|
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Okay, once again, the burden of proof is on you here, seeing as how the party was the "National Socialists." Show me a reputable historian who claims that the Nazis were not socialists. |
"Increasingly, however, this interpretation was challenged, and it has become increasingly clear that Nazi Germany was characterised not by strong central government, or by a monolithic political discipline in the service of a clear programmatic agenda, but by administrative chaos" -- "Nazi Germany" By Tim Kirk, page 5
| quote: | | In many cases, their aim, as corrupt statesmen, is to own as much property as possible, which is why socialism is often equated with dictatorships. In other cases, as I pointed out before, they may claim not to have that goal and even believe that they don't, but the sum total of their other principles has that as its inevitable conclusion (a classic case of unresolved cognitive dissonance, one reason why they respond emotionally to any challenges). |
Whose political principles lead to an inevitable conclusion of the elimination of private property?
| quote: | | Don't use euphemisms. There is no "smoothing out" - it's called socializing, and that is anti-capitalist. |
It's called regulating, and it is not anti-capitalist it is a reform of capitalism.
| quote: | So now the size is what determines who should run it? Funny, because the largest operations are notoriously the most wasteful and inefficient no matter who runs it.
National defense is best run by the state because the state actually has the strongest incentive to run it well - maintaining power over its borders and citizens. No such power incentive exists with health care. |
What about private contractors? And if the state has no incentive to provide health care why run Medicare and Medicaid? Your "incentive" concept isn't as clear as you would like it to be.
| quote: | | There may be cases where people with genuine need and little fault slip through the cracks, but there always are, no matter what the system is. In a socialist (or two-tier) system, those people slip through the cracks because other people who took less responsibility got into the queue first. |
40+ million people without insurance in the U.S. is not slipping through the cracks. You talk about euphemisms and employ a pretty large one here.
| quote: | | It is incentivised by profit, whether you think it should be or not. It does not matter how the system is structured; people may become doctors or surgeons out of an innate desire to help people, but after 15 years of hellish training and a subsequent lifetime of the worst kind of stress, they will expect to be compensated extremely well for their efforts, and will do whatever they can to either maximize their profits (if the system allows it) or minimize their effort and stress (which is what happens in the socialist system). Given those two options, which one would you prefer to be a patient of? |
There is a difference between profit and compensation. Doctors are compensated for what they do. Insurance companies, lobby groups, and other actors involved in health care make a profit, and a large one at that.
| quote: | Despite years of evidence that the government can't be trusted any better than for-profit corporations? In Ontario alone we've had at least two well-publicized incidences of tainted water and countless blackouts, brownouts, and power spikes.
Jesus, I thought just about everybody knew by now that you can't trust the government to do anything right. At least when it's private you have the option of going somewhere else if you're dissatisfied with the service. |
What about Enron arbitrarily shutting the power down in california just to make a profit? Also, often times, even with private options you don't really have much choice.
| quote: | | Wow. Just... wow. Do you not realize that these countries became "rich" specifically because of the individual rights you seem to feel are unimportant? |
The history of how North America became rich goes far beyond the implementation of individual rights. Also, where did I say that individual rights are not important?
| quote: | | No, you're arguing for socialization of industries. The capitalist system already has intrinsic checks and balances; socialist systems don't. Most importantly, in a capitalist system there is competition; government programs are monopolies by definition. |
Corporations seek to actively avoid competition wherever possible. They do this to such a large extent that the big bad government has to step in and regulate with anti-trust laws.
| quote: | | Who said anything about blind faith? To people other than you and Michael Moore, it's well-understood why a free market works, and it's also well-understood that it doesn't work in an ideal fashion all of the time, but that's a trade-off most people are willing to make to avoid a system that barely works any of the time. |
Some people are not willing to make the trade-off that capitalism demands. Also, is there nothing wrong with trying to make a system better? When one advocates of a reform of capitalism, this does not mean that the person is advocating for a socialist utopia and the elimination of capitalism. You call me out for using euphemisms yet these "trade-offs" that you speak of represent, in some cases, exploitation, oppression and even death.
| quote: | Good old Politician's Fallacy eh? Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it!
Ironically, a big part of what's killing American health care is all of the regulations and red tape. But you definitely don't hear any politicians clamoring to loosen those up, because that wouldn't expand government powers. |
So you agree that something has to be done about the American health care system, that's a start. And Yes, you do hear politicians clamoring to loosen those up - Republicans.
| quote: | | What an absolute crock of shit, and you know it. |
I don't know it. I meant it.
|
