Individual Liberty, Society, and the role of the State:

[Herophant]

Look I'm done arguing the point it's a fact that the sociological concept of utilitarianism comes from the very very simple idea that the human animal will seek to maximize his pleasure while minimizing his pain. It's not a debatable point that's a fact that's the unifying concept behind all utilitarian thought. In their works, Mills, Bentham, or Locke, would not have deliberated between utilitarianiasm, expressive individualism, civic individualism, traditional republicanism, libertarianism et al, that is only something which modern political scientists have done. I have been majoring in poli sci for the last three years straight and I have a 3.5 I know what I'm fuc/king talking about here get over it.

Don't take my word for it:

"Neither pains nor pleasures are homogeneous, and pain is always heterogeneous with pleasure. What is there to decide whether a particular pleasure is worth purchasing at the cost of a particular pain, except the feelings and judgment of the experienced? When, therefore, those feelings and judgment declare the pleasures derived from the higher faculties to be preferable in kind, apart from the question of intensity, to those of which the animal nature, disjoined from the higher faculties, is suspectible, they are entitled on this subject to the same regard. I have dwelt on this point, as being a necessary part of a perfectly just conception of Utility or Happiness, considered as the directive rule of human conduct." -- Mills

Well maybe one more year and youl get the hang of it... Oh and whats a 3.5?

Let me give you the lines that comes after;

But it is by no means an indispensable
condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that
standard is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest
amount of happiness altogether; and if it may possibly be doubted
whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness,
there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the
world in general is immensely a gainer by it. Utilitarianism,
therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of
nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by
the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is
concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit. But the bare
enunciation of such an absurdity as this last, renders refutation
superfluous.
-- Mills

Basicly he is talking about how some pleasures/pains are worth more/less. Not;

... the main focus in utilitarian thought is the individual and the overiding principle in all utilitarian thought is that man seeks out to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain that's why he acts in his own self interests.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well maybe one more year and youl get the hang of it... Oh and whats a 3.5?

Let me give you the lines that comes after;

But it is by no means an indispensable
condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that
standard is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest
amount of happiness altogether; and if it may possibly be doubted
whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness,
there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the
world in general is immensely a gainer by it. Utilitarianism,
therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of
nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by
the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is
concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit. But the bare
enunciation of such an absurdity as this last, renders refutation
superfluous.
-- Mills

Basicly he is talking about how some pleasures/pains are worth more/less. Not;

His lines after that are saying exactly what I'm saying catch a clue. If I have to repeat this one more time I'm just gonna snap.

Mills, Locke, Hobbes, et al DID NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF INDIVIDUALISM, so while Mills may have used the term utilitarianism he made no distinction between it and say republicanism that is a distinction only made by modern political scientists. And Mills in the passage that I gave said himself that the basic pretense to utilitarian theory is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain as being the basic guiding force to human conduct what the hell don't you understand about that? You sir do not understand the text or the context of terms it would be almost laughable if you weren't so adamant about it but now it's just getting annoying. I have had to repeat and repeat the same stupid answers to the same stupid questions which are day one stuff you are still refusing to relinquish the well known fact that the very essence of utilitarian theory is to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain what separates Mills from modern utilitarians is that he also believed in biblical individualism and that spirtitual pleasure was more important than physical pleasure. That's it end of story it's not my fault you don't understand your own ideology.

 

[Herophant]

His lines after that are saying exactly what I'm saying catch a clue. If I have to repeat this one more time I'm just gonna snap.

Mills, Locke, Hobbes, et al DID NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF INDIVIDUALISM, so while Mills may have used the term utilitarianism he made no distinction between it and say republicanism that is a distinction only made by modern political scientists. And Mills in the passage that I gave said himself that the basic pretense to utilitarian theory is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain as being the basic guiding force to human conduct what the hell don't you understand about that? You sir do not understand the text or the context of terms it would be almost laughable if you weren't so adamant about it but now it's just getting annoying. I have had to repeat and repeat the same stupid answers to the same stupid questions which are day one stuff you are still refusing to relinquish the well known fact that the very essence of utilitarian theory is to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain what separates Mills from modern utilitarians is that he also believed in biblical individualism and that spirtitual pleasure was more important than physical pleasure. That's it end of story it's not my fault you don't understand your own ideology.

