Education, healthcare and legal services

This thread is in the response to Ucci’s two posts in the other thread. Ucci raised many doubts and questions regarding making education, healthcare and legal services free and equal to all, besides providing enough to the needy ones to survive. It was not his fault as I have not explained enough, hence this thread. This post may include some of my peripheral thoughts regarding the subjects also. I hope Ucci and other members would not mind that.

First of all, for the record, I am not a blind socialist, as this term is understood in general. But, I am not an out and out capitalist either. I consider both of these way of governing as complementary to each other and essential for good governance. The real issue is to understand when and where which way should be applied.

Success and failures are part and parcel or the life, especially in democracies which allow internal economical competitiveness more or less. Success can handle itself but a good majority of failures needs attention and help in one way or other. Besides this group, those who are not able to perform to the extent which they can for any reason, should also get enough support in order to create a level playing field for all.if

Many hardcore supporters of capitalism do not agree with this but they do not understand that this arrangement is necessary for the survival of capitalism in the long run. And, without this, we will have some kind of Aristocism or Elitism in the name of capitalism.

The most essential ingredient of the capitalism is not that everyone should fight for the competition.No, it is not. That would be a misrepresentation by a huge margin. The essence of the capitalism is that everyone should get what he deserves. And, there can be many circumstances, where this later notion may not followed in reality, and the focus may be on the former one only.

And, that only issue is the cornerstone of all my suggestions.

First of all, let me take legal services because it is most easy to understand and implement too.

It seems to me that there is a very basic mistake in the judicial/police systems in many countries. Investigating agency should not be a part of law enforcement department at all, but of judiciary. Secondly, investigating agency should not prosecute. Means, there would be no prosecution at all, and as the result, there would be no defence at all too.

Investigating agency, which should be a part of judiciary, should investigate on the behalf of judiciary, and submit its report with all details to a 5/7 member bench of the judges. The bench can look into the case from both angles, can examine the evidences, and can summon desired witnesses to appear for examination, along with complainant/accused/defendant. After that, the bench can discuss the merits of the case within itself and decide either unanimously or by majority. Concerned parties, if not satisfied with the outcome, may be allowed to ask the judiciary to reexamine the entire case once more by a different judicial bench. No need of any lawyer from either side.

All this is not a difficult system to implement. Besides this, this will ensure free, fair and equal access to the law to all. Yes, lawyers will oppose this for sure because they will not be able to milk deep pockets anymore. But, it is certainly better for the rest of the society, especially to those, who cannot afford good lawyers because of economic reasons.

The second issue is health care. There is a lot talk about this in recent past and some efforts are also done regarding this, especially in US, but they are not in the right direction.

It is not neither economically practical nor much useful health wise to go for health care insurance schemes like Obamacare. The real aim should be is to provide free and good healthcare to all, not mere insurance, which can help only indirectly and partially. Why not address the problems directly!

Like legal services, we have to lose all middlemen from the healthcare system too. As it is an earning business and profession, thus every middlemen will add to the cost of the service by taking profit over the his costs. And, this system has maximum number of profit earning middlemen. They have to go in order to make it economically affordable to all.

First of all, we have to get rid of all profit seeking entities from the system. It is not the actual cost of the healthcare but only these who are making in unaffordable. Private hospital chains earn in millions in millions even in India, not to say about US. Big farma companies have even bigger appetite. They deal in trillions, not millions. Besides that, there are pathology labs, drug dealers and chemists, who escalate the cost of the service many times. Even the hands of the doctors are not clean. They tend to force patients to go for unnecessary tests because they get something under the table from testing labs and pharma companies. All this has been become a nexus and it has to be destroyed.

Healthcare is a business, and every business wants to expand and earn more and more. It is natural and cannot be curbed either. Just like a hotel wants that it’s guests would stay as long as possible and come again and again, a hospital also wants that it’s patients would stay as long as possible and come again and again. One cannot blame them for that. After all, that is their bread and butter. Thus, we have to find the solution from somewhere else. And, that is to make healthcare a non profitable service. That is the only solution.

We do not need private sector at all in healthcare sector. Some may argue that this may hamper the innovation of the sector. This is true. That will happen for sure. But, state sponsored innovation will fill up the gap to some extent. It may be behind the private sector by some margin but will make some inroads for sure. And more importantly, the state will not seek the patents for the innovations to keep it selling at 10 times more than cost for two decades.

That means, state inventions will be available to all. On the other hand, pharma companies are allowed monopoly on innovations for two decades. And, they milk their research as much as they can till then. In other words, such new drugs use to be so costly that only a few can afford that. So, the society is not benefiting much from such innovations. But, the state would not do any such thing. It’s innovations will be available to all from the start. Yes, state research may be slow but it has those two more decades to cover up, which were awarded to private sector as patent period. So, at the end of the day, there would not be much difference between the two, as far as the availability of the innovations to the masses are concerned. Secondly, my guess is that the cost of healthcare can be cut down by half at least, if we eliminate private sector from it. It has to be done. We cannot allow life saving of the masses to be a business.

Now the most important but mostly bad handled issue of education sector.
This sector has the capacity to transform the society into both extremes on its own, either very good or very bad, yet no country pays enough attention to it and leaves it to the people of vested interests. A society can give away anything to private sector, even the military, but not the education. That is not only a mistake but a crime to the future generations.

For clarification, state sponsored education does not mean that it is related to any particular ideology or religion, but only by the learned, knowledgeable and wise teachers, who would have no financial interest in teaching other than the salary which is given by the state. They should not be concerned about anything except teaching.

Just like healthcare, private sector should not be allowed at all in the education. It is not even required. Unlike healthcare sector, there is no threat of lagging behind in innovations here. On the contrary, some neglected but important verticals like philosophy, will thrive more under state control, because these verticals do not help in improving profit margins, thus private sector has not much interest in educating those.

All educational institutions, right from nursery to Ph.D, should be state sponsored, free and equal to all. Teachers should be given both salary and living facility around the institution. Besides that, teaching should be amongst the highest paying jobs. And also, they should be appointed after very deep scrutiny of their knowledge and wisdom. The same should be in the case of judges.

All these things are must, not unnecessary expenses. We have been forgotten that the future of the society depends on the children, not grown ups. And, how the children will shape up, depends on their education. And, that depends on the teachers. Teachers are the foundation, thus a good future seeking society must pay the most attention to the education system, teachers particularly.

