Socialized healthcare debate (Split from Canadian Care)

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-31 12:06am

edit cells, grouped, for

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-31 12:09am

aerius wrote:Translation: Your "alternative" is more immoral overall. Thanks, we knew that all along.

If we were to remove healthcare right now, and let people suffer and die, it would indeed be more immoral, but I said before that I do not advocate doing that to people who will suffer from it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-31 12:15am

kojikun wrote:
aerius wrote:Translation: Your "alternative" is more immoral overall. Thanks, we knew that all along.
If we were to remove healthcare right now, and let people suffer and die, it would indeed be more immoral, but I said before that I do not advocate doing that to people who will suffer from it.

No, you only advocate a magical pie-in-the-sky solution where you make it completely voluntary and then everyone voluntarily decides to do what they do now.

This is like saying that it's not unprofitable to stop charging for goods, as long as customers voluntarily decide to give you money for them. It is an idea which does not live in any kind of objective reality I know.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-31 12:26am

Darth Wong wrote:No, you only advocate a magical pie-in-the-sky solution where you make it completely voluntary and then everyone voluntarily decides to do what they do now.

My solution is to try and find ways to prevent people from needing those services to begin with.

This is like saying that it's not unprofitable to stop charging for goods, as long as customers voluntarily decide to give you money for them. It is an idea which does not live in any kind of objective reality I know.

Now thats just silly.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-31 12:30am

kojikun wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:No, you only advocate a magical pie-in-the-sky solution where you make it completely voluntary and then everyone voluntarily decides to do what they do now.
My solution is to try and find ways to prevent people from needing those services to begin with.

Oh yes, I forgot about your "wave my magic wand and get them jobs" solution. You really don't get it when I say that an ethical system guides you in making real decisions rather than pining for pie-in-the-sky nonsense, do you?

This is like saying that it's not unprofitable to stop charging for goods, as long as customers voluntarily decide to give you money for them. It is an idea which does not live in any kind of objective reality I know.
Now thats just silly.

No silllier than your notion that you support Canada's health care system but want it to be paid for on a individually voluntary basis.

Buy a clue: we voted for it, so collectively, it is voluntary. Your individual voluntary solution is a joke.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-31 12:35am

Alyrium made a good point: those who are capable of leaving the country and don't are agreenig by default to the terms of society therein, and those who cannot leave have no wish to deny those terms of society. Best argument and keeps with the voluntary-ness that I support. So the entire debate is moot. Hooray for voluntary welfare.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-31 12:38am

I accept your concession(social contracts are fun)

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-31 12:40am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I accept your concession(social contracts are fun)

You can accept my oral concession at your pleasure.

.....

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-31 12:44am

Sorry Koji, I am taken.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-31 12:49am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Sorry Koji, I am taken.

Eh? I was just gonna record myself conceeding verbally. o.o

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-31 12:54am

oops... curse my dirty mind... Though I do appreciate the verbal concession

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-31 01:07am

I'll post it if Mike or anyone else wants to listen.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-31 01:07am

you should... it isnt often someone actually conceeds

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-31 01:11am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:you should... it isnt often someone actually conceeds

I conceed plenty. Now, wheter thats a good thing or bad thing..

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-31 01:23am

kojikun wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:you should... it isnt often someone actually conceeds
I conceed plenty. Now, wheter thats a good thing or bad thing..

Actually, you just found an excuse to rationalize your worship of Objectivism with what you know to be true. You did not concede the utter impracticality of objectivism as an ethical system, or indeed, the need to address practicality at all in ethical analyses.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-31 01:45am

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, you just found an excuse to rationalize your worship of Objectivism with what you know to be true.

But it was an error on my part, a failure to realize that it was indeed voluntary to have the social systems.

You did not concede the utter impracticality of objectivism as an ethical system, or indeed, the need to address practicality at all in ethical analyses.

There was no impracticallity, I simply misapplied it. The error was mine.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-31 01:51am

Tehnically Koji, it is highy impractical.

Doing someting soley for individual benifit, doesnt really work. A monkey will fight to defend a member of its troupe, dolphins will sacriffice themselves for an injured pod member. The simple matter is, group benifit is part of nature. Simple objective reality.

If animals did things soley for the own benifit with simple reciprocity being key, a group would not last very long. And anials that cannot survive without groups(humans dolphins, chimps) would not survive. This is why altruistic morals exist, even in the animal kindom, because they are selected for.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-31 01:57am

(You know, it is getting really sick how I can base my ethical system off of applied evolution)

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-31 01:59am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Tehnically Koji, it is highy impractical.

Doing someting soley for individual benifit, doesnt really work. A monkey will fight to defend a member of its troupe, dolphins will sacriffice themselves for an injured pod member. The simple matter is, group benifit is part of nature. Simple objective reality.

If animals did things soley for the own benifit with simple reciprocity being key, a group would not last very long. And anials that cannot survive without groups(humans dolphins, chimps) would not survive. This is why altruistic morals exist, even in the animal kindom, because they are selected for.

Because it would be in ones own self interest, it's not a conflict at all. I simply fucked up, that is all.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-31 02:03am

How is a dolphin practicing self sacrifice in its own best interest? The groups survival generally increases the individuals chances, but not in the case of self sacrifice...

