The Rich Benefit the Most from Socialism

[Captain Colostomy]

Then my guess was waaaay off.

You are aware anarchy is defined as rules with no rulers?

I was aware. Thank you.

[Koolay]

Name a system where people have economic freedom where those with money and power don't benefit disproportionately.

I doubt you can.

Freedom does not mean equality. Freedom simply means that no one shall violate the non aggression principle, no matter who you are.

Freedom has nothing to do with making circumstances equal, it is to make morality equal. If I violently deface anyone beautiful to make things more equal for less attractive people, I have just replaced genetic unfairness with the initiation of violence, something far worse.

[Jackalope]

Name a system where people have economic freedom where those with money and power don't benefit disproportionately.

I doubt you can.

Freedom does not mean equality. Freedom simply means that no one shall violate the non aggression principle, no matter who you are.

Freedom has nothing to do with making circumstances equal, it is to make morality equal. If I violently deface anyone beautiful to make things more equal for less attractive people, I have just replaced genetic unfairness with the initiation of violence, something far worse.

I never claimed it did.

You were the one who made the complaint about disproportionate benefit from one economic system. One could reasonably presume that you could recommend a system that is not flawed in that manner? In keeping with your professed libertarian ideals, such a system would necessarily feature economic freedom, yes?

Apparently subtlety is lost on you. I'll use smaller words next time.

[Koolay]

Well, yeah, but that does not really cut the mustard when trillions of dollars have been put into programs which sole purpose was to do the exact opposite of what has happened.

What if I came up with a new advertising campaign to increase sales for a company, and after vast amounts of money, and decades of time put into the campaign, sales not only did not increase, but sales decreased. Would I then be in my right to say "Correlation does not equal causation"?

welfare means more people get access to a better life, better healthcare.
This creates the need for more professionals in this area and some money does go into these people's pockets... they don't work for free!
To me, it looks like a win-win.. ok, maybe some win more $$$ in the process, but... can you put a price on health?

Do you have any evidence that socialised healthcare makes people healthier?

Even so, you are still crossing the moral threshold of initiating violence to get something you want. If I am hungry, does it give me the right to steal from a restaurant? of course not.

Of course you can put a price tag on healthcare, it costs time and money to make medicine, train doctors, and have equipment. What are you really asking?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Does anarchist healthcare make people healthier? Wtf? Healthcare is healthcare, there is good healthcare and bad healthcare, how it is funded doesn't affect people's health unless it affects the quality of the healthcare.

BTW, US is the country that spends the most on healthcare (mostly privatized) and gets the least out of it compared to other countries who spend a high portion of GDP on healthcare. (yes, that would include socialist healthcare)

[Koolay]

Freedom does not mean equality. Freedom simply means that no one shall violate the non aggression principle, no matter who you are.

Freedom has nothing to do with making circumstances equal, it is to make morality equal. If I violently deface anyone beautiful to make things more equal for less attractive people, I have just replaced genetic unfairness with the initiation of violence, something far worse.

I never claimed it did.

You were the one who made the complaint about disproportionate benefit from one economic system. One could reasonably presume that you could recommend a system that is not flawed in that manner? In keeping with your professed libertarian ideals, such a system would necessarily feature economic freedom, yes?

Apparently subtlety is lost on you. I'll use smaller words next time.

Well, I am just bringing it back to fact based level. Statists always talk about how the government helps this and that, yet they are empirically wrong, as the facts almost always contradict with what they claim.

The less coercive and violent a society is, the better it is for the most vulnerable members of that society - this is pretty fundamental. My solution is to stop using violence to solve complex social issues like income inequality, since it will inevitably do the opposite. And the facts back this up.

My system, if you could call it that, is simply a free market, where everyone is subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else. Non aggression principles, respect for property rights.

---

Does anarchist healthcare make people healthier? Wtf? Healthcare is healthcare, there is good healthcare and bad healthcare, how it is funded doesn't affect people's health unless it affects the quality of the healthcare.

But you are using the word 'fund', the state is not like a normal business, it does not really fund anything, it violently takes from innocent people, then uses that money to bribe special interest groups into obedience.

And of course it makes a difference!!!

