Would We Accept "Single Payer" Groceries?

Post Reply New Topic

@Janissy:

Nope. I think those should be left to the private sector as well. Given the government's track record with managing programs like social security and medicare, I don't see why anyone one would want the gov't managing anything. If you look at it from the perspective of an employer (taxpayers) considering a potential employee (gov't) to do a job; the gov't has a really sh***y resume. All gov't programs are rife with wasteful spending; and always will be because there is no profit motive. Without a profit motive there is no incentive for efficiency.

Do you mean that private companies should be contracted by state and local government to create and maintain roads using tax to pay for it? Or do you mean that the government should stay out of roads entirely? I'm assuming the former, but am prepared to be flabbergasted if you mean the latter.

@Janissy:

Prepare to be flabbergasted. The gov't should only be involved in issues of force. And when that force is applied, it must be applied in a principled and measured way.

I can sum up what's wrong with gov't control of infrastructure in two words:

imminent domain.

Information actually relevant to the topic at hand. For the healthcare issue, relevant questions to consider would be which system would cost less overall, which system would ensure broadest access to basic necessary care, whether one system is more likely to prevent people from getting care they need, etc. None of those questions are answered by individual anecdotes.


Oh please. It's delusional to pretend that the cost issues wouldn't exist after tort reform. There are other factors involved.


So as JWC has just confirmed for us, your psychic powers need some tuning. Of course, I could have told you he was opposed to public funding for roads- it is a typical stance among his brand of Randroid.


Previously you attempted to argue against government intervention on some mildly crazy a priori grounds. Now you are giving a (deeply flawed) utilitarian argument. This inconsistency in approach makes it much more difficult to meaningfully engage your arguments; I can very easily present utilitarian arguments that will refute what you just now said, but then you will invoke a principle that government shouldn't be involved even if the lack of involvement leads to worse outcomes. Why bother citing outcomes if they don't actually matter to your stance? And if it is the outcomes that matter, are you prepared to concede that government should be involved anywhere where such involvement can be expected to improve outcomes?

@Orwell wrote:

I am completely consistent. Gov't intervention is neither expedient nor moral. Both outcomes and morality are relevant and cannot be logically separated.

I notice that you avoid the topic of imminent domain.

How the hell is that supposed to work??? The use of force is not so simply regulated.

@John_Browning wrote:

When gov't holds a monopoly on force, regulation of the use of force becomes it's primary concern. No one said anything about simplicity.
This is the premise behind the concept of limited government. As a 'right wing gun nut', I'm surprised that you are not already familiar with the idea.

Government staying the hell out of healthcare is likely to get healthcare to cost less, and more likely to have better quality. All the supposed wonders of the Canadian Healthcare system is exagerated at best. Sure for some things you get quality care in Canada, for others you're lucky to even see a doctor.



I already proved you wrong on this one before, I really don't want to go digging for the same sources to prove you wrong all over again. Do I need to start a filing system and post up generic posts when you or others make the same false claims over and over?



And you are the typical far left radical that thinks government should run everything...



And government has been known to try to give someone whom didn't even have eyes, an eye exam to see if their vision has improved in an attempt to kick said individual off social security disability.

Ok I dunno where to start with this.

Well obviously there's other factors involved which is why I said "We've discussed the reasons for this in other threads", I didn't feel like being bothered to list all of em since we've already been through that. When you have to pay a couple thousand for unnecessary scans when all you wanted was a couple goddamn stitches for a cut, well it is pretty significant. There's bigger factors of course but that's a good place to start.

I stand corrected. That would make him a minarchist. But what was up with all those countries you listed? At the very least he would believe in national defense and protection from the violation of rights so that was just a straw man.

Huh? Hold on lemme try to gather what you're saying...

Ok so he's using a utilitarian argument. Utilitarian means maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. He thinks private roads are more efficient. Where's the inconsistency and why would this lead to a worse outcome?

@ Inuyasha: Ok you are crazy for saying that. Orwell is nowhere near far-left. Hell he's even more centrist than I am. I don't even know if I can call myself centre-right anymore since I lean heavily towards Capitalism these days. And yeah I'm not surprised about the Government thing, but Orwell isn't asking for stories in favour of Government or the private sector so let's see how exactly he wants us to go about it.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 23 Mar 2011, 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But why would you want a limited government to be the sole authority authorized to use force?...especially if you want the government to stay limited?

