Ill do my best to address as many points as possible, i may consider breaking it up to a few posts if i have it in me
You post insinuates that the world has the right to have wealth distributed equally. I'm wondering why that has to be true. There is no rule that says that wealth must distributed equally to everyone. It would also be impossible. If it's not a practical goal then we shouldn't attempt to achieve it in the first place. The free market doesn't choose to do nothing. I just watched the local news here and saw many private corporations holding toy drives for the disadvantaged. I see private corporations, churches, and non-profit organizations trying to help out the poor. I don't see the government going out to engage our communities on a personal level - because it can't in all reality.
to the point in bold, yes i agree with you that equal distribution of the worlds resources is not a goal that is attainable. I however would disagree that we should do nothing for the rest of the world or the impoverished in our country. We live in a world where we value the right to liberty and happiness amongst our most extollable virtues. However, when people do not have a chance to economically succeed, especially because of the structure of our economic system, then we are truly not living up to our values. Frankly i feel that it is never really about equality in terms of resources, but at the very minimum should be about generating possiblity for economic advancement, which is something the free market is doing a very bad job of these days. As the income gap rises, fewer and fewer people will have that basic oppertunity. Although true equality may be a naive and unattainable goal, to sit and do nothing is to essentially condemn much of the world to an unequal possiblity for liberty and happiness.
As to your second point, i certainly agree there are some things that corporations, churches and the like do that are wonderful. Around the holidays it is a great sign of solidarity when people hold canned food drives and toys for tots type programs. However, charity is not the same as granting positive oppertunity for individuals. Do not get me wrong, i love some of the charitable work that is done and commend the people for doing it, but in comparison to the structural advantages that corporations get over the average person and the lack of mobility the average person has, it is much less remarkable.
As far as I know, every single civilization has had stratification. Implementing socialism won't eliminate it. There are some people who need assistance because of disabilities, but the majority of people have the ability to work themselves into the middle class with hard work. I would also say there's a correlation between our poor educational system producing a large population of young people who aren't able to obtain good jobs. That's another topic though - I'm digressing.
Yes i would agree with, stratification might be what i make my academic career out of, so it better be everywhere right (j/k). Im not here to argue that stratification is a bad or even an unnecessary thing. Nor would i argue that socialism would remove those problems. However, the notion that the majority of people will be able to work themselves into the middle class, is becoming increasingly false in our society. We are increasingly finding, as a result of somewhat inaccuratly measured poverty lines, a much larger percentage of our population is not in the middle class and many millions are in danger of falling out. To further the point, this generation is the first generation since the 50s that will likely be worse off economically than their parents. It is not so much that we arent working with a level playing field, possibly an impractical notion, but the strong possiblity that we are moving backwards. This shouldnt occur in a country that is wealthier than ever before, especially as more markets open up to even further increase our economic capacity.
We both agree about the failures of our educational system to provide people for jobs. I think ive mentioned in a few threads how i feel that relates in many ways to some of hte points i make here. However, because of our failures as a society to ensure better education (certainly not an easy task) we are compouding many of our problems.
I can't quote everything you wrote because it was so long. I'll just quote the main part. I recall you saying that I'm using semantics in my arguments but let's look at what you're doing. On one hand you're saying that you don't believe we are taxing to steal from the rich, but in the next breath claim that it is "investment". Now tonka, that is semantics. It is simply the taking of money from one group of people and transferring it to another by the government. It is unfair to pit one group of people against another through this process.
That perhaps is a semantic argument. However i suppose it highlights a difference in our positions. I believe you view taxation of the rich, probably more so in a progressive system, as unfair to the rich and adversarial. To me it almost seems intutive that those who have more would pay more, since they are able. I understand people who have more dont see this as intuitive, but if we want social programs that can help the next generation(s) becoming part of that shrinking middle class, you have to invest in them. As youve mentioned, the educational system, amongst many other things is set up in a way that fails our currently impoverished and near impoverished citizens. It is not pitting one group against another to try and meet a social responsibility. I suppose one could cite the social contract, or the strive to form a more perfect union, but the sentiment is rather simple i think; if we are a united states with the incredible economic and technological capacity unseen in human history, our citizens should all have the oppertunity to share in that success. Frankly to fall short of these notions, as i suggest we are with the generation failing to exceed their parents standards, and with an increasing income gap, we are setting people against each other already.
Yes, because you actually get medical treatment for the physical ailment that you have. Paying for it is something totally different. I would say that the country needs to focus on ways to make health insurance more affordable. If the government wanted to be a competitor then I would be ok with that. Also, I think Mitt Romney has stated that he wants to pass a law that requires everyone to have insurance (sort of like requiring everyone to have car insurance). I don't know whether or not that's a good idea. If I'm wrong about Romney's position, sorry, but I think someone in the race has proposed it.
