h a l f b a k e r yThe best idea since raw toast.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Different people have different ethics. Some feminists might like the idea of splitting the bill where if guest one earns $1, and guest two earns 79c then the bill could be adjusted on that ratio. However, what if one of the feminists is a libertarian? The libertarian might object to taxation, and
so want to look at the tax returns of both, and in line item fashion, adjust True income and "seized revenue."
Fortunately the diners can just say "Alexa, calculate the style NPQ-11 social justice aware Bill" and then Alexa will tell each person how much each. Really! This could be a feminist rational phone app.
Cali socialism
http://www.ocregist...scent-to-socialism/
[theircompetitor, Jun 11 2017]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I think if I ever ran into a libertarian feminist, I'd pay to
leave faster. |
|
| |
Well, at least it's not in Other:general |
|
| |
what do you do with the feminist libertarian cheapskate that
says she only ordered the salad? |
|
| |
Don't you just pay for what you ordered? Or some flash rich person pays for everything. Anything else is just bizarre. |
|
| |
I may be mistaken, but .... while I think you're right about libertarians objecting to taxation, don't those folks have a whole " you stay out of my business and I stay out of yours " outlook? |
|
| |
How do you get from there to wanting to look at tax returns ? |
|
| |
// Don't you just pay for what you ordered? Or some flash rich person pays for everything. Anything else is just bizarre. // |
|
| |
No, it's called "socialism", and it's more horrible than you can possibly imagine. |
|
| |
Perhaps you can help me out with this, [8th]. I'm politically naive. |
|
| |
Socialism - is that where most of us give some money to a governing agency, who then allegedly redistribute it as some form of service to all of us? |
|
| |
Just curious - my captive breeding group of Republicans (nothing to do with a republic, just a clan identification) gets all soggy and hard to light when the subject of socialized medicine comes up, but they're all gung ho when it comes to socialized military. |
|
| |
I'm not sure allegedly is the word you were looking for
there |
|
| |
Well, I could be mistaken - are you are one of the remote members of the study group? Care to lend some input here? |
|
| |
Indeed; "deceptively pretend to" is much more appropriate. |
|
| |
// Perhaps you can help me out with this, [8th]. // |
|
| |
Of course, for a modest fee. Payable in advance. |
|
| |
// I'm politically naive. // |
|
| |
Many of your species are. Sad, but true. |
|
| |
// Socialism - is that where most of us give some money to a governing agency, // |
|
| |
No, it's where a self-serving unaccountable autocracy extort money and resources from individuals by force or the threat of the use of force, while all the time declaiming that it's solely for the benefit of everyone, including the victims. |
|
| |
// who then allegedly redistribute it some form of service to all of us? // |
|
| |
There's a total disconnect between what the apparatchiks publically claim, and what they privately implement. |
|
| |
// Just curious - my captive breeding group of Republicans (nothing to do with a republic, just a clan identification) gets all soggy and hard to light when the subject of socialized medicine comes up, but they're all gung ho when it comes to socialized military. // |
|
| |
You have answered your own question; excessive medical provision results in all sorts of undesirable untermenschen living on far beyond their useful lifespan, whereas a properly organized and directed military more or less guarantees a steady diminishment of such cannon fodder, the more so if the corresponding provision of medical services can be restrained to an appropriate level, i.e. bugger all. |
|
| |
I guess read two Ayn Rand books and call me in the
morning would not suffice? Or maybe look up Venezuela? |
|
| |
Socialism breaks the incentive system that appears to
drive economies. Socialising certain limited aspects of
the economy, like medicine, only work by combining
rationing with invisible subsidies. |
|
| |
Socialism will become increasingly possible as
productivity shifts from humans, who are demonstrably
unable to escape the Ayn Rand principle, with automation,
which, theoretically, could be selfless. Thus humans
failed, to the point of starvation, to produce sufficient
food
in Soviet collective farms but robots could potentially do
it. |
|
| |
One wrinkle in this analysis is that the level of AI required
to replace enough productivity might require self
awareness, and self awareness probably introduces
selfishness, and unfortunately, back to Ayn Rand. |
|
| |
So, socialism bad, I got that. Read Ayn Rand when I was a child, and it would only be worse today. |
|
| |
So why is it okay for military support? |
|
| |
It's the prerequisite for the continuation of a nation-state. If you don't have security, then you don't have anything. |
|
| |
It's not "socialist" in that it isn't elective; every nation of whatever political leaning has to have security forces, or (unless you're a toy country like Andorra, preserved by the benign indifference of infinitely more powerful neighbours) you run the constant risk of ceasing to exist. |
|
| |
Many nations lack a publicly funded health service, social security, nationally owned industries, government-run education. But they all have an army. That's not socialism - it's survival. |
|
| |
The money for either one comes out of my pocket with no option for me - but the semantics change depending on who is profiting? |
|
| |
No, because they're different things. |
|
| |
Either you have a militia where you provide your own weapons and equipment and commit your time, or you have a central organization to which you contribute which then provides and organizes armed forces. The central model is generally more effective. |
|
| |
So, you have to allocate some of your personal resources to security, or anyone can just wander by and burn down your women, load your house onto a cart, rape your livestock, and herd your furniture away*. |
|
| |
But you can choose to live in a nation with no public health service. |
|
| |
*However, the attackers may well be too stupid to be successful in the longer term. |
|
| |