I suppose that in nature, the group is sometimes more important than the individual, on a survival level. The group provides security to the individual, but the individual must be willing to make sacrifices(including it life) for those increased chances.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-12-31 02:08am

Okay, I'm going to make the definitive post that will totally obliterate Kojikun's argument:

kojikun wrote:Because it is immoral to force someone to do something.

SAYS WHO?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-31 02:09am

kojikun wrote:Because it would be in ones own self interest, it's not a conflict at all. I simply fucked up, that is all.

Actually, there are several flaws with the concept of "enlightened self interest":

It assumes that collective interest coincides with individual interest. This is only true in a hypothetical situation where everyone is basically equal in terms of power. In asymmetrical situations (ie- the real world), it is often possible for someone to take an action which severely harms the whole, but enhances his own situation. Stalin comes to mind as an excellent example; he lived a comfortable life as a result of his actions, but no one in his right would say that he was ethical.
It assumes that people will see far enough into the future that they can take actions which benefit society in such a manner that they will eventually benefit themselves, even if those actions cause short-term detriment. This is demonstrably untrue, hence the only way to get people to take these long-term beneficial actions is to force them to do it. Yet one of the tenets of "enlightened self interest" is that no one can be forced into doing anything.
It cannot explain where the "enlightened" part comes from, so we are left to wonder why this ethical system requires the "self-interest" part at all. The fact that living beings tend to work toward their own self-interest is hardly an ethical system, and its elevation to an ethical principle is more like a tautology. It is the "enlightened" part which makes it work. It is the "enlightened" part which objectivists refer to whenever someone invokes examples such as Stalin. And yet they cannot explain what aspect of the objectivist "self-interest" mantra leads to this "enlightenment".

The system just doesn't work. It assumes that people are smarter than they are, and that no one has unequal power over another, and when it falls apart and recommends something horrible, it invokes the unexplained "enlightened" escape clause to nullify the bad result.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-31 02:13am

While it needs some work... Social heirachies and social contracts are incorporated into my littel pet model.(Or I at least hope they are...)

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-31 02:18am

Darth Wong wrote:
kojikun wrote:Because it would be in ones own self interest, it's not a conflict at all. I simply fucked up, that is all.
Actually, there are several flaws with the concept of "enlightened self interest":
It assumes that collective interest coincides with individual interest. This is only true in a hypothetical situation where everyone is basically equal in terms of power. In asymmetrical situations (ie- the real world), it is often possible for someone to take an action which severely harms the whole, but enhances his own situation. Stalin comes to mind as an excellent example; he lived a comfortable life as a result of his actions, but no one in his right would say that he was ethical.

True, but Objectivism also holds that its immoral to harm people. So again that doesn't conflict.

[*]It assumes that people will see far enough into the future that they can take actions which benefit society in such a manner that they will eventually benefit themselves, even if those actions cause short-term detriment. This is demonstrably untrue, hence the only way to get people to take these long-term beneficial actions is to force them to do it. Yet one of the tenets of "enlightened self interest" is that no one can be forced into doing anything.

Again, one of the core things about Objectivism is long term goals not short term self pleasuring here and now (Objectivists are against that kind of philosophy, usually known as hedonism).

[*]It cannot explain where the "enlightened" part comes from, so we are left to wonder why this ethical system requires the "self-interest" part at all. The fact that living beings tend to work toward their own self-interest is hardly an ethical system, and its elevation to an ethical principle is more like a tautology. It is the "enlightened" part which makes it work. It is the "enlightened" part which objectivists refer to whenever someone invokes examples such as Stalin. And yet they cannot explain what aspect of the objectivist "self-interest" mantra leads to this "enlightenment".[/list]

I never said anything about enlighted, all I said was that it was in your self interested to help other people out of poverty if you want to be in a country like Canada or the US or whatever. I don't claim it to be "enlighted" self interest. Just pure, rational self interest, as well as agreement of terms.

The system just doesn't work. It assumes that people are smarter than they are, and that no one has unequal power over another, and when it falls apart and recommends something horrible, it invokes the unexplained "enlightened" escape clause to nullify the bad result.

Well someone has to be smart enough to foresee these things, and those people should go out and educate the rest of all these points. And fuck "enlightened", I do not claim that it is "enlightened" self interest.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-12-31 02:19am

kojikun wrote:I do not assume that everyone has the ability to invest. But if a person does not seek higher education and insists on low paying jobs, he must suffer the consequences, not other people. Noone but him is responsible for his pitiful existance, and noone is obligated to benefit him for his failure.

You seem to think that somehow a "low paying job" is an inferior job, and whoever insists on a "low paying job" is somehow lazy, or shortsighted, or in some way stupid and deserves to suffer. Sure, because the worlds needs so many more lawyers and CEOs than farmers and programmers...

Here's a tip: low paying jobs are a TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. Not the fact that they're low-paying, mind ya, but a lot of the jobs THEMSELVES are the backbone of society, and simply necessary for survival of the species.

So it's a farmer's fault if his job pays little? Maybe he should increase his own salary, right? Or maybe everyone should aim to be an Engineer so we can have lots and lots of bridges but no food on our tables.