There is one more aspect of education which never gets the attention that it deserves. And, that is saving the cost of other social spending by increasing the education spending. It looks a bit contradictory but there is a very simple logic behind it.

On what things a state has to spend on social welfare other than education? These are health care unemployment/job guarantee, cheap housing and different types of subsidies. But, if we can provide good education to all youngsters, they will become wiser and more competent in handling the competition. Means, most of those will be able to stand firm on their feet without any state help. That will automatically reduce social welfare spending. But, these things take time to show the results.

Besides the economical aspect of these three sectors, there is a need of change of the mindset of the society about the teachers, judges and doctors. These are not ordinary professions where one spends a certain time and gets some money in the return. These are supposed to be some kind of noble jobs, where professionals involved in it should hold and display highly moral and ideal character and behavior. On the other hand, the society is also supposed to be show due respect to them. Money can never be an enough compensation for the contributions of a true and ideal teacher, doctor or judge. There are some things that cannot be neutralized by money only. They deserve a certain gratitude also.

Lastly, as Ucci raised some questions, let me address the issue of food and shelter to the poor, and make it clear what I am actually suggesting.

What is the most important thing that a person wants in failures? Most of the people will answer that it is help, but it is merely a good option, not the best. The first and foremost thing that a failed person wants is " a hope that things will become normal again ". He may survive without a help but not without a hope. Thus, it is the duty of the society to provide that hope to all.And, that is precisely what I am suggesting; a hope that may turn into reality.

My suggestion is to make some kind of common community centre for all needy persons, which may include orphans, disabled ones, old and poor (for whatever reasons). I am suggesting such an arrangement where poor and failed persons can take a pause and gather themselves again to face the competition.

But, this centre will not provide any luxury but just enough to survive. Members will get two time of simple food, though enough to fill the stomach, a bed, an almirah and 2-3 pair of ordinary clothes to wear, besides common facilities of bath and toilet.

Besides that, it is not meant for vacation, as Ucci guessed. Members have to work there according to their capacity. Yes, those who cannot work, like children and old, will be spared. Children will go to schools and old and disabled ones will get the necessary attention. Though, aged persons can teach others about the valuable knowledge and experience that they have been earned about different verticals of life. We do not pay enough attention to this nowadays and miss a lot. There are some things which only experience can teach, nothing else. Members can learn new skills there, in which they find interest, to take that as their future career when they will move out.

Members would have to work their without salary, if they want to live there. They can be used in such works where not much skill is required, or very common skills are sufficient. There are a lot of such works and members can be sent there on the behalf of the state. If anyone wants salary thinking that he is giving more than what he is getting there, he can leave the center and face the competition. The doors of community centre should open both ways; outside and inside. Anyone is free to come in and walk out too. Yes, education to the children and medical facilities would be free to the members. Means, neither they will get any money, nor they would be asked for it for anything.

That is my definition of survival. The facilities in the community depends how how much a state can afford. If it can provide one separate room to everyone, that is fine. But. If that is not possible, a bed and an closest in a hall with others is also fine. I would not mind that either. The only thing about which I am concerned, is the hope and chance for everyone, nothing else.

Ucci argued that providing food and shelter to all in these community centers will take away the people’s desire to do earn for themselves. I do not think so. How many of ILP members would like to join those? Probably none. People do not like to lose their liberty as a thumb rule. They do it only when do not have any other option possible. People will always prefer to live in some difficulty than moving into these centers.

These community centres, along with three free services, which I proposed as free and equal to all, certainly may cost to the state what it is spending in the name of social welfare, but not by very big margin, if taken away from the private sector. And, this spending is necessary, even if costs much. It is both more required and rewarding than spending trillions on Higgs-Boson at CERN, sending missions on moon and Mars, and even wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again, I am firmly of the opinion that it is not the business of a state to do business. Not at all. Let people do that. I am not a socialist, who is concerned about the millions of individuals. Not at all. I am concerned about one individual only, and that is society itself. And, I cannot help it if the betterment of the society depends on the betterment its members. That is precisely what compels me to think about masses.

A society is just like a body. It is constituted of many organs and millions of individual cells further. But, all organs need to be fit to keep the body fit. As others use to pay the most attention to one’s face only, one cannot keep decorating it only, and neglect other parts. That negligence will cause some trouble in other parts for sure, sooner or later. And, at last, that will reflect on the face too. So, it is better to pay enough attention to all parts in the first place.

The same is in the case of society. It may overlook those who are going through difficult times for any reasons, assuming that it cannot take care of all. But, this arrangement cannot go forever. That time will certainly come when the troubles of many will become the trouble of society. Thus, it is better to pay attention early. The sooner, the easier.

It is true that capitalism thrives on competitiveness. I am not against it either. I also agree that one should get what one deserves. But, I do not think this notion of deservingness is properly understood by all.

If capitalism wants to flourish in real sense, this deservingness should work on two verticals ; opportunity to achieve one’s true potential and then getting true reward of one’s achieved potential. Unfortunately, some tend to focus only later one only, which is not only unfair but curbs the further development of the capitalism, besides cheating its spirit too.

If each and every individual is not having or getting enough means to reach to its true potential, especially youngsters because of their family circumstances, they will be surely at some disadvantage in comparison to those who come from sound backgrounds. In this case, former group will never get what it truly deserves. Secondly, the society will also be certainly at some loss, because it will not only be unable to get the contribution of the all, it may miss the best contributor.

Thus, some sectors need state intervention and control, irrespective of how more or less they cost. Money is a secondary issue, not primary. And, it is not the case that states do not do that at all.

Take military services, especially in US. It has to pay its army men a good amount. If it is all about money, why US does not outsource its military services, just like US business houses do their work? Why US cannot outsource its military services to China, which supplies all types of goods for US, or India, which supplies all types of services to US. That will save a lot of money to US but it will never do it, and it also should never do it.

But, why? It is because that may put the whole of the country at risk. The same is true for those three sectors that I mentioned, especially education. Giving education in the hands of unworthy people may also put the whole country easily at risk.

There is s lot more to say in my mind but as this post is getting very long, I would like to save it for later.

With love,
Sanjay

I forgot to mention that besides these three basic services and proposed community centres, I am very much against giving any other direct/indirect help to the masses.

Means, no subsidy, no unemployment allowance, no minimum wages either by state or private sector etc would be provided.

