California leads the way

[Michael Emrys]

Finally, I see human altruism as an evolutionary trait that benefits the species and survival of the fittest as a trait that no longer suits a socialized, civilized species...

Allow me to disagree with the wording of that statement although not with what I perceive to be its spirit. I don't think 'fitness' ever becomes obsolete, but I think its parameters change with changing circumstances. Humans became the dominant species worldwide because they were able to demonstrate fitness in a wide variety of environments. Part—a large part in my view—of that fitness derives from the ability of individuals to cooperate to their mutual advantage.

To take a hypothetical example, let's go back some tens of thousands of years. Let's say we have a guy who can't hunt. Maybe he's got a bum leg. Or maybe he's just a lousy stalker. Whatever. However, the men who do hunt all bring him a share of meat to keep him alive. Why? Because he is the best arrow maker in the tribe. So he stays home and makes arrows all day and the whole tribe prospers.

In a society as complex as ours, with so many interdependent relationships, it can be hard to say whether the innate skills a person possesses will prove beneficial or not. For that reason, I say it's useful for society to keep someone alive and reasonably happy as long as they aren't engaged in demonstrably destructive behavior that society finds unbearable. The guy who is having to scramble just to eat and have some kind of shelter might be the guy who has a new and better solution to a problem we all face, if only he had the leisure to develop it.

That strikes me as just simple pragmatism. And by the way, it costs society a lot less to keep a lot of those guys in good health than to indulge a single multi-millionaire.

Michael

[ASL Veteran]

As to the latter, let me refine what I believe: I don't see adequate medical care as a privilege or an economic item to be consumed, but a human right.

Gunnergoz, an excellent response and not exactly the one I was expecting either. However, I would like to focus on this bit here as rights and privileges can get to the heart of a few disagreements. I think the difference is one of perception though. Let me go through an exercise with health care. If health care is a human right in a similar way to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then that would mean that the individual can't have that right taken away from them by the state - or I suppose alternatively that the state has an obligation to provide that right to the individual depending upon where you are coming from. There is a fundamental difference between healthcare as a right and life or liberty as a right. The difference being that healthcare, by definition, is a "service" while life and liberty are not "services" but rather more akin to a state of being.

A service requires that another individual must provide something to you in order for you to benefit from that right, service, product, whatever. If something is a service that is being provided, does making that service a right for the recipient not infringe upon the rights of those who are required by law to provide it? In other words, doesn't the person required to provide healthcare to someone then become a slave to the state or to the person receiving the healthcare?

What happens when the state can no longer provide that service for whatever reason? For example, there are many documented cases in the UK where patients were denied cancer drugs by a government review board or some other reason. Does that not constitute the state taking away the 'rights' of the individual for the receipt of healthcare? What gives the state the authority to remove the rights of the individual for healthcare?

[ASL Veteran]

To take a hypothetical example, let's go back some tens of thousands of years. Let's say we have a guy who can't hunt. Maybe he's got a bum leg. Or maybe he's just a lousy stalker. Whatever. However, the men who do hunt all bring him a share of meat to keep him alive. Why? Because he is the best arrow maker in the tribe. So he stays home and makes arrows all day and the whole tribe prospers.

I like this hypothetical. It's simple and clean. In this example, the guy with the bum leg is producing arrow heads because he can't hunt. In exchange for that the hunters give him a share of the hunt so he can eat. In other words, there is an incentive for the guy with the bum leg to 'produce' something so that he can earn a share of the hunt. If he doesn't produce something then he may well starve. What if the tribal chief mandated that every hunter surrender 10% of their share of the hunt to the individual with the bum leg irrespective of what the guy with the bum leg is producing? Now the guy with the bum leg has no incentive to produce anything even though he could because he knows he will be fed regardless of what he does. If given a choice between laying around playing Combat Mission and going to work every day I can say with some certainty that most people would rather lay around and play Combat Mission. Certainly if I could sit around at home all day long playing Combat Mission I would do it!

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting stuff.

I think healthcare is a very interesting area for Governments to be active. My view is that there has to be very definite limits on what the state will provide, and what medicine is capable of.

And just before I start that the State also has to protect its citizens from ill-health which opens another line of liberty and the state. For instance BP's refinery at Texas City has been pumping out carciogenic benzene becuase they did not want to shut down the refinery. If they followed Californian code the problem would not have arisen.

Aples Ipod had no logical loudness control and until the French government kicked up and refused importation nothing would have happened. In the UK ,and I assume a lot of the world, I have absolutely no doubt that we will have millions claiming a deafness benefit in a decades time or so.