I think we have to agree to disagree on the first point here. If because of your circumstances you will not be able to pay for treatment, you dont have access to proper health care. Seemingly healthcare should be something everyone has the right to. However i acknowledge its a pretty tough solve and probably wont be done as best as we could hope no matter whose system it is. I think many candidates are expecting everyone to have health insurance as a part of their plan. Its probably theoretically practical, but doesnt face the realities of millions of people.
Umm, not really. I'll admit I didn't know much about this until you brought it up so I googled it and found some interesting stuff.
Just one story I found Since we started measuring poverty in 1959, the percentage of people under the poverty line has decreased to roughly 12% while in Sweden (just one example) it has risen to above 40%. A Eurostat/Timboro study showed that some 45% of U.S. poor still own a home. 72% own a car and 77% have air conditioning. "
Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says. If Sweden were admitted as a state it would be ranked the poorest as far as standard of living. Only Luxembourg would score high.
the persepectives article was fairly enlightening. However i would argue that is a very real difference in the way that studies are done and that by looking and some of the luxury items which americans have as a qualifier for standard of living may tailor the results inaccuratley. Ill admit i didnt spend as much time hunting down information as the subject probably deserves but i found an interesting study and a wikipage on a un study done annualy.
http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/dp/DP120.pdf poses mixed reviews about the us. Assuredly, if you live in the middle or upper classes in the US, it doesnt get better. Much of the longish pdf there will corroborate that. However, i think there were some other interesting, and perhpas more distressing findings from our perspective. A few short quotes..."the average low income child in 12 countries is better off by 25 percent over the low income american child." also, "For instance, the average dutchman has a real income 80 percent as large as that of an average american, but the low income dutchman has an income of 110 percent of the low income american,". or "only in Australia and the united kingdom do lower income persons have a lower standard of living than in the united states."
The UN human development index is also a bit troubling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index Not only is it that we are 12th on this scale, which tends to look in different ways in addition to ppp and gnp, but we are falling down that list.
I think the point im trying to make is thus. According to things like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States the inequality is worse here than anywhere else in the world, and its growing. Although its probably going to the best of the best for quite some time for the well off here, it shouldnt be as relatively bad as it is and is going to be for our poor and those increasingly finding their way to poverty.
I won't argue with you about our educational system though. It's probably the main reasons which weights down our total raw score.
it definently does.
Well this makes my point for me! If companies do it now you can bet that the govt. would also engage in forced modification of peoples' lifestyles.
so the argument is bunk. If companies are already doing this and people arent opposed to the current system, why would it matter if a new entity did the same thing?
A woman who gets an abortion is not doing so from a me first perspective. She is exercising her right to make a medical choice which will benefit her life. She is hardly being selfish. It's a tough choice to make. It's the same with someone facing a possible surgery. They are not being selfish or exhibiting a me first perspective by taking care of themselves and paying for it - either with their own money or with private insurance. I would say they're being responsible.
im not exactly sure what the point you are trying to make here is, i think im just confused about the particulars.
Very good point here. I don't like the fact that there are 50 million uninsured people here. However, just because 100% of the citizens are insured doesn't mean they'll get goo health care treatment. I disagree that the incentive of the free market is to run things as cheaply as possible. The incentive is to make a profit by providing excellent service for the lowest price to the consumer.
ah but as ben franklin would say, the appearnce of virtue is just as effective as the actual virtue. If you can only get healthcare with insurance, as is pretty much teh current system, there is no need to provide excellent service, since they are either going to get your business or your not going to have healthcare, the demand is fairly inelastic. Yes competition is going to affect this to a degree, but these companies arent stupid, small incrimental changes wont affect the business nor will they provide most people with better healthcare. The bedrock economic theory seems to still agree you cut costs as much as possible to gain profit, especially in areas where demand is not elastic.
I agree there certainly are issues to every socialized healthcare system. In fact because of the size of the american population and malpractice issues, socialized healthcare may be tougher here than in many places. But this alone is not a reason to justify not having it.
*Just as a point, I asked for specific examples where the govt. has provided services better than the free market on a frequent basis and you didn't give me any. I'll take that as a concession at least on that point unless you're going to offer me some specific examples.
well, i suppose i didnt provide specific examples because there are perhaps too many. I also believe the core of my argument was not that gov. provides better services, but rather gov. intercedes on behalf of citizens to make private companies do things. For a small list of current examples....see
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/active_leg_page.htm. Every single piece of legislation that requires a business to do some particular or sets up a regulation or provision that forces business to do things in any particular way, is an example of gov. interceding on behalf of citizens. Some examples within the letter "A" 1)the increase of the mandatory retirement age for pilots 2)providing notification for parents of minors in cases of abortion and no taking across state lines to circumvent as such 3) airline passengers bill of rights 4)Agriculture disaster relief
These are current bits of legislation. It says nothing of the entire history of gov legislation, which essentially is the point i am making.
I posted a lot but you wrote a lot. Thank you for taking the time to post what you did. There was no way I could address everything so I chose the main points.
no worries, i did the best i could as well. I suppose that if we continue on it will probably be both of us doing the best we can in the future. If theres anything that was especially unclear, ill do my best to elaborate.
