|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 22, 2009 01:26 AM |
|
|
No, obviously various freedoms would be introduced gradually - some at 13, some at 16, some at 18, etc. Of course, these ages are arbitrary, but they're a whole lot better than coercing adults.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 08:38 AM |
|
|
You seem to have inhaled too big a dose of American 1950s.
Think about why people - children - are coerced to do things: 1) they don't know better and 2) if we fail to make sure they have at least the technical ability to become a full member of society, we run the danger of them either going rogue on society or being a liability for either parents or society as a whole.
That sums it up.
In certain cases that same thing is true for adults as well. Sure, on first look, if people are grown-up you might think, that it's their business of what happens when they get sick and old (health insurance and pension payments).
But if you take a closer look, you will see that it is not their own business: the same two reasons apply:
1) They don't know better: everything can happen, inflation, bank bust, accidental loss of private funds that should do the trick, miscalculation, longer life than expected, a streak of bad luck with health. The normal single individual cannot in any way foresee developments and may simply do the wrong thing, even if willing and not to mention if a bit careless.
2)if we leave these things to every individual we force OURSELVES to EITHER live with sick old beggars in the streets, sick people going rogue lest they have the money they need for treatment (happens more often than you think anyway) and the sight of people dying, starving and so on - after all it was THEIR business to make sure that wouldn't happen OR we put it on the shoulders of society as a whole or the relatives of the people involved.
And that's why we society coerces its members to make sure they pay their dues for "other" or "bad" times - to spare US ALL being coerced to watch utter misery and poverty crime and to spare families being coerced to take the burden of old and sick family members alone because they simply don't have the cold-heartedness it takes to leave relatives to their fate.
And that's why some coercion at the right place is doing more good than bad
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 02:47 PM |
|
|
That is a very dangerous argument. Should people be coerced to kill Jews as well - after all, they're not always rational enough to see the harm in them. 
No, adults should definitely not be coerced.
Quote:
1) They don't know better: everything can happen, inflation, bank bust, accidental loss of private funds that should do the trick, miscalculation, longer life than expected, a streak of bad luck with health. The normal single individual cannot in any way foresee developments and may simply do the wrong thing, even if willing and not to mention if a bit careless.
Guess what. People take risks.
Quote:
2)if we leave these things to every individual we force OURSELVES to EITHER live with sick old beggars in the streets, sick people going rogue lest they have the money they need for treatment (happens more often than you think anyway) and the sight of people dying, starving and so on - after all it was THEIR business to make sure that wouldn't happen OR we put it on the shoulders of society as a whole or the relatives of the people involved.
Better that than be coerced.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 03:24 PM |
|
|
You know what I miss with you, Mvass?
POINTS.
I always read something like, this should be so, that should be not so, this is bad, that is good, but NEVER EVER ANY REASON.
You know, the ten commandments have been written, and they were not signed with Mvass.
So if you want to DISCUSS something, you should have one point or another - but you have none.
Didn't they teach you in school that it's not enough to say something like "X is bad"? You need support in the form of reasons.
You have none, though.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 03:46 PM |
|
|
The thing is, I've brought up many points in the past, but to no avail - you just dismiss them with cries like "Utter nonsense!"
However, I will give you a summary of my points. The problems with socialism are that:
1. It lacks an accurate price system. Even if not all the means of production are nationalized, much of what the government does is guesswork at best - what to charge for something, how much to provide, etc. And that's at best. Knowing how governments are open to manipulation by special interests, it will lead to severe misallocation at its worst.
2. It discourages personal initiative. Yes, you may talk about how money isn't everyithing, but face the facts - not every job is pleasant, and it makes much more sense to pay people to do unpleasant jobs than to coerce young people into doing them. Anyway, without a good reward for the unpleasant parts of jobs, people will do them less. This is especially troubling whenever they're working on some new breakthrough that could yield a great benefit.
3. It is coercive. And, to put it simply, being coerced makes people unhappy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 04:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
2. It discourages personal initiative. Yes, you may talk about how money isn't everyithing, but face the facts - not every job is pleasant, and it makes much more sense to pay people to do unpleasant jobs than to coerce young people into doing them. Anyway, without a good reward for the unpleasant parts of jobs, people will do them less. This is especially troubling whenever they're working on some new breakthrough that could yield a great benefit.
Let me see.
Poland is capitalistic.
And the most boring jobs (i.e. stamping letters at post) are among the worst when it comes to payment.
While the most interesting (let's say, the dreaded sportsman I already complained about) are the most profitable too.
Something doesn't work as you want it to work in capitalism, obviously.  And, going by your logic, Poles shouldn't work at all, what we got is 500-700 euro per month for most "ordinary" jobs in Warsaw and prices equal to US ones. If money is the motivation, we should have none.
