anarkhos
Velociraptor
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Oregon
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | | The American federal government, on the other hand, has been the defender of civil liberties. |
Say what |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anarkhos wrote: | | enrico_dandolo wrote: | | anarkhos wrote: | | If right-wing is synonymous with authoritarian (which was roughly it's original meaning) |
Not true.
1- Originally, during the First French Republic, the right included the royalist. It would better describe conservatism, in its primary meaning: an ideology that wants to prevent change, an ideology for the presevervation of the status quo and of the established order. The left (well, la Montagne at that point, but whatever) was in charge under Robespierre, and it was rather authoritarian. |
I was describing the right-wing, not 'conservatism'. You conflate the two in your first sentence! And yes, I'm well aware of the academic definition of conservative, but that isn't here nor there. |
What I said is that right would better describe conservatism than authoritarianism. I should have said that the right was royalist at the start.
| anarkhos wrote: | | Furthermore the "status-quo" was highly authoritarian, not to mention protectionist. We're talking about the Royalists for crying out loud. The third estate wanted the right to own land and the fruit of their labor. Robespierre was instrumental in writing the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Have you read it? |
Of course I did, and of course he was. And he also had several thousand people killed for lack of revolutionnary fervor, in Paris alone, and many more in Lyon and elsewhere.
Also, Louis XVI was the least authoritarian of the last few French kings. He did, after, call for the Estates General (of course, only to resolve financial problems, but still, it was a relatively liberal move -- he could not have done it). The "royalists" were not all insane absolutists, either; they included constitutionalists, etc. Actually, I doubt there was any absolutist in any revolutionnary assembly, because recognizing it would be against absolutism.
What does protectionism have to do with anything, by the way?
| anarkhos wrote: | | enrico_dandolo wrote: | | 2- It does not mean authoritarian today either. In Canada, our rightmost party favors decentralization. |
Yea right. They support privatizing where special interests will pick off the valuable bits for pennies on the dollar. Any autonomy they 'favor' for smaller regions is pure lip service. |
While I generally don't have much confidence in Harper, I don't see any reason to doubt his honesty on the question of decentralization. In any case, both the NDP and the Liberal Party are ardent and open centralizers, and the Bloc is meaningless, so... yeah. (However, I did agree that decentralization did not go against authoritarianism.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
anarkhos
Velociraptor
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | | What does protectionism have to do with anything, by the way? |
Grants of monopoly has everything to do with it. The state IS the monopoly, and seeks to monopolize every function of society for greater revenue and power. I mean, why do you think the politicians are owned ten times over by the time they reach office?
The biggest problem with this article is it paints the division in ideological terms as though that's how politics works. In reality, it's all about getting elected through identity so you can serve the special interests through machinery. Santorum may be an authoritarian nut who thinks freedom is its direct opposite (article I linked to previously), but he would get any support if he wasn't a good lap dog as Senator, which he was. Both to his party and the wider interests that fund this revolving door.
Of course you can BELIEVE in ideology ad that the 'conservatives' in Canada want to devolve power (HA!). That's not what's going to happen unless economic reality forces the government's hand. The only politicians to actually do what they say are exceedingly rare. These dogmatists are labeled kooks and gadflys, and aren't friends to any party. This year the US will lose two of them: Kucinich and Paul. Face it man, conservatism and liberalism are just labels these days, not political doctrines. At least there was no doubting where Robespierre stood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Proctetionism != monopoly. You said in another thread to be careful about terminology, but I would return you the warning. Protectionism is opposed to free trade as a tariff policy, but that is all its scope.
I would agree that liberalism and conservatism are not what they were 200 years ago, but that does not mean their "spirit" (meh, not a good word) did not survive, though the labels have moved, the issues have changed, and the society and economy have changed. At its core, the left-right debate, meaningless though it is without specific issues given, is between change and status quo, not authority -- even though the status quo may need authority to be preserved, as it it almost always to the advantage of the few and powerful.
I don't see why I would not believe that Harper wants to give more power to the provinces. In reality, it has (somewhat) happened. It is in his own interest, too -- at least, in that of oil-rich Alberta. |
|
| Back to top |
|
jojobean
sacred clown
Joined: Aug 13, 2009
Posts: 3341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nazi's aside....I dont think the GOP is totally like the Nazi's but yes there are similarities, But the whole thing on the audience applauding that ppl without private health insurance should die is very frightening to me.
Most civilized decent societies have a system to help the poor.
I known people who commit crimes to get into jail so they can get healthcare because even though they work 60hours a week, they cant afford health insurance and their 3 employers dont offer it to them because they work 2-3 part time jobs.
