Education, healthcare and legal services

Yeah, you're still doing that thing where because it has the word 'distribute' as a root, you're claiming any method of distributing something to somebody is distributivism.  That's not how our language works.   Facebook isn't a form of socialism because it helps people socialize, for example.

No. I meant the distribution of money. As I said: Socialists take money from the taxpayers and give it to the poor (“proletariat”, “precariat”). That has nothing to do with Facebook! :slight_smile:

And you did not answer my questions:

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?

Would you mind answering my questions?

Yeah that’s not distributivism. Again, you seem to think that because socialists distribute things they are distributivists. It’s an actual economic idea with an actual definition. It’s not merely ‘the act of distributing stuff’. That would be like saying socialsm is a form of capialism because in socialism the workers earn capital.

Not for very long. You’d need legal backing, like an expansion of anti-trust laws,

I dunno, maybe? I’m not really following it, like a lot of what James writes. I think the backbone of the economy should be capitalist, with a few distributivist reforms. I’m not advocating a wholesale shift to a distributivist nation, so I don’t know what you’re asking me for a ‘solution’ to. I’m just pointing out that this captalist/socialist dichotomy thing isn’t real.

The NHS buys its drug and equipment in the same way that private hospitals do, so I can’t see how this is an issue. Although the NHS does have research hospitals and sponsor some (world leading) research programs into patient care, the bulk of research is still done by private companies, who sell the products of the research to the NHS (drugs, equipment, training courses), for no small price tag.

The only big difference in this respect would be that Americans use a lot more drugs than the brits do, so in that way, the companies make more profit from them. Also, it’s a much larger market, which explains why the bulk of new medical research occurs in America.

That makes sense too. I mostly hear this brought up in connection with Canada- drugs legally cannot be sold there for over a certain amount, so manufacturer’s have to sell them for more in the U.S. to pay for the R&D. In effect, Canada hasn’t ‘made healthcare cheaper’, they’ve just pushed the costs off onto a wealthier nation. Or so it is said.

I’m pretty certain that Arminius understands that socialism is about the “redistribution of wealth” in terms of merely a “welfare program” and “government grants” involving money with strings attached. Socialism does nothing without “strings attached”. The whole point in socialism is to force all people to bow to the supreme leader(s) (polyarchy). Money (specifically) is the primary means (the strings), even though media and medical pressures are also a serious part of the game.

SAM is a game changer, independent of prior schemes but its inherent structure (not requiring the whole nation to convert) is one of “distributivism of authority” (more commonly known as “distributed intelligence”).

That’s ridiculous. Drug companies own patents and do not have to sell to Canada. Canada simply employs common business sense and uses its larger buying power to negotiate cheaper contracts, which is what the NHS should do more too (and has started to, finally).

In America, on the other handMedicare and Medicade are forbidden from negotiating drug prices, a classic example of over-regulation interfering with the natural markets. So the drug companies charge them more, because somehow they managed to write a law and then get it through which says they can charge whatever they like.You can’t blame Canada for that absolute shambles of a policy. Sure - maybe it produces a bit more research money, but it also undoubtably creates larger shareholder dividends, bigger advertising budgets, and fatter executive paycheques too. It’s an absolute fantasy to think that a private company would invest all additional revenue into R&D, just because you have agreed to pay them more than the market value for their goods.

Yep, that all sounds reasonable. I’m just airing hearsay here- economics is not my strong suit. If Medicade and Medicare could negotiate for lower drug prices, I wonder how much money it would save, since it’s these programs with SS that are bankrupting the country.

Probably Uccisore did not understand what I meant.

How can people of SAM defend themselves against corruption?

SAM is anentropic, the very essence of defense against entropy or corruption. People normally try to hope that their scheme for doing other things will not suffer corruption, but the “people of SAM” do nothing BUT defend themselves against corruption.

You eat so as to restore your health and spirit, diverting entropy/corruption. You work so as to gain the resources for eating. You sleep so as to rid your body of inadvertent corruption. You clean your body and house so as to dispense with corruption. In the long run, literally everything people do is actually merely the result of an attempt to maintain themselves, including sex, watching TV, eating too much, drugs, scheming, political activism,… everything. The problem is merely that that get confused and don’t maintain very well.

The notion recently promoted in the last 400 years or so that the goal and purpose of life is “power” (WtP), is false and merely a social/psychological trick. And that is the real reason that so very many people are not Nietzschian nor Faustian. Life has never actually been about gaining power. The truth is rather that gaining power is for ensuring maintenance. But it is too easy for Man to confuse anti-entropy (the effort to grow) with an-entropy (the effort to maintain).

The focus must be maintained upon the actual goal/purpose. A degree of power must be sought, just as a degree of sex is required for reproduction. But that doesn’t mean that anyone has to become manic about either. Power and sex (just as examples) serve only the purpose of ensuring the future maintenance.

Acquisition is not the goal. SAM maintains focus on Maintaining = Anentropy (anti-corruption). It does that through its decision making process which involves IJOT, an ongoing calculation of the eternal maintaining of joy throughout its populous.

