Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

No of course not, fire insurance is much cheaper for those with little risk for damage as opposed to those in a skyscraper in New York.
If we decide that government should take care of fire service, then we'd have to figure out some system to distribute the costs fairly. I don't know how that would work, by income or by how big your house is or something, I am not the one advocating government solutions.

The point is that health care, pensions, unemployment benefits, and similar Bismarkian government programs are freedom-taking, as opposed to freedom-enhancing programs such as police, traffic laws or fire-fighters. And it is immoral to force everyone into them because the majority happen to believe that we are materially better off with them. People should be able to choose to opt out. Those who like the program can do it, but leave us who don't want it out of it.

I think that moral argument works regardless of whether socialized health care actually provides materially higher standards of living or not.



If nobody gets anyone else's money, then everyone would be better off without it.
Because you can get everything cheaper in the private sector.
That is the key question of it all. I don't trust government, you don't trust private business. I think the historical evidence clearly gives my position right.



Yes, of course there are individual instances where people befitted. I bet a lot of people befitted from it. I am not denying that. But anecdotal evidence says little about how good we would be off with the alternative. If government required health care insurers to stick with the contracts they promised, as they should in a free market, insurers couldn't drop patients when they get sick. On the other hand, if your friend signed a contract that does not cover such a treatment, then the company has every right to deny to pay for it.
But the point is that a proper free market framework would provide higher standards of living.



If I disagree with the ideology or the facts? Both - I think it's immoral and I think it provides a materially worse standard of living than free market health care, not just for the rich but for everyone.

Fire insurance, why should I have insurance, I have a mud hut? You fail to tell me why i should pay for the fire service in new york, not insurance, the service,the fire service that I have no need of but those rich bar stewards have in their ivory towers, come on tell me?

He had the best that was available , the very best private insurance..my friend.

You have not answered the question. Lets say it is beneficial for all, even the very rich benefit, pay less and get more benefits. Do you oppose it on principle alone? and why.

You shouldn't be required to pay for fire service. You should only be required to not impose costs on your neighbour in the form of risk of fire (even if you not actually have a neighbour). One way to do that is a state fire department, for which be all have to pitch in.

But the point is that the reason for this mandatory program is protection of someones liberty.



The very best available... in our interventionalist half-capitalism.



Well no, I would not object to a system where everybody is objectively better off. But such a magical system is not possible.

Make your mind up dont dither, should I pay for your fire tender when I have no need of one?

Just the very best that private insurance could deliver, why should anything interfere with that provision ?

So you are a socialist, you just need to be convinced of this particular benefit...

You mean a state fire department? Do you have to pitch in for paying the fire department even if your house is in the desert with no neighbors? I think you shouldn't have to, but in reality you have to. Because how were we to find out who has no neighbors? How far apart from the next house counts as having no neighbors? What if somebody builds a house next to yours? What bureaucracy would deal with that? It's easier to just say all homeowners have to pitch in.



It's anecdotal evidence. Nothing is cheaper from putting government in charge of it. That's practically a law of nature.



It would be silly to oppose a superior system out of principle. But that does not change the fact that it is just fanciful to think that socialized medicine saves money. Asking me if I approve of socialism if it saves everybody money is like asking me if I liked unicorns better if they were yellow.

So what evidence do you consider valid. I give you figures that tell us health benefits in the UK are three times cheaper and hardly anyone complains about the system. I can give you evidence that private health insurance , even the best, will not cover you for all eventualities. Who is saving money with your system? it definitely is not the patient, overburdened with health insurance, is it? The evidence is overwhelming in favour of our system being better than yours, in every respect.

Now tell me why do you have a national fire brigade service as opposed to a privately financed system. With your principles only those who can afford it or have need of it should pay for it. With your mind set, that lone desert dweller is forced to pay for a service he will never have need of. Why should bureaucracy dictate his freedom of choice?

It was once a private service with only those displaying an insurance plaque deserving assistance. You are a socialist who only needs to be shown its successes for you to agree.

Nero if you cant give examples to make comparisons then dogmatic views ensue and the pragmatist gives way to illogical nonsense.

I am a capitalist with a little c and a socialist by reason. I love freedom and the ability to change my mind. If private health insurance worked for every one's benefit , I would embrace it but my family suffered by it and I have no desire to see it return. I entertain free trade but I oppose the excesses of capitalism such as monopolies or restrictive practices. Moderation and a moral responsibility to all our citizens cant be so bad, can it? Capitalism is our motivation but compassion should be our guide.

Comparisons necessarily have to speak about systems that exist in the real world. But we are disagreeing about theory, right?
Examples can never speak about theory. It's easy to confuse ourselves with examples. Each of us can find confirmation of his beliefs in examples. And each can evade the others "proof". Or what do you respond when I tell you about long waiting times in Swedish hospitals, or people dying in Britain because they waited for cancer treatment? You'd think, "oh, those are not the effects of my ideal, that's just because my ideal is not applied correctly". I think the same about your examples.

