Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Togo1 »

GE Morton wrote:https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... /socialism

As some of the entries point out, "socialism" is sometimes used to denote social democracy, per which, for the most part, the means of production are not owned by the State but only regulated by it. I find no definitions per which purely voluntary associations and cooperative endeavors among people count as "socialist."
??? Did you read the Oxford link you just gave us?

A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Can you see how that conflicts with your idea that socialism can only be a form of government imposed by force? Can you see how a cooperative endeavour regulated by a local community would qualify under that definition?
GE Morton wrote:Everyone who freely joins an insurance pool is a far different group than "everyone" (in a society), which is what your unqualified use implies.
Well, now that it's clear what I was actually saying, you're free to acknowledge that the difference you've identified in no way changes the point being made.
GE Morton wrote: You're correct that immunization is not an alternative to health care. It is an alternative, and a more effective, means of limiting the spread of commuicable diseases --- the only health threat posed by sick people to third parties.
Nope. You still need healthcare to run a vaccination program, so it's not an alternative, of any kind. And blanket vaccination is still medically inadvisable, which is why in practice only a small handful of the most dangerous communicable diseases are controlled for. And health problems of any kind, not just communicable diseases, encourage the spread of communicable diseases.
GE Morton wrote:As for "tying up emergency services and reducing resources," how many resources are consumed by providing universal free healthcare? There is no comparison.
There isn't, universal free health care is vastly more efficient. The problem, from a economic point of view, is that your approach relies on people being able to tolerate a vastly inflated morbity and early mortality rate amongst their fellow citizens, from easily preventable conditions, while the resources to cure them stand by. Since the US is not, in practice, willing to tolerate this, the resources provided to them get provided peicemeal, on an exception basis, and the 'saving' from non-provision tends to disappear. The result is a very expensive healthcare system that delivers inferior results to UCH, which is what the US has at the moment.

I appreciate your yearning for the levels of expenditure of healthcare that existed before the existance of modern medicine, but I don't think that's really practical.
GE Morton wrote:
No, if you had one before the development then you had legally effective urban planning. Luck has nothing to do with it. All the houses in my area have such easements and covenants, in addition to the rights they have under planning law.
That is rarely the case.
This is very commonly the case.
GE Morton wrote:If the houses in your area have such easements you are doubly lucky. Far more often NIMBYs seek to persuade pols and bureaucrats...
Again, no, this is not the case.

Is it possible you live in an area where planning is done particularly badly? I understand the US has a great many such areas.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Steve3007 »

GE Morton:
The point is that the shift from paying directly, out-of-pocket, for health care --- just as one pays for all other personal services one uses --- to third-party payers, whether insurers or government, severed the link between supply and demand. Since someone else is paying the bill the consumer no longer cares what those services cost, and does not shop for them prudently. When employers are buying the insurance the consumer does not even pay the insurance premiums. Health care appears to its consumers to be a "free good." As a result health care costs in the US have skyrocketed, at triple the rate of inflation.
So here you seem to be agreeing that there is at least a sense in which insurance and "socialism" (as I defined it earlier simply as services funded by taxation) are comparable. That sense is that they both damage the link between supply and demand. As you've said, if we're not paying for something directly, and/or we're spending from a collective pot of money, then we tend to shop less prudently.

I think this is why I observe a widespread attitude in society that making false insurance claims (and therefore "stealing" from other customers by causing their premiums to go up slightly) is somehow not as bad as more direct, personal forms of theft.
That cost spiral began after WWII and accelerated steeply after government began paying the medical bills of many people.
Here you say that the socialism (taxation to fund public services) aspect of it accelerated the cost spiral, presumably because you regard the severing of that link as more severe for socialism (as I'm calling it) than for insurance.

Yes, I agree that this is one of the problems with funding from a collective pot of money and making services free at the point of delivery. As I've said previously, I think that the competitive free-market system is a very useful tool in many circumstances because it often promotes efficiency. But not always. One of its downsides, just like Evolution, of which it is a close analogue, is that it tends not to be forward-looking. It's not always the best tool to use for solving long-term problems where individual players in the market have no immediate incentive. Often referred to as the "tragedy of the commons".

There are examples from Evolution of "bad design" due to the fact that we're not actually designed at all. For these examples, we perhaps might wish that there was a designer who could have foreseen problems before they arose and headed them off, without the need for every individual step to be beneficial to survival. Likewise, I suggest, there are some problems in society that cannot be entirely solved by a system in which it is necessary to make a profit at every step and where those who don't do so, and who do things for the benefit of wider or long term gain, are out-competed by those who don't, and go bust.


