@"polls show that Obamacare is popular, the ACA is not. of course they're the exact same thing. the American people aren't exactly the most qualified here."

That kinda totally undermines your entire fucking philosophy. That free markets function because the people are in the best position for making decisions which affect their lives... But you know, don't bother with rigour at all.

The opposite extreme is all profit is exploitation and morally questionable. If you do any work, its value should be the amount of time you put into it, and everybody should be paid the same. Thus any CEO earning more than their emloyees is automatically exploiting them.

Your extreme is, all taxation is theft, unless it is justified for 'defending rights'.

All profit is exploitation, all taxation is theft. I suspect both are ideological dead ends. But propoganda has you believing one of them.

Grow up and live in the real world, simple ideologies tend to be very fucking bad when taken to the extreme without any practical understanding of the complexities of reality. Whether it is a Communistic or Capitalistic ideology makes little difference in this regard...

(Exploiting your workers is stealing their productivity, it is straling because they don't know or see what you're taking from them. The government is not stealing, they are open and honest about what they meed to take and what they will give you in return.)

@orathaic said: "If you do any work, its value should be the amount of time you put into it, and everybody should be paid the same."

That reminds me of the poor schmucks at my university who used to complain to me: "I studied all day, just as you did, but I got an E and you got an A. It's not fair!"

"We have decided money is more important of a human right to protect than the publics overall health. Lol."

What? Reread the responses in the thread. No one has said this.

"Finanicial rights will never exceed the greater good of a society that values the health of its citizens."

By "Financial rights", I assume you mean property rights. If you don't believe in property rights, that's fine. But if you do, you can really only justifiably violate them to secure a person's natural rights. The right to enjoy the labor of others is not a natural right when you believe in property rights.

"If you do any work, its value should be the amount of time you put into it, and everybody should be paid the same. Thus any CEO earning more than their emloyees is automatically exploiting them."

But, not all work is equal. Not everyone does the same amount of work in the same amount of time, and not all work done in a single amount of time is equally valuable. Me handcrafting walking canes for an hour certainly has a different amount of worth than a five year old hand crafting walking canes for an hour. Recording a YouTube video of me playing paddle ball for an hour certainly has a different amount of worth than me painting walls for an hour. What you said just doesn't make sense.

I do not believe that someones right to be free from taxation or even draconian taxation will ever be more important than the health of people incapable of providing for their needs.

This is too developed, prosperous and Christian of a country to willfully endorse some horse shit belief system of social darwinism. Fact is taxation for healthcare is not socialism its the morally responsible thing which any kingdom would do for its people. Throughout history kingdoms which valued the wealthy hoarding currency over its public health were kingdoms which began to deteriorate rapidly.

@JamesYanick

Again, you're getting into quibbling over details. This is the richest country in the history of the world. We can afford to research new drugs and pay for everyone to have healthcare. Our GDP is higher than England, France any of the Nordic countries. Way higher. It's not that hard. Our rich are some of the lowest taxed in the world; they can afford to pay for it. Other countries have what you call "death panels," but in America people die because they can't afford coverage. Like I said, you have to pick. Either everyone gets okay healthcare or you think that some people deserve much better than others. That's the debate.

"if you think the rich's freedom should be restrained, and the poor should be free, you're a socialist." Yes. I am a socialist because I believe in radical democracy. The rich and poor are not two equal groups. One is the vast majority of the population and one is a small group of people. What the majority wants is correct-- that's democracy. If you don't believe this, the alternative is that you want some "enlightened" group to rule over the ignorant masses. This means you fundamentally don't believe that "all men are created equal."

Taxation is "infringing" on the rights of the wealthy in a certain sense but I don't think taking money from a billionaire is really hurting him in any meaningful way. Taxing a billionaire 99% still makes them a multi-millionaire. It's certainly hurting him but not in the same way that a poor person going into debt for medical treatment because they weren't born rich was.