Again, the basic idea is to make sure that each and every individual should get enough opportunity and means to achieve his true potential, to make sure that the society may be able to get contribution from all, not merely from some. And, if anyone is unable to gain his true potential for whatever reasons, community centers are there to ensure that does not happen.

This is about the society, not individuals.

We do not realize how much we own to our society as an individual. An individual is almost nothing without it. Even excluding the debt of parents, who give birth to us, we would be no better than animals, if there were no society.

It is society that keeps the pool of knowledge and means alive, so that every incoming individual would not has to start from the sketch. That is the only reason why human race dominates the earth and other spices not.

Thus, the contribution to that pool cannot be compromised and the society has to make sure that it gets all.

With love,
Sanjay

Duplicate.

We've had nations that are capitalist for 200+ years, and socialists predicting ther downfall for almost as long.  What's the long run?  If the U.S. or some other nation continues as a capitaist nation without becoming socialist for ANOTHER 200 years, can we legitimately stop saying that capitalism can't sustain itself in the long run, or is that collapse still going to be just around the corner?

That’s plainly false. The essence of capitalism is that the means of production are privately held, and people are allowed to engage in ventures driven by a profit motive. How does ‘people getting what they deserve’ have anything to do with capitalism? You may think it would be nice if people got what they deserved, but linking it to capitaism is another thing entirely. I will read on and see if you explain this.

Not a big fan of trial by jury, I see.

I see.  Eliminate the unfairness of rich people paying for better lawyers by simply not having lawyers.  This is a common theme in hardcore socialists like you seem to be- make things fair by taking shit away from everybody, when you realize you can't afford to give things to everybody.   The Founders of the U.S. put trial by jury in as a fundamental right in Article 3 of the Constitution for a reason- they saw something fundamentally dangerous about accused persons just sitting there waiting for the State to decide if they are guilty and decide their fate without anybody to advocate for them, and without citizens having a stake in the outcome. You say your method would eliminate prosecution and defense, but of course it would only eliminate defense -  if the State didn't already know you were guilty, they wouldn't have brought you before the judges in the first place- which is precisely the problem with the investigator being part of the judiciary.  Why would they change their own mind as a result of consulting evidence THEY choose, witnesses THEY elect to speak to, experts THEY choose to consult?   

Because a lot of healthcare is legitimately expensive. Providing free and good healthcare to all is a little like providing free and good rides on the space shuttle to all. You can provide it if you want to, but it sure as shit isn’t going to be free.

Yes, insurance companies make healthcare more expensive by enabling providers to charge fees their customers ordinarily would never be able to pay.

So insurance companies, pharmaceutical research companies, doctors, universities that educate doctors, and etc. All of these groups are doing what they do for a profit at present.

I see. So inventing a new chemical that has never before been seen on earth that will, when injected into your blood, make a disease go away isn’t an expensive process, it’s just those evil corporations that make it that way. Designing a laser accurate enough that you can shoot it into a person’s eyeball to fix it instead of boil it only expensive beacause of those greedy engineers.

That’s foolish.

Trillions of pesos, maybe. In dollars, which is what English speaking people are going to assume you are talking about, the biggest pharmaceutical companies don’t clear 100 billion.

That isn’t a solution, it’s a sentence.

Then it’s a bad. When you hamper innovation in health care, a bunch of people die. What’s the problem you’re trying to fix? What’s your reason for thinking your solution is better than the problem? Everybody will get free access to shitty healthcare? Reminds me of your ‘everybody should have free access to shitty jurisprudence’ solution when it came to lawyers.

If the state is behind the private sector, then the private sector will continue being the source of the best innovations, and you’ve solved nothing. Unless, of course, you make it illegal for the private sector to profit from medical research, in which case they simply won’t do medical research anymore. And that would be the exact answer I’d expect from a socialist- make it illegal for the private sector to do things better than the state, to hide the fact that the state is fucking things up.

OK. So the state invents a new procedure whereby you can cure a common, serious medical condition by injecting emulsified platinum into people's liver over a period of time.   Magically, because the state isn't seeking a profit, there will be enough powdered platinum for everybody's liver? Nooo.  Just because the idea came from the state and was for free doesn't mean there's the resources, even in theory, to provide the invention to everybody for free.  You need a massive manufacturing infrastructure and high tech production labs which must, according to you, all come into being without a profit motive, and even then it may not be possible. 

The simple answer is, you aren't going to be providing advanced medicine to all.  You're going to be provided advanced medicine to whomever the State decides should get it, instead of who can afford it.  You've replaced one inequality with another- and all it cost you was socializing a huge chunk of the nation's economy, and damaging medical innovation to an unspecified degree!

Because they won’t spend the years and decades coming up with a new innovation if they aren’t allowed to profit from it, yes.

Because the state has infinite amounts of money, and the people who work for the state are selfless do-gooders who don’t care about being rich, unlike the completely different and evil people who work for pharmaceutical companies, right?

Of course it does. You may wish to pretend it doesn’t, but state controlled education gives people the ability to use the State beurocracy, whatever it may be, to force an indeology into the education. Which is exactly what we see now.

There’s that wonderful stupid optimism that grounds socialism again: Step One, replace human beings with completely different kind of creature that doesn’t act the way we know human beings act.

Here’s a tip: if your system relies on millions of selfless, morally pefect people to operate it,it’s a bad system. Whatever system you’re trying to replace would work just fine if people were as good in reality as you’d need them to be for your socialist fantasy.

In the United States, education is provided ‘for free’ by the State to every citizen for 13 years. A student comes out of this system literate, educated in world history, math, science, the arts, physical fitness, and is prepared to engage in a variety of trades and be a useful member of society from the day they graduate.

So other than trying to take away people’s choice by making it illegal to teach students if you aren’t part of the State, what’s the actual problem you mean to fix?

Is that what we see in reality? Or is 13 years of education not enough, and a person needs a free PhD to know how to stay off of welfare? I agree with you, a high school drop out is probably much more likely to be dependant on State welfare, but the education system is already there, they simply chose to avoid it.

Until a politician offers them more than that, and the politician wins a landslide election because all the millions of people living in your poor camps voted for him. Unless you’ve outlawed that too.

Ah, so the state isn’t just rounding up the poor in camps, they are rounding them up in work camps. I think I’ve read enough of your Utopia.

