Growing Seniors Population Spell Trouble

[ToadBrother]

So your argument is that I should modify my belief system out of self-interest?

"Belief system", that's an awfully good term for Libertarianism. And any belief system that will see you starve to death because times get bad ain't no belief system worth its salt.

I'm glad for you that Asimov is your moral inspiration. He is not mine.

I doubt you have a moral inspiration.

I accept that there will be some redistribution of wealth. You call it the human condition, I call it a power struggle. Whle I agree that it is probably impossible to prevent redistribution without revolution, what I would support is to minimize the redistribution.

Are you a Libertarian or a Marxist?

Gee Toad, for the very few Libertarians, you seem to run into an awful lot of them.

The Internet attracts the fringe, just look at all those Ron Paulites.

[bloodyminded]

Hmm, you're confused as to my beliefs. Please quote whre I've said government " should be shrunk to the point of defense...and only defense". It does appear to are formulating responses to statements I never made nor positions I hold.

My mistake; I attributed a different poster's words to you. Sorry about that.

I see. So you agree that government has the power to quell riots, but somehow it first needs to understand the motivation of the riot? If the reasons are justifed, then the people are justified in rioting? Is that your logic?

Not quite. My logic is that if we reached the point of massive food riots, it would mean we were a failed state. And the government would know the reasons for it, obviously.

And yes, if the reasons are justified, the people are justified to riot. Of course they are. We're not talking about rioting for political disagreements; we're talking about rioting because your children are starving, while the little minority overclass lives in luxury. This is intolerable for a society, and intolerable on a personal level.

[Renegade]

Not quite. My logic is that if we reached the point of massive food riots, it would mean we were a failed state. And the government would know the reasons for it, obviously.

And yes, if the reasons are justified, the people are justified to riot. Of course they are. We're not talking about rioting for political disagreements; we're talking about rioting because your children are starving, while the little minority overclass lives in luxury. This is intolerable for a society, and intolerable on a personal level.

Ironically, I probably agree with you. But my reasoning may be different. It makes sense that people have their basic needs provided for because it probably cost a society less to do so than to invest in force to quell the riot. IOW prevention probably is more efficient than reaction. Having said that, to give the poor more than is necessary to appease them and keep them from rioting, is not necessary. I'm not sure what level of benefits are needed to keep poor people from rioting, however I do believe it is considerably lower than what is currently provided.

[ToadBrother]

Ironically, I probably agree with you. But my reasoning may be different. It makes sense that people have their basic needs provided for because it probably cost a society less to do so than to invest in force to quell the riot. IOW prevention probably is more efficient than reaction. Having said that, to give the poor more than is necessary to appease them and keep them from rioting, is not necessary. I'm not sure what level of benefits are needed to keep poor people from rioting, however I do believe it is considerably lower than what is currently provided.

Would you care to justify that last sentence?

[Renegade]

"Belief system", that's an awfully good term for Libertarianism. And any belief system that will see you starve to death because times get bad ain't no belief system worth its salt.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So IOW, my believe system should be constructed to maximize my self interest. I take it you would characterize anyone who has died for their beliefs a belief system that not worth its salt.

I doubt you have a moral inspiration.

Why would you even care if I even have a moral inspiration?

Are you a Libertarian or a Marxist?

You tell me. You are the one who seeks to put labels on me.

The Internet attracts the fringe, just look at all those Ron Paulites.

Yes, look at all of those "very few" of them.

[ToadBrother]

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So IOW, my believe system should be constructed to maximize my self interest. I take it you would characterize anyone who has died for their beliefs a belief system that not worth its salt.

Society is a balancing act, not a zero sum game. The fact that you think it's all but maximizing your self interest indicates that you do in fact belief it's a zero sum game.

Why would you even care if I even have a moral inspiration?

To be honest, I don't. Libertarianism has absolute zero chance of ever being a founding principle of our government, and judging by the few half-way experiments like New Zealand during the mid-1980s, it's a profoundly unsound ideology from every aspect.