You sir are changing your wording. I have no problem with a view that the very essence of utilitarian theory is to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain/I], however that’s for the whole not for the individual. As I dare said I have shown repeatedly. You however seems to hold this to be utilitarianism:

Utilitarianism means that in a society the indivual will do what most benefits him regardless of how it effects his fellow individuals. That's day one stuff.

If thats day one stuff i suggest that you start questioning your place of learning...

As to the question of individualism and its utilitarian appearance; its defended rather strongly in the sense off individual liberty on Utilitarian grounds. Nevertheless ones should note the focus on the cultivation of nobleness. The notion of Utilitarian individualism somehow means that people will hurt each other to archive gains for themselves is not only false; its quite frankly stupid.

 

[Kelzie]

You sir are changing your wording. I have no problem with a view that the very essence of utilitarian theory is to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain/I], however that’s for the whole not for the individual. As I dare said I have shown repeatedly. You however seems to hold this to be utilitarianism:



If thats day one stuff i suggest that you start questioning your place of learning...

As to the question of individualism and its utilitarian appearance; its defended rather strongly in the sense off individual liberty on Utilitarian grounds. Nevertheless ones should note the focus on the cultivation of nobleness. The notion of Utilitarian individualism somehow means that people will hurt each other to archive gains for themselves is not only false; its quite frankly stupid.

Herophant...I'm going to give you some advice, from someone who has spent way to much time arguing with TOT. Don't wrestle with a pig. It just gets you dirty and the pig likes it. You're not going to change his mind. Just be content with the fact that you're right and the rest of us know it.

 

[128shot]

Kelzie, since when did you go from a socialist moderator to a Liberal one?

 

[Kelzie]

Kelzie, since when did you go from a socialist moderator to a Liberal one?

Shhhh! There's nothing to see here. Move along.


Seriously, I had the misfortune of taking my first econ class (macro) from a socialist. I am now taking micro by a libertarian (as it should be) and it is causing me to rethink some of my economic beliefs.

 

[128shot]

Shhhh! There's nothing to see here. Move along.


Seriously, I had the misfortune of taking my first econ class (macro) from a socialist. I am now taking micro by a libertarian (as it should be) and it is causing me to rethink some of my economic beliefs.

The monster of capitalism is sucking you in!


Watch out! Its quite a beast!

 

[justone]

I am sorry I have not read all those smart books, but how about this, people?:

Whatever are the details, but in the end:

1. A Government always suppress individual rights and freedoms of it’s members (individuals).
2. People (individuals) always form a Government .
Period. No exclusions.

3. An individual mind cannot stand such truth.
4. All ideas you are talking about (some of them, like anarchism, are so ancient) would imminently result in establishment of a Government, which would not be less suppressive, than the present one.
5. There always would someone still talking and trying these ideas in spite of all the rules above.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Shhhh! There's nothing to see here. Move along.


Seriously, I had the misfortune of taking my first econ class (macro) from a socialist. I am now taking micro by a libertarian (as it should be) and it is causing me to rethink some of my economic beliefs.

The difference between "macro" and "micro" at best is statistical, but mostly illusory. The illusion, really, being the role and effect of the state in economics.

I consider myself a damn good student of economics, though a student still (but then again, can everyone learn it all?). If you have any question, or need addition explaination, feel free to ask.

A friend wrote this, http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=andersonm&date=060214 regarding the issue. I take some exception to some of his points, but I wholly agree with his conclusion: that Macro economics is essentially different from microeconomic, in that macro studies economic central planning.

