. Too few people are getting needs met so they must turn to other violent sources or simply die.

So dblack, together we can set capitalism down from its peddle stool instead of making it our aim. Instead, we must first achieve those conditions. What are they? I suspect it would take more than a few policy changes to get us one iota closer to those conditions.

oh come on. You realize that a married couple, both working at Wendy's flipping burgers for minimum wage.... They make $30K a year. $30K a year, puts them in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

Do grasp the point? People in the lowest income levels of our society, have a better standard of living than 99% of the world.

And you think Capitalism hasn't worked for us? Compared to what?

Tell that to North Koreans risking being shot to get to South Korea. Tell that to Cubans willing to die to get to Florida. Tell that to the Chinese, that they were better of living in mud huts for $2 a week. Tell that to the over one million Venezuelans that have fled Venezuela.

Come on.... seriously? How can you even attempt to justify such a claim?

Do you realize that couple flipping burgers at Wendy's today would be earning $50,000-$60,000 a year if the pay for their increased productivity had risen proportionally to the richest 1% of Americans (who earned 8% of US income in the '70s compared to nearly 25% today?)

Maybe you "get it" how US prosperity has come at the expense of the working populations of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela?

Four percent of the world's population acquired 25% of its wealth by becoming the greatest purveyor of violence in the world; seriously, how can you be ignorant of that?

 

[Londoner]

And what becomes of those who won't submit to your vision of the good life? Parents who refuse to send their children to your required nature programs? People who evade your national service draft? Arrest? Imprisonment? Re-education? What if they continue to resist?

I think we saw that with Vietnam protests. The government wanted to feed children into a civil war/stalemate with no political resolution in sight. The kids resisted and many were imprisoned.

But to your point. High School imposes a particular curriculum on children - a curriculum whose seminal texts contain values and narratives and a vision of the good life. There is also a physical education component ("Gym") which itself is justified by appeals to a certain goal or vision about life or health. In a democratic society, a citizen has a right to ask that a particular course be included in the required high school curriculum. That citizen would have to give an argument for why he or she thinks a given course would be valuable, which of course means they would have to follow protocols by submitting their plan to the appropriate regional/state/federal agency where it would be evaluated and voted upon. If passed, than non-compliance with the course would be met with the same consequences as non-compliance for any other course.

To suggest that someone may want to re-condition students or imprison them when they're only offering an idea for debate is, IMHO, a strawman. It goes along with the strategy of accusing someone of being a Fascist in lieu of an open discussion (a strategy ironically deployed by the Trotskyites to clog public debate).

Are you familiar with the brilliant book "The Closing of the American Mind" by conservative icon Allen Bloom? Bloom suggests that the liberal reforms on education adopted in the sixties were bad for the country. Liberals wanted a more open curriculum - one that taught children to be hyper critical of everything, including traditional history texts and traditional values. The theory is that children shouldn't be indoctrinated into a particular version of American history, and they shouldn't be indoctrinated into being patriotic, but, rather, they should comes to these things by critical engagement and choice. By building education around their critical faculties and individual choice, the Liberals argued, students would be better able to fulfill their role as free citizens, ones empowered to make decisions about the foundational values by which they would live. [This stems mostly from John Dewey who believed that students were not mere receptacles of tradition and/or god-given values, but actual creators of values.] Bloom's countered that a particular vision of the good life - one that followed American Conservatism & Tradition - should be imposed on children. He thought the alternative - e.g., critical engagement with our most sacred values, or a willingness to entertain the value of other cultures - lead to value relativism and multiculturalism, both of which weakened national spirit. Bloom was a conservative, not a Libertarian, obviously.

I kind of wish we could resurrect the very real conflict between Conservatism and Libertarianism There's enough substance here, IMO, to have a civil debate. I think that when Reagan combined these two coalitions to form the modern GOP, he suppressed some very real conflicts not only inside the Right's vision of education but politics in general. Moreover, I think members inside your party probably do think education should impose a vision of the good life. And I don't fault them for that because I think there are very compelling arguments on both sides of this debate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Retard.

