Which means we should never try to force economic equality on people.
if we do not attempt to mediate on the behalf of society, then things like the inequal distribution of wealth globally and the slow but steady falling of the middle class will continue relatively unabated. Though these admittedly are only two problems, they are certainly severe and need addressing. While ecnomoic equality may not be a practical goal, to choose to do nothing, in no way solves problems that are occuring.
Yes, I see that you are setting up the 'some people are victims' argument through this. What you view as a solution actually causes more problems because it robs people of the wealth they've accumulated in order to take care of themselves and their families. They know what's best for themselves - not the government.
Well if i am setting up a line of thought here it is because i assume at some point its a line of discussion that must be tread. After all if we are going to look at stratification in society we have to ask, why is it there? what is it that makes some people obtain more economic success than others? Frankly i think most serious study and rational thinking suggests that the social location into which a person is born and socialized has far more to do than the work ethic argument.
You talk about social change but you're not defining what you're changing society to. I say it's a bad change because it leaves people more dependent on the government, which is inadequate to help society no matter how well intentioned.
I omitted the section on social security because in part i do agree with you and am not certain there is a viable solution at the present.
My idea of what social change can and should be, at least relating to this issue. Currently for the first generation in quite some time, individuals are expected to do worse over their careers than their parents. This is concurrent with a economic system that allows for more growth than ever before. "Common sense" aside, it seems incredibly problmatic that the gap between exorbant wealth and the rest of society is shrinking and figures to do so more in the future. Admittedly taxation will in many ways have to be involved, things do not come for free. However, i am not of the opinion that we are taxing to steal from the rich in order to give to the needy ala marx in this case. I believe in many ways we have to invest in the economic capability of our generation coming up and future generations. This is done through social programs by and large. You tend to find that when families spend less time wondering how they will pay off interest rates and buy food, and spend more time preparing their children for the future, that families excel.
This is just simply not true. Nobody is denied access to healthcare in the U.S. It is illegal to refuse emergency medical services because of lack of insurance. There are a number of people that are uninsured and that is a problem. There is no denying it, but I would say let's not make it worse by forcing government healthcare on people who don't want it. That's not freedom. Where do you think the money comes from in order for socialized healthcare to exist - from taxpayers!
I think your cheating a bit with semantics here. Is there really a practical difference between someone telling you, you cannot have health care and being functionally unable to pay for it? Seemingly there is not. Although i respect and understand some of the misgivings that the upper crust of american society may have about healthcare, i have a sneaking suspicion that those with money will always be able to find the best of the best. Frankly we have spent a large amount of money in the current administration that suggests that had we perhaps been a bit more effective in usage of resources, we may not need as heavy of taxation as would probably be required.
Likewise, i find it interesting that it many cases the countries that continually end up placing higher than the US on standard of living, do not seem to have qualms about the taxes that they pay.
The next step after that is government telling people how to live their lives in order to cut down on costs. It just makes the problem even worse than the original dilemma.
right now this seems to me like a lot of unnecessary speculation. Is it possible, yes it most certainly is possible. However, is it any different than what a number of companies currently are doing to their employees, weyco being a reasonable example, firing employees for smoking off the job? Frankly numbers of companies are comping with diversified strategies to both curb employee behavior and promote wellness plans. I would think that an institution not concerned with profit as an end all be all could do a better job, for the millions that we are referring to.
Not to trivialize your point, but welcome to real life. There are problems and no system is going to address everything 100%. The reason the free market works better (not perfect) is because competition forces health care providers to keep costs lower (than what they would charge if the govt. was paying for it) and provide higher quality. Just look at the government-run VA hospitals.
I think if we are being honest with ourselves, you and i would probably do just fine with the current system. However, part of looking at social problems through a broader perspective than simply the me first perspective, is looking at how society best benefits from a solution. Its not unreasonable to say that currently up to 50 million people are not getting the healthcare that they should receieve as american citizens. 50 million people is no drop in the bucket, and there is no need to pretend that a system which is not benefiting them currently will suddenly start to do so. Alongside the oppertunity to run things at lower prices, comes the free market incentive to run things as cheaply as possible. When you are trying to cut corners to outcompete your opponent in a field dealing directly with human life, you are not solving a social problem.
Either it's true or not. You started out by saying my statement may very well be true and then argued that it isn't. Just take a position. I can take it.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the govt has
frequently mediated for the social embetterment of our population. What government services have they provided for the population that is more efficient than what the private sector has accomplished? How many times have they repeated this act? What is your definition of
frequent?
I'm not even going to try and tell you that the free market is going to cure all of societies ills. I'm just offering to you that it does a better job than if the government became involved.
in short, every government relation in the business world is an act of the government to mediate on the behalf of society. Every time a company has to buy a permit, pay a tax, donate an amount of money, pay a fine, using gov. guidelines in hiring practices, along with the entire social welfare program of the country, the gov. is picking up the slack for things the free market does not simply do on its own. This is not to say the gov. never acts on the behalf of business or that the gov can do every single thing it may want to....see corporate welfare, chapter 9 of nafta, and business lobbies as examples respectively. However, without gov. intervention it is quite likely these things would not be done.
Is every single thing that the gov does a great thing, certainly not. Do we perhaps sacrifice some potential for growth and economic competiveness when we act against purely ecnomically driven interests, yes. However, when you deal with social issues, although the economy is the most important institution, it is by no means the only institution. When you stop looking at gov. policy as something that impacts American lives and start looking at it only as dollars and cents, you lose the real impact and reasoning behind policy. If you look around at the turn of the industrial revolution it is interesting that some of the critcs of capitalism were the first people to vigorously applaud it. However, the free market consistently did not look out to protect the fundamental needs of the people, which led many to criticize it. Still, as states became stronger, they began to fill in some of the gaps, and they will continue to do so as much as possible, though nations will increasingly likely become regions of nations, neither here nor there.
The free market is great at being a market. No system we have ever invented can produce on the quanitity of high capitalism. However, it is not very good at solving social problems.
Didnt see that 