If marco is considered the economic aggregate of micro activity, AND in micro, central planning is not prevelant, one should note that the central planning aspect is a deviation and distorition of economics.

The trees to forest anaolgy is often used to compare micro to macro. While studying the individual trees a view of the forest develops. That's the natural progression, and one in which only aggregate behavior is gathered statistically. Much of what scholastic marcoeconomic study revolved around however, is the state and central planning. What happens now, instead of studying the trees and forest, a big metorite impacts the forest, redistributing treees, branches, leaves and seeds all over the place. Generally making a pretty big mess of things.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I am sorry I have not read all those smart books, but how about this, people?:

Whatever are the details, but in the end:

1. A Government always suppress individual rights and freedoms of it’s members (individuals).
2. People (individuals) always form a Government .
Period. No exclusions.

3. An individual mind cannot stand such truth.
4. All ideas you are talking about (some of them, like anarchism, are so ancient) would imminently result in establishment of a Government, which would not be less suppressive, than the present one.
5. There always would someone still talking and trying these ideas in spite of all the rules above.

#5 suggests there is some caridal order to this list, if so, why is government first?

#1 Also, why the omission of sociological and economic behavior both predating "government" and predating formal insitutions?

#2, though people form government, you don't adress the insitutional effect the entity of government has on A) the poeple forming the government, and B) the people continuing the government, after the people who have formed it leave, retire or die.

#3, the indidivudal mind can not accept what truth? The Truth of #1 and #2? that seems fine, and I think individual minds grasp that just fine. In fact, the only one they would no grasp is #3, because it's not true.

#4 is also not true. Government is not inevitable, let alone imminent. Government may be more probable, and only slightly much more so at that. Why then, if conflict and government are imminent as you suggest, is there no formal one world government? What's more, is governments have been imposed, that have reduced supression. Generally, this is not the case however. Both the first and Second incarnation of the governments of the United States were less supressive than the government of the British Crown.

#5, number 1 and 2 are axioms, and pretty truthful, though incomplete. #3 and #4 are false. thus #5 is false, because #3 and #4 are false. What's more, I would hesitate, even if these statements were truthful, to call them "rules," further adding to the not-truthfulness of #5.

 

[libertarian_knight]

The monster of capitalism is sucking you in!


Watch out! Its quite a beast!

Yes, it's your typical slobbering, quivering, ravenous, death-eyed, furry, saoft, cuddly, kitten of truth.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You sir are changing your wording. I have no problem with a view that the very essence of utilitarian theory is to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain/I], however that’s for the whole not for the individual. As I dare said I have shown repeatedly. You however seems to hold this to be utilitarianism:

No it's not the basic study of the individual is what allows you to be able to form sociological theories. The basic principle is that any man at any point in the history of the world has the natural instinct to maximize pleasure and minimize pain and that is why you can form a societal structure around it society must exist in unison with the nature of man if it does not the society is doomed to failure.

If thats day one stuff i suggest that you start questioning your place of learning...

As to the question of individualism and its utilitarian appearance; its defended rather strongly in the sense off individual liberty on Utilitarian grounds. Nevertheless ones should note the focus on the cultivation of nobleness. The notion of Utilitarian individualism somehow means that people will hurt each other to archive gains for themselves is not only false; its quite frankly stupid.

I have never said that utilitarianism is a bad thing but only when it is taken to its extremes, utilitarianism must be balanced with expressive, republic, biblical, and civic individualism in order to maintain a stable society. The problem with the current American culture is that we only focus on expressive and utilitarian individualism the neglect of biblical, civic, and republican individualism. In short Americans are selfish and greedy.

 

[justone]

#5 suggests there is some caridal order to this list, if so, why is government first?

Also, why the omission of sociological and economic behavior both predating "government" and predating formal insitutions?..

#1 OR#5: it goes in cycles (like circles), so predating and order are pretty much like – where the circle starts.