@MajorMitchell
This is true. I think there are three other differences that made European social democracy possible while it has never taken root in America. As you mentioned devastation after the second world war. One other is that after that war the right was completely discredited because of what fascism had done to Europe. Two, there were stronger labor unions/union militancy in Europe. Three, European countries are more racially homogeneous. In America, the right is able to divide everyone up by race and some white voters don't support government policies that could help them because they would also help minorities. So racism has held us back.

@orathaic the measure of happiness to Yanick is what wealthy and privileged people think is good.

@SamWest

"Again, you're getting into quibbling over details. This is the richest country in the history of the world. We can afford to research new drugs and pay for everyone to have healthcare."


no we cannot, currently half of or federal budget is devoted to social security and health service. of course people always complain about the "bloated" military at 16%. ridiculous. if you socialize, we're talking about hundreds of billions dollars we're going to have to tax from people.


"Our GDP is higher than England, France any of the Nordic countries."

And we have a bigger population... what you need is a GDP per capita ratio

"Way higher. It's not that hard."

and we have a way higher population, that's less homogenous, and that is used to considerably more social freedom.

"Our rich are some of the lowest taxed in the world; they can afford to pay for it."

then let's eliminate tax loopholes, by simplifying the tax code... oh wait that's what conservatives want.

Also, currently people at $250,000.00+ make up 2.7% of tax filers, but pay for 51.6% of taxes. 2% paying for HALF. and you want more? christ you call conservatives greedy. 96% of transfer payments to lower classes come from the upper class...

Other countries have what you call "death panels," but in America people die because they can't afford coverage. Like I said, you have to pick. Either everyone gets okay healthcare or you think that some people deserve much better than others. That's the debate.

" "if you think the rich's freedom should be restrained, and the poor should be free, you're a socialist." Yes. I am a socialist because I believe in radical democracy. The rich and poor are not two equal groups. One is the vast majority of the population and one is a small group of people. What the majority wants is correct-- that's democracy."

that's mob rule. that's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. that's why we're a REPUBLIC with RIGHTS.

"If you don't believe this, the alternative is that you want some "enlightened" group to rule over the ignorant masses. This means you fundamentally don't believe that "all men are created equal." "

wrong wrong wrong. rights are not to be taken away from someone because they're too rich. rights are constant. just because 51%+ of people want to strip some people of their rights, DOES NOT MEAN it is good.

by your logic, slavery was fine. most people wanted it, so it was fine. Killing jews in Germany? most everyone wanted it! Nazis were far and away the majority.

"Taxation is "infringing" on the rights of the wealthy in a certain sense but I don't think taking money from a billionaire is really hurting him in any meaningful way. "

40%+ tax bracket, you just took half of his hard earned money.

"Taxing a billionaire 99% still makes them a multi-millionaire. It's certainly hurting him but not in the same way that a poor person going into debt for medical treatment because they weren't born rich was."

ah yes because ALL rich people are simply born that way. forget that estate taxes allow for the billionaire to have after he dies his stuff Death taxed at 40%, with the first measles 5.49 million exempt.

we are a country where if you work hard and get ahead, people aren't allowed to come take your money to use as they see fit. socialism always fails, because it runs out of other people's money. Margaret Thatcher said that, and she was right. When you become accustomed to abusing the rich, slowly the wealth of the country begins to decline. soon you'll e left with poverty.


at least in sweden and the "nordic model" they understand free markets. seriously, they hated Bernie. they push for nationalized health care, but beyond that nearly EVERYTHING is free market. it's why they survive, but you socialists don't care about that.

oh and by the way, fascist socialism is more workable than democratic socialism, in terms of efficiency. you had two options, and you can't even pick the one that works.

@Yanick

I don't know where to start with this, but my favorite part is when you say $5.49 million is "measly." Or maybe it's when you say that taxing the rich is equivalent to Nazism and support for slavery. Or when you said "fascist socialism" rules.

BTW the Nazis never had a popular mandate, Hitler used terror to take power, as did the Confederacy. If America had been a true democracy slavery would have never happened.

I just want a better life for the majority of the population. Socialized medicine provides that, it's fairly objective, has worked in dozens of other countries.

I'm done arguing, this is way off topic from the original post anyway. Lolll. Sorry y'all.