But guess what. People still work and some even enjoy it 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 04:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The thing is, I've brought up many points in the past, but to no avail - you just dismiss them with cries like "Utter nonsense!"
However, I will give you a summary of my points. The problems with socialism are that:
1. It lacks an accurate price system. Even if not all the means of production are nationalized, much of what the government does is guesswork at best - what to charge for something, how much to provide, etc. And that's at best. Knowing how governments are open to manipulation by special interests, it will lead to severe misallocation at its worst.
2. It discourages personal initiative. Yes, you may talk about how money isn't everyithing, but face the facts - not every job is pleasant, and it makes much more sense to pay people to do unpleasant jobs than to coerce young people into doing them. Anyway, without a good reward for the unpleasant parts of jobs, people will do them less. This is especially troubling whenever they're working on some new breakthrough that could yield a great benefit.
3. It is coercive. And, to put it simply, being coerced makes people unhappy.
This is based on a wrong idea of socialism. Socialism just means that the means of production are "socialized". In today's world this is clearly open to interpretation - we don't live in the 19th century anymore.
Today, socialism might mean that the government holds the capital - money - and therefore holds 50% of all shares of all companies in the jurisdiction of said government, the other 50% would be devided between the company workers, depending on their tasks and functions.
This would work best, of course, with a world government. Important would be the governmental structures and the division of fields of jurisdiction.
Anyway, it makes no sense to discuss 19th century socialism - going back in history is never a good idea. I mean, you wouldn't base a discussion about cars not on the way they were 100 years ago, would you?
Let me add, that coerced children are as unhappy as gtown-ups and there are other reasons to be unhappy that no one cares about at all: I don't think that unhappiness is a reason to dismiss coercion - you'd have to dismiss a lot of things - dumb work, for example.
And should you come up with your favorite point, that no one must work, if they don't want to, I answer that no one must stay in society - they can pull out as well.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That is a very dangerous argument. Should people be coerced to kill Jews as well - after all, they're not always rational enough to see the harm in them.
Ahhh... reductio ad Hitlerum, everyone's favorite logical fallacy. Sorry, bud, you got to do a bit better than that to be convincing. 
So Vassilev, you are possibly about to enter university (if not already in one), study economics, read tons of articles and books about intrinsecate sociopolitical and economical systems. Eventually, along your study you are going to notice that even inside the most hardcore capitalist groups, the majority supports at least minimal state interference. The group that advocates total free market without any restraints is the clear minority, and not very well-seen either.
The reason is simple. Even people who fully support the free trade understand that a market logic has little application on the field of social well-fare.
YES, insurance should be compulsory. In Switzerland people are OBLIDGED to have health insurance. All of the companies in the business are private, fact, but you are legally coerced to commit to one of them. If you cannot pay, the STATE WILL PAY it for you. But you are damn hell not going to walk around on your own luck.
That offers quite some insight in why their health-quality graphics are so better than yours. Not to mention the percentage of uninsured people, thats ridiculously low. Now are they unhappy with this life-long coercion they are submited? HELL NO. In fact if you put their satisfaction level on a scale versus the totally "free" people in the US, you would have quite predictable results.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 06:34 PM |
|
|
I thank you heartily for this fine post, Wolfsburg. 
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 07:19 PM |
|
|
|
Anytime JJ. Thats what we're here for.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 07:33 PM |
|
|
DoomForge: A job should also be payed according to it's difficulty. And, actually, stamping posts doesn't sound that hard, so it's really an easy job and it's not really terrible, I mean it's not like being a prison guard or doing sewage work, so it's really okay for it to be low-paying.
Also, there are many people capable of stamping posts, there aren't many people capable of being a professional soccerplayer.
Wolfsburg: mvass advocates little state interference, since he's not an anarcho-capitalist, but anarcho-capitalism is also viable option, so your argument is wrong and there people who think they require ZERO state interference and it's a viable option as well, when eased into that process.
Also, JJ said that people don't know what's good for them and in that case, it's applicable to refer to the great fascists
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 07:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
that coerced children are as unhappy as gtown-ups
Not really... There's the premise that children aren't responsible for their own actions, so that's the pemise that children don't have the mental capacity to decide what's good for them, YET. It's easy for children, since they don't have the mental capacities of an adult, but how are YOU going to decide what's best for an adult?
So whatever mvass says is wrong, but whatever YOU say must be right?
Also, we advocate 19th century liberalism, so your point doesn't quite hold up, when you say we should let go of the past. Also, the average man has adopted the mindset of the 19th century man as well, so learning about thine past is very much possible.
Quote:
In fact if you put their satisfaction level on a scale versus the totally "free" people in the US, you would have quite predictable results.