Well, when you said ‘socialism is a form of distributivism’ did you mean that socialism is a form of distributivism? If so, I understood it perfectly well which is why I called you wrong.

If you think that socialism has nothing to do with “distribution”, especially “redistribution”, then you are wrong. Please don’t tell me again that the word “distribution” does not mean distribution because “that’s not how” your “language works”.

You mean a specific distributi(vi)sm:

Distributi(vi)sm has to do with distribution. Nobody can change this. And socialism has also to do with distribution, especially redistribution, regardless whether socialists use these words mostly rhetorically or not. We know that socialists distribute or, more precisely said, redistribute wealth, and according to this fact we can say that socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm. Nevertheless it is not the same distributi(vi)sm as the distributi(vi)sm of the Cathoilc social teaching. Did you just notice the word “social” in the term “Cathoilc social teaching”?

I was right, and I am right.

 Didn't say anything like that.  You're really being dense about this. "Distribution" merely means "giving things to people".  Socialism, Distributivism, and Capitalism all involve giving things to people.  That doesn't make them all distributivism. Distributivism is a specific economic philosophy different from capitalism and socialism.  Socialism is not a form of Distributivism any more than it is a form of Capitalism. 

Yes, and capitalism has to do with capital. So does socialism. Does that make socialism a form of capitalism?

IF” - I said: “If …”.

No. You’re really being dense about this (and about the whole topic).

Not all but some of them. We - you and I - have two different definitions. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

That is your definition and the definition of the Catholic social teaching. I can merely partly accept that definition - as I already said in almost all my posts of this thread.

Partly yes and partly no. Socialism needs capitalism, although the socialists say that socialism has nothing to do with capitalism. Socialism can also be a form of distributi(vi)sm, although the distributi(vi)sts say that distributi(vi)sm has nothing to do with both capitalism and socialism.

The Catholic social teaching does not have any patent of the meaning of the word “distributi(vi)sm”. Would you say that merely the members of the party “X” should be allowed to define the word “socialism”? I do not accept this, and - above all - I do not accept it in a thread of a webforum called “I Love Philosophy”!

The Catholic social teaching is social. Look again at its name: Catholic social teaching. And socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm, regardless whether socialism is different to the Catholic social teaching. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

I am right: Distributi(vi)sm is not only what the Catholic social teaching wants it to be.

Are merely the leaders of capitalism allowed to say what capitalism is? Thus even in a webforum called “I Love Philosophy” is no other definition allowed?
Are merely the leaders of socialism allowed to say what socialism is? Thus even in a webforum called “I Love Philosophy” is no other definition allowed?
Are merely the leaders of distributi(vi)sm allowed to say what distributi(vi)sm is? Thus even in a webforum called “I Love Philosophy” is no other definition allowed?

And I remind you of this:

Think about it, again.

Needs capitalism? I was asking if it was a form of capitalism. I’d like an answer!

Is socialism a form of capitalism merely because it ‘deals with capital’? Because that’s the argument you made for socialism being a form of distributivism, and I’d like to see if you’re being consistent.

Ah, I see. So you were using your own made up definition of distributivism when you told me that socialism was a form of distributivism, and resisted being corrected for three days.  Kind of odd, considering I'm the one who brought up distributivism specifically to point out that it's a third way. 
Yes, according to whatever definition of 'distributivism' lurks in your mind, socialism may well be form of it.  So might line-dancing and deep sea diving for all I know. 

Yes, and at least we arrive at the point. Socialism is a form of distributivism IF we just let you make up some wierd definition of one or the other of these terms that nobody is familiar with but you. Just as cats might be a sort of turtle if you choose to define the words as such. After all, why should it only be biologists who get to define ‘cat’? If you need to say cats are turtles or socialism is distributivism in order to avoid looking foolish, then by all means butcher the language until you get what you need from it.

Nevertheless, the distributivism I was talking about, which is an economic system, and I clearly stated it was an economic system, and you clearly know the one I mean because you cited the wikipedia entry at me....socialism is not a form of [i]that.[/i]

Yes, anything that distributes something is distributivism, and any teaching that uses the word ‘social’ is socialism. Still not clear on if everything that concerns capital is capitalism because you won’t tell me, but I think I see a bit more clearly how you are pretending your mind works.

What I told you days ago, is what you’re telling me now; Yes, you are using ‘distributivism’ as a general term for ‘any time you distribute things’. Yes, yes, I know. I told YOU that. You’re using distributivism in a very loose and generic way, and I’m actually talking about the economic system that goes by that name.

Right, words mean whatever you need them to mean to win arguments on the internet. I see that now.

Meanwhile, socialism is not a type of the economic system that the rest of the world referrs to by the word 'distributivism'.  They are two completely different things, as economic systems go. 

Yes, he doesn’t know what communism, socialism, capitalism and libertarianism are. No need to remind me.

You did not notice that I gave you the answer - several times: in my last post and also in other posts.

You did not notice that I gave you the answer - several times: in my last post and also in other posts.

And “resisted being corrected for three days”? It seem that you are using rhetoric instead of logic.

No. It is absolutely not odd. But it is odd that you believe it could be important for this topic just only because you “brought up distributivism specifically to point out that it’s a third way”. That’s really odd.