You tell me. You are the one who seeks to put labels on me.

Didn't you admit to being a Libertarian.

Yes, look at all of those "very few" of them.

A few thousand crazies out of a population of over 300 million people is what I'd call "very few".

[bloodyminded]

Ironically, I probably agree with you. But my reasoning may be different. It makes sense that people have their basic needs provided for because it probably cost a society less to do so than to invest in force to quell the riot. IOW prevention probably is more efficient than reaction. Having said that, to give the poor more than is necessary to appease them and keep them from rioting, is not necessary. I'm not sure what level of benefits are needed to keep poor people from rioting, however I do believe it is considerably lower than what is currently provided.

Ok. Aside from your last bit, which I find a little difficult to stomach (and consider it immeasureable anyway, unless we were to test the theroy on live human subjects) we have some agreement here. But I don't quite so clearly separate the "practical" matters of "efficiency" from the moral questions.

[Wilber]

My point was that even programs which are originally set up a "universal" are subject to change just like OAS.

You continually compare apples and oranges. Not everyone needs an income supplement, everyone needs medical services. That is why they are universal in our society.

My suggestion was not to quailfy the procedure on ability to pay. My suggetion was to include other qualificatiion factors to control costs. Even in our current system, the ability to pay does allow an individual to circumvent the rationing of procedures. If you can afford it all you need to do is get on a plane and get the treatment you desire.

As is the case in every country and every system. The question here is our country and our system.

Only once criminal law is broken. That is not the case in what I am referring to.

You made a blanket statement, I was refuting it.

Wilber, I am very aware of what constitues a crime. That is not the purpose of my question. What constitutes a crime can change from time to time. My purpose was to understand the consistancy of your logic. Since you declined to provide an answer, it would seem you are unwilling to put your rationale under scrutiny. So give it a shot, answer the questions why don't you?

You won't do it by bringing up ridiculous analogies that would justify aggravated assault on a third party in order to provide medical treatment.

As far as your opinion of me. You can't imagine how much I value it. I save the effort of typing my opinion of you, because I'm sure you value mine as much as I value yours.

We agree on something.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Wilber

[Renegade]

Society is a balancing act, not a zero sum game. The fact that you think it's all but maximizing your self interest indicates that you do in fact belief it's a zero sum game.

Didn't you just finish trying to convince me that I should not support Libertanism becasue it is not in my self interest. So which is it, should I be looking at my self-interest or not?

To be honest, I don't. Libertarianism has absolute zero chance of ever being a founding principle of our government, and judging by the few half-way experiments like New Zealand during the mid-1980s, it's a profoundly unsound ideology from every aspect.

Great you don't care about my moral inspiration and I don't care about your predictions for Libertarianism.

Didn't you admit to being a Libertarian.

I did because you asked, but I think you sought to label me even prior.

A few thousand crazies out of a population of over 300 million people is what I'd call "very few".

Well I bet you a few hundered million of the 300 million don't even have a political philosophy. And if there are a few thousand, it seems that you must have run into every single one. Lucky Libertarians who have had you enlighten them,

[Renegade]

You continually compare apples and oranges. Not everyone needs an income supplement, everyone needs medical services. That is why they are universal in our society.

Geez you miss the point. The point is that any progam can change when circumstances change. I gave OAS as an example. You were adamant that OAS was always income driven. That was clearly wrong. You don't think comparing OAS to healthcare to be "apples" to "apples", then tell me what restricts a a government from changing the fundamental tenants of a program? Since you refuse to answer questions, I will answer for you. It is the threat of losing power. As long as people want it to be universal it is, as soon other factors make universality less of a priority it is subject to change. You act as if nothing can ever be changed about the healthcare system. You admit to "challenges" but offer not constructive solutinos.

You made a blanket statement, I was refuting it.

Then it is you who likes to compare apples and oranges.

You won't do it by bringing up ridiculous analogies that would justify aggravated assault on a third party in order to provide medical treatment.