#2, though people form government, you don't adress the insitutional effect the entity of government has on A) the poeple forming the government, and B) the people continuing the government, after the people who have formed it leave, retire or die..

In a very simplistic and relevant only to individual freedoms way A) = #1: suppresses the people forming government – because they have to sacrifice their individual qualities for the total quality of the form, structure – or you cannot form a structure (agreement) in this discussion unless each of you makes a sacrifice or fights to death B) As the government continues it tries to suppress people even more.

#3, the indidivudal mind can not accept what truth? The Truth of #1 and #2? that seems fine, and I think individual minds grasp that just fine. .

My mistake- #3 is not such an universal truth as #1 and #2 ,– as an example both you and I do accept. I first even intended to put period after #1 and #2.
May be I should rephrase #3:
#3. In individual mind resists accepting such truth.

#4 is also not true. Government is not inevitable, let alone imminent. .

You contradict #2. #2 says: people always form a Government (structure of their coexistence and survival). (You are just resorting to #3, not a biggy I -do it all the time)

Why then, if conflict and government are imminent as you suggest, is there no formal one world government? .

Gets me out of my simplistic hide away…
But let me try :
it would break into a number of governments like a bomb? It would immediately put even more extended suppression on its members (individuals)?
Am I talking like one in #5?

What's more, is governments have been imposed, that have reduced supression. .

Imposing is suppression.

number 1 and 2 are axioms, and pretty truthful, though incomplete. ....to call them "rules".. .

In order to provide any kind completion, I would have at least send you to a bunch of books and links, or spend my time writing ones.
And I didn’t claim to announce rules – it’s more like my little cheat sheet from my old days to share with you.

 

[Kelzie]

The difference between "macro" and "micro" at best is statistical, but mostly illusory. The illusion, really, being the role and effect of the state in economics.

I consider myself a damn good student of economics, though a student still (but then again, can everyone learn it all?). If you have any question, or need addition explaination, feel free to ask.

A friend wrote this, http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=andersonm&date=060214 regarding the issue. I take some exception to some of his points, but I wholly agree with his conclusion: that Macro economics is essentially different from microeconomic, in that macro studies economic central planning.

If marco is considered the economic aggregate of micro activity, AND in micro, central planning is not prevelant, one should note that the central planning aspect is a deviation and distorition of economics.

The trees to forest anaolgy is often used to compare micro to macro. While studying the individual trees a view of the forest develops. That's the natural progression, and one in which only aggregate behavior is gathered statistically. Much of what scholastic marcoeconomic study revolved around however, is the state and central planning. What happens now, instead of studying the trees and forest, a big metorite impacts the forest, redistributing treees, branches, leaves and seeds all over the place. Generally making a pretty big mess of things.

Sounds like what my micro prof says. He's rather sceptical of macro in general. Says in his day it was called firm economics and micro is the only *true* economics out there. Hey, since you're anwering questions, why is national health care more efficient than private? Seems it should be the other way around, but national costs much less per person.

 

[libertarian_knight]

#1 OR#5: it goes in cycles (like circles), so predating and order are pretty much like – where the circle starts.


In a very simplistic and relevant only to individual freedoms way A) = #1: suppresses the people forming government – because they have to sacrifice their individual qualities for the total quality of the form, structure – or you cannot form a structure (agreement) in this discussion unless each of you makes a sacrifice or fights to death B) As the government continues it tries to suppress people even more.


My mistake- #3 is not such an universal truth as #1 and #2 ,– as an example both you and I do accept. I first even intended to put period after #1 and #2.
May be I should rephrase #3:
#3. In individual mind resists accepting such truth.


You contradict #2. #2 says: people always form a Government (structure of their coexistence and survival). (You are just resorting to #3, not a biggy I -do it all the time)


Gets me out of my simplistic hide away…
But let me try :
it would break into a number of governments like a bomb? It would immediately put even more extended suppression on its members (individuals)?
Am I talking like one in #5?