Even if yor country decides to consider deafness as not a disability worth paying for it is as though the Stae has connived at the problem .

Part two , individuals responsibilities ,after the wimbledon finals

[Runyan99]

If something is a service that is being provided, does making that service a right for the recipient not infringe upon the rights of those who are required by law to provide it? In other words, doesn't the person required to provide healthcare to someone then become a slave to the state or to the person receiving the healthcare?

Yes. That's the Forgotten Man, the man who pays.

The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.

A and B empower themselves, but only at the expense of C. That's what's onerous about all this redistribution.

Further, from an economic perspective, C becomes increasingly disincentivized to produce resources that he knows will be given to D, and so production declines in proportion. Eventually, there may be nothing to give to D.

[Michael Emrys]

However, I would like to focus on this bit here as rights and privileges can get to the heart of a few disagreements. I think the difference is one of perception though. Let me go through an exercise with health care. If health care is a human right in a similar way to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then that would mean that the individual can't have that right taken away from them by the state - or I suppose alternatively that the state has an obligation to provide that right to the individual depending upon where you are coming from. There is a fundamental difference between healthcare as a right and life or liberty as a right. The difference being that healthcare, by definition, is a "service" while life and liberty are not "services" but rather more akin to a state of being.

A service requires that another individual must provide something to you in order for you to benefit from that right, service, product, whatever. If something is a service that is being provided, does making that service a right for the recipient not infringe upon the rights of those who are required by law to provide it? In other words, doesn't the person required to provide healthcare to someone then become a slave to the state or to the person receiving the healthcare?

Interesting line of argument, but I think you are trying to make too much of it. The right to life implies that those who wish to murder you have their freedom do so curtailed. Your right to liberty means that bondage fans are denied the right to kidnap you and act out their desires on you. If they do not willingly forego their desires, a SWAT team might arrive at their home and compel them to do so.

What happens when the state can no longer provide that service for whatever reason? For example, there are many documented cases in the UK where patients were denied cancer drugs by a government review board or some other reason. Does that not constitute the state taking away the 'rights' of the individual for the receipt of healthcare? What gives the state the authority to remove the rights of the individual for healthcare?

Then the same arguments apply that do in the case of the state incarcerating those individuals who have been shown in a court of law to be dangerous to society and its smooth functioning.

No one is denying that sometimes hard decisions must be made. In a free and open society, there is hopefully informed discussion that leads to guidelines being laid down to assist in the making of such decisions. But no one is promising perfection in execution either. We just need something that we can live with and get on. I don't think the current health care system is that.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Yes. That's the Forgotten Man, the man who pays.

Quote:

"The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man."

A and B empower themselves, but only at the expense of C. That's what's onerous about all this redistribution.

Entirely specious line of argument right off the bat as C in fact has a say in determining policy in a democratic society.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

If given a choice between laying around playing Combat Mission and going to work every day I can say with some certainty that most people would rather lay around and play Combat Mission.

Then there is something profoundly wrong about the jobs they are being asked to do, a position I have held for many decades. My observation is that people who have not been conditioned otherwise have a natural inclination to be productive. They want to do things for themselves and others and to be recognized for doing so. That there appears to be so much difficulty in motivating people to do what they are naturally inclined to do is to me a clear indication that something fundamental has long since become unhinged in our society.

Certainly if I could sit around at home all day long playing Combat Mission I would do it!

Great as the game is, don't you think you would eventually become bored with it? As with any other single activity? Seems to me that humans require a spectrum of activities and the freedom to move from one to another and back again. Otherwise, they start to go stir crazy. Which, come to think of it, might form a fairly decent description of our present condition.

Michael

[Runyan99]

Entirely specious line of argument right off the bat as C in fact has a say in determining policy in a democratic society.

Michael

By that reasoning, any minority voting group is wholly at the mercy of the government. Assuming C has a say, that still shouldn't mean anything goes. Even in abstract you are quick to deny C his right to liberty and property, which I find ugly.

[Michael Emrys]

Even in abstract you are quick to deny C his right to liberty and property, which I find ugly.

No, I simply deny him the right to hog what belongs to all in common. There is a difference, you know. But then, you don't seem to believe in the commons at all. And that is the difference between us.

Michael

[Runyan99]

Regardless, I find it terrible that your school wants to take a nation founded on principles of individual liberty, and collectivize it. If freedom fosters inequality, your schemes will give birth to other suppressive evils.

