every day millions of people in the u.s get seriously injured and some do not have health care. and the government doesnt spend a dime on the thousands of people dieing from no health care. the government can spend money to start a war but cant give the poor health care pretty messed up huh?

quote:

I've said my piece. If you two wish to keep beating this discussion to a bloody pulp, go right ahead.

Simply put, you claim to be a free market supporter but you don't have any knowledge on the subject. It equates to me saying I'm an anarchist because I like the cool A logo.

If you for some reason or other decide to follow an ideology you don't even understand don't bring it up in a discussion, because it makes you look like a fool when someone who is radically opposed to your views has to explain them for you because you don't know enough about them.

I apologize for telling you to shut up. I was rather enraged from a discussion elsewhere, and let it leak here.

Anyway, did you read the article I showed you? It was clarification from Health Canada. If you want just the passage, here it is.

"Everyone can be considered for organ donation in Canada," Saindon wrote. "If a donor falls into any of the high risk categories, it is then a decision between the recipient and his or her physician as to whether a donation from a high risk donor is appropriate to the situation."

It's not a ban. It's simply classification as anyone who has had sex with another man as "High Risk". Do I agree with it ethically? No. However, is it an outright ban? No.

Chaos, you don't have to reply to everything I say. If you feel that discussing healthcare with me is a waste of time, I can suggest a few other activities for you to pursue.

But did you even read the article? Looks like a ban to me.

quote:

Speed:
You can express and think anything you want as long as your thought's aren't empirically incorrect.

Sorry, but putting any limits on freedom of expression doesn't fly. You can't just say "You can believe whatever you want so long as it makes sense". That's foolish. But it does explain why you continue to argue with me long past the point when you decided it wasn't worth it.

quote:

You're clearly a product of the neoliberal dominated media and the biased education system.

I have friends who went through the exact same education system and are exposed to the exact same media coverage. However, a good deal of them believe differently on almost everything. I know liberals who want the government to run the market completely, I know anarchists who want the market to disappear. Hell, my circle of friends represents just about every political/economical belief you can think of. And yet we all went to the same schools...

I'll tell you what I tell 9/11 Truthers who think I'm brainwashed because I believe the official story: while my opinions coincide with the "mainstream" opinions, I came to them independent of the system. I doubt you'll believe me, but that's not my problem. I know what I believe, and you don't. End of story. Didn't I tell you earlier to stop making assumptions?

I've said my piece. If you two wish to keep beating this discussion to a bloody pulp, go right ahead. But I'm done with having my political/economical beliefs attacked because they're viewed as flawed. When you want real discussion, come find me. Until then, I'll shut up as Chaos so politely suggested.

quote:

Ah, you got me. I don't actually care about the economy. I prefer the idea of a free market because it's open and unregulated, which fits with my beliefs regarding small government. But since my involvement in the economy is limited to a part-time job that doesn't even pay enough for me to need to pay taxes, I'd be bored to tears with a technical explanation.

Clpo13, shut up then.

Why? Simple.

First, you stated that "Their public health figures may be better, but you haven't convinced me that they're doing better as a whole."

So we asked you what other factors you wanted.

Economics maybe? Plain and simple, other European countries are doing better. The Euro is up, the dollar is down.

How about civil liberties? Canada leads the world in privacy. In countries ranked for their privacy, the United States consistently scores low. Yes, they score as low as Britain. However, OTHER nations with socialist ecoomies (France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway) scored higher. Remember, this includes surveillance.

How about "general freedom"? All things in place, Europe and Canada are both "free" nations, and at least as free as the United States.

Also, towards the Canada issue. Health Canada also includes people with tattoos, inmates of prison, and hemophilia. But that's besides the point.

It isn't an outright ban. It's simply a requirement to give notice to the recipient. Basically they will say, "Hey, this organ came from a homosexual man who had sexual intercourse within the last five years. Do you want it?".

quote:

So freedom of expression is a no-no.

You can express and think anything you want as long as your thought's aren't empirically incorrect.
Also, National Socialism and Nazism are forms of fascism, an anti-democratic political ideology doesn't deserve a place in a democratic regime. And yes, this does apply to anarchy, but anarchists don't make any pretense of using any political system to their benefit as they don't believe in political systems at all. For all I care any system can ilegalize my views and it won't make a difference, as I don't believe in the system in the first place, and I don't feel any obligation to comply with it's rules. Persecution is another matter, but if you don't want to get caught you manage not to, so what the law says is not all that relevant.

quote:

Ah, you got me. I don't actually care about the economy. I prefer the idea of a free market because it's open and unregulated, which fits with my beliefs regarding small government. But since my involvement in the economy is limited to a part-time job that doesn't even pay enough for me to need to pay taxes, I'd be bored to tears with a technical explanation.

You're clearly a product of the neoliberal dominated media and the biased education system.
For the past 30 or so years neoliberal economics have become the dominant force on a global scale. Even though countless studies and even history itself tells us that the most productive economies have allways been mixed ones, western governments portray things to suit them best, thus it is convenient for people to believe that market deregulation and globalization are economically productive. That way people will support their cohersion of developing nations to become free trade centers which the west can literally rape and pillage for their benefit.
The truth is that every single economically powerful western nation reached where it is today through heavy government interventionism in the form of import and export subsidies, mandated efficiency levels, high tariffs, and limitations on foreign investment in national firms.
The US economy was one of the most protectionist in the world during it's gestation period(19th and early 20th century), and once the national companies achieved sufficient power and expertise to compete on a global scale the economy was opened.
This process of early protectionism is called infant industry protection or gestation, it involves closing or limiting the economy of a developing country on the pretext of giving it the necessary time to grow and become competitive, once this has been achieved the economy is opened to global trade and the competitive firms which emerge from it are prepared to partake of the global market. This principle, which was rigidly followed by the US and practically every european nation, is currently being denied to the developing nations and the third world, with the obvious intent of allowing the more powerfull western economies and corporations to control their weakers, buy out future rival companies, and make huge profits off them.

I hope that wasn't too technical. Neoliberal economics have been proven to be fundamentally flawed many times, but since we(the west)benefit from them it's in our interest to ignore this and omit anything that might seriously question our policy's from the public view.

And don't try to sidetrack me, this is about the flawed economics system that currently controls the world, not about your relativist perception of freedom.

quote:

In fact, if you knew anything about the subject you would know that what is illegal is public manifestation of nazi simbols, so there is nothing that resembles the thought police.

So freedom of expression is a no-no. Gotcha.

quote:

I'm also aware that you probably won't be able to answer me because so far your backing of free market theory seems to be ideological and not theoretical, thus I assume you dont have any real technical knowledge on the issue.

Ah, you got me. I don't actually care about the economy. I prefer the idea of a free market because it's open and unregulated, which fits with my beliefs regarding small government. But since my involvement in the economy is limited to a part-time job that doesn't even pay enough for me to need to pay taxes, I'd be bored to tears with a technical explanation.

quote:

What's wrong with that? You really have to ask? First off, you're oversimplifying what national socialism is. It's not all "kill the Jews". That's Nazism

Nazism is banned, National Socialism is not.
In fact, if you knew anything about the subject you would know that what is illegal is public manifestation of nazi simbols, so there is nothing that resembles the thought police.
The motivations behind the ban are quite simple, the German government and a huge majority of the population do not want public manifestations of xenophobia and hatred constantly reminding them of what many consider their biggest historical blunder.
Is sweeping history under the carpet responsible? no, but it is effective towards maintaining social cohesion and tolerance, which is necessary for a society to function and be productive on all terms.

quote:

Besides, using your friends' nonchalance as evidence that their government isn't nosing about?

I didn't explain myself clearly, british citiens don't think of government intrusiveness as an issue. If some tory Margaret Thatcher heir was in office and proposed to continue with her previous policy then it might be feasible to think of the government as dangerous, but with the current establishment, and knowing it's history of blandness on these issues no one thinks Gordon Brown is going to start wire-tapping people and throwing them in secret prisons. And people are certain of this because they know that if anything of the sort where to happen there would be a national crysis of such magnitude that the government wouldn't survive it. Thus the government is much tamer than in the US.
Also, british mass media is profoundly different from that of the US. Aside from News Corporation which is run by Rupert Murdoch and is widely known to promote conservative/sensationalist takes on issues, the rest of the media is much more critical with the political establishment, so the government can't count on the media allways following the official story.
If you put together these factors you have a country that doesn't need to worry about their government being a threat because they simply don't have the means to be one.

quote:

And I'll say what I said the last ten times you said that: simply because something has been tried and has failed doesn't mean it's inherently flawed. It may have been poorly implemented, or the conditions may have been imperfect, or...am I repeating myself here?

I'm going to take my time to write a well structured piece on the flawed economics that are used to back free market policy. I'm also aware that you probably won't be able to answer me because so far your backing of free market theory seems to be ideological and not theoretical, thus I assume you dont have any real technical knowledge on the issue.

quote:

I've said it about 10 times but I'll repeat it once more

And I'll say what I said the last ten times you said that: simply because something has been tried and has failed doesn't mean it's inherently flawed. It may have been poorly implemented, or the conditions may have been imperfect, or...am I repeating myself here?

And as to the "Britain isn't a police state" sentiment, speed, you may want to read that link Chaos provided. Britain and the US are bosom buddies when it comes to increased government intrusion and less privacy for citizens.

Besides, using your friends' nonchalance as evidence that their government isn't nosing about? Seriously, ask a college student in the United States if healthcare issues keep them up at night, and you'll probably get a "no". Does that mean healthcare isn't a priority? Of course not.

quote:

In Germany you can't express national socialism beleifs without being prosecuted, and what's wrong with that?

What's wrong with that? You really have to ask? First off, you're oversimplifying what national socialism is. It's not all "kill the Jews". That's Nazism, which was the political ideology of the National Socialist German Workers Party of the 1920s to 1940s. National socialism in places other than America and Europe is completely different. Second, we're talking civil liberties here. A country that values those liberties would allow people to believe whatever they want. Freedom of speech protects all speech, no matter how despicable you might find it. Beliefs should never be banned (thought police, anyone?). Taking action on those beliefs, on the other hand, is an issue that is perfectly actionable.

So, if someone expresses the belief that Jews should be killed, he has done nothing wrong. If he actually kills a Jew, he has done something wrong. If you haven't already, you should probably read 1984.

I may have to rethink my views on Canada. I still wouldn't want to live there (I'm meant for warmer climes), but it seems less suspicious than it used to, their ban on organ donations from homosexuals notwithstanding.

quote:

if you had actually proven that capitalism is broken.

I've said it about 10 times but I'll repeat it once more in BIG BLACK BOLD LETTERS SO YOU CAN READ IT CLEARLY.
BRAZIL
CHILE
ARGENTINA
POLAND
RUSSIA
INDONESIA
SOUTH KOREA
That's how many times full market deregulation has been tried and that's the same ammount of times it failed miserably. Aside from those countries there where other 'experiments' in the southern cone, like guatemala or nicaragua, where the results where exactly the same.

So yes, market deregulation is broken in the exact same sense as anarchism and communism are, they work in theory but when put into practice there are tons of issues which keep them from functioning like they should.

quote:

And by other factors, I was referring to things like civil liberties and social freedoms. I hate to sound nationalistic, but it seems to me that America, even with things like the Patriot Act and wiretapping, is still more "free", per se, than most countries with socialist economies. Britain, for instance, is bordering on a police state. In Germany, you can't express National Socialism beliefs without being jailed. Other European countries require civil service (including military service) for every citizen. I don't have other detailed examples on hand, but I can probably dig up some if needed.

Britain isn't bordering a police state, I have many close friends who live there and I have never heard any of them mention government intrusiveness as one of their top worries.
Britain has had a large security camera network set up for years now, but what differentiates the british government from the american one is that they don't impunely wire tap people. In europe a government scandal means an automatic loss during the next elections, in the US the corporate media allways downplays issues so much that sometimes you never hear about them at all unless you consult ultra right or leftwing media portals on the internet.
In Germany you can't express national socialism beleifs without being prosecuted, and what's wrong with that?
I'm sure you've heard this line before 'My freedom ends where yours begins', if your views include glorifying mass murder and hatred of anyone that isn't blond with blue eyes, then yes, I don't think they deserve a place in sociey.

Military service in all of the EU-15 countires is strictly voluntary or limited to a few days of mandatory instruction, and by completing military service you are only inducted into the active reserve if you want to. Most countries take this approach to keep the military more neutral, otherwise it would be full of ultra right wing nationalists and that's not in anyones interest.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
And by other factors, I was referring to things like civil liberties and social freedoms. I hate to sound nationalistic, but it seems to me that America, even with things like the Patriot Act and wiretapping, is still more "free", per se, than most countries with socialist economies. Britain, for instance, is bordering on a police state. In Germany, you can't express National Socialism beliefs without being jailed. Other European countries require civil service (including military service) for every citizen. I don't have other detailed examples on hand, but I can probably dig up some if needed.

It's certainly unfortunate that the civil liberties of Americans are being eroded in the name of the war on terrorism, but Britain had cameras all over the place long before 9/11.

Here's an interesting thing: Canada leads the world in privacy by Privacy International.

quote:

That sounds like a little kid saying I don't care if my toy is broken because yours is too.

It would sound like that if you had actually proven that capitalism is broken.

Besides, that's roughly my stance, so I suppose it's accurate enough.

quote:

You call yourself a libertarian, thus you believe in a completely free and deregulated market. Orthodox capitalism says precisely that, that the market should be left to regulate itself as if it where a living organism.

