Political compass test

[Ashendant]

And the only way they can do that is by producing goods or services that are in demand to exchange for money... Do you think there is some other way to grow a business? The size of the company is largely relative to the amount of demand they cater to.

Yes they can create demand, and use their power so they remove the competition, so the citizen doesn't have any choice but to buy from their incredibly high prices

You're perilously close to taking that hierarchy as gospel it seems.

Firstly, those acts such as breathing and water are only important if you desire to live, the respect of others is only important for people who desire it. A desire creates a demand for the thing being desired and without such a desire the thing simply is not important to the person in question.

And health is in the need for safety just like law and order.

Secondly, the order of events isn't based on a very empirical conclusion, it's an understanding from a largely psychological perspective from limited data in the 1950's, a time that was essentially the infancy of analytic psychology.

Yes it's old, but it still applies

Thirdly, just because the average person needs security of health in order to fulfil their desires does not make them justified in taking resources from other people to secure that. They most definitely have the right to be free from being forced into poor health, but to say they have the right to procure their security at the expense of others is entirely different.

So it's justified when it's for law and order but unjustified when it's for health, isn't both of these about safety?

We still largely have normative reasons for helping people have secure health, namely in promoting the desire to make or keep others healthy and encouraging them to keep themselves healthy we create an attitude that has the potential to instil it's self in others, indirectly fulfilling our own desire for security of health by making people feel it is of value to them and thereby giving them reasons for action towards this end - This type of approach is not one of rights however, it is one of mutual benefit through shared resources, if it will genuinely benefit the most people to do x (public health) rather that y (private health) then the most people have reason to enforce that standard, it doesn't however necessarily make it the right thing to do nor does it make taking resources from others to achieve this goal justified.

I think there is a good case to be made for private health insurance and charity without the interference of government. We could certainly have some government security for the disabled and those unable to provide for themselves (and not those who simply chose not to), that is a system that could be funded through rather marginal taxes or after-the-fact public donations. It would also limit the cost to others because of people who knowingly harm themselves, such as smokers and overeaters - These people are a tremendous liability to the system and are largely responsible for their own situation.

Bullshit that will never work because what people are willing to give is not enough to full fill the demand

Have you got any more than an assertion to support that claim?

America has one of the worst health rates because of their obesity problem. As far as private health coverage is concerned they have one of the best systems in terms of quality of care per patient. It is the lack of ability and/or will of some people (unfortunately some who are parents to small children) that cause the problems with the genuinely unable from getting healthcare. Charity could more than cover every child and dependent in the system, especially if you aren't taxing incomes to fund the self-caused health problems.

Nope nothing to do with obesity and it's deathsU.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says

That's a little backwards

Realistically you're only a majority socialist country if the average tax rates are > 50%. If > 50% of the income is not taxed then you have a majority market system (that is of course unless the rate of other fines and tarrifs isn't making it > 50% of income). A balance of around 50% is considered a socio-capitalist (market socialist )system. This is in contrast to Denmark who have a 70% income tax and are socialists or New Zealand who are 25% average tax and are capitalists (centre right if you want to be specific).

Values are different in different places

And what do you suppose the difference is? A free market in the truest sense is a market free from government manipulation - It is still grounded by the rule of law so that any person found to be forceful, fraudulent or coercive is doing wrong and is punishable, but the government does not take action to influence the direction of the economy by allocating resource, redistributing wealth, controlling the money supply, borrowing on behalf of the people etc.

A free market is to me a market that has enough regulation to avoid "cheating" and Monopolies

Social security. Rather than require people save over the course of their working lives the government takes their resources for planned spending and to make up for it demands that future taxes will be paid to them upon retirement. The only problem is that Social security spending and investment does not make a profit, it's a pay as you go ponzy scheme where the later you enter into the system the more you are paying for the people who got in first.

It's in practice no different to the Bernie Madoff investment scheme.

That's not a very good example is it

Just like last time the economy will recover on the back of a bubble only to burst and delve deeper into recession that ever before.

Governements are not infallible o they should stop doing the same mistake over and over again

I don't have time to read that right now. How did the idea work?

They decriminalized the personal possession of drugs for enough 10 days doses, and instead of sending these people to jail, they gave them a social worker, a legal counsellor, and health inspector, to help them with either the treatement and gave their options, allowing the police to track the dealers more effectively and high criminals, the results was a decrease of drug consume to one of the lowest of the modern world(i think), spared a lot of wasted cash, the amount of people seeking treatment doubled, and the spread of aids got cut to half, it's best if you read it because i might have mistakes

Which is still SMALL.

A government that needs only to police force, fraud and coercion is a SMALL government, a Government that subsidises industry and creates economic booms is BIG government.

That logic is dumb, subsidising industry and creating economic booms doesn't need to be big...

Lobbyists are never necessary, they all represent self-interested groups trying to establish favourable conditions. We don't need this structure AT ALL. Let their businesses rise and fall relative to the demand there is for their services and their ability to efficiently and effectively cater to this demand.

Those are bad lobbylists, a good company needs good system, lobbylists are there to make sure the government knows how law will punish their companies, and give suggestions, a good lobbylist is preventive, a bad one is a active one

It only really needs to prevent desires from being thwarted by other desires of other people or organisations, it does not need to help us fulfil our desires.

Health is a need of the citizen

And remember, all needs are relative to desires. A need is the means to an end, you need water because of it's ability to sustain your desire for life. As such there are no clear cut needs that we must ensure, the most we can do is look at which systems are best suited to serve the most demand with the available resources. In terms of basic non-competitive infrastructure it's the government, in most circumstances I believe that it's best left to the people.

And i consider Safety and Survival a basic need so why don't you?

I mean neglect in terms of negligence. You could neglect my desire for weed, that wouldn't make it a bad thing for you not to cater to my whims, you wouldn't be negligent relative to some responsibility you have either legally, contractually or morally.

Neither is weed a Safety or Survival Need

An example would be as follows: If I agreed to provide you with a care to take you across the country and this car has a serious and avoidable mechanical flaw that resulted in your injury I would have been negligent. I was not obligated to provide you with any care, let alone a safe one, until I agreed to the responsibility of providing you with transport.

I consider my fellow citizen my responsibility as a citizen of my country, as my contribution to society, if you don't then it's your problem and your screwed morality code that your cash is your cash.

Law and order, they are fraudulent and coercive. Government social security is both fraudulent, coercive and forceful upon penalty of imprisonment.

What part of it is fraudelent?

That's bullshit. You think governments caused the industrial revolution? Think again.

Also, for every successful government expenditure there are more that are running a deficit. It's no good to point to some examples where a state-sponsored investment paid off unless you are going to look at the entire spectrum.

Actually in some countries they did cause the industrial revolution, germany was this example, the government made a leap of faith and now their one of the most successful Industry machines in the world, only recently did china overtake them

Space programs are another example, no company could bear the costs of running a successful governmental space agency