Anyway on topic, Trumpcare blows. Hope it dies in the Senate.

@SamWest

"I don't know where to start with this, but my favorite part is when you say $5.49 million is "measly.""

that was sarcastic, sorry i forget you can't hear inflection over a keyboard

"Or maybe it's when you say that taxing the rich is equivalent to Nazism and support for slavery."

no, i said that drawing your basis for what's "right" and what is "wrong" based off of whatever the majority says at any given time, is bad. if whatever the majority says is morally good, then yes naziism and slavery were fine by your own principles.

"Or when you said "fascist socialism" rules."

Holy shit you can't read. i never said "it rules" i said that it's more efficient that democratic socialism. i hate them both, but i'm mocking your side's stupidity.

either you're purposefully misquoting me to sway people reading these retorts, or you aren't actually grasping what i'm saying. either way, the failure lies with you.

"BTW the Nazis never had a popular mandate,"

wow. what a specific point, it's almost as if you're obscuring the quasi-socialized healthcare system they DID have. the Weimar republic actually had torn apart most of the Van Bismarck plan and had "socialism lite" but Hitler TOTALLY intervened in healthcare. remember his Eugenics???? At least get the past correct, before you misunderstand the present.

http://www.wnd.com/2009/10/111973/

"Hitler used terror to take power,"

Hitler actually said that the rich jews had caused the economic crisis, and now they were all wealthy while germany was poor. they had to take back the wealth at all costs.

that sounds a LOT more like Bernie than Trump... "the 1%!!!"

but he had most of the nation behind him. that wasn't terror, it wasn't forcing the german people to do something they didn't want: they were complicit. My family was one of the polish lineages that survived those damn Nazis, and looking at where the camps were... where the chimneys were... even what Hitler outright proposed in Mein Kampf: YOU. ARE. WRONG.

"as did the Confederacy."

what??? the confederacy didn't "seize power" they ran like hell. they didn't use terror or fear, they simply bought humans from people in the middle east. that's about it. geez you've dramatized the past.

"If America had been a true democracy slavery would have never happened."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ok... you need to take some history classes. back in even the 1700s, there were scientists "proving" that black people weren't even human, and there were religious fanatics saying they were cursed creatures that god shunned.

slavery and been going on for centuries even before the civil war... and you say in a pure democracy it NEVER would have happened??? you have lost all credibility here

"I'm done arguing, this is way off topic from the original post anyway. Lolll. Sorry y'all.

Anyway on topic, Trumpcare blows. Hope it dies in the Senate."

one thing we can agree on actually. Trump care is shit

@"But, not all work is equal. Not everyone does the same amount of work in the same amount of time, and not all work done in a single amount of time is equally valuable. "

The arguement from some Communists (and i am not one of them) is fairly simple. Your measure of value is wrong. All people should be paid the same amount for their time, thus the value added in goods/services is the same regardless of how efficient or not they are.

That doesn't mean you have to pay someone, their goods could be too expensive because they are inefficient. But, as JY would tell you, *NOT* buying something isn'y exploitation, ou have to actually do something to exploit someone's labour.

Now the modern capitalist measure of value is the price the market is willing to pay. But Communists will often reject the market on grounds or morality.

I do not, i believe the market is a useful tool, one which can be used to better humans and our quality of life, IF used correctly. But i digress.

The point i was making is that this Communistic perspective is equally untenable as the extreme capitalist's 'all taxation is theft'. They are directly comparable, because they both make extreme claims and base them on morality.

And my claim is this: if the consequences of your theory are immoral, then your theories definition of morality is flawed.

Pretty simple, right? So fuck property rights if they require the systemic evil to he perpetuated on the majority of people.

When the world can produce more than enough goods to feed, clothe, and shelther everyone (and maybe Capitalism was a good way of getting to that point, though the Communism practiced in China and Russia did a pretty good job or deceloping those nations) it should. And it is immoral to let people die when you have the means *AS A COMMUNITY* to prevent that.

@orathaic

"The point i was making is that this Communistic perspective is equally untenable as the extreme capitalist's 'all taxation is theft'. They are directly comparable, because they both make extreme claims and base them on morality."