Why are you not talking about the possibilities of this “third way” (b.t.w.: not the first third way) to overcome the “faked coin” I was talking about?

It lurks in logic as well in the definitions and meanings of the words. And I did not use the word “well”. Stop using rhetoric instead of logic. I did not say that socialism is a good thing. Read my posts, please. Otherwise we go around in circles.

Then welcome to the socialistic dictatorship of the US.

My definition has to do with logic not with rhetoric like your definition. You do not know anything about the realisation of your odd kind of distributivism, because the statements of the Catholic social teaching are not more than theoretical statements - means: that there is no practical example. The only practical examples we have are those of the history where I referred to. The rest must be defined, preferably by logic.

That’s merely rhetorical cynism, thus nonsense. Everyone - except you and some other people who are dense about this topic - know what the word “distribution” means, what the morpheme “ism” of the word “distribution” means, and what the word “distributioni(vi)sm” means. A philosopher does not have to follow the definition of the Catholic social teaching (I - myself - am a Catholic, but that does not mean that I obey everything what the Catholic church said, says and will say). But on ILP it seems to be forbidden to be a philosopher.

Yes, and I never said that I would have a problem with it, if you tried to explain how this kind of distributivism can be realised in the future. But you did not try to explain it but started a kind of war by using cynical nonsense.

That is again cynisms and rhetoric. Your first response to my first post of this thread (cf. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=188134#p2547293) was probably the only honest one, because after it you became more and more cynical - I guess it was because of the lack of arguments.

Yes. Where is the problem? There is no problem at all. Why should it not be allwoed to use the word “distributivism in a very loose and generic way”? Please do not forget that there is no practical evidence. The examples of the premodern economic situations do not count, because we are talking about modern economic situations.

If this was true, Uccisore, then I would more argue in the opposite direction. Again: I am Catholic. I think you are the one who tries to win arguments by using those words whatever you need them to mean: you started with the word “dense”, and now you are already at the point to allege that I want to win arguments on the internet. That is ridiculous.

You are wrong. Because of the fact that socialism needs money in order to redistribute wealth, it depends on capitalism. That is logical. Therefore socialism became a part of the economic system.

No. In your sentence the word “completely” is completely wrong.

I would like to read some arguments for the thesis that the distributivism of the Catholic social teaching will have a chance to win in the near future. Are you interested in such arguments or not?

But, besides your emotions, you have not provided name of such a single shitlode country which follows capitalism in its pure form without any socialism at all.

Secondly, I am not taking claim of anything, neither saying that only socialism is a very good way to handle economy.

All I am saying that capitalism is a good way of governing by and large, if mixed with little doses of socialism of right amount at right places, which with you totally disagree.

Where I advocated socialism in toto? All I said it should be mixed with the majority of capitalism.

Secondly, I did not deny my first given reason. Actually, I put that aside for a moment to show you that you were wrong without that too.

I did not mentioned any time to determine success or failure of capitalism because it is useless as we are not able to live that to see it. But, I tell you that capitalism will not survive long in exactly present form but with a lot of twists and turns, which are not accepted to you.

No economic system, whether capitalism or socialism, require faith in the leaders. It is democracy that runs on the faith and people are given choices to express their faith in the leadership too. But, dictatorship does not provide that chance. Yes, people expect help from the state in socialism, but is not because they consider their leaders wiser. In socialism, people think that is first and foremost duty of the govt to help them in all verticals.

Yes, because we are talking about average people, not the wise ones, who can handle themselves.

If I am wrong, why capitalism relies on competitiveness? Does owning the means of production for profit not implies that people will get what they can (deserve)?

Again, if that is true, why you feel that there is something wrong (injustice) with the more competent and capable people (like you) in socialism?

Sorry, I did not get what you want to say!

Ucci, I was intentionally avoiding to get into these technical terms because I did not want to argue over definitions instead of actual issues. But, it seems to me that you are trying to take some advantage of it, so I would like to clarify, so that other posters can also get the clear picture of the subject.

And also, for your kind information, I have masters degree in economics, and it is also a subject of my interest besides spirituality and politics. Not only that, I have quite a good knowledge and experience of trading in stock market, though only Indian.

Secondly, it is not me but you who does not understand libertarianism completely. It is a very vague and broad term having many subsets within. Furthermore, it is not restricted merely to right wingers but there are many socialist libertarians also. On the other hand, pure capitalism basically believe in the notion of Laissez-faire (let it be) or the invisible hand, which takes care of everything, as Adam Smith himself put it. Even capitalism has very broad and different range of doctrines. You seems to be a hardcore Laissez-faire supporter, while I consider Nordic model of capitalism better than others.