I have also seen dental work done by a mechanic with pliers and whisky because that person could not afford dental care.
While I agree that entitlement programs in the US, dont really work to alievate poverty in the long run, cause as soon as you take away the programs, the people are poor again.
However programs like student aid, vocational rehabilitation, and other programs that help those who are at a disavantage get ahead are really good, but they are often hacked first.
However, nothing is in black and white, some people just cant work due to age or disability, but still have value to loved ones and their community and as human beings....do we condemn these people to death because they cant make their own way, even if they lived a dignified life with much they gave to their part of the world before disability or old age??
However, I noticed that when a republican is in power, education is one of the first things cut. Education should be cut as a last resort. Cutting education, cuts people's access to better jobs. Republicans say to let the market handle it, but then cut the things that help folks into the job market.
What I dont understand is why those who are hurt the most by republican style of governing are the ones who are the far right's strongest voters??
Jojo
_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin |
|
| Back to top |
|
anarkhos
Velociraptor
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | | Proctetionism != monopoly. You said in another thread to be careful about terminology, but I would return you the warning. Protectionism is opposed to free trade as a tariff policy, but that is all its scope. |
From the austrian school of thought, monopoly is barrier of entry. There is no quantity which defines monopoly in economic terms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29706
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jojobean wrote: | Nazi's aside....I dont think the GOP is totally like the Nazi's but yes there are similarities, But the whole thing on the audience applauding that ppl without private health insurance should die is very frightening to me.
Most civilized decent societies have a system to help the poor.
I known people who commit crimes to get into jail so they can get healthcare because even though they work 60hours a week, they cant afford health insurance and their 3 employers dont offer it to them because they work 2-3 part time jobs.
Jojo |
Emergency Rooms are a lot less unpleasant than prisons. Every state in the union has laws prohibiting Emergency Rooms from turning away patients for lack of funds.
Of course, the Emergency Room is the most expensive and least efficient way of delivering medical services. From a purely cost point of view single payer health care is more cost effective than Emergency Rooms. However, once Single Payer takes root, be assured that rationing of services will follow as surely as sunset follows noon.
ruveyn
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
jojobean
sacred clown
Joined: Aug 13, 2009
Posts: 3341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | jojobean wrote: | Nazi's aside....I dont think the GOP is totally like the Nazi's but yes there are similarities, But the whole thing on the audience applauding that ppl without private health insurance should die is very frightening to me.
Most civilized decent societies have a system to help the poor.
I known people who commit crimes to get into jail so they can get healthcare because even though they work 60hours a week, they cant afford health insurance and their 3 employers dont offer it to them because they work 2-3 part time jobs.
Jojo |
Emergency Rooms are a lot less unpleasant than prisons. Every state in the union has laws prohibiting Emergency Rooms from turning away patients for lack of funds.
Of course, the Emergency Room is the most expensive and least efficient way of delivering medical services. From a purely cost point of view single payer health care is more cost effective than Emergency Rooms. However, once Single Payer takes root, be assured that rationing of services will follow as surely as sunset follows noon.
ruveyn
ruveyn |
Well if it is not a medical emergency, which many cases are not, they can turn away a person without insurance.
Not all single payer health care is like that New Zealand and Australia have some of the best care in the world, however in the US, there is a total lack of quality control in government...so a single payer system would probably become corrupted.
The real solution, I think is creating laws that make all types insurance accessible to all, but not mandatory.
I dont think our county's problems are all that difficult to solve if there is an actual want to solve them.
It is amazing how well dems and repubs work together to create and pass a law striping people's rights, but when it comes to bills that actually help people...it is an all out brawl. Go figure 
The desire to solve the problems plaguing the common people in the US is totally lacking at government levels.
Jojo
_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin |
|
| Back to top |
|
anarkhos
Velociraptor
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jojobean wrote: |
Well if it is not a medical emergency, which many cases are not, they can turn away a person without insurance.
Not all single payer health care is like that New Zealand and Australia have some of the best care in the world, however in the US, there is a total lack of quality control in government...so a single payer system would probably become corrupted.
The real solution, I think is creating laws that make all types insurance accessible to all, but not mandatory.
I dont think our county's problems are all that difficult to solve if there is an actual want to solve them.
It is amazing how well dems and repubs work together to create and pass a law striping people's rights, but when it comes to bills that actually help people...it is an all out brawl. Go figure
The desire to solve the problems plaguing the common people in the US is totally lacking at government levels.
Jojo |
They come together to mandate people give money to the insurance companies, and have the gall to say this will control costs!