Then let me ask you more generally. Where is it ok to draw the line between what you can do to one person to save the life of another? You seem to indicate that assault is going to far. How have you determined what is too far?

We agree on something.

I am estatic.

[Wilber]

Geez you miss the point. The point is that any progam can change when circumstances change. I gave OAS as an example. You were adamant that OAS was always income driven. That was clearly wrong. You don't think comparing OAS to healthcare to be "apples" to "apples", then tell me what restricts a a government from changing the fundamental tenants of a program? Since you refuse to answer questions, I will answer for you. It is the threat of losing power. As long as people want it to be universal it is, as soon other factors make universality less of a priority it is subject to change. You act as if nothing can ever be changed about the healthcare system. You admit to "challenges" but offer not constructive solutinos.

Who said programs couldn't be changed. I have no doubt there will have to be changes. What I dissagree with is your changes.

Then it is you who likes to compare apples and oranges.

But I maintain, no one has the "right" to impose the cost of their life on someone else.

This was your statement, I was just pointing out that this is not the case in our society.

Then let me ask you more generally. Where is it ok to draw the line between what you can do to one person to save the life of another? You seem to indicate that assault is going to far. How have you determined what is too far?

I would ask you the same question. As you brought it up, would it include assaulting an innocent third party?

[ToadBrother]

Didn't you just finish trying to convince me that I should not support Libertanism becasue it is not in my self interest. So which is it, should I be looking at my self-interest or not?

Let's call it, y'know, enlightened self interest. One of the key selling points for social programs has always been that while the large majority of the folks that pay for them don't access them, at some point they might very well do so. I see Libertarianism as a sort unenlightened, short-term self interest, wherein a person, somehow believing that they achieved all their wealth (however much they may possess) on their own hard work (which I consider completely delusional and invalid, but anyways), sees at as a short term gain to kill any social program which may ultimately cost them money. Essentially, it's pure anti-social greed. I can see it's attraction to someone with lots of money in the bank, but for anybody in the middle class, to kill social programs simply to keep a bigger paycheck is playing with fire. Social programs are like insurance, they're expensive and often seem pointless, but get caught without them at the moment of disaster...

Great you don't care about my moral inspiration and I don't care about your predictions for Libertarianism.

What really counts at the end of the day is society's moral precepts. Libertarians, at best, have this rather crude notion that property somehow represents an untouchable tower, and that society's requirement (that's right, society's not government, government is simply an aspect of society, not some alien organ attached on to it) that you give back some portion of what you gained is somehow tantamount to stealing property.

The fact that the only way property is even recognized is because the wider society says property is recognizable (the notion of private property has been very fluid depending on time and place) suggests that the very bedrock notion of Libertarianism is questionable.

As to the future of Libertarianism, it's existed as a concept in one form or another at least since the Enlightenment, and a few attempts, at least to a modest degree, to put its principles in place have been done. The two best known was the United States from 1787 until 1861, and that experiment ended in a rather dramatic fashion. New Zealand toyed with it between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s, and it certainly didn't deliver any economic miracles as was promised. If half-way Libertarian states seem inherently unstable, just how long do you think a full blown Libertarian state would last? I mean, humans over the last 6,000 to 10,000 years have messed around with just about every conceivable governing system, and yet not one society has ever functioned in the way Libertarians say the ideal society ought to.

Well I bet you a few hundered million of the 300 million don't even have a political philosophy.

Most people don't, which is rather telling in and of itself.

And if there are a few thousand, it seems that you must have run into every single one. Lucky Libertarians who have had you enlighten them,

I've talked to maybe a dozen people who fit the bill as full-blown Libertarians. I suspect you're not even one of those, because those six people were possibly some of the most bizarre and loathsome people I've ever had the displeasure to deal with. Even the Ron Paulites were simply a pretty whacky fringe group, and most of those I talked to didn't seem like Libertarians so much as quasi-religious.

Edited February 24, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bloodyminded]

I've talked to maybe a dozen people who fit the bill as full-blown Libertarians. I suspect you're not even one of those, because those six people were possibly some of the most bizarre and loathsome people I've ever had the displeasure to deal with.