[gunnergoz]

(snip)

What happens when the state can no longer provide that service for whatever reason? For example, there are many documented cases in the UK where patients were denied cancer drugs by a government review board or some other reason. Does that not constitute the state taking away the 'rights' of the individual for the receipt of healthcare? What gives the state the authority to remove the rights of the individual for healthcare?

Thanks for your interesting comments and question.

In the America I would love to live in, the government would have reasonable policies backed by law, which protected the rights of individuals to receive health care within the means available to government care providers. This would hopefully be a far more humane and flexible system than one that is ruled by profit motives which encourage current private corporate insurance providers to curtail member benefits or to terminate medical coverage just when it is most needed by the member.

An appeal system and the courts would have to decide whether individual cases exemplified governmental neglect or abuse of a citizen's rights. I would want that government provided medical care could not be cut off until all appeals and court remedies were exhausted.

Citizens determine who their leaders will be and these elected officials will be responsible for adequately funding this system.

Obviously, the system's ability to provide the most care for the most people, would depend upon citizens' belief that such care is beneficial to the entire society.

If people are divided as to the benefits to be derived from keeping us all equally healthy, then such a system would never work and would instead be tied up in endless political wrangling. We currently have a debate about these issues, but it's content and direction has been polluted by advertising and lobbying from the medical insurance industry, which is fighting for its right to make profits.

Medical insurance as a business is in a moral conundrum that it cannot resolve itself: it must make profits, and profits are only possible when premiums from healthy members exceed the expense of treating ill ones. Given our national demographics, with increasing numbers of aging Americans, the trend is that more medical care will be required, not less.

So the question is: do Americans see the health of one and all as being equally, less or more important than the right of medical insurance corporations to make a profit?

[gunnergoz]

Regardless, I find it terrible that your school wants to take a nation founded on principles of individual liberty, and collectivize it. If freedom fosters inequality, your schemes will give birth to other suppressive evils.

Interesting comment but I cannot buy into it.

For one thing, your use of the term "collectivize" is a hot button word that implies that communism is just around the corner. For that matter, we already "collectivize" defense and many other government functions which impinge upon "individual liberty." I routinely see such "trigger words" as "collectivize" used to simplify complex arguments into black and white and seek to drive the discussion into the realm of emotion rather than reason.

Next, I would have to argue that freedom DOES foster inequality, when that freedom is unchecked by personal conscience, or rule of law (and policy, i.e. regulation). Our current economic crisis is a perfect example of what happens when the concept of absolute economic freedom is taken as license to unhinge the nation's economy in the pursuit of personal profit.

Finally, you speak of "suppressive evils" and in the context of the greater discussion, I can only assume you refer to legally established regulation by government. In a country where we now have a Patriot Act that authorizes government spying upon its citizens' most innocent activities, I find such concerns about legitimate regulation of the economy to be pointed at the wrong enemy. Yes, we do suffer from "suppressive evils" but reasonable government regulation of an out of control corporate investment and banking system is not one of them.

[Runyan99]

You guys are wearing me down, I don't know if I can spit into the wind much longer, but consider this - I'm sure the Greeks thought their social spending was "reasonable" right up until the prevent day, when nobody would lend to them anymore and they needed a bailout.

[gunnergoz]

Runyan99- FWIW, I am enjoying this intellectual sparring with you and do not mean for it to be something to add to your stresses or my own.

In regards to your latest comment, I don't think that comparing dysfunctional systems is entirely constructive. Greek leaders were no more thinking of their nation's long-term interests when they made their economic policies effectively bribing their populace into submission, than were our own leaders when they catered to corporations and banks by permitting unfettered investment activities in the financial sector. Each government was catering to its "base" but in the case of the Greeks, at least the base was the entire populace and not some narrow segment of it. Neither government took the long view and both nations suffered at the hands of their elected officials.

[ASL Veteran]

Then the same arguments apply that do in the case of the state incarcerating those individuals who have been shown in a court of law to be dangerous to society and its smooth functioning.

No, not quite. It all depends upon who grants your rights. If your rights are given to you by the State then the State can take them away. If your rights are given to you by God then only God can take them away. The Declaration of Independence says that you are endowed by "Our Creator with certain inalienable rights", thus when a criminal commits murder the state can take away the criminal's rights to both life and liberty because they have broken God's law as put forth in the commandments.

[ASL Veteran]

Interesting stuff.

I think healthcare is a very interesting area for Governments to be active. My view is that there has to be very definite limits on what the state will provide, and what medicine is capable of.