Most people in this country aren't complaining about insurance or access, but prices. The high prices are a consequence of intervention. It started when employers were given a benefit to provide insurance at the end of ww2, which makes about as much sense as getting car insurance from your employer. The less choice you have in how to pay for health care, the more prices will increase.
Insurance isn't even insurance in this country; it's pre-paid health care. Insurance companies want a steady income so this is how they set it up. You use it or lose it, so people go to the hospital for stupid sh** like colds and tie up resources.
The best answer IMO is to remove government completely from health care and help the needy through other avenues. This is the only way to keep prices down without stifling innovation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1514
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | jojobean wrote: | Nazi's aside....I dont think the GOP is totally like the Nazi's but yes there are similarities, But the whole thing on the audience applauding that ppl without private health insurance should die is very frightening to me.
Most civilized decent societies have a system to help the poor.
I known people who commit crimes to get into jail so they can get healthcare because even though they work 60hours a week, they cant afford health insurance and their 3 employers dont offer it to them because they work 2-3 part time jobs.
Jojo |
Emergency Rooms are a lot less unpleasant than prisons. Every state in the union has laws prohibiting Emergency Rooms from turning away patients for lack of funds.
Of course, the Emergency Room is the most expensive and least efficient way of delivering medical services. From a purely cost point of view single payer health care is more cost effective than Emergency Rooms. However, once Single Payer takes root, be assured that rationing of services will follow as surely as sunset follows noon.
ruveyn
ruveyn |
Oh read a bit of history. There is far better access to health care in Canada than in the USA. It might be slower sometimes, but if you need help right away the service will not be "rationed." That is after more than 40 years of universal health care. |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anarkhos wrote: | | There is no quantity which defines monopoly in economic terms. |
Well there is that mono- prefix -- as in "one". |
|
| Back to top |
|
anarkhos
Velociraptor
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | | anarkhos wrote: | | There is no quantity which defines monopoly in economic terms. |
Well there is that mono- prefix -- as in "one". |
Yes, as in one trade union or one click. In the words of Turgot, speaking of the prevailing mercantilist regulations:
"innumerable statutes, dictated by the spirit of monopoly, the whole purpose of which were [sic] to discourage industry, to concentrate trade within the hands of few people by multiplying formalities and charges, by subjecting industry to apprenticeships and journeymanships of ten years in some trades which can be learned in ten days, by excluding those who were not sons of masters, or those born outside a certain class, and by prohibiting the employment of women in the manufacture of cloth."
If you strictly define monopoly as one firm with one ownership then I really don't have a problem with monopoly per-se, but I do have a problem with barriers to competition.
For a more nuanced understanding:
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Monopoly |
|
| Back to top |
|
anarkhos
Velociraptor
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also, Turgot:
"I believe, indeed, that iron masters, who know only about their own iron, imagine that they would earn more if they had fewer competitors. There is no merchant who would not like to be the sole seller of his commodity. There is no branch of trade in which those who are engaged in it do not seek to ward off competition, and do not find some sophisms to make people believe that it is in the State's interest to prevent at least the competition from abroad, which they most easily represent as the enemy of the national commerce. If we listen to them, and we have listened to them too often, all branches of commerce will be infected by this kind of monopoly. These fools do not see that this same monopoly which they practice, not, as they would have the government believe, against foreigners but against their own fellow-citizens, consumers of the commodity, is returned to them by these fellow citizens, who are sellers in their turn, in all the other branches of commerce where the first in their turn become buyers."
So yes, I mean it in this context. That of effective monopoly, not some useless taxonomical physical description. |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe terms should not be multiplied, and that barrier of entry is entirely enough for my satisfaction. And, indeed, they are generally not good, even though Turgot's description of guilds is not very balanced.
However, I think I understand what you mean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 13182
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anarkhos wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | | The American federal government, on the other hand, has been the defender of civil liberties. |
Say what |
Okay, okay, I know I need to qualify what I wrote. I had to hurry out the door to get my six year old on the school bus, and so I had to end my post abruptly.
The federal government had been the champion of civil rights in the sixties, and is now combating the voter ID laws, which is just a means of weeding out liberal voters in the guise of combating (almost non-existent) voter fraud.
But, I am the first to concede that the "War on Terror" has proven to potentially be a war on civil rights, which is a betrayal of everything the federal government had previously fought for. And in the more distant past, the federal government had proven to be the enemy of the rights of racial minorities, workers, women, etc.
I imagine I could write more, but I think you can get the gist of what I'm saying.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
  |
Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index
-> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion
|
Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
|
|
