You are forced to participate, right? Then it's coercive.
It's coercive even if the majority desires it.
Private companies go bankrupt and don't stick with what they promised, ok, and there is no way to deal with this within the free market? We have to turn to authoritarianism to fix it?
You dont have to do anything in life but if the vast majority request it, its not authoritarianism its democracy working as it should. Your stuck in this mind set of coercive government acting without your authority. Democracy does not work like that. Social programmes are permitted only by the vast majority requesting the need.
If you can't chose to opt out, democratic state socialism is authoritarianism no matter how many request it.
That's simply the meaning of the word, you can't deny that.
Authoritarianism is authoritarianism even if it's nice. I support some authoritarianism as well, such as compulsory education or traffic laws, but I am honest about what it is.
We can reject liberty for various reasons, but we should not pretend that it is anything else than rejecting liberty.
You can opt out of society , nothing stopping you. If you dont agree with the majority then tough but thats life.
I dont like the recent outcome of our elections and what they may impose on me. You appear an anarchist, even that imposes its will on members of society. When humans gather together its natural to impose certain values and gathers income for the general good.
As long as the vast majority agree with those impositions, you cant really complain. You can oppose those views but when the people talk its sacrosanct.
The victims can just opt out of society? You mean they can go live in the woods? That's awfully cynical. People can just flee from authoritarianism, that's your excuse? Like throwing a rock at someone, "you can just move out of the way".
Society needs to impose traffic laws and punish murderers, sure. But that's wholly different than imposing state socialism. The difference is that my ideal imposes people to not do something to protect the liberty of someone else, such as not stealing from each others. While yours requires people to do something, such as giving away their income to fund something they do not want.
Your ideal excuses the violation of individual liberty, while mine only chooses the liberty of the murdered over that of the murderer. That imposes nothing except to not infringe on others liberty.
Instead of a system where 51% get to impose their morality on the minority, why not have a system where everybody is free to live their life as they choose?
And if people want to do things collectively, they can join clubs and do it voluntarily. Maybe those clubs could somehow be protected by the government. That way you don't have to impose your preferences on everyone.
The vast majority agreed with what the nazis did. When the people talk its sacrosanct? I don't think so. Majority opinion doesn't justify anything.
Even in democratic socialism, the problem with justifying violation of rights with majority opinion is that usually the majority does not have to bear the consequences of what they impose on others. Even in the US half of people pay no taxes. They are happy to impose greater taxes and government control on the other half, why wouldn't they? I don't get to vote on where your family goes for vacation, why should I get to vote on much more important aspects of your life?
So what would you have? the minority imposing its view on the majority.
If you live in a society you must abide by its constructs, if you cant or wont its your problem not societies.
I might oppose a standing army or feel those who have need of a fire service should pay for its costs. I think the police are infringement on my liberty...Is this the pick and mix society you advocate? I want and so do my fellow countrymen a social insurance that covers our health needs, is that imposing on the minuscule who oppose that view
Its you that is advocating the imposition of a heavy burden of private health insurance on thousands who struggle to make payments. Its you, because of some outdated view of social interference that imposes hardship and unnecessary worries on thousands of your fellow countrymen.
In a democratic social society its for the people to decide. Do you oppose democracy?
Nobody imposing their views on anyone. The state just has the purpose of providing a legal framework, protect property rights, enforce contracts. It shouldn't intervene in the economy or be a tool to impose any view on anyone.
People were there first, then socialists came along and imposed their statism on them and say people can just leave if they don't like it. That's twisted logic. Why should people leave? The socialists can just keep their schemes to themselves.
The point is that you impose your authoritarianism on others, with the lame excuse that the majority wants it. That the majority approves is irrelevant. On most questions those who vote have no personal stake in the outcome, so why should their opinion matter? It's like me having a vote on where you go for vacation. Why would my opinion matter?
Secondly, the majority is usually uninformed about economic realities and susceptible to demagoguery and therefore votes for silly stuff just because it sounds good. Stupid and short-sighted economic policies cost all of society dearly.
Well no, the free market is better at providing everything, including health care. I know you don't believe that, but no economist in the world thinks that socialized health care is actually cheaper. That's just your mistaken belief, which I couldn't talk you out of. Socialized health care imposes costs.
Yes, I oppose democracy. Democracy is mob rule. I am a republican or constitutionalist, meaning that the majority cannot infringe on the rights of others just because they have 51% of the vote.
Then if you oppose democracy and the will of the people then we have anarchy and the rule of the jungle.