And just before I start that the State also has to protect its citizens from ill-health which opens another line of liberty and the state. For instance BP's refinery at Texas City has been pumping out carciogenic benzene becuase they did not want to shut down the refinery. If they followed Californian code the problem would not have arisen.

Aples Ipod had no logical loudness control and until the French government kicked up and refused importation nothing would have happened. In the UK ,and I assume a lot of the world, I have absolutely no doubt that we will have millions claiming a deafness benefit in a decades time or so.

Even if yor country decides to consider deafness as not a disability worth paying for it is as though the Stae has connived at the problem .

Part two , individuals responsibilities ,after the wimbledon finals

Well, there is nothing necessarily wrong with the state providing healthcare to it's citizenry. The problem comes when you make Healthcare a "Right" of the citizens. If healthcare is a right and not an economic transaction then the first thing that you have to determine is what makes healthcare a right - who decides that? The State? If it is a right then who provides the service? If the service is to be provided and it is a right then the one who provides the service must provide that service regardless of compensation (or lack thereof).

There is a fundamental difference between rights as spelled forth in the constitution and the declaration of independence, and various rights claimed by 'socialists' of various stripes (for lack of a better term - I'm not trying to label anyone in here). The Rights as outlined in the constitution are rights of the individual that the state cannot take away. Why can't the state take away your rights? Because our rights come from God. A Socialist views a "Right" as something that the State "must provide" to the citizens. The two views of what a "Right" is cannot be reconciled.

[Wicky]

Assuming there is a god ;-)

Makes as much sense as the Hartlepool Monkey Trial

http://www.duhaime.org/LawFun/LawArticle-275/The-Trial-of-the-Hartlepool-Monkey-1805.aspx

[ASL Veteran]

Assuming there is a god ;-)

Makes as much sense as the Hartlepool Monkey Trial

http://www.duhaime.org/LawFun/LawArticle-275/The-Trial-of-the-Hartlepool-Monkey-1805.aspx

It doesn't really matter whether God exists or not. I personally don't go to church and I never have. What matters is how the document is constructed and what it is based on. What it is based on is that God grants human beings a set of rights that the state can't take away. Why can't the state take these rights away? Because they are granted by God and not the state. I personally would categorize myself as an Agnostic and the concept of how the constitution is constructed makes sense to me so I'm sure that anyone who wants to understand the constitution conceptually should be able to.

[Michael Emrys]

What it is based on is that God grants human beings a set of rights that the state can't take away. Why can't the state take these rights away? Because they are granted by God and not the state.

But this is merely an assertion put forward by men. Men may make other/additional assertions. The true and only test is what kind of society you end up with.

(BTW, in using the term 'men' here, what is meant is humans in general. No sexism is implied or intended. The language is slow to adapt sometimes.)

Michael

[gunnergoz]

Whether one is a religious believer or not, the point I get from that phrase in the Declaration of Independence is that there are certain rights granted to people by virtue of their being people (human beings) and that these rights can not be arbitrarily withdrawn by the state. The phrase "the Creator" is sufficiently vague to permit its definition in any number of ways, some of which would might even satisfy an atheist. That phrasing was the brilliance of the Founding Fathers coming through as they attempted to create something that would last beyond them.

[Stalins Organ]

AFAIK the rights of US Citizens are actually granted by the constitution and the founding fathers aren't they? There is no mention of god/creator in the constitution.

And even in the declaration of indepandence the statement that all men are equal and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is just their statement of what they hold to be self evident, and anything that one person holds to be self evident can be argued by another, and invariably is.

Those "self evident" rights in the DoI are listed as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - and there's plenty of argument about just what those mean!

Unarguable rights granted by a creator? Not while there's 2 people left in the world with differing agendas!

[Sixxkiller]

It is only in the Signatory portion, not in any amendment nor the bill of rights.

While we are here though, neither is government sponsored health care, or giving amnesty to illegal aliens.

The 5th Amendment does offer protections to our "life, liberty, or property," noting we cannot be deprived of any of them without due process of law.

Its also odd that many of you assume that "rich" people dont pay more taxes already than do "poor" tax-payers. The tax laws are written by rich people for the most part, especially the income tax laws, but you ever stop to think what a "rich" person pays on property taxes, inheritance taxes, capitol gains taxes,.....

And yes I live in one of the most expensive places in California, and am as poor as humanly possible.

[JonS]

And yes I live in one of the most expensive places in California, and am as poor as humanly possible.

You live on less than a 75c a day!?

Wow.

[Sixxkiller]

Ya well business isnt so hot now