You know, if you really want a nation in which representation in court is outlawed, providing education without State oversight is outlawed, the state decides who gets medical treatment and makes medical patents illegal, and anybody who ends up destitute as a result of this gets to live in a work camp where the State decides what you eat and what you wear, then I am sure you can find one. Cuba would love to have you, I hear Eritrea is nice this time of year. But don’t tell me you’re only slightly socialist, or that you think capitalism is important.

Well, let’ see. You made it illegal to seek profit from medicine, law and education, so you’ve outlawed about half the economy. But yeah, you’re right, I’m sure those millions of poor people flooding the camps are just there because they want to be. They’ll either vote themselves better camps that the State can’t ultimately afford and the whole thing will collapse, or you’ll make it illegal for poor people to vote. I’m honestly curious which disaster you prefer!
But if somebody wants to leave the misery camp, they can always get a job at a State approved facility doing State mandated medical research or teaching the State-sanctioned education curriculum. And I’m sure the world outside your labor camps will look nothing like the world inside it.

What private sector? You already mandated that State jobs (doctors and teachers) are the highest paying jobs in society, and anybody can become a doctor or teacher because the education system is completely free (despite how well the teachers are paid). Who the fuck is going to waste time generating all the wealth in the private sector when you are dictating how much they can get paid and then just taking that wealth away from them to fund doctors and teachers to live in luxury…and of course the labor camps? You make it sound like theres still going to be all these billionaire corporations out there for you to pilfer. There will be, but not in YOUR country, they’ll all move overseas to places where you can’t rob them to pay for more poor camps and elite luxury condos for high school english teachers.
But of course, a key part of your plan is that it requires global control so nobody can ‘cheat the system’ by escaping, I’m sure.

I think the problem is you haven’t read enough about socalism to realize how much you sound like a socialist.

The capitalistic countries or empires do not always have the same degree of capitalism. Some of them have also a relatively high degree of socialism. But capitalism and socialism are merley the two sides of the same faked coin. If there is merely capitalism, then the market is a liberalistic market or something like a place of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”; but if there is merely socialism, then it is a dead socialism because of the lack of capitalism. So capitalism is always before (although not long before) the socialism. The socialism depends on the capitalism, and the capitalism is not capable of expanding its markets ad infinitum without being stopped by a huge catastrophe. Should it be in the interest of the capitalists, at least the “late” capitalists, to prevent the disappearance of the socialism (because a coin must have two sides)? Yes and no - because it depends on the development stage of the said faked coin, and e.g. in its last development stage it is not possible anymore to prevent the disappearance of the socialism. The situation of that faked coin is almost a dilemma.

Your argument is wrong on two accounts.

Firstly, there is no such country in the world where capitalism (as you think) is imposed in its pure form. All capitalist countries use to mix it a dose of socialism (as you think), more or less.

Can you tell me the name of any such country, which does not use socialism at all? I am sure you would not find any. And, if that true, how can you claim that capitalism is successful on its own?

No, Ucci. It cannot be. It always need some ratio of socialism to survive.

Secondly, even leaving above argument aside, the duration of the survival of any governing system does not give true picture of its merits.

Monarchy survived for almost 5000 years. Can it be considered good just because that? If not, how can you claim merely 200 years as a sufficient period to judge capitalism?

Ucci, governing systems does not matter much. The more important thing is the wisdom of governing and governed people. If those are good, any system will work well. And, if they are not, they will fail all systems. And, that is precisely why a country must pay the most attention and money on education in order to make all its citizens wise.

There are many monarchs in the history, society flourished a lot under those, just because they were wise. In the same way, there are many countries where democracy and capitalism failed.

Ucci, your understanding about freeness of means of production in capitalism is not wrong, but incomplete because, that is not precisely where capitalism starts but it ends there. The problem is that you have not deducted your premise completely, hence the confusion.

[u]People do not understand it but giving justice to all the only cornerstone both of capitalism and socialism. The only difference is they define it slightly different.

Socialism thinks that all members of the society cannot have equal competence for many reasons, thus they will not be able to get either equal to others or what is necessary for them, thus the justice is to distribute means to all. The basic idea is not wrong but socialism crosses the line when it starts providing beyond what is necessary. On the other hand, capitalism also considers that all members cannot be of equal competence, thus, it would not be justified to treat all the same. Let people have what they can. This “can” means deservingness in capitalism.

So, both systems try to give justice or what people deserve to all. The issue is only in the understanding of these terms. Capitalism focuses more on individual rights, while socialism on equal rights. Owning of means of production by individuals, free trade and profit motives, all are secondary premises or capitalism, which are rooted in the basic notion of individualistic deservingness and rights. That is precisely why capitalism go well with democracy. And also, that is the only reason why old established moral standards find it difficult to hold ground in it.[/u]

Ucci, you misunderstood me. That was not my intention. I do not mind trial by jury, if its members are learned and wise. If they are such, they are as good as judges.

To me, the definition of the judge is very basic and simple. Anyone, who is supposed to give a decision in the case of dispute, is a judge, whether he is on the payroll of the state or not.

Ucci, as you have been concluded in your mind that I am a hardcore socialist, and thus your enemy, therefore, you are misunderstanding me everytime, either willingly or unwillingly.

It is not against lawyers per se, but private lawyers only, because that is clear case of unfairness. And, there should be nothing at all unfair in the whole system of justice, otherwise it would not be justice anymore.

If lawyers are that much necessary, justice department can have two separate departments of lawyers for prosecution and defence. These departments may enroll lawyers after checking their knowledge and skills on state payroll. Head of both of these departments may ask subordinate lawyers to appear in different cases according to their specialisation. In this way, every complainant or defendant may have lawyers to represent him. But, no private lawyers.

First of all, I said above, I am not against jury at all. My point is that there is no difference to me whether a bench of judges decide or jury. If jury is considered more neutral, I do not have any objection, or even prefer that.

Secondly, investigating agency being a part of judiciary does not mean that it would be biased towards prosecution or there would be no defence at all. That is not what I meant.

My perception of investigating agency is slightly different from what they do now. To me, Investigation should be only investigation, nothing else. This kind of investigation would be more like what modern day journalists tend to do, when they look for the facts and details of the matter, and then report it on the news.