Awwww.....did you find out just how small that number was?

You were wrong......you'll be okay......don't cry.

^retard thinks the fed doesn't do anything. What a dumb ass.

The Fed does lots of things.

What they aren't doing, right now, is lending a lot of money at the discount window.

Let me know if you need me to hold your hand, to find out how much, or if you prefer to remain ignorant of that fact?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The people who are not subject to a US embargo, Idiot.

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They can trade with the other 200 countries in the world, but they're an economic basket case because they can't trade with 1?
Nothing to do with the socialist blood suckers draining them for the last 50 plus years? LOL! Idiot.

Do you have an Allende poster on your wall?

Do you have an autographed picture of Hank Paulson under your bed?
Why don't you ask it how the "economic basket case" manages to pay for free education and health care for all its citizens?
Punk.

Paying for healthcare is easy, when only the Party members get it.

 

[georgephillip]

They can trade with the other 200 countries in the world, but they're an economic basket case because they can't trade with 1?
Nothing to do with the socialist blood suckers draining them for the last 50 plus years? LOL! Idiot.

Do you have an Allende poster on your wall?

Do you have an autographed picture of Hank Paulson under your bed?
Why don't you ask it how the "economic basket case" manages to pay for free education and health care for all its citizens?
Punk.

Paying for healthcare is easy, when only the Party members get it.

"The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of all its citizens.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."

Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

To suggest that someone may want to re-condition students or imprison them when they're only offering an idea for debate is, IMHO, a strawman. It goes along with the strategy of accusing someone of being a Fascist in lieu of an open discussion (a strategy ironically deployed by the Trotskyites to clog public debate).

I don't think it is a strawman. It's an earnest appeal to consider the ramifications of pursuing social reform via state mandates, rather simply working to persuade people to make the desired changes voluntarily. Making these ideas legal requirements means we're willing to use violent force against anyone who defies us. I think it's always worth questioning if such extremes are really necessary.

Are you familiar with the brilliant book "The Closing of the American Mind" by conservative icon Allen Bloom?

Yeah, I read that one back in the day. And while it never set well with me, I failed, at the time, to see just how dangerous his views really were. It wasn't until years later, as the worldview of Bloom, and the rest of the "Straussians" came to fruition in the form of the Bush/Cheney administration, that I understood.

I kind of wish we could resurrect the very real conflict between Conservatism and Libertarianism There's enough substance here, IMO, to have a civil debate.

You may get your wish. I see the principal axis of American political debate rotating, away from the left/right split, and toward the authoritarian/libertarian divide. The only missing piece is for the Democrats to get their "Ron Paul".

If and when that happens, we could see a real alignment among individual liberty advocates that could challenge the authoritarian, neo-con status quo currently dominating both established parties.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you have an autographed picture of Hank Paulson under your bed?
Why don't you ask it how the "economic basket case" manages to pay for free education and health care for all its citizens?
Punk.

Paying for healthcare is easy, when only the Party members get it.

"The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of all its citizens.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."

Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.

Absolutely.

In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food.

Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist

LOL!

 

[gnarlylove]

dblack, I think you might be misreading me. I advocated for a couple things but in vague ways. THe draft is easily resistible and I kinda of do myself but it makes sense to instill responsibility in young people. The world cannot cohere if billions of irresponsible people are spending beyond their means and no one is acting with any interest other than their own. We know this plays out poorly and I know you agree. Without discipline, there is no freedom. Without understanding, there is no freedom. We must cooperate and for the time being governments must be involved. We both wish it weren't so but it is.


The following video is about American politics and how they have devolved into drivel. Sandel offers moral discussion than entertainment politics.

Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate | Video on TED.com

Bloom's book, while important, makes me a bit nauseas. On the one hand it is an informative book, on the other it is a privileged perspective that, as usual, claims to see things for what they really are.