You refuse to accept the evidence that our health system is better and cheaper for all
That nobody gets to use the coercive power of the state to impose their will on others doesn't mean the state doesn't do anything. There would be a legal framework provided by the state; property rights, contracts, criminals go to jail, etc. Those decisions would be made democratically, but the government has limited objectives, there would be no government intervention in favor of what the mob finds fashionable at the moment. Do you seriously not understand the difference?
The "Costs" of Medical Care
If you think that your approach to health care is so much better, then why don't you and everyone who believes that form a club and do it that way, instead of forcing everyone into your club at the point of a gun? But you don't want that, you want other people to pay for it.
Firstly I think you need to decide if you believe in the democratic method or not and secondly what dont you understand about a health system that we all enter into with relish and the vast majority agree with. Its not imposed by the mob or the government but by the will of the people. Its paid for by all, through a national health insurance. Your refusal to accept the facts and this constant repetitive rhetoric is no longer my desire to be involved in...sorry but thats it,bye
Ah yes, it's getting tedious to hear about economic reality, when it's so much easier to destroy the lives of millions with your uninformed beliefs, and feel noble about it.
I ask again: If the vast majority wants it, and it's so great, then what is the purpose of forcing everybody into it at the point of a gun? Why doesn't this "vast majority" just form a club where it is voluntary to join?
It has not been forced on anyone , if you wish to stop paying your national insurance you will be excluded from the system.
Do you pay for the fire service..do you think you should be excluded from paying for it?
The majority voted for its introduction about sixty years ago.
So you can opt out? I don't know, I'm not an expert on the British health system. You have to tell me.
So it is indeed voluntary? As employee you can opt out in favor of private insurance?
The difference between fire service and health care or pensions is that if my house burns down, I harm my neighbor. That's why the state has a right to protect my neighbor in the form of requiring me to pay for fire service. That is different from socialism on personal issues, such as health care or pensions, where the state has no such excuse. So you can't excuse one with the other.
Do you think anything the majority votes for is sacrosanct? What if the majority votes to end democracy?
Not exactly an opt out clause. I refused to pay for insurance, once and they took me to court. All it meant was that I had a fine that was unenforceable. If you feel strong enough about anything in a democracy you can rebel. Its the same insurance you pay for unemployment benefit. You work a year, paying insurance, and your entitled to a years unemployment benefit.
So you live in the desert , with no neighbours , do you pay for the fire service?
Voting against democracy is like a prisoner signing his own death warrant. A fictional occurrence that does not deserve reply. Its an antithesis, an opposing logic without reason.
Well, I don't want to have to become some sort of political activist and rebel against the entire system to be able to opt out of programs. Who has time for that? What I want is not to be forced by the state to buy stuff that I don't want to buy. I think I am rational enough to save for unemployment, retirement or illness, I don't need the government to force me to buy it. That the masses want it is not much of a consolation to me.
The real appeal of socialism, of course, is that you can get other peoples money, that's just immoral in my opinion.
I realize that forcing someone who lives in the countryside without neighbors to have fire insurance, or forcing a very good motorist to have mandatory liability insurance like everyone else, is in principle no different than forcing people to participate in socialized health care.
But forcing everyone to have fire insurance is just a matter of practicality. It would be near-impossible for a government to figure out who actually fulfills the requirements for opting out.
So we have to draw an arbitrary line that all homeowners have to pay for fire insurance, and all motorists have to have liability insurance, even if that glosses over some to which the purpose of the law does not apply. Maybe with modern technology we will be able to find a such a solution.
However, mandatory health care or unemployment insurance is not a matter of practicality, there is no excuse not to not let people opt out. That's why mandatory fire or car insurance does not excuse health care.
A fictional occurrence? Didn't the people vote against democracy in the Weimar-Republic? Not directly, but they voted for people who were pretty clear about ending democracy. There are other examples. So it's just plain wrong to say the people can't ever vote against democracy. There has to be some safeguard against it, they should be constitutionally prohibited from voting for some things, like ending democracy.
There are some things that shouldn't be open to be decided by majority rule. The masses don't have the knowledge to make the right decisions on some issues. Believe me, I support the democratic process. But letting the uninformed masses vote on economic policy is just a bad way to run a country. (The effects of this are much worse in the US, where democracy is more direct.) Economic liberty should be constitutionally required, and not up for decision by anyone, neither the masses or the greedy bankers and their lobbyists.
Your logic does not stand scrutiny. In your opinion its valid to force the public to pay for a fire service but not health service. A principle can not be qualified by simple economics, either you believe in joint social ability or you dont. Im a millionaire, I can afford my own fire engine , why should I pay for yours?