Imposing is suppression.

In order to provide any kind completion, I would have at least send you to a bunch of books and links, or spend my time writing ones.
And I didn’t claim to announce rules – it’s more like my little cheat sheet from my old days to share with you.

Well, crap, most glaring thing, in your initial #2, I missed the word always, and read it as "People (individuals) form government." I mentally omitted the always. therefor, now, #2 is FLASE, making #3 and #5 also false. The absolutist adition of the "always" portion completely invalidates the statement. Nothing "always" happenes, ever.

People do not always form government. People almost always create a social order. Social order and government are not synonyms.

Therefor my statement should not be noted as a contradiction, but the product of human error.

#3 the individual mind resists such truths, because such truths are not true.

===

Yes, imposing IS a supression, but I used a comparative term "reduced." I never insinuated or alluded that imposing governments eliminates supression. What's more I was specifically refering from one government state to another. Anarchic societies that have had governments imposed on them, of course, were more surpressed.

A cheat sheet, with only 20% correctness (#1 of five) is pretty useless.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Sounds like what my micro prof says. He's rather sceptical of macro in general. Says in his day it was called firm economics and micro is the only *true* economics out there. Hey, since you're anwering questions, why is national health care more efficient than private? Seems it should be the other way around, but national costs much less per person.

Because, the question is wrong. We do not have "private healthcare" in the US or the west.

So, comparing the US to a country with Nationalized healthcare, is not the same as comparing private to socialist.

There are a GREAT many irregularities in the healthcare market resulting from government intervention IN BOTH the curing and "creation" of disease and maintenence of health.

Often, these irregularities occur in non-healthcare related fields, or at least, what one might not think of initial when talking about healthcare.

Such as agricultural subsidies. Yep, you got it. Farming is killing us. We pay farmers to grow a tremendous amount of food, particularly corn and wheat.

Several things happen, the subsidized corn and wheat make things made from them cheaper, obviously. Such as Sweetened soft drinks, Sugared Cereals, Meat etc.

Obesity comes from eating more calories than used or burned. High Fructose Corn Syrup, made cheap and abundant by corn subsidies, increases caloric intake. Useful is starving for sure, bad if already well fed.

Instead of using ALL of the wheat, whole wheat, people use part of it, discard the rest, and eat White Bread. Notice white bread is actually CHEAPER than whole weat. White bread has pretty much the same effect on hte body as eating pure glucose. White bread, really is sugar bread.

Corn is used to feed cattle, making cattle larger and cheaper (since the corn is subsidized). High meat diets cause health problems, including poor digestion and colo-rectal cancers. Yes I love meat and people NEED meat, but too much is not good.

The point of my response is to state one and illustrate another.
1. Our healthcare economy is hardly "private." It is a frankenstein monster of "middle way" politics, with HEAVY regulation (almost to the point where the indiustry might as well be considered fully nationalized, at least, in some sectors of healthcare).
2. Tangental economic intervention (agricultural subsidies, pollution "controls" military activity, and a host of others) by the state has far reaching consequences that actually decrease health and increase healthcare costs.

3. not to mention the regulations of HMOs and the effect that "regulation" has had on healthcare delivery, healthcare providers, and healthcare costs.
4. We have a HEAVY portion of nationalize and governmental healthcare. As of 2002, 44% of the total US healthcare expendature is provided by the government.
5. Monopoly status of the AMA, and the AMA's AND THE GOVERNMENT'S effects at LIMITING healthcare providers and proceedures often results in increased costs. That's right, they limit the number of people who can become doctors and nurses, to create a constant shortage (which increases prices).
6. Prohbition and supression of many alternative (there are in fact CURES for some cancers available) and traditional remedies. Hemp has been used for MILLENIA as a medicine.
===
this is just the TIP of the proverbeal iceberg.

Needless to say, especially in developed countries, private healthcare, as you are thinking of it, DOES NOT EXIST.

