" It all boils down to "Either you're successful and can pay for your happyness and health or you are not successful in which case you live in misery and die." That means we still fall under the "Survival of the fittest and ablest" principle like all the other animals. I always thought that since every one of us individually and as a race as whole is self aware of his own existence and therefore should be able to rise above a natural selection process for it's indivuduals. But seeing this "beeing successful in society and beeing able to live and procreate" and comparing it to "beeing able to be successful in hunting and gathering" I can see similaties which by now shouldn't be there anymore. This can not be what is called civilisation, but just the most complex form of savagery on earth. What a pity. "
No, this is the false dichotomy assumed by the left. What it boils to is, there is no infinite resource on earth, except the human mind. And giving the government the exclusive privilege to offer a service will handicap that resource, and limit its productive potential. I have already illustrated that these programs don't help the poor more than the wealthy, they make it harder for them to afford the bare essentials, but because it is indirect "
Sorry but I want to see you make a boot out of the "Infinite resource" humand mind. You're right though. There is no infinite resource but there would be enough resources for everyone alive to come around. We live in a society of scarcity which is superficially produced by the concept of trade. And this concept denies a part of this society the right to be lazy because paying with your life to execute a right is not really having an option to execute this right at all. It's like having to choose between wage-slavery and death and that's outright barbaric.Just imagine someone who's life fullfillment would be to never work for a salary. He couldn't live a fulffilling life in the current circumstances without ending up in serious trouble. And now don't come and tell me that there wouldn't be enough resources for all the people on earth because if that's the case we better start killing off the uneccessary people right away to save those resources. But first we vote for a party which decides who is uneccessary in the first place hope they don't say it's the Canadians ;) "
Production and trade are what drive the creation of goods. It's what produces plenty, it fights scarcity.
How does anyone have the "right to be lazy" on the backs of other people's effort? This is either the most heinous of moral corruption or some sick joke.
Every person on earth has to choose between productivity and death. Even those who inherit wealth.
If someone has a goal in life of living free of a salary, they should be free to, but to imply that somehow gives him the right to the productive effort of other people is absolutely insane and totally unjust.
I never said there was a lack of resources, you said that, not me. There merely is a lack of access to markets, and a lack of productive liberty. It is the freedom to produce that insures a fulfilling life, not the freedom to live idly and take from others.
Also a human mind did produce a boot, it produced all boots, it produced all products, it turned all previously-useless things and made them useful. The boot didn't pop into existence out of thin air, a person needed to contemplate what a foot needs for protection, and what materials can aid in that process.
And I still stay with my naive and stupid opinion (because totally unrealistic) that all things concerning the basic well being of of someone should be absolutely free. And in an ideal world it would be so. But we are not living in an ideal world because we ourselves are not ideal. Most uf us are afraid. Afraid of being cheated of our life's work. Afraid of beeing cut in freedom. Afraid of having nothing to eat. Afraid of not beeing heard. So there also can be no ideal solution to the problem of how health care should be handled. This is just a small thread and no one uf us participating in it will change anything about the status quo in his or her respective country. And so things will go on the way the have gone on the whole time. Some people we be wealthy enough to not even come up with the smallest spark of the idea that there are others who fall into debt for a whole lifetime because they had an accident or people who simply hit the bucket for the same reasons. And what is going on in small in this thread, goes on in big in the political bases of every country. The inability to find an ideal consens on which to act upon for the best of all. Someone is always left out. The next one may be YOU.