We don't need a fixed point, I think its quite clear truth is relative (except maybe math and logic but lets not get too technical, that's not the issue). But just because there is no truth beyond humanity doesn't mean there's less reason to not harm one another. Relativism can strike two ways: leaving one hopeless for understanding Truth, or what it should do is free one to realizing there is no ultimate idea we can perceive a priori so quit fighting over "who is right" by recognizing the humanity in all of us (most wars are fought over ideology) and lets produce a society based on freedom (pluralism among other things), not authority (i.e. who is right/has the most might). Indeed, this has been the arc of human history. Will it bend away from liberty and justice once more before it slightly curves towards liberty and justice? Just because there will be no absolute best way to run things that we can know a priori then we can finally start trying things instead of complaining they won't work based on ideology. Ideologies are fancy narratives that claim to be absolute but are often misinterpretations of reality. I say that because perceiving ultimate reality is not genuinely possible. One gets close when thinking of nothing but we can get no closer.

 

[georgephillip]

Paying for healthcare is easy, when only the Party members get it.

"The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of all its citizens.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."

Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.

Absolutely.

In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food.

Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist

LOL!

The Economist

"The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.

"Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.

"Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.

"Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.

"If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.

"Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."

Health in Cuba

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of all its citizens.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."

Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.

Absolutely.

In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food.

Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist

LOL!

The Economist

"The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.

"Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.

"Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.

"Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.

"If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.

"Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."

Health in Cuba

Is the Economist telling lies about those hospitals in Cuba?

 

[Londoner]

To suggest that someone may want to re-condition students or imprison them when they're only offering an idea for debate is, IMHO, a strawman. It goes along with the strategy of accusing someone of being a Fascist in lieu of an open discussion (a strategy ironically deployed by the Trotskyites to clog public debate).

I don't think it is a strawman. It's an earnest appeal to consider the ramifications of pursuing social reform via state mandates, rather simply working to persuade people to make the desired changes voluntarily. Making these ideas legal requirements means we're willing to use violent force against anyone who defies us. I think it's always worth questioning if such extremes are really necessary.

Fair enough. This is very interesting issue.

Louis Althusser, a French Marxist who was deeply critical of state power, believed that schools were part of the "Ideological State Apparatus" which served mainly to socialize individuals for their role inside the prevailing mode of exchange. He believed that the primary function of school in, say, a capitalist society was to create good capitalists. In this view schools become the primary locus of state power, and their job is to morally calibrate students to their function as workers, managers or owners, which mean that schools negatively reinforce those who, say, reject competitive individualism or tout the virtues of socialism.

 

[dblack]

Just because there will be no absolute best way to run things that we can know a priori then we can finally start trying things instead of complaining they won't work based on ideology. Ideologies are fancy narratives that claim to be absolute but are often misinterpretations of reality. I say that because perceiving ultimate reality is not genuinely possible. One gets close when thinking of nothing but we can get no closer.

I think we disagree more than you recognize. Perhaps you're merely dismissing my comments as "ideology", but I think I've made clear I don't think the purpose of government is to "run things".

As to your comments on ideology, I think they're off base. An ideology isn't an interpretation of reality or an attempt to perceive ultimate reality. It's an internally consistent set of ideals that define our goals. Broadly, it's the way we think things ought to be. In a political discussion, ideology is unavoidable. It's just a question of whether it's acknowledged or implicit.

As to the TED talk you linked to, I didn't get it. I didn't really see any relevance to the thread or our discussions. The only thing that did get my attention - but I don't think in the way that he intended - was his suggestion that we need to understand the purpose of our social institutions before we begin discussing specific values and policies.

Here's where I think it's relevant. Most every debate I see on these boards involves, as a subtext, fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. But we almost never talk directly about that disagreement. We delve into relatively pointless debate about what sorts of government policies we ought to have for various specific issues, with out ever finding alignment on what the overall goal of those policies should be.