If you're a guy that calls himself a right wing gun nut, having the government monopolize force wouldn't make sense to you. I don't understand why JWC pointed that out when there's nothing inconsistent about what you stated.

@John_Browning wrote:

Because in a democratic republic, the citizens define when gov't is permitted to use force. Force is it's only tool, but the citizens decide when it is allowed to use it. The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the expansion of gov't use of force; unfortunately it did not go far enough.

I reject your "moral" argument, and you implicitly do so in certain situations as well, so I feel no need to even address that. How about expedience then? If you are proven wrong in regards to outcomes on any given issue (eg infrastructure projects) would you then switch your stance to supporting government involvement? If not, then you are taking the absolutist stance where outcomes are irrelevant, so there is no reason why you should bring them up at all.

Incidentally, it is called eminent domain, and it is a power granted to our government in the Constitution which we must be careful to check to avoid abuses.


There are a lot of different ways healthcare could be done. Canada's system undoubtedly has some advantages over ours, including in regards to cost. If government involvement makes things more expensive, why do Americans spend more on healthcare than any other developed country, all of which have much more extensive government involvement than we do?


No you didn't, but anyways, my claim here is actually weaker than what you believe you disproved earlier. I only stated that other factors exist and are significant, so tort reform is not a silver bullet. There are other problems, and it is completely mental to deny that.


Nonsense. I don't think government should run grocery stores, or car dealerships, or most economic activity for that matter. I think there are places where some amount of regulation is reasonable (eg FDA to ensure that our foods are actually safe to eat), but that certainly falls short of thinking that government should run everything. As far as what government should actually run wholesale, there's the military (which I would like to see drastically reduced in size... guess I'm more small-government than you), police, infrastructure, some public health considerations, basic education, and a moderate social safety net. Pretty much anything else I would want government involved in would be regulatory in nature and probably rather limited in scope.


So? There are plenty of examples of private organizations behaving just as stupidly. Anecdotes don't mean anything.

It's a complicated question. I do not have the requisite knowledge to have a really informed opinion on what is the best way to proceed, but I can tell that most of the people screaming about "death panels" know even less than I do.


Right, but attempting to dismiss the claim that costs are ballooning simply with a reference to malpractice lawsuits (which incidentally would still exist in a minarchist world) fails to consider the other factors. You claimed that prices would not be jacked up out of proportion; this is empirically false.


There is no state like the one he imagines. Never has been, never will be. Anarchy, however, is closer to his professed ideals than the government of any modern industrialized nation.


Well, he is wrong about private roads being more efficient, but the real problem is that he uses a utilitarian argument when he doesn't actually accept the premises of utilitarianism- that we should follow whatever course leads to the best outcome. If you are going to make a utilitarian argument, you have to be willing to accept that if the evidence comes out the other way, you should support a different policy. The stance that government involvement is morally wrong has to hold that it is wrong even when it could improve outcomes, so bringing up outcomes is an unnecessary distraction.

@Orwell wrote:

Your position is incorrect because it implies a false dichotomy between morality and practicality. My claim is that government involvement must be both moral and practical.



There is no moral way to invoke eminent domain. It is the very definition of the abuse of property rights.



You're right there is no state like the one I propose. This form of state is not possible in a society primarily composed of individuals who reject the notion of principles in favor of pure pragmatism. Basically, we would have to rid that state of people like you, who offer no solutions. Your stance is nothing but worn out socialist bromides and childish insults.

And what do you propose to do in situations where what you believe is moral conflicts with what is known to be practical?


Bah. Eminent domain in some form exists wherever any form of government (even your imaginary minarchist state) exists. Taxation is required to fund even the minimal government that you want, and there isn't a fundamental distinction between seizing someone's financial assets and seizing their land. In either case, I believe that power needs to be restricted to within reasonable levels, since there is quite a lot of potential for abuse.


Ever consider the possibility that others simply have different principles from yours?


A self-proclaimed libertarian who sings the praises of the non-aggression principle is now advocating that people who disagrees with him should be "gotten rid of." Why am I not surprised? What is the difference between you and any common fascist?

Face it, if your ideal social structure requires brainwashing everyone into a cult that agrees with you, it is not moral, and it is not going to happen. It is also inherently self-defeating. Absolute freedom, so long as you believe the same as everyone else, is not freedom at all.


I'm not a socialist. Of course, you have no idea what "socialism" actually means, but I do oppose real socialism.