Thirdly, contrary to your claim, capitalism, in its true form, never run for centuries, but a little less even a century. Generally, the starting point and form of the capitalism is considered around 1600 CE as Merchant Capitalism, when Dutch and Britain East India Companies were founded. But, it was not never a true capitalism because these companies were hugely supported by their states economically, politically and militarily to take control over other countries in the disguise of trade. And, as there were many other motives also besides profit, you cannot claim that it was true capitalism. This continued till the middle of 19th century, when Adam Smith put the idea of more refined and improved capitalism forth, which restricted capitalism strictly to business activities, though providing more freedom in it. His doctrine was almost universally accepted by all developed nations. Economies of those countries also flourished a lot after that but happy days did not last long and ended when the great depression hit the economy in the starting of 20th century and all premises of completely free economy came under fire. After that, world economy put pure capitalism aside and adopted a slightly different version of economy in the name of Keynesianism. And, since then, it is more or less accepted as universal model of economy worldwide, including US.

Here is what wiki says -

Keynesianism is quite different from Adam Smith’s capitalism in some fundamental premises. It does not believe in the “let it be” or " the invisible hand" but advocates for active control over fiscal and monetary policies. It is not capitalism but Keynesianism, which gave birth to Central Banks, budget deficits, government bonds, spending in infrastructure and monetary stimuluses. And, all this is happening in the US since last one century.

Not at all. That is not what I am proposing, though you at least accepted that there is a problem.

I am suggesting a good solution, which is not “any” merely. That is a different issue that it is not according to your “taste”.

But, there is also no reason to think that state-appointed lawyers will be worse or more corrupt than private ones. I am not expecting them to be better or worse either, but just as good or bad as they are now.

Give me an example. I do not think that such type of judicial system was ever in practice.

Secondly, can you claim that present judicial system is totally incorrupt and perfect? And, if not, why not go for better option, even though it also may not be perfect!

Ucci, I am not asking the change just for the sake of change. That would be useless. Change is justified only if it brings some betterment with it.

Only in your mind which seems to be very fertile in producing wild assumptions about others rather than focussing on what is actually said by them.

Ucci, you neither able to understand my true intentions so far, nor there is any such attempt from your end. You are just playing to that image of mine which you created in your mind as an extreme socialist. That is all.

To me, the most basic issue with present judicial system is the presence of private lawyers. I am a firm believer that the money should not be able to play any role whatsoever in the whole of judicial system. All of my suggestions are just to address that anomaly, nothing else. The second thing that I want, is taking away the presumptuous mindset and prosecuting power of investigating agencies. They should not have any say in who is there to prosecute and who is not. Leave it to judges or jury.That is all.

Again, as usual, all that is either presumptuous/misunderstood or misrepresented. Let me deduct it completely to make it easier to comprehend.

Any judicial system takes it for granted that it’s judges/jury are wise, impartial and honest. I also take it as true.

Now, what the defence and prosecution lawyers do or supposed to do? To represent the case of their clients in the best way, right? But, I want to ask a slightly different question here. Are lawyers are supposed to be more knowledgeable and wise than judges/jury? And, if that is not true, it is useless to have lawyers. Why the jury cannot see on its own what the lawyers of both sides have to tell! And, if the jury is not that competent, it does not deserve to be a jury, in the first place.

I do not expect jury/judges just to give judgement on what the lawyers argue. I want jury to discuss the case from both angles and decide on its own. I am not bypassing the event of pleading from either side but want jury to do it, not lawyers. Having said that, I do not any issue with lawyers arguing from both sides, if they are not private. I am excluding them just because I do not see them of any use. But, I am flexible on this issue, if lawyers are not private but part of judicial system.

Secondly, how can you even imagine that concerned persons would not be inquired and not allowed to tell their version of the event? Of course, they would be not only allowed but even asked to do so. But, not through their lawyers but on their own. Private lawyers are not some kind to innocent and kind hearted citizens, who are willing to help others in charity. If any person is willing to help others in court cases just to help, I do not mind that but the motive of providing help should not be money.

Thirdly, free defence is provided not only in US, but in many countries, including India.

You still are not getting what my intention is. I very clearly mentioned that investigating agency will have no such right like arresting or bring anyone to the courts like accused, thus, there is no question of being bias from their side.

Small teams of investigating agency will be work under a judge. He would be their incharge and monitor all their activities on daily basis. They have to ask him before any arrest. Means, investigating officers have to convince the judge about the justification of the arrest, only then he will allow. If any such situation arises that taking someone into custody is required on the spot, the detained person should be brought before the judge immediately, without any delay, and the judge will decide whether that person should remain into custody or not. Yes, the investigating agency is free to inquire anything, anyone and anyplace, without any search warrant.

When the investigators feel that they are done with the investigation, they will submit their report with all concerned findings to a bench of judges/jury. At this stage, the judges/jury will only decide whether there is any prima facie merits in the case or not. Concerned parties may also represent themselves. If the jury decide to further with the case, it will hand over the case to a different jury to discuss and dispose, either on its own or after hearing from lawyers from prosecution and defence departments of judiciary. Any dissatisfied party may ask retrial from another jury.

Ucci, I was merely talking about the investigating powers that journalists use to have while investigating, not their intent.

That is certainly a valid point and I do not disagree completely with that either.

Having said that, the mindset also is desired to be looked in some cases, especially in these three services which we are discussing. Rules often become ineffective without right intent. And, to maintain right intent of incoming individuals, it is necessary to create very high standards initially, if not perfect. Once that happens, newcomers will automatically mould themselves into that mode.