The free market can also suffer from inefficiencies of duplication. I may be wrong about this, but talking to various American friends and colleagues about the US healthcare system leads me to believe that one of the causes of inefficiency in that system is duplication of effort. Large taxpayer funded organisations certainly do have their inefficiencies and problems (as discussed), but they do at least have economy of scale that can potentially be used.
(Similar cost spirals have occurred in college tuition costs and housing costs, which latter led to the 2008 recession, after government began paying those bills, through guaranteed student loans and Pell grants, and the "affordable housing" policies adopted in the early '90s).
That's not my understanding of the principle cause of the 2008 recession. I thought that was caused by the repackaging of mortgage debts into investment vehicles that were sold as being a lot lower risk than they really were. Fraud, essentially. (On a massive scale. So massive that the fraudsters were deemed too big to fail.)

In the UK, the principle reason for spiralling housing costs appears to simply be too few houses, a small country and a rising population. i.e. supply and demand. Plus cheap money - low interest rates. Perhaps a bit different in the US.

Also, in the UK, a large housing problem was stored up many years ago by the cheap selling off of social housing ("council housing") into the private sector.
Yes. Costs would be much lower, people would prepare themselves for those expenses, charities would receive many more donations and would become more selective and intentional regarding to whom they offered aid.
Obviously we're both speculating here about what would have happened. But it seems unlikely to me that charities would have filled the gap in healthcare provision for the poor and the elderly. So I think one consequence would probably be much bigger divisions in society. They would perhaps have been an "underclass" of people who couldn't afford healthcare and would therefore be incapacitated or killed by illnesses that are fairly easily treatable. Perhaps people dying from a ruptured appendix because they can't afford to pay for an appendectomy, that kind of thing.

But, as I say, always difficult to rewind history and ask "what if?"
Well, I think that is wishful thinking. Jawboning ("education") will not deter anyone from grabbing a free lunch if one is available.
You weren't talking about people actually grabbing free stuff. You were talking about people's beliefs - people believing that they have certain inalienable rights. I think attitudes can be affected by education.
That is certainly what it has become. As designed the US government was constitutionally restricted to exercise of a few specific powers, primarily involving the provision of public goods (as earlier defined).
My lack of knowledge of US political history may be showing again here, but presumably if this "constitutional restriction" existed originally it must still exist? What part of the US constitution changed?
It had no power to deliver free lunches to anyone or impose anyone's values on anyone else, no matter what a majority desired.
To be clear: your term "free lunch" here refers to taxpayer-funded lunches. Lunches that are free at the point of delivery. Not quite the same as being literally free, although we've already discussed the downsides of damaging the direct link between the payment and the lunch.
But politicians must be elected, and they soon discovered that to win elections you must pander to the demands of your constituencies. Most of those demands were for some sort of free lunch.
If you think it's a good idea to live in a democracy, I don't see how you can design that democracy to remove the danger of this happening. This problem with democracy has been recognised since Plato's parable of the ship. How do you stop politicians from taking this populist route to electoral success? Are you saying that you arrange things such that politicians are constitutionally barred from offering any options to the electorate? Wouldn't that essentially mean that you're proposing an end to democracy and a society which is, instead, dictated by an unchangeable "written in stone" constitution, and nothing else?
As more and more of those were delivered, more interest groups emerged from the woodwork to demand their turns at the trough. So those constraints on the powers of government eventually eroded away, and governments in the US, which consumed an average of 7% of GDP between 1790 and 1930, now consume 43% --- a fraction which will increase sharply as "Obamacare" is fully implemented. There is no structural barrier to prevent this spiral from continuing indefinitely.
Well, people don't necessarily have to be given what they are demanding. But, as you've said, it's tempting for politicians to do so to gain popularity and therefore power. But, as I said, the alternative seems to be a sort of tyranny of the constitution.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: Might 'socialism' also include that it is to be contrasted with 'free trade capitalism'?
Yes, socialism is contrasted with "free trade capitalism" (I prefer the term "natural economy"), which is an alternative economic theory.
If so 'socialism' would be , not an ecomonic fact, but a relative place on a continuum that also includes free trade capitalism.
Yes, a society may adopt elements of both theories, yielding a "mixed economy" or a welfare state.
I ask, because I think of myself as socialist who wants government to look after the national economy whilst checking the more unkind and unfair differences between rich and poor people.
You might be more specific as to what "looking after" involves. Maintaining a sound money supply and preventing fraud? Or restricting trade and dictating wages and prices? And you might explain why you think the differences between rich and poor are "unfair."
Isn't it the case that social welfare can be costed alongside the national economy, especially when long term benefits of housing, health, engineering infrastructure, environment, and education are included in the calculation?
"Social welfare" is simply the welfare of the individual members of a society, considered collectively. It is not something distinct from those welfares. The costs of those welfares are already reflected in the state of an economy at any given moment. Sezing wealth from some members and handing it over to others does not increase "social welfare." It only improves the welfare of some by reducing it for others. It is a zero-sum game. *

* Actually it is a negative-sum game. There are costs involved in the re-distribution --- you must pay one group of bureaucrats to seize the money and another group to dole it out --- and the wealth re-distributed is less likely to be productive.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Steve3007 »

GE Morton to Belindi:
(I prefer the term "natural economy")
Is this because you regard free-trade capitalism as closer to a discovered law of nature than it is to an aritificially created law of human behaviour? i.e. more of a description than a prescription?