I'll have triple lobster with truffles and maybe a couple of bottles of your finest champagne. (we are splitting the bill here aren't we)? Now, for a main course. Let me think again. Can you get some Kobe beef? |
|
| |
It wasn't "enforced" ... it was entirely their choice, the choice in this case being "Trade with us or be shot" ... |
|
| |
normzone,I don't think that's a valid comparison, though
if
the issue is the state's Monopoly on power, that's one of
the main reasons for the second amendment |
|
| |
Socialism is ultimately not about redistribution,
redistribution comes about because at the start,
there's something to distribute, which quickly ends, as
the
people in Venezuela are finding out. Socialism is about
the limitation and eventual abolishment of private
property
and a means of creating a fairer society which inevitably
fails for reasons already stated. Socialism requires
society, but society does not require socialism, and
taxation, even taxation for a common defense, is not
socialism. A better question would be
whether progressive taxation is socialism, and of course
it is to a degree. |
|
| |
Please bear with me - or not, if this is boring you. |
|
| |
So we have [8th] stating " The central model is generally more effective." If that is the case, then why would that not hold true for health care? |
|
| |
And my original curiosity comes from behavior of a given subset of my cow-orkers and in-laws that engage in party politics - You know the type, the " There's us, we're good, right, and knowledgeable, and there's them, the bad, wrong, and ignorant people". |
|
| |
I never learned to play that game. I vote issues and people, and when all else fails, I apply the "who is least creepy" test. |
|
| |
And we've got [theircompetitor]'s explanation " Socialism is about the limitation and eventual abolishment of private property ". So how does that turn into "socialized medicine" which is supposed to lead to socialism and the collapse of civilization? |
|
| |
I'm not baiting here, truly I'm not. But I can't talk about this to my cow-orkers because they are sensitive and retaliatory, and I only have one set of in-laws, and they're not bad people if you ignore the narrow perspective and bad cooking. I'll be seeing them next weekend. |
|
| |
No, indeed it sounds like perfectly reasonable curiosity. |
|
| |
What is going wrong with the halfbakery ? |
|
| |
// " If that is the case, then why would that not hold true for health care? // |
|
| |
Because military operations by and large focus on mass actions and the manoeuvre of large numbers of troops and equipment under a single command for a single objective. |
|
| |
Medicine is focussed on unique individuals. Each patient presents their own challenge and combination of problems. |
|
| |
There are notable departures from this; "Wars" and "Campaigns" - against smallpox, polio, malaria, TB. The point is that these operations were directed against a single identified adversary, opposed by common means using teams with narrow focus and defined objectives - "Go out and give everyone an immunization against whatever". This can - and should - be run from a unified command, deploying forces, monitoring progress, receiving and analyzing reports from the field, and it works perfectly well. |
|
| |
Sending out buses full of nurses and preloaded hypodermics to wage "War on disease X" is fine. But like the "War on terror", a "War on bad health" is very, very complex because the "enemy" is hard to identify - the first half dozen patients arriving at your Health Bus may have a broken arm, then one with tinnitus, then a pregnant woman with tennis elbow, a child with kidney disease, and a schizophrenic. There's no one-size-fits-all answer there. |
|
| |
So medical services have by their nature to be delivered in a diffuse, adaptive, consumer-centred way, something that commercial organizations with inherent flexibility deliver far better than governments. |
|
| |
//medical services have by their nature to be delivered in a diffuse, adaptive, consumer-centred way// basically like bombs, then? |
|
| |
I suppose, that both medical servcies, and bombs, both end up with significant numbers of their clients dead or injured. |
|
| |
You can't really compare the two; doctors are far more dangerous than munitions, and kill far more people. |
|
| |
If James Bond had a medical degree, he could merrily slaughter his way round the world and no-one would notice or care. |
|
| |
actually the .79/1.00 ratio differs from government. the codes like NPQ11 could actually be based on things like how much people like their job or something. it can be non-government fairness perspectives. I did not mean to stochastically generate a politics troll! |
|
| |
It's always easiest if the gentleman settles the bill. Besides, anything else is in incredibly poor taste. |
|
| |
[normzone] Healthcare is somewhere between 15% and
20% of the US economy, so it would be a significant step
towards socializing the entire economy. |
|
| |
Ask a doctor if they want to work for the government,
after spending a decade and presuming, when they
entered the workforce, that they would be wealthy. Ayn
Rand (sorry) would tell us that overtime we'd either
have fewer doctors or less availability. |
|
| |
// it would be a significant step towards socializing the entire economy. // |
|
| |
I just realised that all of this discussion about the app neglects the poor restaurant owner. |
|
| |
Actually if there was proper socialism, no-one would have to pay. Money is an evil imposition to divide people from freely sharing with each other. |
|
| |
And can you hurry up with my champagne please? I ordered it ages ago. Thanks |
|
| |
Just on it's way, Sir .... |
|
| |
Your onetruemedia link is broken... |
|
| |
There incentives have to be aligned. Ford aligned the
incentives properly because he wanted his workers to buy
his cars. No amount of socialism could make the Soviet
Union make competitive cars, and no amount of 5 year
plans could make them make anywhere near enough cars
to meet demand. Not enough cars, not enough roads, not
enough planes, not enough food, even though the state
owned all the means of production. So it was, so it will
ever be so long as humans are doing it, and all the good
intentions in the world will not change it |
|
| |
Of course if the state owned the robots and these robots
can be selfless while having human or higher intelligence,
who knows. My suspicion though is that this level of
awareness will prevent the level of altruism required |
|
| |