Yeah, I once had a debate with a libertarian woman, on a site like this one, and her ideas were truly jaw-dropping. She went so far as to say that even the police should only be used by those who could pay for them.

At that extreme level, I consider it an out-and-out religion, in which the theory, the precepts, are more important than the human beings who dwell miserably beneath them.

[ToadBrother]

Yeah, I once had a debate with a libertarian woman, on a site like this one, and her ideas were truly jaw-dropping. She went so far as to say that even the police should only be used by those who could pay for them.

At that extreme level, I consider it an out-and-out religion, in which the theory, the precepts, are more important than the human beings who dwell miserably beneath them.

I tend to view most Libertarians like I view most flat tax advocates. They always start out with this concrete set of principles, but as you lob queries and criticisms, they open they envelope a little more until suddenly you're right where you started, with the system we have now.

I think there have been enough very tragic examples of basically saying "We're going to let people take care of themselves without government aid" that have gone wrong to suggest that government does have a place beyond just simply a few limited areas. I don't even think the American Founding Fathers were entirely on the Libertarian boat (Jefferson's ideal state was most certainly Libertarian, but also agrarian, which described the slaves states well enough, but became incapable of describing a highly urbanized industrialized socio-economic structure, which is the real reason there was a Civil War). The Founding Fathers were much more interested in a limited Federal government (mainly because they had seen the kinds of perceived and real abuses that came from Westminster, an ocean away). Most of the moderate Libertarians I meet are mainly against Federal funding of such programs, more as a sort of States Rights position than because they don't believe in health care or welfare (though they clearly have problems with pouring lots of money into it).

[Renegade]

Who said programs couldn't be changed. I have no doubt there will have to be changes. What I dissagree with is your changes.

Sure, at least the we agree that even the basic tenents of a program are subject to changes.

This was your statement, I was just pointing out that this is not the case in our society.

Perhaps next time I should add fine print to may statements so that they are not taken out of context. Or perhaps, I'll just save myself the trouble and ignore the nonsensical responses which result.

I would ask you the same question. As you brought it up, would it include assaulting an innocent third party?

So Willie, still don't want to answer the question but want me to answer first? OK, I'll oblige. A person should be under no legal obligation to give up any of his person , property, or wealth, nor should he be subject to assult in order to save the life of another. Such decisions should be made voluntarily without the coercion of the state.

Perhaps now you would have the courtesy to answer?

[Renegade]

Let's call it, y'know, enlightened self interest. One of the key selling points for social programs has always been that while the large majority of the folks that pay for them don't access them, at some point they might very well do so. I see Libertarianism as a sort unenlightened, short-term self interest, wherein a person, somehow believing that they achieved all their wealth (however much they may possess) on their own hard work (which I consider completely delusional and invalid, but anyways), sees at as a short term gain to kill any social program which may ultimately cost them money. Essentially, it's pure anti-social greed. I can see it's attraction to someone with lots of money in the bank, but for anybody in the middle class, to kill social programs simply to keep a bigger paycheck is playing with fire. Social programs are like insurance, they're expensive and often seem pointless, but get caught without them at the moment of disaster...

Well TB, I agree with your analogy that Social programs are like insurance. The problem is that you don't seem to believe that people are able to make their own assessment of what "insurance" they need. Sure there may be on chance that someday that I will use the "insurnace" , but if I percieve the cost of the "insurance" premium too high, it is completely rational to take the chance and avoid the high premiums altogether. The problem with government provided social benefits is they are are a monopolistic provider. They charge what ever they choose, and more over don't give anyone the choice to pay. Moreover the government will choose to discriminate among its subjects as to who will carry the burden of payment. For a large part of the middle class the benefits are not worth the "premium" cost and many of the services provided by many of these programs can be more effectively privately if the government didn't actively prevent their availabilty.