If so, I presume the usual analogies with Evolutionary Biology and Physics would be made. The actions of bureaucrats in re-distributing wealth (mentioned near the end of your post) would perhaps be analagous to friction in a mechanical system. As I said earlier, the operation of markets has obvious parallels with Evolutionary Biology. etc.
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Chili »

In many situations in history, more has meant better, freedom-wise.

This does not mean that more and more and more of *anything* is always better.

I think this is where the most extreme Libertarianism comes from - and goes wrong.

In a perfect world, we could all live in our little Mormon planets, and only interact when moved by the spirit.

Real life, though, is all about compromises between various ideals and systems. Things have to be tried.

Libertarians are often drawn to philosophy because the philosophy of Libertarianism is quite a bit more coherent than any schemes for implementation.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Steve3007 »

Chili:
This does not mean that more and more and more of *anything* is always better.

I think this is where the most extreme Libertarianism comes from - and goes wrong.
I don't think this is where Libertarianism comes from. Although it may or may not be one of its consequences - a place where it goes.

I think where it comes from is its basic. axiomatic principle: Every individual person should be left alone provided that they don't harm others.

A major sticking point in arguments lies in trying to precisely define what it means to "harm others".
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Chili »

Steve3007 wrote:Chili:
This does not mean that more and more and more of *anything* is always better.

I think this is where the most extreme Libertarianism comes from - and goes wrong.
I don't think this is where Libertarianism comes from. Although it may or may not be one of its consequences - a place where it goes.

I think where it comes from is its basic. axiomatic principle: Every individual person should be left alone provided that they don't harm others.

A major sticking point in arguments lies in trying to precisely define what it means to "harm others".
This is another way of saying that whenever humanly possible, freedom must be maximized.

In the olden days of Jeffersonian autonomous family farms, when people lived spread apart, and most people lived on farms not the cities, this made a heck of a lot more sense than it makes today.

The real solutions of conservative problems turn out to be largely luddite. If you want your kids to be chaste of mind and body, turn off all media and live ala Shyamalan's "The Village". If you want to avoid taxes, the solution is similar. Dismantle the great cities, and the factories.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Steve3007 »

In the olden days of Jeffersonian autonomous family farms, when people lived spread apart, and most people lived on farms not the cities, this made a heck of a lot more sense than it makes today.
Yes, I guess that is where this ideal that it's possible to be "left alone" comes from.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by GE Morton »

Togo1 wrote:A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Can you see how that conflicts with your idea that socialism can only be a form of government imposed by force? Can you see how a cooperative endeavour regulated by a local community would qualify under that definition?
Are these regulations enforced? If so, how, and by whom? Has everyone subject to these regulations submitted themselves voluntarily? If the answer to the first is "No," or the answer to the second is, "Yes," then the "community regulations" are not socialism. Otherwise they are. It also depends upon the type of regulations in question. Regulations to protect public safety and to prevent fraud and public nuisances are not "socialism." Regulations dictating prices, or "re-distributing" the benefits of the activity are socialism.
GE Morton wrote:Everyone who freely joins an insurance pool is a far different group than "everyone" (in a society), which is what your unqualified use implies.
Well, now that it's clear what I was actually saying, you're free to acknowledge that the difference you've identified in no way changes the point being made.
If the point was that insurance is a "form of socialism," then yes, it does affect that point. Cooperative endeavors entered into voluntarily are not "forms of socialism." They are merely social activities.
Nope. You still need healthcare to run a vaccination program, so it's not an alternative, of any kind. And blanket vaccination is still medically inadvisable, which is why in practice only a small handful of the most dangerous communicable diseases are controlled for. And health problems of any kind, not just communicable diseases, encourage the spread of communicable diseases.
I made no mention of any vaccination "program." Nor is there any need for one. If you are concerned about contracting a communicable disease you go to your doc and be vaccinated (and pay for it).
GE Morton wrote:As for "tying up emergency services and reducing resources," how many resources are consumed by providing universal free healthcare? There is no comparison.
There isn't, universal free health care is vastly more efficient.
Really? Is that why health care spending (in the US) has increased from 5% of the GDP in 1960 to 20% today?
https://econographics.wordpress.com/201 ... ge-of-gdp/

Or why that spending has increased at 5 times the rate of inflation?
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/20 ... Costs3.png