What I want to hear from you is how socialism would make health care cheaper compared to a free market; in theory. So tell me why it would be cheaper, not simply asserting that it is, expecting me to accept that it must be so because it is a superior system. Because the point you want to make is that it is a superior system, not that Brits have better health, but that Britain has better health care because it is socialist.

And compared to what? The US is half government health care. Even if you prove to me that British health care functions better than that of the US, it wouldn't change my mind about socialism. A century ago the US was free market, and it was the best in the world.



You are a capitalist, but you support socialized health care because you think a forced system is better for everyone. What about my moral argument, that we shouldn't force people into it even if it's better? Do you agree?

I dont understand why you oppose a system that has been shown to work...Health care should not have the capitalist motto as its driving force. It should be for the majority with the majority approval, not a system that is forced on the public, but a system that has been recommended and accepted. Stop this emotional language its not appropriate or honest. I don't really care about your dogmatic views, to me they are as outdated as communism. If socialist principles work embrace them if they dont reject them.

There is no industrialized nation with free market health care any more. What are you comparing your socialized system to?
A third cheaper. A third cheaper than what? Than the US. The US is not free market. Something is not a third cheaper than something.

You say your system is better, better than what? Better than the alternative? How do you know how great your health care would be without socialism?
It works? We are getting richer. It would work even better without socialism.

Stop avoiding the issue or the truth. The American system is based on capitalist principles, the principle of profit in a competitive market , a market, if free will provide a better and cheaper service.

The problem is that it becomes a monopoly of supply and service. The problem is it can return higher profits by exerting this monopoly and strangles opposition.

Its driven by profit, not compassion or public service. It has no moral obligation to those who cant afford its premiums. By this strangle hold it has asked for more and more in premiums, the lack of government regulations has made it a luxury rather than an essential, an essential any civilised country with Americas assets, should be providing. It does not work and you know it. Just like your socialist view on the fire service, one for and all for one, so does it work with health care...You know it works.

Im sorry but you off on one again, any logical debate between us suddenly becomes one of you ranting hysterical rhetoric. I wont debate with silly rhetoric.

a market, if free will provide a better and cheaper service

When you say "free-market" do you mean completely unregulated as such that companies can engage in anti-competitive business pracitices, monopolization, product tying, etc?

What about companies with sub-standard working conditions? Should we let the free-market sort that out or should we have some kind of regulation there as well.

What about public safety? Do we just trust all the meat producers to deal with the consequences of distributing diseased meats or do we keep the meat inspectors?

When you say "free-market" do you mean completely unregulated as such that companies can engage in anti-competitive business pracitices, monopolization, product tying, etc? What about companies with sub-standard working conditions? Should we let the free-market sort that out or should we have some kind of regulation there as well. What about public safety? Do we just trust all the meat producers to deal with the consequences of distributing diseased meats or do we keep the meat inspectors?

May I answer?



Unregulated, but within the free market framework; i.e. legally required to stick to their contracts, respect property rights, and be prohibited from or required to pay for costs they impose on unwilling others. And government should enforce these, if necessary with the use of violence.

As such, anti-competitive practices are anti-free market (or not harmful). So the only way to engage in anti-competitive practices is to disregard the free market. Maybe see my post on monopolies.



People wouldn't want to work there.



As I mentioned above, the free market requires companies - and everyone else - to stick to their contracts. Of course companies should be allowed to sell diseased meat, if anyone would want that, but if there is a reasonable expectation by the customer that the meat is fresh, the company has to abide by that unspoken contract. (I give you money, you give me fresh meant.) And government should enforce that contract. Since it would be a bad idea to enforce a violation of that contract after people get sick from bad meat, meat inspectors should be employed. But that is within the free market.

No, you can't debate with it. That's why you have to end the debate, or be forced to change your beliefs.
And you don't want to change your beliefs just yet.
Nobody changes their beliefs while on the internet. It happens over night, in a month or a year.
I don't care whether you openly admit to be wrong, you don't have to do that, just read my last post carefully and think about it. And do some research, and think about it some more.
If you don't think about things, it doesn't matter whether you are a genius or a moron.
I can't tell you any more than I told yo over the last months. I may be a bad debater, but you have the information to see the light now.

I see the truth and your values are repugnant to me. If I ever express my values or morals in the same manner as you I will imagine Im mad or bad.

Yes, my values are repugnant. But they apply to reality, reality is repugnant. Your values are nice, pleasant and compassionate, but they do not apply to reality. That's why socialism never works.

Im a realist with moral responsibilities to my fellow man. If you think that's sad then I can only be extremely sorry for you. I just hope your circumstances never find you wanting a helping hand from your fellow citizens..well i do really , I'm not that nice.