I would like to give you an example. India is not a clean country. It’s citizens do not care much about keeping it clean. They use to throw garbage and waste wherever they like, besides spitting on walls and roads. All that is usual scene even in metros. But, when the same Indians go abroad, they tend to follow not only all the rules and regulations, but established customs also. The ambient forces them to do so.

The same is true about any organisation. Once created atmosphere, either good or bad, compelled newcomers to be in the same mode.

And, that is precisely why spending on good education is must to make people wise. Like, even the duty of a doctor may end at 5 pm, and no rule can force him to attend a patient beyond that, but he should not do that and take care of the patient. These are things where mindset matters. Everything cannot be left to the rules. Rules are there to tell people what exactly their mindset should be in different circumstances.

I am well aware of that. That system is followed in most of the countries, more or less. I neither see anything wrong in the stages not want to change it. I want to change only how the things are handled at those stages, not the stages per se.

I know that in US, federal prosecutors and United States District Attorneys represent state in all cases. But, not many people are aware of the fact that they are very much the part of department of Justice.

So, when prosecutors can be a part of department of Justice, why defendants cannot be?

Ucci, all that arguing goes in vain when I say that the state should provide all medical facilities free to everyone, no matter how much money and other means it takes. If there are not enough medical experts, train new ones. In the same way, if there are not enough medical facilities, create them. It is not such a thing that cannot be done.

Ucci, it is not me but you who need a little more awareness about the technicalities of economics. Though, it is not your fault because one cannot understand the subtleties without proper education of the subject. Allow me to clear the issue as that may help many posters.

Federal budget or spending is a very confusing term in US. Most of the people do not understand for what it actually stands and in which context it should be taken. Like you, many other people also live under this impression that US state spends half of its money on social welfare, but it is not true for many reasons.

First of all, federal budget is merely a subset of US economy. That is why to check the economy of any country and its ratios to the state expenses, you have to look at the GDP ( gross domestic product) of that country, not the federal budget. US federal budget is merely 20 of its GDP(more than 18 trillions). So, when you use that amount, all ratios will change accordingly and look quite smaller too.

US budget expenses stand at 3.8 trillion but this does not include the expenses of different states, which are at 3 trillions, means total US state expenses are 6.8 ,trillions, not 3.8 trillions. Though, it is true that almost the half of this money goes to social welfare.

But, it is not such a big deal as presented often. Many other countries also use to spend half or even more than that on social welfare, even more than US. And, it is not the case that those countries went bankrupt. On the contrary, both people and economies are in better shape there than the average.

Secondly, on what else a state has to spend, if not on administration, military maintenance and helping people? Helping Lehman brothers or fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq!

Thirdly, there is a one more state spending in disguise, which never gets attention of the intellectuals, and that is " Tax expenditures".

In US budget, there are three types of expenses. First ones are Mandatory expenses at 2.85 trillions. All social welfare schemes come from this sector and put together they comprise 75-80% (around 2 trillions) of this.Mandatory Spending is such federal spending that is spent based on existing laws rather than the budgeting process. For instance, spending for Social Security is based on the eligibility rules for that program. Mandatory spending is not part of the annual appropriations process.

The second category is Discretionary expenses. It was around 1.11 trillions, from which 600 billions go to military alone. Besides that, all research, war, foreign aid and contingencies go to this heading. This type of spending does not go by any rules but depends on congress and president. This needs yearly approval.

The third part of the expense is interest paid for debt. Nothing worth mentioning in it.

But, there is one more form of expense, which never gets mentioned, though plays it part. Actually, these are different types of tax breaks to individuals and corporates, which are not accounted for. Like, anybody buys a house on loan and the state deduct paid loan interest from is computable income. I am not sure whether that applies on depreciation on movable and immovable assets or not in US, but happens in many countries. Besides this, there are tax rebates on capital gains, employee’s contribution to PPF, Pension and Health Insurances. In the same way, many industries and corporates also get tax breaks. There are rebates on Solar energy industry. Very recently, US removed tax from foreign controlled mutual funds. Many charity and non-profit organizations get rebates. The issue is not whether this is good or bad, but why it is not included in the federal expenses, so that people can get the real picture and perspective.

And, let me also tell you these tax expenditures stand at 1.1 trillions. And also, most of these brakes go to wealthy people, not poor because poor are either not eligible for taxes, or very little. But, tax rebate on the interest on the loans taken to buy penthouses can be huge. Though, I am not against it but let me remind you that these tax breaks are also a form of socialism. A true capitalism state will not allow any tax break whatsoever.

Ucci, either you are trying to fool me like Mucter or you are a very bad businessman, who do not understand how it works, though, my guess is that you are not.

For a moment, forget about people, and try to think from the pov of an insurance company. As we know, those are not charity organizations and their aim is to earn money for their shareholders, so given that, how they are supposed to decide premiums?

They will look at the past data to guess how much an individual generally pays to medical care on an average. Then, they add their operational cost and some profit to it, and decide the premium. Not only insurance companies, but every business more or less works on this basic idea in normal circumstances.