Regarding morality, this is what I found on Wikipedia. It seems socialists are tribal and capitalists are territorial.

"Celia Green made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality. She characterizes the latter as predominantly negative and proscriptive: it defines a person's territory, including his or her property and dependents, which is not to be damaged or interfered with. Apart from these proscriptions, territorial morality is permissive, allowing the individual whatever behaviour does not interfere with the territory of another. By contrast, tribal morality is prescriptive, imposing the norms of the collective on the individual. These norms will be arbitrary, culturally dependent and 'flexible', whereas territorial morality aims at rules which are universal and absolute, such as Kant's 'categorical imperative' and Geisler's graded absolutism. Green relates the development of territorial morality to the rise of the concept of private property, and the ascendancy of contract over status."

I like this distinction because it points to the reason why the proponents of territorial morality have an easier job arguing for their position: it has simpler rules.

@"that's mob rule. that's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. that's why we're a REPUBLIC with RIGHTS."

Thats the first time i've heard someone claim the US is a republic without me thinking the were a frakking idiot. A republic was defined as distinct from a monarchy (at the time when you broke away from the Kingdom you were part of). The 'rules for the republic' are written down in a thing called a constitution. The rules for a monarchy are whatever the monarch says.

Of course that doesn't stop the US from being a democracy aswell. A democratic republic... But yes, you should have rights. And they should be written down and very difficult to take away from people - the right to marriage, for example, is one which has been denied to LGBT people for most of modern history, and this is morally indefensible - but how do you decide to extend that right (and offer marriage equality?). Well Ireland just had a referendum because our supreme court made a very conservative interpretation of out constitution. Meanwhile in the US amending the constitution is painfully slow and difficult, so most changes come from your Supreme Court - which isn't even remotely democratic... It is literally the small elite group - of mostly white, mostly men - deciding for everyone.

It is literally their word. If they agree that the second amendment means only members of a well-organised militia have any right to bear arms, then your gun rights evapourate in an instant (and militias appear everywhere...).

@"I like this distinction because it points to the reason why the proponents of territorial morality have an easier job arguing for their position: it has simpler rules."

Interesting, i stand by my position though. Simple rules (like all profit is exploitation, or all taxation is theft) do not map well to reality - because reality is NOT simple.

When employed in their most extreme form both have resulted in millions of humans dieing from preventable starvation. This is horrifically immoral.

@"Margaret Thatcher said that, and she was right. When you become accustomed to abusing the rich, slowly the wealth of the country begins to decline. soon you'll e left with poverty."

That is utter bullshit, if everyone had 90% less wealth, we'd still have wealth people and poor people. Deflation would be the likely result and nobody advocates for deflation (for oretty good reasons) but people would still feel important and powerful for being the wealthiest... Of course they would also weild disproportionate amounts of power.

Thatcher was an immoral human being, and it is little surprise that she advocated suffering for the poor while the wealthy were a tiny bit more powerful. She was representing the powerful elite who got her elected.

@orathaic

"though the Communism practiced in China and Russia did a pretty good job of developing those nations"

Developing a nation by relentlessly murdering, torturing and imprisoning its citizens is not a pretty good job. Please don't praise them, orathaic. For anything at all. Communist China and Russia were hell on earth. Read Solzhenitsyn.

@SamWest, it is actually rather impressive how on topic this thread has been.

We are talking about rights, but still relating them to healthcare. For this forum it is a fairly impressive feat (on page 11)

well this thread has been fun folks, but it's time to wrap it up for me personally. i'm not inclined to continue any further, as I feel we've got our ideologies sorted out for the best part.

what i will be open to discussing with Trump specifically, and any news that arises. have fun discussing this topic more, but i've devoted quite a bit of time to this... and there's better uses. bye for now everyone!

It's been a great thread. It helped clarify my thoughts a lot. I should thank Yanik most of all, but also Hauta, Brad, Manwe, orathaic, Randomizer, Ogion and others for an exciting discussion.

Really good explaination of what is so inefficient about this: https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/1549669218397896/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED