It's not dogma to suggest that people want to be compensated for building houses and growing food and won't do that for free unless a gun is put to their head.
You're using the word Capitalism as though it's representative of an ideology. "Capitalism" is a term created by Marxists to describe a system that allows people to freely exchange with one another without force. No one is going to grow your food or build you a house without compensation. That's why Marxism requires slavery (public slavery).
You're clearly ignorant of left-wing theory. You actually think that the huge sympathy that socialism had and still have is based on people not understanding that it's actually slavery? A no compensation society? Come on.
I mean there's a reason these sorts of programs always end with mass murder and suffering. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it legitimate. Lots of people followed the Soviet and Nazi programs and it created human suffering on a level never seen before in human history.
You really should read Human Action by Mises. It lays out on a philosophical level why all this stuff is fundamentally irrational and necessarily leads to mass human suffering.
Sigh. 99% of socialist want to expand democracy, not establish another dictatorship. Yet, people like yourself dogmatically focus on that other 1% that are authoritarian and paint every socialist as such.
71k people die every year in the US due to lack of healthcare. You need to open both eyes.
I should read a book by the some libertarian god that unsurprisingly dismisses socialism, while your own knowledge about socialism is obviously paperthin? If it's so clear and obvious then you should be able to explain it in a paragraph or two?
Yes I know they do. This is a bad thing. The Founding Fathers were famously skeptical of democracy as were many, many thinkers and societies before them.
And yes it's always democratic in the beginning but democracy is not a panacea (as the Founding Fathers understood) and quickly things devolve into despotism. Just because someone exists doesn't mean they should have a say in how a society is run. Existence is a pretty low bar compared to how developed and complex the structures of a well organized society are.
> 71k people die every year in the US due to lack of healthcare.
Millions are born each year due to abundance and millions more don't die for want of food and other essential services and that is because there's a functioning market clearing mechanism (price).
Again I think you should read Human Action, even so you can just understand your 'enemy'.
It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words.
> And yes it's always democratic in the beginning
Please let me know which of the communist regimes of the 20th century that started out democratic.
> Millions are born each year due to abundance and millions more don't die for want of food and other essential services and that is because there's a functioning market clearing mechanism (price).
That's a sociopathic response to why on earth 71k people should die every year in a country of abundance simply because they don't have any money.
> It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words.
This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all.
Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. We have a Constitution because individuals have human rights that cannot be violated no matter how many people vote on it.
Pure democracy is evil.
> Please let me know which of the communist regimes of the 20th century that started out democratic.
What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union?
> That's a sociopathic response to why on earth 71k people should die every year in a country of abundance simply because they don't have any money.
This is a utopian response which is actually indicative of sociopathy.
"There are three questions which will destroy most of the arguments on the left: 1. Compared to what? 2. At what cost? 3. What hard evidence do you have?" – Thomas Sowell
> We have a Constitution because individuals have human rights that cannot be violated no matter how many people vote on it.
That's implausible, since sufficient people voting on it can change the Constitution.
> What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union?
It means “council”. Leninism was vanguardist, not democratic; vanguardism is a top-down paternalistic elite-led structure based on the idea that the masses aren't ready to lead themselves, and would lead to bad outcomes if allowed to do so without guidance from their more sophisticated betters to direct them to observe proper ideological constraints. Basically, the same position your espousing, but differing only in what the right-thought is that it is feared the masses would depart from if not constrained.
> This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all.
It's not a secret no, but it's certainly not part of the propaganda.
> Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights.
Why is that? Maybe you should be blunt here too and just say private-property enforcement instead of human rights?
> What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union?
Are you really going argue that it was a democracy because of the name? Why are you doubling down on your own ignorance? Even the link you yourself posted contains this:
"After Lenin's party, the Bolsheviks, only got a minority of the votes in the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly, he disbanded it by force after its first meeting".
The Bolsheviks took power in a coup for themselves and never let go of it.
> This is a utopian response which is actually indicative of sociopathy.
What? There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now. That also sounds like a means to an end argument which is sociopathic if anything is.
> There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now
Universal healthcare necessarily means rationing of healthcare resources. Universal healthcare does not mean that every person who has an ailment gets treated. A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). When you remove the market it's up to government to do this matching process which means rationing.
> A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people).
Even ignoring that healthcare lacks the factors that approximate the rational choice model’s information requirements well enough for it decisions in that space in a market to even reflect average net utility well, a market matches supply with money; it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility, which it's not (because money also experiences declining marginal utility) when financial resources of each potential customer vary wildly.
> > it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility
> How else would you define need?
The question seems odd and seems to likely to be driven by a misunderstanding of the quoted material, so I'll try to reexplain what I intended in a way which I hope resolves the question.
Expected net utility given complete information of the consequences of a decision is the only plausible definition of need.
It doesn't, however correspond in any particular way (even ignoring the information problems that are enormous in healthcare) to the number of tokens one is willing to exchange for a thing in the market compared to other participants unless the quantity of tokens available to each participant is the same.
When the tokens are money and the context is a real capitalist society, that's decidedly far from the case.
> Expected net utility given complete information of the consequences of a decision is the only plausible definition of need.
This doesn't exist in real life so it's almost laughable to talk about it like it's an actual thing. People don't have "Expected net utility" functions that spit out a number (denominated in what?) when faced with some choice.
> It doesn't, however correspond in any particular way (even ignoring the information problems that are enormous in healthcare) to the number of tokens one is willing to exchange for a thing in the market compared to other participants unless the quantity of tokens available to each participant is the same.
1) Even if everyone had the same amount of tokens at some time t different people have different values and thus would allocate their tokens differently to different things as they saw fit, not to mention there are other circumstances that people have in their life that are beyond cash reserves (having a house, having a car, having a family, having a pet, having a passion for art collection, etc). They would be allocating their tokens in accordance with this hierarchy since they need to reserve their tokens for other priorities in their life.
2) There's no way to even quantify "needs" across people without some market/pricing function unless you have some third party quantifying or ranking the needs of everyone but I already mentioned that. This is what universal healthcare does where some bureaucratic apparatus determines, quantifies, and ranks the needs of patients and allocates healthcare resources.
This rests on an assumption that utility is comparable between individuals, which isn't present in all theories.
"How much would you pay for it" clearly is comparable between individuals, but (IMO) declaring that doing so defines the proper outcome is circular and/or verges on the naturalistic fallacy.
Sorry, but if you ignore existing facts and reality around the western world just too parrot some libertarian free market bullshit you're clearly far too deep into dogma.
It's not dogma it's just logic. Finite resource, no market, means rationing. Why is that dogmatic? This has nothing to do with libertarian ideals, it's just a logical almost tautological statement.
Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that?
> Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that?
It's an irrelevant distraction. What's important is not to deprive people of care to such an extent that 71k people dies every year in a country fully capable of providing universal healthcare. You're using dogma to justify that. What you're calling "get the treatment they want" is just to allow rich people to get priority.
I'm not using dogma at all, let alone using it to "justify" anything. It simply is how it is. There is no panacea. You're totally captured by a utopian vision which is why you can't comprehend that.
Even countries with universal healthcare can't provide healthcare services to everyone who needs it or wants it. Healthcare resources are finite. No amount of arguing on your part will change that.
You are very careful about which parts of each message you like to answer aren't you?
I haven't argued that healthcare resources aren't finite. But what kind of pointless argument is that? "Housing is finite", "Clothing is finite", "Food is finite". Well, yes? But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not? And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure, even the poor? What's utopian about not having 71k people per year die due to lack of healthcare coverage? Do you think all of these 71k would end up on some brain surgery queue and die anyway?
You're just making pointless statements without any depth. Dilettante.
> But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not?
Certain types of housing are plentiful and some are more scarce depending on what homebuyers want at some price and homebuilders can build at some price.
> And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure, even the poor?
Again even if you were able to determine that (which you aren't, given that most of these people are severely drug addicted or mentally ill, homelessness is more complicated than just people not having a home), how are you going to convince or force people to build these houses that you (Supreme Decider of America) determine to be necessary?
> You're just making pointless statements without any depth
I'm actually making very pointed arguments that fundamentally invalidate your whole world view. That's why it's upsetting to you.
> how are you going to convince or force people to build these houses that you (Supreme Decider of America)
In Sweden we had a government agency that both identified the need (not rocket science) and government building corporations that actually built the houses.
> I'm actually making very pointed arguments that fundamentally invalidate your whole world view.
It must be handy to be so ignorant and yet so cocksure. That's so arrogant that I'm starting to think you're actually trolling.
Sweden is one of the last places on earth I would choose to live and probably in the next decade even you will see why. Eventually all of these socialist regimes collapse.
They're not. No free person would voluntary accept all kinds of shit jobs that's out there unless indirectly coerced.