Secondly, people do not take insurance because they do not know about their medical expenses or they cannot bear it normally. They take it to meet contingencies or unexpected requirements. They pay insurance companies more knowing very well that their actual medical expenses would not cost that much normally. But, they fear that something such big may come up by chance in the future, that they would not able to handle on their own. That is only why they take insurance and get ready to pay some extra to insurance company.
But, as the state is going to provide all medical facilities, thus, the extra payment for this fear will go, besides the operating cost and profit charged by the insurance industry.

Ucci, are you joking! Can anyone in this whole world can believe that any pharma company can do research to help humanity? What answer their management will give to their shareholders?

Secondly, if you are not aware, I must tell you that pharma industry’s profit earning ratio to their revenue is the highest amongst all industries. Some pharma companies’s ratio is even more that computer software and hardware industry, which relies totally on research and innovations. Look above at the stats of Pfizer to get the clear picture.

I am not expecting state innovations to be cheap cost wise either. Perhaps, they will be slightly costly. But, they will be certainly cheap for the consumers because the state will not sell those at 10 times higher to earn for shareholders, as pharma companies tend to do.

Not extremely slowly but only a bit. And, not painfully at all.

Secondly, as I said before, true capitalism did not last even a century, so your claim that all innovations we have just because of it, is basically wrong in the first place.

Ucci, you are both misrepresenting and besides the point too. I said that state innovations will be available to all, though they will be slightly behind the curve. On the other hand, private innovations will be faster but all will be not able to use it because of its high price. Both arrangements have one good and one bad implication.

As I said just above, what purpose the medical research can serve, if it is so costly that only a few can avail it? It is not a luxury but a necessity. What should be the real aim of medical research, getting money and Nobel prize or help all?

Yes, the state certainly depends taxpayers money. But, still there is no comparison between the means of a state and a particular industry. If a state has a real intent to do something, money can never be the issue.

Ucci, my proposed economy/ontology is based on my suggestions/premises, not what you think about those issues. Do not repeat the mistake of Mucter when he was inserting his understanding of definitions into my ontology. Thus, when I am saying that a state must/will pay full attention to all these three basic facilities, you have to accept it. You cannot challenge my proposals but their results within my ontology only.

Like, when I am saying that if a man will jump from the hill, he will die, you can argue only about what will happen after jumping, whether he will die or merely get injured, but cannot argue whether he will jump or not. That is my basic premise, on which my ontology if his death is rooted.

Secondly, why a state cannot have the intent to carry on with medical research? When a state can have almost impossible looking intent of landing a human on the moon and can achieve that too, why not medical research? Is it more difficult than Apollo mission, or needs more money than that?

What is the motivation behind all social securities programs and Obamacare? If US can have intent to provide Obamacare to every US citizen, why it cannot have intent to provide free medical facilities and carry on with reaserch?

Yes, I not denying it either.

Ucci, you do not deduct notions completely. That is why you reach to the wrong conclusions all the time.

It is true that competition pushes for innovation, but the story does not ends there but goes further. As nothing happens without a cause so there is one more question to be asked; why competition creates innovation?

The answer is that one tries to innovate in competition to leave others behind. But, that begs the next question; why one wants others to leave behind?

Again, the reason that one sees or expect some kind of personal benefit in leaving others behind. That is the actual reason for innovations in private sector, not competitiveness. And, if some worthy individuals of any field will be assured of that personal benefit, they will be able to innovate, irrespective of capitalism, socialism or even communism.

Means, if innovators will be sure that they will get some fame and money, they will certainly innovate even being in govt job. All depends on the provided or proposed incentive. That is why and how USSR managed to match US in military innovations, even being a communist country.

The same can be done for medical innovations even under state control. It is like creating a little private sector zone for medical innovators within a broader framework of state control. The state can lure the state innovators to do their best by creating competition within them. The more the individuals perform, the more they will get, both name and money wise. And, all that can be done easily.

Ucci, you neither pay full attention to my words nor think enough.

To work any system fine, it is not the govt but common citizens, who have to be wise as they are in the majority. A state comprises of merely some individuals, who are also supposed to be wiser than average. Thus, it is easier to force the issue from their side.

That is precisely why education is the most focussed sector in my ontology, to make the society wise, as a whole. But, to initiate that process, it has to be pushed once from the top. Though, it is not the case it will never initiate from the bottom of the pyramid. It certainly will one day, but not before going through a hard and long way of learning and suffering.

With love,

Adam Smith (1723-1790) lived in the 18th century. “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” (1776), usually abbreviated as “The Wealth of Nations”, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics. It was published in 1776.

[tab] [/tab]

Yes, I checked and found you are right. I am really bad in remembering names and numbers, though equally good in remembering events.

Nevertheless, I apologise for my mistake.

And also, that means that Adam Smith’s capitalism survived for something about one and half century, not less than one century, as I said.

Thanks for correcting me.

With love,

Again, it’s already survived in the U.S. for 200 years, so I still find myself wondering how long is ‘long’. Apparently not in our lifetimes, which means you don’t have to worry about being proven wrong, which is always nice.

Of course that’s false. The more control you give your leaders (i.e, letting them build ghettos that the poor have to live in, controlling all medical research, and so on), the more you are relying on them being virtuous and competant.