" It all boils down to "Either you're successful and can pay for your happyness and health or you are not successful in which case you live in misery and die." That means we still fall under the "Survival of the fittest and ablest" principle like all the other animals. I always thought that since every one of us individually and as a race as whole is self aware of his own existence and therefore should be able to rise above a natural selection process for it's indivuduals. But seeing this "beeing successful in society and beeing able to live and procreate" and comparing it to "beeing able to be successful in hunting and gathering" I can see similaties which by now shouldn't be there anymore. This can not be what is called civilisation, but just the most complex form of savagery on earth. What a pity. "
No, this is the false dichotomy assumed by the left. What it boils to is, there is no infinite resource on earth, except the human mind. And giving the government the exclusive privilege to offer a service will handicap that resource, and limit its productive potential. I have already illustrated that these programs don't help the poor more than the wealthy, they make it harder for them to afford the bare essentials, but because it is indirect "
Sorry but I want to see you make a boot out of the "Infinite resource" humand mind. You're right though. There is no infinite resource but there would be enough resources for everyone alive to come around. We live in a society of scarcity which is superficially produced by the concept of trade. And this concept denies a part of this society the right to be lazy because paying with your life to execute a right is not really having an option to execute this right at all. It's like having to choose between wage-slavery and death and that's outright barbaric.Just imagine someone who's life fullfillment would be to never work for a salary. He couldn't live a fulffilling life in the current circumstances without ending up in serious trouble. And now don't come and tell me that there wouldn't be enough resources for all the people on earth because if that's the case we better start killing off the uneccessary people right away to save those resources. But first we vote for a party which decides who is uneccessary in the first place hope they don't say it's the Canadians ;) "
Production and trade are what drive the creation of goods. It's what produces plenty, it fights scarcity.
How does anyone have the "right to be lazy" on the backs of other people's effort? This is either the most heinous of moral corruption or some sick joke.
Every person on earth has to choose between productivity and death. Even those who inherit wealth.
If someone has a goal in life of living free of a salary, they should be free to, but to imply that somehow gives him the right to the productive effort of other people is absolutely insane and totally unjust. I never said there was a lack of resources, you said that, not me. There merely is a lack of access to markets, and a lack of productive liberty. It is the freedom to produce that insures a fulfilling life, not the freedom to live idly and take from others. Also a human mind did produce a boot, it produced all boots, it produced all products, it turned all previously-useless things and made them useful. The boot didn't pop into existence out of thin air, a person needed to contemplate what a foot needs for protection, and what materials can aid in that process. "
Sooooo you've never explained how every other Western post-manufacturing country can have socialized medicine, yet the supposedly "greatest country" in the world can not.
@SinGulaR: It is the argument from incompetence that I am fighting, and this is the argument you're presenting. Why do you give up on trying to make things better? Sure all we're doing in this moment is debating on an internet forum, but that's not all I plan to do to improve this world and my lot in life as well, and I doubt that's all you plan to do.
Also, because there is no one ideal way to solve problems, there needs to be as many methods pursued as possible, and that can't happen if a government (or any entity protected by a government, as is the case in the U.S. healthcare industry) enforces a monopoly on any aspect of productive human endeavour.
@ninjakiller: I don't care to explain the European Union's desire to devour its own people. I do not understand it right now and I doubt I ever will.
On the other hand, the U.S. has some semblance of liberty left, and the further it degrades its currency, the further it weakens the purchasing power of the American worker, and since the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency, the more it is devalued, the more productive effort is devalued around the world.
This process, as I've said before, and how the Austrian School has documented (and predicted), harms the most vulnerable within society the most.
Anyone else puzzled as to how people can treat other people as a commodity? I know I am (And don't push that "I'm against war excuse", that's bullpucky).
Also to the people who suggest any group predicts the downturn, go fark yourself, everyone has predicted it (Because it's in the cycle). Okay, get over yourselves, with your ideology and your delusions of grandeur.
@Snipzor: If your comments are directed at me: soldiers need equipment, equipment comes from material resources (metal, food, energy, et cetera), the government treats them as commodities, not me. I was merely saying that the requirements U.S. soldiers have to protect themselves and to prosecute the wars in the middle east pales in comparison to the debt that will be incurred by social spending (primarily medicare and medicaid, but also social insurance).
Who are you to tell me that it is bullshit that I am opposed to the Wars in Iraq and Aghanistan? I am telling you right now that the lives lost were lost in vain and should not have been sacrificed in the first place. No NATO soldier should die to prop up a theocracy, the very nature of the endeavour is despicable.
As for other economic schools predicting the fallout of inflationary interest, the monetarist school (Friedman) predicted it would be good for the economy, while Keynesianism argues that the only way an economy exists is by having a monopoly create cycles of boom and bust, so they can't even grapple with the problem of interest rates without Friedman as an anchor.
The Austrians on the other hand warned that inflationary interest rates would exacerbate the bust side of the business cycle, not moderate the fluxuation of it (as the Friedman monetarist school fallaciously predicted).