The appearant advantage of nationalized healthcare over partially nationalized healthcare, is that one is homogenous the other heterogeneous (and subject to severe and determinetal homogenizing effects).

This issue, is really central to the whole "why government intervention is bad" debate. It's however, so pervasive that your question can't be answered, as it is written, because no such comparable entities really exist. The US, contrary to popular opinion, is BARELY (if that) a capitalist country, and very barely does so called "private" healthcare exist more than governmental (56% to 44%).

It might be best summed up like this. Why does nationalized healthcare do whatever it does, "better" than private? Because developed nations have essentially outlawed private healthcare, and they have done so, NOT for the benefit of the consumers or electorate, rather in an exercise of central planning and for power.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Herophant...I'm going to give you some advice, from someone who has spent way to much time arguing with TOT. Don't wrestle with a pig. It just gets you dirty and the pig likes it. You're not going to change his mind. Just be content with the fact that you're right and the rest of us know it.

First off Kelz you're wrong about Fascism not being a form of socialism in that argument you took the side of Nazis and Communists, you're wrong about the Libertarians not being reactionary, you're wrong about utilitarianism not being a sociological concept involving the nature of man, his natural rights, and the natural law, I have not once seen you be able to distinguisgh the same term being used in a different context which is something that is a must for any political scientist, do you even know what small r's and small l's represent?

 

[Kelzie]

Because, the question is wrong. We do not have "private healthcare" in the US or the west.

So, comparing the US to a country with Nationalized healthcare, is not the same as comparing private to socialist.

There are a GREAT many irregularities in the healthcare market resulting from government intervention IN BOTH the curing and "creation" of disease and maintenence of health.

Often, these irregularities occur in non-healthcare related fields, or at least, what one might not think of initial when talking about healthcare.

Such as agricultural subsidies. Yep, you got it. Farming is killing us. We pay farmers to grow a tremendous amount of food, particularly corn and wheat.

Several things happen, the subsidized corn and wheat make things made from them cheaper, obviously. Such as Sweetened soft drinks, Sugared Cereals, Meat etc.

Obesity comes from eating more calories than used or burned. High Fructose Corn Syrup, made cheap and abundant by corn subsidies, increases caloric intake. Useful is starving for sure, bad if already well fed.

Instead of using ALL of the wheat, whole wheat, people use part of it, discard the rest, and eat White Bread. Notice white bread is actually CHEAPER than whole weat. White bread has pretty much the same effect on hte body as eating pure glucose. White bread, really is sugar bread.

Corn is used to feed cattle, making cattle larger and cheaper (since the corn is subsidized). High meat diets cause health problems, including poor digestion and colo-rectal cancers. Yes I love meat and people NEED meat, but too much is not good.

The point of my response is to state one and illustrate another.
1. Our healthcare economy is hardly "private." It is a frankenstein monster of "middle way" politics, with HEAVY regulation (almost to the point where the indiustry might as well be considered fully nationalized, at least, in some sectors of healthcare).
2. Tangental economic intervention (agricultural subsidies, pollution "controls" military activity, and a host of others) by the state has far reaching consequences that actually decrease health and increase healthcare costs.

3. not to mention the regulations of HMOs and the effect that "regulation" has had on healthcare delivery, healthcare providers, and healthcare costs.
4. We have a HEAVY portion of nationalize and governmental healthcare. As of 2002, 44% of the total US healthcare expendature is provided by the government.
5. Monopoly status of the AMA, and the AMA's AND THE GOVERNMENT'S effects at LIMITING healthcare providers and proceedures often results in increased costs. That's right, they limit the number of people who can become doctors and nurses, to create a constant shortage (which increases prices).
6. Prohbition and supression of many alternative (there are in fact CURES for some cancers available) and traditional remedies. Hemp has been used for MILLENIA as a medicine.
===
this is just the TIP of the proverbeal iceberg.

Needless to say, especially in developed countries, private healthcare, as you are thinking of it, DOES NOT EXIST.