What really counts at the end of the day is society's moral precepts. Libertarians, at best, have this rather crude notion that property somehow represents an untouchable tower, and that society's requirement (that's right, society's not government, government is simply an aspect of society, not some alien organ attached on to it) that you give back some portion of what you gained is somehow tantamount to stealing property.

If you accept that premise that a person's body is is own, then it should also be quite reasonable that the fruits of a person's body (ie his labour) is also his own, and yes any forcible removal of what is one's own is theft.

The fact that the only way property is even recognized is because the wider society says property is recognizable (the notion of private property has been very fluid depending on time and place) suggests that the very bedrock notion of Libertarianism is questionable.

As to the future of Libertarianism, it's existed as a concept in one form or another at least since the Enlightenment, and a few attempts, at least to a modest degree, to put its principles in place have been done. The two best known was the United States from 1787 until 1861, and that experiment ended in a rather dramatic fashion. New Zealand toyed with it between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s, and it certainly didn't deliver any economic miracles as was promised. If half-way Libertarian states seem inherently unstable, just how long do you think a full blown Libertarian state would last? I mean, humans over the last 6,000 to 10,000 years have messed around with just about every conceivable governing system, and yet not one society has ever functioned in the way Libertarians say the ideal society ought to.

Much as I'd like to TB, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into a debate on the fundemental beliefs of Libertarianism.

However, let me say this, there is NO society I know which is exactly implemented in line with an ideal theroetical philosophy. Libertarianism is no different. Your central argument to discredit Libertarianism is that it cannot be implemented in its ideal state. Tell me, which philsophy can? What is the philsophy you espouse and where has it been implemented in its ideal state?

Our society today is a balancing act between different philsophies, and goals directed by self-interest. It is by no means "pure" or immune to change. Implemented philosophies change with each election, and each generation changes its philosophy.

I use Libertarianism as my guiding goal to where I see society should evolve to, while still understanding that because of constraints and self interest, not all Libertarian ideals would be realised. That doesn't stop me from advocating for a more Libertarian society.

I've talked to maybe a dozen people who fit the bill as full-blown Libertarians. I suspect you're not even one of those, because those six people were possibly some of the most bizarre and loathsome people I've ever had the displeasure to deal with. Even the Ron Paulites were simply a pretty whacky fringe group, and most of those I talked to didn't seem like Libertarians so much as quasi-religious.

I have no idea of whether I would fit your qualification of a "full-blown Libertarians". Certainly I understand the philsophy and generally agree with it.

You seem to argue that I should abandon Libertarian principles because it would result in policies which are not in my self-interest. Your stance make me speculate that perhaps your philosophy is driven out of your own self-interest.

[ToadBrother]

I have no idea of whether I would fit your qualification of a "full-blown Libertarians". Certainly I understand the philsophy and generally agree with it.

You seem to argue that I should abandon Libertarian principles because it would result in policies which are not in my self-interest. Your stance make me speculate that perhaps your philosophy is driven out of your own self-interest.

Before we go any further, do you believe that government is simply an organ of society or not?

[Oleg Bach]

Elections don't work in Canada anymore. People that are aware and actually count do not vote. Those that do really do not account for much seeing that they actually trust the broken down democratic system. Have all the elections you want and all remanins the same- to change governments is like changing the set at the theatre. It will always be the same old badly written play with egotistical self serving bad actors.

[Wilber]

So Willie, still don't want to answer the question but want me to answer first? OK, I'll oblige. A person should be under no legal obligation to give up any of his person , property, or wealth, nor should he be subject to assult in order to save the life of another. Such decisions should be made voluntarily without the coercion of the state.

Perhaps now you would have the courtesy to answer?

Would your principles extend to your own child. Say your kid has a chronic ailment or has an accident which results in injuries that make them a very high risk to insure. So high that you can't afford to pay the premiums in a system that charges based on risk. Would you sentence your child to death for your principles. What about your kids rights?

The problem with you libertarians is that your field of vision doesn't extend past your own wallet.

[Oleg Bach]

Would your principles extend to your own child. Say your kid has a chronic ailment or has an accident which results in injuries that make them a very high risk to insure. So high that you can't afford to pay the premiums in a system that charges based on risk. Would you sentence your child to death for your principles. What about your kids rights?

The problem with you libertarians is that your field of vision doesn't extend past your own wallet.

I have a millionare libertarian brother..his vision is strickly on his wallet--once he was rich and his spoiled son needed some smokes- the cheap bastard drove for two hours looking for counterfeit native smokes...he wasted his sons time and his own- then they had a horrible arguement- the son commits suicide..total tradgedy! All my childern are alive and I am not fixated on my empty wallet or my full on- I have always been fixated on the well being of my children and their general health care..no matter what!

[Bonam]

I have a millionare libertarian brother..his vision is strickly on his wallet--once he was rich and his spoiled son needed some smokes- the cheap bastard drove for two hours looking for counterfeit native smokes...he wasted his sons time and his own- then they had a horrible arguement- the son commits suicide..total tradgedy! All my childern are alive and I am not fixated on my empty wallet or my full on- I have always been fixated on the well being of my children and their general health care..no matter what!

Son commits suicide because he couldn't get a free cigar? From your "millionaire libertarian brother" no less? Come on, you can make up better stories than that ;p

[Oleg Bach]

Son commits suicide because he couldn't get a free cigar? From your "millionaire libertarian brother" no less? Come on, you can make up better stories than that ;p

It's a true story and the end of an on going power struggle between a materialist father and an adventuringt son who he gave everything too that was material..that satisified the father--but he gave nothing of himself. The point I was making was that the older brother always sucked up to the system and material things- he and his wife are highly educated but are ingnorant of the things of true value...the older brother did say that he would rather live in a trailer and have his son back- but it is to late.

[Renegade]

Before we go any further, do you believe that government is simply an organ of society or not?

I'm not sure what you are asking TB. Government is simply an adminrative structure which implemnts policies. IMV, those policies should be based upon some fundamental principles, not morality. Explain what your asking and I'll try to articulate better my position.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not sure what you are asking TB. Government is simply an adminrative structure which implemnts policies. IMV, those policies should be based upon some fundamental principles, not morality. Explain what your asking and I'll try to articulate better my position.

Look, a society is a collective. However it's grouped together, all societies, even non-human ones, require some sort of common codes of conduct and some way of enforcing them. As well, societies exist as a way of formalizing and assuring mutual assistance. What I'm asking, in a nutshell, is whether you think that the concept of government is simply a natural outgrowth of that. Do you think, for instance, that an urbanized society could survive without some form of government?

[Renegade]

Would your principles extend to your own child. Say your kid has a chronic ailment or has an accident which results in injuries that make them a very high risk to insure. So high that you can't afford to pay the premiums in a system that charges based on risk. Would you sentence your child to death for your principles. What about your kids rights?

Well Willie, I'll indulge you with a response to your question even though you have not shown the courtesy to answer the ones I have put to you.

As a parent I undertake some obglitations to my kid. I do so by virtue of making the decision to become a parent. It is a "contract" so to speak. If I am unwilling to undertake those obligations I should not accept to become a parent. Those obligations include to provide as best I can for the health care for my child. If my child suffered from some ailment it would my obligation to spend my own funding I have access to insure or address the health of that child. That obligation doesn't extend to other as they had no part in undertaking the responsibility of bringing a child into this world. If others wanted to donate voluntarily toward my child's health, I would happily accept it, however they are under no obligatoin to do so.

Would I be sentencing my child to death? Not as I see it. I woudl have done everything in my power to ensure my child's health, however that power would not extend to forcing others to keep my child alive. That needs to be their choice.

I believe that my kid has the right to care that I provide him. Such is the contract. Any other care provide by others should be voluntary and is not his "right".

The problem with you libertarians is that your field of vision doesn't extend past your own wallet.

The problem with you socialists is that your field of vision extends to other's wallet.

They don't stick their hand in your pocket, and ask that you don't stick yours in theirs. Seems fair doesn't it?