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.-- beanangel, Jun 08 2017 Cali socialism http://www.ocregist...scent-to-socialism/ [theircompetitor, Jun 11 2017] I think if I ever ran into a libertarian feminist, I'd pay to leave faster.-- RayfordSteele, Jun 08 2017 Well, at least it's not in Other:general-- normzone, Jun 08 2017 what do you do with the feminist libertarian cheapskate that says she only ordered the salad?-- theircompetitor, Jun 08 2017 Don't you just pay for what you ordered? Or some flash rich person pays for everything. Anything else is just bizarre.-- pocmloc, Jun 09 2017 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 ?-- normzone, Jun 09 2017 // 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.-- 8th of 7, Jun 09 2017 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.-- normzone, Jun 09 2017 I'm not sure allegedly is the word you were looking for there-- theircompetitor, Jun 09 2017 Well, I could be mistaken - are you are one of the remote members of the study group? Care to lend some input here?-- normzone, Jun 09 2017 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.-- 8th of 7, Jun 09 2017 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.-- theircompetitor, Jun 09 2017 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?-- normzone, Jun 09 2017 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.-- 8th of 7, Jun 10 2017 The money for either one comes out of my pocket with no option for me - but the semantics change depending on who is profiting?-- normzone, Jun 10 2017 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.-- 8th of 7, Jun 10 2017 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?-- pocmloc, Jun 10 2017 // enforced trade //
It wasn't "enforced" ... it was entirely their choice, the choice in this case being "Trade with us or be shot" ...-- 8th of 7, Jun 10 2017 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.-- theircompetitor, Jun 10 2017 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.-- normzone, Jun 10 2017 // baiting //
No, indeed it sounds like perfectly reasonable curiosity.
<aside>
What is going wrong with the halfbakery ?
</aside>
// " 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.-- 8th of 7, Jun 10 2017 //medical services have by their nature to be delivered in a diffuse, adaptive, consumer-centred way// basically like bombs, then?-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 10 2017 I suppose, that both medical servcies, and bombs, both end up with significant numbers of their clients dead or injured.-- pocmloc, Jun 10 2017 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.-- 8th of 7, Jun 10 2017 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!-- beanangel, Jun 10 2017 It's always easiest if the gentleman settles the bill. Besides, anything else is in incredibly poor taste.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 10 2017 [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.-- theircompetitor, Jun 10 2017 // it would be a significant step towards socializing the entire economy. //
Cui bono ?-- 8th of 7, Jun 10 2017 Cher?-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 10 2017 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-- pocmloc, Jun 12 2017 <hic>
<hic>
<BURRRRRRP>
Just on it's way, Sir ....-- 8th of 7, Jun 12 2017 Hey B an O:-) !
Your onetruemedia link is broken...-- pashute, Jun 13 2017 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-- theircompetitor, Jun 13 2017 random, halfbakery