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.