Violence makes everything shittier, If I violently force you to buy a healthcare plan from me, what kind of service do you think you will get?

If I lock a girl I am attracted to in my basement, I am not going to be buying hallmark cards and flowers for her any time soon. Obviously.

Whereas if I am operating voluntarily, and try to convince people to buy my healthcare product/service, obviously this will be a higher quality product/service, since I can not rely on violence to get my pay check, I need to impress people, and offer something of value to customers to make my money. Where there is violence, things turn to shit, I'm sure you understand this.

[Captain Colostomy]

My system, if you could call it that, is simply a free market, where everyone is subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else. Non aggression principles, respect for property rights.

Sounds like government to me. Of course the non aggression principles will be foresaken the moment everyone realizes those laws and rules have no means of enforcement.

Oh, and take away imminent domain, and voila! You have reinvented the wheel called 'Murica.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Does anarchist healthcare make people healthier? Wtf? Healthcare is healthcare, there is good healthcare and bad healthcare, how it is funded doesn't affect people's health unless it affects the quality of the healthcare.

But you are using the word 'fund', the state is not like a normal business, it does not really fund anything, it violently takes from innocent people, then uses that money to bribe special interest groups into obedience.

And of course it makes a difference!!!

Violence makes everything shittier, If I violently force you to buy a healthcare plan from me, what kind of service do you think you will get?

If I lock a girl I am attracted to in my basement, I am not going to be buying hallmark cards and flowers for her any time soon. Obviously.

Whereas if I am operating voluntarily, and try to convince people to buy my healthcare product/service, obviously this will be a higher quality product/service, since I can not rely on violence to get my pay check, I need to impress people, and offer something of value to customers to make my money. Where there is violence, things turn to shit, I'm sure you understand this.

Oh great, so how do you explain countries with socialist healthcare having better health than the US of A?

Your analogy is flawed all around because you're implying that socialist healthcare somehow doesn't need to check their quality because everyone is forced to buy the product. Obviously that is not true because doctors don't work for free and they get paid pretty well so if you screw up someone else will take your place and of course there's always malpractice suits. And I'm quite sure most doctors practice voluntarily, as med school is competitive and no one is forced to enroll or serve as doctors.

[Jackalope]

I never claimed it did.

You were the one who made the complaint about disproportionate benefit from one economic system. One could reasonably presume that you could recommend a system that is not flawed in that manner? In keeping with your professed libertarian ideals, such a system would necessarily feature economic freedom, yes?

Apparently subtlety is lost on you. I'll use smaller words next time.

Well, I am just bringing it back to fact based level. Statists always talk about how the government helps this and that, yet they are empirically wrong, as the facts almost always contradict with what they claim.

The less coercive and violent a society is, the better it is for the most vulnerable members of that society - this is pretty fundamental. My solution is to stop using violence to solve complex social issues like income inequality, since it will inevitably do the opposite. And the facts back this up.

My system, if you could call it that, is simply a free market, where everyone is subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else. Non aggression principles, respect for property rights.

You're using the wrong metric if you're criticising socialism, then. Socialism doesn't seek to equalize income, it seeks to equalize access to human needs, such a food, water, shelter, and health care. None of those things are going to be measurable as income under a socialist system.

Something, I note, that your way would suck donkey balls at.

Incidentally, I'll point out that the rich and powerful benefit disproportionately under ever economic system ever implemented. That you use this against your socialist boogeyman is pretty fucking weak, even for you.

[pocaracas]

welfare means more people get access to a better life, better healthcare.
This creates the need for more professionals in this area and some money does go into these people's pockets... they don't work for free!
To me, it looks like a win-win.. ok, maybe some win more $$$ in the process, but... can you put a price on health?

Do you have any evidence that socialised healthcare makes people healthier?

Maybe...


France:


UK:

Even so, you are still crossing the moral threshold of initiating violence to get something you want. If I am hungry, does it give me the right to steal from a restaurant? of course not.

Of course you can put a price tag on healthcare, it costs time and money to make medicine, train doctors, and have equipment. What are you really asking?

I'm not asking anything... Just stating that "correlation does not imply causation".