The same will be the attitude and mindset of my proposed investigating agency. Their job will be just to look into the matter without presuming anything about anybody’s guilt or innocence. Furthermore, they will submit their found facts and evidences about the incident only, without any recommendation what to do with those. Then, a bench of judges or a jury will decide what action should be taken on that. So, you can see that there is no such possibility that every suspect will be presumed guilty and punished by default. After that, if judges bench or jury finds some prima facie evidence in the reporting, the case may be handed over to another jury/judges bench to decide and dispose. At this juncture, jury/judges bench can either discuss the merits within itself, or hear the arguments from the lawyers of prosecution and defence, if the system is such.

Ucci, you can see that arrangement is not only fair and equal to all, but even more inclined to citizens because now they are getting the chance to be trial by jury/judges twice, instead of one, firstly at the admittance of the case and secondly on the disposal of the case. Contrary to your allegation, I am withdrawing the power of investigating agency to prosecute, as it happens now.

Ucci, that will be free and equal to all. It is one of the basic ideas and not for to any compromise, no matter how much money is required. But, that amount is not ungettable, as you are assuming.

Ucci, expenses like US contribution to UN and CERN, moon and mars programmes, discovery shuttle, many NASA projects, and wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are neither more important than providing these basic facilities to citizens nor cheap than it.

That is not my point. My argument is very simple. As insurance providers charge profit on their cost, thus they will always make the service costlier by some margin. Secondly, as I suggested free healthcare for all, thus there is no need for its insurance.

Yes, of course. Otherwise, what else is their intent behind their investments and efforts? Charity or free social service?

What you want to say? Do you mean that there cannot be innovations without private sector? If that is true, how the mankind reached from stone age to that stage, where it was 3 centuries ago before capitalism?

Yes, that was my mistake. I forgot that I was talking about dollar people.

For the record, in 2013, the biggest profit earning pharma company was pfizer, which earned 22 million $ on the turnover of 52 million $, which tells something about their margin percentage.

Sentence to whom?

I have been addressed this issue already in the last post. Here it is again for you -

Ucci, again, does that not mean that there were no innovations at all before capitalism? Is that true?

Ucci, all depends on the intention of the state. If it is determined, it can leave even private sector behind because it has infinite means in comparison to private sector.

Let me give you an example. US is a capitalist nation since birth and Russia was never a capitalist country. So, going by your assumption, Russia should be miles behind in innovations. Right! And, that is even true almost in all verticals. But, there is one vertical, in which Russia has been almost matching US since long, and that is military innovations, be it fighter planes, tanks, atomic bombs, submarines, missiles or frigates. Even the first man in the space was a Russian, not an American. Yes, one may argue that Russia is behind but no one can say that it did not innovate at all. The difference may be only 5 %, not more.

So, there is no reason why the same cannot be repeated in medical or any other innovations. But, as I said before, all depends on the intention and willingness of the state.

Ucci, I am sorry to say that there are more emotional responses than real arguments.

I have not looked at the stats, but taking a clue from Indian economy, my guess is that the ratio of pharma industry will not be more than 2-3 % of total economy even there as it is not even top ten sectors anywhere in the world. What i know for sure is that the Oil and Gas is the biggest sector in US having share of 30% alone, perhaps followed by Capital Goods industry. So, I do not think that US cannot afford state pharma sector economy wise.

Not at all.

Ucci, you need to keep arguments up to a certain level or logic at least. Where I proposed that the state will decide who will get medical attention and innovations or not? You are cheating my very basic premise that all medical facilities should be free and equal to all.

Secondly, Nothing even close to what you guessed may happen to the patients who require innovations. The only thing that may happen in reality that some rare people, not more than even 1%, may suffer because of the lack of innovations. But, on the other hand, more than 1/3 of the population will be benefited from my proposal.

Ucci, you are ignoring a very important aspect here. You are not providing innovations to all who need it, but only those who can afford it. Rest of needy persons have to wait for the two decades to become those cheap and affordable.

Another emotional outburst without any proper argument.

Ucci, you have to give me something real to address. How am I supposed to address that?

I am not pretending anything but saying exactly what I mean. But, I cannot help it you are going to presume every time how you want me to see or interpret.

Ucci, you have to stop being emotional again and again. That is a sign of losing side in argumentation, if not backed by proper reasoning.

Secondly, you may not realize but nothing can ever be achieved without optimism. That is the precursor of all betterment or development.

Can even capitalism make any progress without optimism? An entrepreneur has to be optimistic about the success of its project, otherwise he would never able to go for it. Can he?

Thirdly, as far as stupidly is concerned, many opticisms may look stupid before they actually turn into reality. Had you asked someone even five centuries ago, that humans can travel by air and can land on the moon too, he would have been called this a stupid optimism also, but that happened in reality. BTW, experts called Steve Jobs a fool also, when he presumed that one day people will have their own personal computers. Did he not sound like a stupid optimist?

No. If the people were wise and selfless, there would not be any need of state and regulations at all, in the first place. All these systems, arrangements and directions are required only because people are not that much wise in general. If they were so, neither socialism nor even capitalism is required.

Had that free education was really free and good, the getters of those also would have been enough wise and competent to stand on their feet. In that case, neither there would be social security schemes, nor we would be arguing over that

One can of course teach without being a part of the state, if he does not expect any monetary return. That is not my intention. On the contrary, state should welcome such persons who are competent and willing to teach and share their experiences to youngsters.

I do not mind even private but non-profit organisations to set up educational institutions, if they want and can. But, they cannot charge any fee from the students. Yes, they can ask some help from the state and state should provide that too.

Ucci, it is clear from your responses so far that you have more doubts about my intentions rather than logical questions and counters, thus keep guessing all the time what are my real wicked socialist intentions behind my suggestions. There is nothing such thus it would be better to focus on what I am saying, instead of wild guessings. That would help both of us and discussion too.

As far as the actual problem about education is concerned, it is that we do not have good, free and equal education to all youngsters.

Ucci, you have not got to the root of my intentions yet. That is why you are misunderstanding me each and every occasion.

By education, I neither mean it literally nor only what is just enough to get grades or a job. I consider providing wisdom also an essential part of education besides information and knowledge. And, only a wise teacher can teach wisdom.

Thus, if anyone is not interested in study, it simply means that something is lacking either in the quantity or the quantity of his teaching. The first and foremost duty of a teacher is to make sure that no child would lose interest in teaching. The second most important duty of a teacher to enrich a student with that much enough wisdom, which is necessary for him to handle incoming knowledge wisely. Then comes the number of that part of teaching, only which is considered as teaching now. So, if a high school student decides not to carry on with his education, it is not his fault but his circumstances because that forced him to do that. Otherwise, he is not yet mature enough to take that call on its own. Yes, one can decide all by oneself after graduation to continue with the education or not, but not in the high school.