There’s two problems there.
1.) The idea that getting whatever you can and getting what you deserve are the same thing is complete fucking madness. There’s literally no reason to even talk about socialism if you believed such a thing.
2.) You use ‘deserve’ in an entirely other way when talking about people deserving housing, healthcare, and etc.

I can barely understand the above, but I’ll try to reply somehow. I am not Capitalism. Me feeling someting is not the same as it being a tenet of capitalism. So for example, I believe Jesus Christ is the risen Son of God. That isn’t a tenet of Capitalism just because I believe it, and I am a capitalist. Capitalism has nothing at all to do with justice or injustice. You are thinking of libertarianism.

You made this thread to reply to me. I can handle technical terms, don’t you worry. It’s important that when you criticize capitalism, you know what the fuck capitalism is, and don’t confuse it with libertarianism, you know?

I don’t care. Capitalism isn’t a theory of justice and it doesn’t operate under the assumption that everybody gets what they deserve. Those are both preposterous statements regardless of who says them with whatever background.

There are plenty of left libertarians and I didn’t imply otherwise. Nevertheless, any sort of commentary on what is just and unjust is not coming from capitalism.

Yes, and?

Not even a little bit. I’m just taking you to task for attributing ridiculous things to capitalism which have nothing to do with capitalism or are part of libertarianism instead.

Eh? You just got done saying there’s a bunch of different kinds of capitalism, what he heck do you mean now by ‘it’s true form’? Are you talking Laissez-faire? Yeah that doesn’t last long, and I don’t care because I don’t support it. Nevertheless, socialists such as yourself have been predicting the downfall of capitaism for centuries, it hasn’t happened yet, and you seem to think it won’t in our lifetimes.

You don’t need to quote wikipedia, you have a Master’s degree. Besides, none of this stuff defends or clarifies any of the silly things you said in your last post. I’m simply not interested in the history lesson, it seems to be serving no purpose but for you to try and prove to me how smart you are.

I’m much more interested in you defending somehow the idea that in capitalism, everybody gets what they deserve, or that capitalism makes claims about what is just and unjust.

Um, you’re the one who wants to get rid of private lawyers, remember? People who can’t afford a lawyer already get a state-appointed one for free. If you don’t think there’s any reason to believe the state appointed ones are worse, what’s the point to any of your reforms??!

Well, there’s the entire reason the U.S. decided to go with a jury system in the first place, for example.

So your argument for completely changing the American justice system is ‘why not’?

Really. Because in your immediately previous quote, it really looks like that’s exactly what you did.

Whatever for, since you just said there is no reason to believe they are better or worse than state-appointed lawyers?

No. A judicial system that doesn’t suck takes it for granted that some of it’s judges/jury will be crooks, and tries to minimize their impact through an appeals process, jury selection procecess, and etc.

Err…because without a lawyer, nobody told it to them? Look, the entire point of a lawyer is to decide what the important facts are, put them together in a compelling way, and create a CASE for the person’s guilt or innocence. They decide what is worth presenting, what is not, what should be emphasized, how things should be phrased, and etc. So in your system, who is doing that? The plaintiff that has no legal education? The judge/jury who is going to be deciding the merit of the same case they put together? I don’t understand how you aren’t getting this.

I am going to court. I don’t want to be jailed or executed. I only have a limited amount of time to explain to the court why I am innocent. I am not an expert in American law. I need somebody else’s help to explain my situation to the judge/jury/whomever. It’s very simple.

When the investigators feel that they are done with the investigation, they will submit their report with all concerned findings to a bench of judges/jury. At this stage, the judges/jury will only decide whether there is any prima facie merits in the case or not. Concerned parties may also represent themselves. If the jury decide to further with the case, it will hand over the case to a different jury to discuss and dispose, either on its own or after hearing from lawyers from prosecution and defence departments of judiciary. Any dissatisfied party may ask retrial from another jury.
None of this is any different than what we have now.

Well of course it can be done, because you just SAID it. We’ll just do whatever you think is a good idea, and money is no object, because you have declared money is no object. Except that countries with that attitude actually DO go broke with some regularity, you know.

Only if you’re a fucking rampant socialist. What you’re doing is taking all the money the private citizens have, and counting it by default as money the U.S. Goverment has access to spend. NO. The U.S. Government spends far more money on healthcare than it does on the military. You factoring in the money that it hasn’t taken from its citizens yet doesn’t change those ratios.

You understnd that US States don’t have their own militaries, but they DO have their own social welfare programs, so if you start counting state expenditures, the healthcare vs. military ratio is going to become further slanted towards healthcare, right?

Anyway, none of this vindicates your argument that gutting the military and NASA (lol) would be sufficient to pay for a massive expansion of healthcare of the sort you are talking about.

The reason that doesn’t get talked about is that a tax break isn’t a expense unless you’re a socialist. Again, you’re coming from the perspective that an country’s entire GDP belongs to the State, and letting the people have some of it is an ‘expense’.

Right. Which means they are making their profit off of people NOT getting sick. Which means, they have no reason to inflate health expenses- that’s when they pay out, not when they pay in. Hospitals (and auto repair places, an etc) will give inflated bills to try and bilk the insurance company. If anything, the insurance company will low-ball the cost of repairs/medical bills so they don’t have to pay out as much.