That's what laissez-faire is. There is no such thing as "orthodox capitalism" because there's no such thing as "reformed capitalism" (and please, don't make any cracks about socialism/communism/etc. being reformed capitalism; they're completely different economic structures). It's just capitalism. Laissez-faire is one type of capitalism, just as mercantilism is another type. Indeed, they're all still capitalism, but clearly that doesn't bother me. I prefer the term laissez-faire because it fits my beliefs. The market should be left to its own devices. "Let happen" indeed.

And by other factors, I was referring to things like civil liberties and social freedoms. I hate to sound nationalistic, but it seems to me that America, even with things like the Patriot Act and wiretapping, is still more "free", per se, than most countries with socialist economies. Britain, for instance, is bordering on a police state. In Germany, you can't express National Socialism beliefs without being jailed. Other European countries require civil service (including military service) for every citizen. I don't have other detailed examples on hand, but I can probably dig up some if needed.

It's certainly unfortunate that the civil liberties of Americans are being eroded in the name of the war on terrorism, but Britain had cameras all over the place long before 9/11.

quote:

But it still will never work. Even if you could eliminate the economic conflicts, you'd never get around the religious and ethnic problems. The Middle East is proof enough of that. They've been fighting over religious differences for the past millennium...

That sounds like a little kid saying I don't care if my toy is broken because yours is too.

quote:

Their public health figures may be better, but you haven't convinced me that they're doing better as a whole.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm merely stating the truth as it is known by every single country in the first world excluding the US. Public health care works just fine and when you remove worries from people's minds, like paying for insurance, they tend to feel happier because that's one less strain to deal with. Simple as that. It's not debatable, people live longer, they are healthier on average, and they dedicate a lower portion of their income to providing health care for themselves.

There is something else I didn't mention and you're probably unaware of, in every country boasting a public health care system there are alternatives. If you make enough money and feel you'd rather be insured by a private company that you think will give you better care then you are perfectly free to spend your salary on it, but the differences between both options are minimal in most cases, so most people don't think it's necessary or justified.

quote:

I think you may have me pegged wrong. I may defend the free market, but that doesn't necessarily mean I support orthodox capitalism. I'm more of a laissez-faire guy.

You call yourself a libertarian, thus you believe in a completely free and deregulated market. Orthodox capitalism says precisely that, that the market should be left to regulate itself as if it where a living organism. Chicago School economics, Neoliberal economics, Friedmanism(as in Milton Friedman), call it whatever you like it's all essentially the same.

What other factors are you looking for?

How about economically?
Canada only spends 10% of their GDP on their healthcare. The U.S. spends about 16%.

quote:

Look at public health figures from any country in the European Union of 15 + Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Now compare them to those of the US. Point made.

Their public health figures may be better, but you haven't convinced me that they're doing better as a whole.

quote:

That is largely due to economic conflicts. Eliminate that and we'd still have to deal with religion and ethnicity, but's it's still a step ahead of anything we've achieved so far.

But it still will never work. Even if you could eliminate the economic conflicts, you'd never get around the religious and ethnic problems. The Middle East is proof enough of that. They've been fighting over religious differences for the past millennium...

quote:

The same as orthodox capitalism.

I think you may have me pegged wrong. I may defend the free market, but that doesn't necessarily mean I support orthodox capitalism. I'm more of a laissez-faire guy.

quote:

You need to convince that it really is the truth, though, instead of simply your truth.

Look at public health figures from any country in the European Union of 15 + Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Now compare them to those of the US. Point made.

quote:

People can't get along in countries with law enforcement.

That is largely due to economic conflicts. Eliminate that and we'd still have to deal with religion and ethnicity, but's it's still a step ahead of anything we've achieved so far.

quote:

I won't deny that anarchism works in theory.

The same as orthodox capitalism.

quote:

I originally thought you were an anarchist, but your defense of government-mandated programs like universal healthcare made me wonder.

I'm not for labels, but if I must I refer to myself as an anarcho-communist.

quote:

I don't need to convince you of anything, I merely state the truth.

You need to convince that it really is the truth, though, instead of simply your truth.

quote:

Yeah, kinda like socialism and anarchism right?

I doubt anarchism could ever work on a large scale. People can't get along in countries with law enforcement. Without any government at all...

I won't deny that anarchism works in theory. In a small community, it could be perfect. But when applied to an entire country, I don't think it could last very long at all. Socialism at least has a governmental structure.

quote:

And for the last time, I'm not a socialist, there are some aspects of socialism I identify with, but the stratified power distribution maintains class diferences, thus anarchism.

I originally thought you were an anarchist, but your defense of government-mandated programs like universal healthcare made me wonder.

quote:

About time you realized you weren't going to succeed at convincing us socialism was better.

I don't need to convince you of anything, I merely state the truth.

quote:

But you still haven't understo