Ucci, what kind of argument is this? I am not suggesting all that keeping any political gains in my mind because neither I am a politician nor there is any such possibility. This is all what I consider good for the society. That is all.

BTW, for your kind information, I always voted for conservatives and right to the centre parties, not for leftists or liberals. And, do you know why,? Just because, blind conservatives are less harmful than blind liberals.

Yes, that is precisely the idea; something like work camps. I do not see anything bad in it.

Going deeper, the cornerstone of this idea of community centres is offering a chance and alternative way of survival to those, who are at the lower spectrum of the society for whatever reasons, temporarily or permanent. Means, if one is fighting the competition, he may have what he can get. But, if one cannot stand the competition, he is offered such an alternative way of living, in which he will not has to fight the competition but get what is essential for his survival, besides further training for facing the competition.

And, yes again, I may be an utopian idea. But, let me remind you that believing in god, not having divorce, restricting to same partner for sex, straight sex and many other past morals are also considered as utopian ideas now by many of your countrymen. What is your opinion about those?

Ucci, I do not care for means much if they are yielding good results. I am a bettermentlist, teleologist, consequentialist or something like that. My ideology is very simple. As a thumb rule, one should go for established rules and means for goals. But, if any such situations arises, when there is a conflict between means and goals, the focus should be on the goals, not the means.

Putting more simply, as a thumb rule, it is bad to kill. But, if a psychopath has taken many innocents at the gunpoint and going to kill those, it is good to kill him. Goal overrules the means.

The same is in the case of capitalism. As a thumb rule, competitiveness should be followed. But, if there is any such immediate competitiveness, which can harm and curb the true or long term competitiveness, that should be considered as exception and discarded.

Ucci, to be honest, I never expected that you can be so irrational and full of emotions while arguing.

Are you telling me that pharma, education and legal services are half of the size of US economy?

Check the stats please.

Again the same emotional response without any real argument. All this has nothing to do with politics or voting rights. Everyone can vote to whom he wants.

Ucci, are you really reading what I saying or answering based on what you think about me. I have very categorically mentioned that after leaving centers, there would be no help from the state, except those three essential basic services.

Again misunderstanding, though this time the mistake is mine.

By saying highest paying jobs, I merely meant average govt jobs, not private. Means, employees of state revenue departments, state employed engineers and other govt employees should not get more than teachers. That is all. I am not asking private sector to limit the salary of their employees. They can give them whatever they want. I am not asking Shell or Exxonmobil to limit the salaries of their CEOs less than a teacher, if that is your thinking.

The only idea to give teachers more salary is that this service can attract good talent, which is not happening right now. That is all. I am not for any direct or indirect control to anything else than what I said, though I do not have any control on your wild assumptions.

Ucci, I may not know all about socialism and capitalism but enough to understand when, where and how much these two different systems should be applied.

With love,
Sanjay

Yes, that is not much different from that response which I just gave to Ucci.

With love,
Sanjay

I get what you’re saying, but when you realize there is actually such a thing as distributivism, and this dichotomy between socialism and capitalism is a false one, socialism loses it’s reason for existence. That we reflexively think economic thought can be plotted on a line with socialism at one extreme and capitalism at the other is basically a consequence of the Cold War, and not a real thing.

So for example: the vast majority of people, if they have any opinion at all, would think of pure capitalism as resulting in corporate monopolies, and anti-trust laws being the introduction of ‘a little bit of socialism’. But ask yourself this: if the fundamental belief of socialism is that the means of production should be controlled by the State, why in the world would a socialist be against an industry being centralized in one corporation (which can then be regulated)? Why would folks who think “From each according to his abiity, to each according to his need” organize labor unions divided by vocation? And then you look up distributivism, realize that the ‘accomplishments’ of socialists in capitalist society really weren’t their accomplishments at all, you are reminded of how socialists like to re-write history whenever it suits the revolution to do so, and you tell the commies to fuck right off.

This pretty much goes from zinnat too- if you’re coming at it from the “Socialism and Capitalism as sides of a coin, or poles on a continuum”, then you’re way out in the dark.

Ucci,

It is not anyone else but you who is in the dark and misunderstanding the issue from very starting.

It is not socialism which is extreme opposite of capitalism, but communism. Socialism is a mix of two, with having capitism as a major ingredient.

The debate is only about the ratio in the mix, not about ingredients per se.

Think about it, again.

With love,
Sanjay

Shitloads of countries don’t use socialism at all, once you realize that ‘socialism’ doesn’t mean ‘any and all economic regulations’. Socialists simply like to take credit for things that weren’t their ideas, because the nations that actually do implement their ideas end up as catastrophes.

You're the one who advocated socialism on the grounds that capitalism can't endure for 'the long run' without it.  All I did was ask 'how long is the long run'?' and you don't want to talk about duration anymore.  Fine. All you've done is deny your own first-given reason for endorsing socialism. 

This is true. But neither of those cases are reality or will ever be reality. The reality is, some of the governing and governed are wise, and other are stupid and evil. So in reality, some systems will work and some won’t. Socialism requires faith that the leaders of the State will be better people than in fact they are. Capitalism does not.

And yet you’re going to procede to tell me why your system of governace is superior and the world ought to adopt it.

Actually, I think the problem is that you are making things up about capitalism and socialism and haven’t actually studied them very much. “People getting what they deserve” has nothing to do with capitalism. You were simply incorrect to suggest otherwise.

No, capitalism has nothing to do with justice. Maybe you’re thinking of libertarianism?

No, socialism crosses the line when it defines ‘justice’ by measuring people’s material wealth like you just did.

No, that’s libertarianism.

No, libertarianism focuses on individual justice, Marxism focuses on social justice. Individual rights and equal rights are not contrary.

Yeah you don’t know the difference between libertarianism and capitalism, that’s clear now. I’m going to skip ahead and see if I can reply to anything despite that confusion.

A problem with hardcore socialists is that they seem to think identifying a problem justifies any solution. There is no reason to think state-appointed lawyers would be more fair than people choosing their own (and paying for them). We have a long history of judicial systems like the one you suggest being plenty corrupt and unfair.