The appearant advantage of nationalized healthcare over partially nationalized healthcare, is that one is homogenous the other heterogeneous (and subject to severe and determinetal homogenizing effects).

This issue, is really central to the whole "why government intervention is bad" debate. It's however, so pervasive that your question can't be answered, as it is written, because no such comparable entities really exist. The US, contrary to popular opinion, is BARELY (if that) a capitalist country, and very barely does so called "private" healthcare exist more than governmental (56% to 44%).

It might be best summed up like this. Why does nationalized healthcare do whatever it does, "better" than private? Because developed nations have essentially outlawed private healthcare, and they have done so, NOT for the benefit of the consumers or electorate, rather in an exercise of central planning and for power.

So would a correct conclusion be that the US would be better of nationalizing it, but much better off completely privatizing it?

 

[Kelzie]

First off Kelz you're wrong about Fascism not being a form of socialism in that argument you took the side of Nazis and Communists, you're wrong about the Libertarians not being reactionary, you're wrong about utilitarianism not being a sociological concept involving the nature of man, his natural rights, and the natural law, I have not once seen you be able to distinguisgh the same term being used in a different context which is something that is a must for any political scientist, do you even know what small r's and small l's represent?

You know, my seven year-old sister still believes in Santa. At least she'll grow out of her ignorance one day.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You know, my seven year-old sister still believes in Santa. At least she'll grow out of her ignorance one day.

oohoohoo, that one stung, so now you're taking economics through a socialist/libertarian perspective? One more step and you'll be a neo-con may I interest you in the PNAC sight . . . bwahahahahahaha.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

dude it's sad you hate neo-cons don't you? You're more like them then you know. Trotsky ring any bells? Some of the most notable neo-conservative economists and ideologues are former socialists including the grand father of it all, Irving Krystal.

And this whole time you haven't even commented on the essay that I wrote to start this thread off, have you even read it?

 

[Kelzie]

oohoohoo, that one stung, so now you're taking economics through a socialist/libertarian perspective? One more step and you'll be a neo-con may I interest you in the PNAC sight . . . bwahahahahahaha.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

dude it's sad you hate neo-cons don't you? You're more like them then you know. Trotsky ring any bells? Some of the most notable neo-conservative economists and ideologues are former socialists including the grand father of it all, Irving Krystal.

And this whole time you haven't even commented on the essay that I wrote to start this thread off, have you even read it?

Actually, no. I'm not a socialist anymore. Try and keep up TOT.

And since I have never supported any form of anarchism, I don't feel much need to respond to your essay.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually, no. I'm not a socialist anymore. Try and keep up TOT.

And since I have never supported any form of anarchism, I don't feel much need to respond to your essay.

It wasn't about anarchism it was about the different forms of individualism which must be balanced in order to maintain a functioning society anarchism was only used as the extreme form of individualism in order to gain a better ideological perspective . . . do try and keep up.

 

[Kelzie]

It wasn't about anarchism it was about the different forms of individualism which must be balanced in order to maintain a functioning society anarchism was only used as the extreme form of individualism in order to gain a better ideological perspective . . . do try and keep up.

Umm...yeah. When 2/3 of the essay is about anarchism...it's pretty safe to say that it's about anarchism. Either that, or someone needs to give you a little lesson on not letting your examples take over your paper.

 

[Kandahar]

you're wrong about the Libertarians not being reactionary,

If libertarians are reactionary, who in the world do you consider progressive?

 

[libertarian_knight]

So would a correct conclusion be that the US would be better of nationalizing it, but much better off completely privatizing it?

It's not just about privatizing healthcare though, but also stopping the excessive economic intervention that also adversly effects health as well.

Generally, I think it would be better the government does privatize, but because of teh way the government skews economics and health, privatizing should be better than we have now, cost wise at least, but even retaining some public healthcare, while ceasing the intervention that skews the scenerio would be better still.