" It all boils down to "Either you're successful and can pay for your happyness and health or you are not successful in which case you live in misery and die." That means we still fall under the "Survival of the fittest and ablest" principle like all the other animals. I always thought that since every one of us individually and as a race as whole is self aware of his own existence and therefore should be able to rise above a natural selection process for it's indivuduals. But seeing this "beeing successful in society and beeing able to live and procreate" and comparing it to "beeing able to be successful in hunting and gathering" I can see similaties which by now shouldn't be there anymore. This can not be what is called civilisation, but just the most complex form of savagery on earth. What a pity. "
No, this is the false dichotomy assumed by the left. What it boils to is, there is no infinite resource on earth, except the human mind. And giving the government the exclusive privilege to offer a service will handicap that resource, and limit its productive potential. I have already illustrated that these programs don't help the poor more than the wealthy, they make it harder for them to afford the bare essentials, but because it is indirect "
Sorry but I want to see you make a boot out of the "Infinite resource" humand mind. You're right though. There is no infinite resource but there would be enough resources for everyone alive to come around. We live in a society of scarcity which is superficially produced by the concept of trade. And this concept denies a part of this society the right to be lazy because paying with your life to execute a right is not really having an option to execute this right at all. It's like having to choose between wage-slavery and death and that's outright barbaric.Just imagine someone who's life fullfillment would be to never work for a salary. He couldn't live a fulffilling life in the current circumstances without ending up in serious trouble. And now don't come and tell me that there wouldn't be enough resources for all the people on earth because if that's the case we better start killing off the uneccessary people right away to save those resources. But first we vote for a party which decides who is uneccessary in the first place hope they don't say it's the Canadians ;) "
Production and trade are what drive the creation of goods. It's what produces plenty, it fights scarcity.
How does anyone have the "right to be lazy" on the backs of other people's effort? This is either the most heinous of moral corruption or some sick joke.
Every person on earth has to choose between productivity and death. Even those who inherit wealth.
If someone has a goal in life of living free of a salary, they should be free to, but to imply that somehow gives him the right to the productive effort of other people is absolutely insane and totally unjust. I never said there was a lack of resources, you said that, not me. There merely is a lack of access to markets, and a lack of productive liberty. It is the freedom to produce that insures a fulfilling life, not the freedom to live idly and take from others. Also a human mind did produce a boot, it produced all boots, it produced all products, it turned all previously-useless things and made them useful. The boot didn't pop into existence out of thin air, a person needed to contemplate what a foot needs for protection, and what materials can aid in that process. "
And after he contemplated about it with his mind it then popped into existence out of thin air? Please. Human mind doesn't produce. It invents. And by producing only for the few who can pay scarcity is being advocated. Maybe it's your dream to produce but you can't say that for everyone. As you said yourself: we are all individuals. Imposing your thinking of what would be a fullfilling live on to others is unjust as well. Freedom is living your life as you see fit without cutting into the freedom of others. And where did I mention that beeing lazy has to be on someone others cost? What if, if someone has so much charisma that he can afford beeing lazy because he has enough followers who support him freely? So production and trade drives the creation of goods? Not people? Every one has to chose between work or death? Even the wealthy one's? What exactly is the production value of, let's say, Paris Hilton other than just living? I's say she produces carbon dioxide, feces and urine. Hell, that would probably even sell. But I don't think she does so voluntarly and other than that she does nothing of value.
@SinGulaR: You keep on contradicting yourself. As I said, the bootmaker contemplates the need for a boot, and then applies his mind to DISCOVER WHICH MATERIALS SUIT THAT NEED.
Where did you say that being lazy has to be to the detrument of others? If a person produces nothing of value, but obtains value anyways, he is taking from someone. It is axiomatic, the law of conservation of energy applies to food, clothing, and shelter as well.
People are the ones doing the producing and the trading, are you ignoring that aspect of it? I don't understand how you can ignore that fundamental element. People, merely existing, do nothing. When they produce and trade they are producing and trading. This is all axiomatic, I don't understand how this could raise any semblance of confusion.
As for Paris Hilton, it is you who said a person who produces nothing of value should be given the materials needed to sustain one's life, not me. I would not give Paris Hilton a cent, and with a free market, her parents wouldn't have nearly the amount of wealth they have now. Price controls and land use controls prevent others from competing with the Hilton brand in many parts of the world.
Log in to comment