That’s a pretty huge departure from what you said in your last post, but a good start. Yes, obviously the defense and the prosection both need to exist and be kept seperate, and obviously people need to be able to choose who represents them. Should a person be allowed to represent themselves? If not, how can you possibly say the system is just if a person can’t speak in their own defense? If so, then why can’t a person choose another private citizen to represent them (and compensate them for their troubles)?
Look- the U.S. already provides free defense lawyers if a person needs one. All your system would do is take away the option of not using them.

Of course it does. If the investigators decide somebody is guilty enough to arrest them and bring them before the court, and the court is just more investigators, then it should be obvious that they would be biased towards the prosection. Unless you think arresting officers acting as judges would likely give fair results?

Except that what many/most modern-day journalists actually do is decide in advance what they want their story to be, then selectively find facts of ‘facts’ that support the political spin they want to push on their audience. Or do you mean you want your investigators to do what journalists pretend they do?

You don't get to decide what people's attitudes and mindset will be, only what their duties and powers are.  Their mindset and attitude will be up to chance as it always is in human society. Your system has to account for 'what happens when there's an asshole in charge'.  You don't get to simply say "Well, in my system all the important people will be wise and compassionate", or else, as you pointed out, any old system would work perfectly fine and we have nothing to talk about. 

We call the admittance of a case a ‘hearing’ and the disposal of the case the ‘trial’ and then there is a third stage which we call the ‘sentencing’, and then if the result is deemed unfair, we have what we call an ‘appeal’. This all already exists in the present U.S. legal system.

No, the police investigators do not prosecute as it happens now.

No, it won’t be free and equal to all unless you simply deny people lots of coverage. You will have drugs and procedures or experts that simply DO NOT EXIST in sufficient quantity to provide to everybody who wants or needs them. You will have more kidney-needers than kidney-donors. You will have more bad eyes than optic lasers. You will have more screwed up brains than you have neurologists. You don’t get to simply declare that there is enough of everything for everybody just because the State is providing it. The only way to make healthcare free and equal is if you decide that NOBODY gets the things that don’t exist in sufficient quantity for everybody who needs them.

Are you aware that the United States at present already spends almost half it’s federal budget on healthcare, and only about a fifth on the military? Nasa-type-stuff is far, far lower than either of these. Where are you getting your data that says military and space exploration expenses aren’t cheaper than your healthcare/welfare proposals would be? I strongly suspect you are just saying this from your imagination, and without having seen any real numbers at all.

That's not how insurance works at all. They make their money from insurance rates paid when people aren't sick, not from misrepresenting the charges of services. They are PAYING OUT for the service, out of the money made by charging monthly premiums. "Charging a profit on one's own cost" doesn't even make sense; if the insurance companies were charging people MORE for services than the hospital is charging, people would simply stop getting insurance and set up payment plans with the hospital. The entire point of insurane is that you don't have to pay 100% of the bill, not that you pay 110% of it!
You have it precisely backwards- if anything, it is the hospitals saying that their services cost more than they do, because they know the insurance company is wealthy enough to pick up the tab with a little grift on it.  A practice that would obviously continue when it was the State paying the bill. 

Oh, I’m sure some of them do it out of a desire to help humanity, but we all have to eat, and pharmaceutical research is expensive and taxing.

No, I’m saying you can’t make those innovations ‘cheap’ with or without the private sector, and implying that supremely advanced medical technology is only expensive because greedy capitalists make it that way is naive.

Extremely slowly and painfully for the most part.

No they won’t, for the reasons I described above, and they will be worse than privately-researched innovations, as you admitted.

 Irrelevant. Let me repeat myself:  If you are admitting that the State will innovate slower than the private sector, then it will be the private sector who makes all the accomplishments [i]since who gets there first is the definition of innovation[/i].  Nobody cares if you invented something 10 years after somebody else. We don't even call that invention.   The only way to keep the private sector from achieving things faster and better than the State is to [i]make private sector research illegal[/i]- which helps nobody, except socialists trying to save face.

The State doesn’t have infinite means. It has the means that it taxes from the private sector.

And while we’re talking about intentions, why would the State have any motivation to further medical research at all? Private motivation is easy to understand- people want to live longer, healthier lives, and are willing to pay to do so. Companies who want the money people are willing to pay for their health research treatments people want to pay for. Makes sense.

What’s the State’s motivation? People live for a while and then they die. Assuming there’s no plague threatening the existence of the State, what possible reason could the State have to invest millions of dollars/hours/resources into looking for a cure that may or may not exist, when the only result of finding the cure is that the State will be obligated to manufacture that cure and provide it for free to everybody who needs it? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just stick all that tax money in your pocket and SAY you’re doing research? Let’s face it- if cancer never gets cured, the State lives on and the people in the State continue thriving as happy and healthy as they’ve ever been in a world with cancer. That’s not so bad is it?

First of all, you’re the one who said the State would be slower to innovate than the private sector, I’ve just been running with it.

Yes, that’s exactly my point. When it comes to military, the U.S.S.R was very innovative because it was in the State’s best interest to do so. They were in a fucking Cold War with the United States that could have turned hot at any moment, and almost did many times. Competition drove their innovation, sound familiar? When it came to everything else, the U.S.S.R was way behind the United States, because the State had no motivation to research those things. Socialist nations end up like that a lot- an awesome military and a bunch of starving people with no healthcare. Why? Because when you give the State all the money, it acts like a person or a company and spends that money just on things that benefit itself, which is NOT a fucking new flavor of Doritos or a glaucoma cure.

Yes, which you dont get to determine. If you simply got to decide the intention and willingness of the State, then any system would work fine, as you said.

I guess I’ll stop here. I feel like I’m correcting basic stuff over and over again.

I wrote three times: “faked coin”!

Agreed, but there was a time before the “Cold War” too. And the meaning of “socialism” and he meaning of “communism” is not the same. Therefore I often use “eagliatrianism” as a hyperonym for “communism” and “leftish socialism” as its hyponyms. And what do we currently have in China? How would you call the econimical/political situation in China: Communism? Socialism? Capitalism? State monopoly capitalism (stamocap)? Synthesis of communism and capitalism? Synthesis of socialism and capitalism?

Yes, but not all socialists are communists. And the means of the production can also be controlled by relatively small commons - not merely by states, institutions, or private capitalists.