I told you before when a government gains election by illegal means it can not be classified as democratic.
Either I believe in all joint social ability or I'm a hypocrite and my opinion is inconsistent? That's nonsense. Everyones opinion about how much socialism we want has to draw a line somewhere. Nobody is completely against mandatory state authority, we all support traffic laws. And nobody is for complete state authority, like the state deciding ever step of our daily lives. Everyone needs to draw a line somewhere.
You support mandatory health care and a whole lot of other pretty intrusive nanny state programs, but not, say, forcedly taking toddlers from their parents and sending them to state kibbutz. No doubt societies welfare could be raised that way, but you are against it even if the masses vote for it. So your position is inconsistent as well. Just that you draw an arbitrary line based on what programs sound good to you, and I draw the line at a tenable point; only supporting programs that protect 'neighbours' to bear the consequences of other peoples choices, with a little elbowroom for making that work in practice.
I do not have to support all social programs because I support some. Just as you don't have to support military conscription or mandatory organ donation just because you support health care. It would be silly to suggest that such an opinion is invalid.
Yes, in my opinion it is valid to force the public to pay for a fire service but not health service. I wish we didn't have to make such an arbitrary rule, and as soon as the technological opportunity comes along I'd wish we'd find a proportional solution. But fire service does not excuse health care. That's like saying "well, we have northern Ireland already, that excuses invading the rest of Ireland as well".
So, in a proper democracy, what the majority says is always right? But what if the government simply exempts 50% from the bearing consequences? Then they can get a majority to vote for any program they want. If contributions are just progressive enough, and benefits are regressive enough, democracy stops functioning because the masses will vote themselves other peoples money with not much more foresight than "I want it, I can get it, so I vote for getting it".
So how do you decide what social programme is viable or conducive to your views. I have never heard of child abduction as a social function or compulsory military service. If you agree we need certain social benefits, you are a socialist, all we have to debate is the details, welcome comrade your commissar has your orders.
The health service is for the benefit of all and is an insurance just like any other. Even the reasonable rich when faced with expensive treatment benefit considerable. Its a win, win situation for all our citizens. How you can deny it benefits on dogmatic reasoning, is beyond me. Just like the fire service it benefits everyone without the vagaries of circumstance. I dont know of anyone rich or poor , left or right who would deny the benefits for everyone. Get real, be a realist, dont let dogmatic reasoning blind you from the facts.
I support those mandatory programs that protect other people from the consequences of someones choices. Burning your house down will have a rather negative influence on your neighbours house, and even the risk will lower the value of his house. So essentially by not having a fire service, you impose a cost on your neighbour. You may be willing to impose that cost on him, because you do not have to pay for it. That's why government should force people to pay the consequences of their choices, by mandating fire service.
We have to apply this to all homeowners, even those with no neighbours, because it would be too troublesome to figure out specifically who could be exempted. The alternative to imposing a cost on you is allowing you to impose a cost on your neighbour. In that sense mandatory fire service is anti-authoritarian, it protects freedom. Your mandatory programs on the other hand are not based on such a protection of freedom. They have no legitimacy other than enough people liking them. As Noam Chomsky said, authoritarianism needs to justify itself or should be dismantled, and your programs are in my opinion not sufficiently justified.
Is it my dogmatic reasoning that makes me deny that socialized health care is so much cheaper?
Have you ever considered that it is your wishful thinking that makes you believe in socialized health care?
Have you ever researched the other side of this opinion? I sometimes google the other side of issues to see if I might be wrong. I am pretty sure that you never considered whether you are wrong. No economist in the world believes that socialized health care is actually cheaper, some are for it because they think the rich should pay for the poor, but nobody thinks it saves cost, it's just big government demagogues that say this.
If it actually was so great, what would be the purpose of me denying that? Would I want people to be sick, and triple the cost of their care, just because I like capitalism so much? Do you really think that? Why would I pick the painful, expensive system over the nice, and vastly less expensive one? maybe you should consider that socialized health care being cheaper is not as simple as it seems on first glance.
So living alone in a mud hut hundreds of miles from civilisation and you think I should pay for the horrendously expensive firefighting equipment for skyscraper in new york? Your logic is amazing...
The rich dont pay for our health service, we all do, on equal amount. The rich dont pay more than the lowest of our workers. Its a common health service..
I think I told you my very best friend had to drop his private treatment for cancer as they would not foot the bill. He, a city banker was grateful for the benefits even though richer than most....
I would really like to know if you reject the ideology or the facts of the system.