You’re simply putting the State in the role of the insurance company, to whom everybody will misrepresent their costs to try to get a bigger payout. And since no cost is too high for you, there will be little incentive to investigate. We already see this now, where the State is overcharged for simple things like aspirin and screws because people know they can get away wth it.

That’s just anti-capitalist rhetoric without any baring in reality. I think you’re just mad at people who earn money.

Yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that healthcare researchers do it, in part, to help humanity.

Right, but since you consider an entire nation’s GDP at the Government’s disposal to spend, I suppose you don’t give much of a shit how much things cost.

First you said it didn’t exist. Then you said there were a bunch of different kinds of capitalism, then you picked one at random, called it ‘true capitalism’ and talked about how long it existed. And besides, lasting nearly a century still beats the pants off socialism.

Yes, you said it because you have the benefit of not having to actually make it reality. You can say everybody will get a 10 carat diamond ring too, and I don’t have to take it fucking seriously. No, medical procedures that involve cutting edge technologies or rare chemicals will not be equally available to all. You’re not going to have enough doctors, or enough platinum, or enough lasers, or whatever it is. If you force people to go to medical school to be doctors when they aren’t allowed to work for a profit, then you may have enough ‘doctors’ but they won’t be doctors, they’ll be shitty medical students doing a bad job because you are forcing them into something they were never interested in or competant at.
I say this, because we see it over and over again in socialist regimes. You get long ass waiting lists, horrible care, or both.

We’re saying ‘slightly’ because that’s the word you like. They may be very very very behind the curve for all we know. What we know for sure is that they won’t be ahead.

The vast majority of medical care isn’t that costly. Most things that killed people 100 years ago can be cured by spending a few dollars at Wal-Mart. You forget you are trying to ‘fix healthcare’ for a nation where everybody already has sterile water, anti-biotics, vitamins, fluoride, and aspirin. The expensive stuff is mostly procedures invented in the past couple decades, or procedures that require long-term in patient care where a team of professionals are monitoring you 24 hours a day. There is nothing in the world you can do to make brand new cutting edge tech cheaply available to all, or entire teams of people with PhD’s widely available to help 1 person. All you can do is give people shitty care and bad doctors and say “Well, at least it’s equal”.

Of course. I have to accept the hypothetical idea of a society in which the state pays full attention to medical research despite having no incentive to do so. But when you say “We should put this method into practice in reality”, it stops being a hypothetical, and I get to point out all the fucking problems with it.

FOR EXAMPLE: you are assuming the state will go on researching medical research as hard as they can, despite the state having no compelling reason to do so. That would be fine if you were writing a science fiction story, and I would be wrong to question your premise because it’s just a story.

Yeah, why not? That sounds like a GREAT reason to assume a socialist state will make every effort to advance medical research! Because why not! Well, I just told you why not, and you compared me to mutcer and told me I was cheating at the conversation. Let me explain it again: take cancer for example. People, right now, get along just fine even with cancer in the world. They live, they get old, they are productive, they have fun, they get cancer, they die. A private company has an interest in researching a cancer cure because INDIVIDUALS who have cancer don’t want to die and will pay for the cure. The State isn’t making a profit, the country isn’t in a crisis. There’s no plague about to wipe us out that the State needs to research a cure for, so the prudent thing for the State to do is say “Medcine has advanced far enough, we should concentrate on other things”. What’s more, even if they do medical research, with no profit motive there is no way to gauge success or failure. They can pay a million people for a thousand years to work on a cancer cure, and if they never find one, who cares? First of all, maybe there isn’t one, so you can’t say they are doing a bad job, and second of all, look at all jobs they provided! A private company actually has a vested interest in the results so they can sell them. The State only has a vested interest in being able to say “Look at al the time and energy we put into medical research” whether it turns up results or not.

But again, since part of your theory is that the State won’t do anything bad, this is all irrelevant and I’m mutcer for pointing it out.

Getting re-elected because people will vote for you if you promise them things.

Obamacare relies on private companies doing the research and providing the insurance in order to work. If it didn’t, it would have the problems I described.

You say that, but I notice your reply completely stops talking about the U.S.S.R and their military advances. It’s almost like I completely demolished your point and now you want to change the subject… So I"m changing it back.

By your own admission, the USSR lagged behind U.S. innovation in almost every way; the military. You asked why. The answer is, because they were in a cold war with the US so obviously having a strong military was in the State’s interest. The State didn’t have an interest in other things like medical care, so they lagged behind. You accidentally proved my point in other words.

It could be, but as we saw in examples like USSR, Cuba, and China, it probably won’t be.

Yes, and the State probably WILL do things like that when it comes to matters that actually benefit the state, like for example winning an arms race with a rival. I bet the USSR did something very similar to that with respect to military research.

And yet, it seems they did not do that with respect to medicine, agriculture, entertainment tech, and so on. Or if they did, they didn’t seem to actually push for good results. If you are relying on the State to provide incentive for people to work harder, it doesn’t fix the problem of what the State will choose to incentivize.