And you know this, because...
Also, how do you measure happiness? Anyway, this won't hold up with material satisfaction, since Belgium is the country with one of the highest anti-depressant purchase in the world, yet nearly all of Belgium is capable of living secure with enough food and comfort and a socialist health system.
Andif the state pays for your health insurance, then being coerced into it rends the point rather moot...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 08:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In fact if you put their satisfaction level on a scale versus the totally "free" people in the US, you would have quite predictable results.
And you know this, because...
of this... and this
Quote:
Also, how do you measure happiness?
The simplest of all scientifical ways. Surveys. People qualify themselves as "very happy", "happy", "average" and so on. Has been done more than a few times on the matter by the way, with similar results.
Quote:
Anyway, this won't hold up with material satisfaction, since Belgium is the country with one of the highest anti-depressant purchase in the world
Sorry, whats the point here? What do you want to say? A trustworthy health-system has no influence on people's happiness?
Quote:
Andif the state pays for your health insurance, then being coerced into it rends the point rather moot...
Not at all. You have to prove you dont have the money for it to be financed by the state. Thats rational state interference. Backing up the individual when they are in need, using the tax-money of those who have it all sorted out.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 08:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
DoomForge: A job should also be payed according to it's difficulty. And, actually, stamping posts doesn't sound that hard, so it's really an easy job and it's not really terrible, I mean it's not like being a prison guard or doing sewage work, so it's really okay for it to be low-paying.
What about a miner, then? It's one of the hardest jobs out there, and guess what: the payment sucks, too.
Quote:
Also, there are many people capable of stamping posts, there aren't many people capable of being a professional soccerplayer.
I actually don't agree. You most likely think of big names here like Messi, but an ordinary fifth-league soccerplayer could be you or me, if we spent a lot of time doing it as kids, tbh. And they still earn more than your average post-stamper. Twice or thrice more, anyway.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 08:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A trustworthy health-system has no influence on people's happiness?
People's unhappiness may have more to do with their media, politics and education, since, you know, those are the things that shape the human mind and maybe people would just be hapier being taxed less.
Of course, that's just human psyche, but those polls are... Meh, there are more scientific ways to figure stuff like that out. (purchase of anti-despressants, amount of people visiting psychologists, the media, etc.)
Bah, you can go with your POV and I'll go with mine, but happiness is quite subjective in my opinion and polls wouldn't figure it out. (anyway, I'll stop about happiness now)
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 08:39 PM |
|
|
Oh it is very scientifical, I give you that.
Subjective well-being measurement
Its based on principles of reliability, validity, it has an estimated margin of error, which is already taken into account. Its not just some lame untested survey someone came up with to prove their twisted ideas.
(You see, in Vale do Jequitinhonha where we recently had famine here in Brazil, they certainly lacked antidepressants to buy. I dont assume that means they were less miserable back then.)
Quote:
People's unhappiness may have more to do with their media, politics and education, since, you know, those are the things that shape the human mind and maybe people would just be hapier being taxed less.
You may be right. Bring me a couple of articles on that and we shall discuss this opinion as an actual theory.
Quote:
To doomforge: I think your response was meant for 'I gave up on believing in God'.
Oh boy, now its Dagoth the one with the stick! Take cover!
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 08:50 PM |
|
|
Okay, you win!
I still prefer giving people a lot of liberty, but aren't you killing insurance companies that would be forced to take up people who are high-risk?
For example, I have a heart deformity... This could cost a lot of money, by the time I grow up... What now? Are those companies now forced to cough up a lot of money on my part? Aren't you just taxing private companies more in order to not tax the people on that?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 10:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, JJ said that people don't know what's good for them and in that case, it's applicable to refer to the great fascists
bad reference.
Communists, not fascists
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 10:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, JJ said that people don't know what's good for them and in that case, it's applicable to refer to the great fascists
Actually, I did NOT say that. I did say that people have no knowledge of the future, and that society as a whole doesn't want to suffer the ill effects of people miscalculating their own future by confronting their members with the choice of either letting those who miscalculated suffer (you know - "they deserve it, they could have made precautions!") and feel obviously very bad about it or paying for them anyway, either society as a whole (taxes) or forcing family to care.
About the matter of you and your weak heart - you are not the only one. And should you really happen to cost your private insurance company a fortune, this will be bad luck for those insured in the same company, because ultimately they will pay it (the company will raise the premium, which will giv everyone the right to leave, by the way, and go to someone else...
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 10:13 PM |
|
|
Well, isn't it unfair that we cripple those insurance companies, then? I am talking about those companies, not us, because frankly I care more about the people who are forced to pay up, simply because of the law and it's not taxes, nor did they commit a crime.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