Okay, here comes Zinnat:

Not all socialists are communists. As I said: I often use “communism” and “leftish socialism” as hyponyms and “eagliatrianism” as their hyperonym - because in this case it is necessary to differentiate.

Spreading the means of production out as much as possible among small communities isn’t socialism, it’s a form of distributivism. It’s really worth your while to look and see what distributivism is and what it’s accomplished before you continue telling me that everything is some degree of capitalism or socialism.

Communism isn’t the ‘opposite’ of Capitalism, that would be like saying Catholicism is the opposite of Hindu; it makes no sense, they are just two ideas. People think of them as ‘opposites’ because they were the rival ideologies of the world’s superpowers for so long. The idea of capitalism being at one end of a continuum, communism on the other, and socialism somewhere in the middle sounds like something Zinnat made up, and that just doesn’t interest me very much. if he can show me where he got the idea from, I might find it more interesting.

I’m not fully against privatising healthcare, but I have significant reservations about the practicalities.

As far as I’m concerned, if people have to bankrupt themselves to pay to treat treat health conditions, I see that as being an immoral situation. A country that can afford to stop this happening should do so. That doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be privatised healthcare, but I think the system should be managed properly so that this doesn’t happen (possible with private or state owned healthcare systems). Being seriously ill is damaging enough, there’s no reason that people in first world countries should have to worry about how they can afford the treatment. That’s one problem that, if I were American, I would be trying to fix.

Also, how is meaningful consumer choice attained? Most people don’t know much about healthcare. Many will go to a doctor and try to get drugs, when they don’t get them, they just go to another doctor who will give them to them. However, what people want and what is good for people are often very different things. I know at least some people in America who are little more than legalised drug addicts. Over prescription is a real issue for the American healthcare model, too.

However, I don’t think that either of these problems needs a state owned healthcare system to fix them. Maybe a bit more regulation or some other form of incentives in the system. But America still has the most advanced healthcare system in the world, many people in England with rare or difficult to treat illnesses have to go to the states to have them fixed.

The NHS in England has problems - long waiting times, understaffing, strikes etc. However, most peoples personal experience with the system (including mine) are 100% positive, and I’ve had some complex operations on the NHS.

The NHS works for the UK, so I don’t see a need to change it. If private healthcare works ok for America, which overall it seems to, thats cool too. Neither system is without problems, but neither system is working so badly that it needs overhauling. Sometimes there is more than one possible solution to a problem, something which is easily forgotten when everybody is desperate to cling to an ideology. In this case, each solution has drawbacks, and each has advantages, but neither out of them come out on top.

In an alternate universe where the advocates didn’t try to present it as a fundamental human right that a society is terrible if they don’t provide, I could be in favor of it too. But treating something so expensive and unpredictable as a necessity is a recipe for disaster.

That sounds right, but my reservation on it is this: basically all the things that killed our great-great-grandparents can be cured with 10 bucks and a trip to Wal-Mart:  sterile water, aspirin, multivitamins and antibiotics are amazing things.  So now, the things that create situations like you describe above are horrible accidents and cancer.  The only way to treat these things are with methods with justified high costs; they involve cutting edge technology, experts that are few and far between, and teams of people who all had to give up their best years to higher education.  If there was an efficient way to provide such things to everybody, I would be for it- but I highly doubt there is. Combine that with a reminder of all the horrible health problems that simply don't exist anymore or are cured with over the counter treatments anybody can afford, and the situation doesn't seem as bad to me as it does to some.  I can see an argument that everybody should have cheap/free access to clean water, vitamins, antibiotics and such.  I can't see an argument that everybody should have cheap/free access to shooting microscopic lasers into their pancreas or whatever doctors are doing these days. 

It would be very nice if we could do this, and I hope that we can. I’d stop short of saying we must, at all costs, though.

I think in this case it comes from the consumer's general desire not to be afflicted. The customer doesn't have to know much about medicine to know they don't want to suffer from cat allergies or glaucoma or AIDS or whatever.  So a research company can spend a zillion dollars on developing a treatment knowing they will get a return on the investment because people will pay to be free of the affliction. 

Yeah, that’s my basic take on it too. The big benefit of having a bunch of countries is that there can be a bunch of different approaches to problems.

I'd like to know how much some systems are dependant on others. I've heard it said (but not researched it myself) that nationalized healthcare systems like that of the U.K. wouldn't work nearly so well if it wasn't for all the privatized research in the U.S., and costs in the U.S. are so high in part because the drug companies know they can't sell anything for a real profit elsewhere.  Could be bullshit, but sounds plausible to me.

Socialism is a form of distributivism. Especially the leftish socialism wants to publicly (via state, thus via taxpayers) distribute like a huge monster of Robin Hood. A small common has nothing to do with states or taxpayers. Commons have a long tradition - but unfortunatley also their tragedy. This tragedy is merely then a huge problem, if the commons are no real commons anymore but a cartel / trust or antitrust of so-called “global players”.

Would you mind telling me how you interpret the word “distributivism” then?

Is it like that?

Yeah, no. Are you just looking at the word for the first time, seeing that the root is ‘distrbute’, and assuming you can infer what it is?

Yeah, it’s like that. Note the parts about state-controlled means of production as a bad idea, and the rejection of socialism as a failed economic policy.

I also say that the state-controlled means of production is a bad idea, but nonetheless: socialism is also a form of distributivism. Socialists take money from the taxpayers and give it to the poor (“proletariat”, “precariat”). It is a fact which we can also call “distribution”,more precisely “distribution after theft”, or just “redistribution”. One should not deny this fact, although state-controlled means of production is a bad idea. But how can the means of production really be controlled by all people without any help of a powerful institution like state or church?

Could “SAM” be a solution?

In Sight of SAM.
SAM is pure distributivism. All authority is in the form of very small SAM cooperatives. SAM doesn’t require that property or production be in the hands of such coops or corps, but any and all decisions related to such concerns are made only by them. If many SAM coops decided it best that all of their property and production is to be united under one authority, such would be immediately done. But a SAM coop cannot so relegate its own decision making authority. So if at any time in the future the coops decided to not unite, such would immediately be the case. Politics in SAM coops is relatively instantaneous, no activist campaigns or rebellions required.

Where do you live?

All authority must be in the form of very small groups / cooperatives. That is important. Otherwise the authority would become corrupt, all economic and political relations and situations would again become the same old (although called “modern”) corrupted relations and situations.