Notice that that growth rate tracked the inflation rate until 1965 or so --- when Medicare and Medicaid went into effect. Notice the additional upward tick in 1997, when the CHIPS program went into effect.
The problem, from a economic point of view, is that your approach relies on people being able to tolerate a vastly inflated morbity and early mortality rate amongst their fellow citizens, from easily preventable conditions, while the resources to cure them stand by.
Er, no. There was no "vast" improvement in morbidity and mortality rates after the government's free lunch schemes took effect. There has been a gradual improvement, most of which was due to improved treatment options.

https://savvyroo.com/chart-image-175954 ... by-sex.png

The is no sharp change in mortality rates after 1965, when the government first entered the health care market. The trend continues the same gradual downward slope evident since 1935. Those resources, BTW, would not be "standing by." They would be used more productively.
This is very commonly the case.
GE Morton wrote:If the houses in your area have such easements you are doubly lucky. Far more often NIMBYs seek to persuade pols and bureaucrats...
Again, no, this is not the case.

Is it possible you live in an area where planning is done particularly badly? I understand the US has a great many such areas.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. An easement is a limited right of use granted by one property owner to another, and is written into the grantor's deed. Planners have nothing to do with them. Easements for views are so rare in the US as to not be worth mentioning.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Steve3007 »

This looks like an interesting article on the subject of US healthcare costs, although I haven't fully digested it yet:

thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthc ... ts-4064878

One interesting thing that jumped out at me:

"Chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease, have increased. They are responsible for 85 percent of health care costs. Almost half of all Americans have at least one of them."

Rising healthcare costs, as a proportion of GDP, seem to be caused in large part by the simple fact that more people use more healthcare services now than they did in the past. So presumably if we're living longer, despite our terribly unhealthy lifestyles, it's not surprising that healthcare costs are going up. (I say "we" here because essentially the same thing applies where I live as in the US, with respect to longer life expectancy and unhealthy lifestyles.)

-- Updated Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:15 am to add the following --

"From 1966 to 1973, health care spending rose by an average of 11.9 percent a year. Medicare and Medicaid covered more people and allowed them to use more health care services. Seniors citizens were able to move into expensive nursing home facilities. As demand increased, so did prices. Health care providers put more money into research. It created more innovative, but expensive, technologies."

So it's possible to argue that Medicare and Medicaid increased the cost (as a proportion of GDP) because it created inefficiency. But it's also possible to argue that this greater cost was simply a result of the fact that these services allowed a larger proportion of the population to use a larger number of healthcare services. It seem that as any society develops it's actually quite a natural thing for it to spend more and more on healthcare.

I wonder, if we wanted to, how might we try to reduce the tendency for people to consume more and more sugar and fat, lead more sedentary lifestyles, and therefore put a greater and greater burden on healthcare services? Could that happen in a completely "leave me alone unless I'm harming somebody else" libertarian society?

-- Updated Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:19 am to add the following --

Interesting section at the end of that article entitled "How the ACA Slowed the Rise of Health Care Costs".

It would be interesting to hear from anybody who has read the article and disagrees with this, who thinks the figures are wrong or who thinks the author is partisan and therefore misrepresents the situation to make a political point. Personally, as a novice in this field, I don't know without doing more research.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Belindi »

G E Morton wrote:
You might be more specific as to what "looking after" involves. Maintaining a sound money supply and preventing fraud? Or restricting trade and dictating wages and prices? And you might explain why you think the differences between rich and poor are "unfair."

(Belindi had written)Isn't it the case that social welfare can be costed alongside the national economy, especially when long term benefits of housing, health, engineering infrastructure, environment, and education are included in the calculation?


(G E M)"Social welfare" is simply the welfare of the individual members of a society, considered collectively. It is not something distinct from those welfares. The costs of those welfares are already reflected in the state of an economy at any given moment. Sezing wealth from some members and handing it over to others does not increase "social welfare." It only improves the welfare of some by reducing it for others. It is a zero-sum game. *

* Actually it is a negative-sum game. There are costs involved in the re-distribution --- you must pay one group of bureaucrats to seize the money and another group to dole it out --- and the wealth re-distributed is less likely to be productive.
Yes, both of those.

It's not possible to explain how fairness is a value. It just is a value, like having life not death is a value. The innate quality of the fairness value has been scientifically discovered. I don't know if fairness is a value for AI machines, but neither your or I is an AI machine.

I can well see that what is usually meant by "social welfare" is intricately bound up with the national economy and indeed with international economy.
I disagree that redistribution is always an economic evil. In an industrial or post industrial economy the labour force does matter to the economy's prosperity. The human past has many examples of how a well maintained work force and proletarian population advantages the nation, in wartime , against crime, for productivity in peace time, as a talent pool, and spiritually.

It is true that bureaucracy can become top heavy. Aren't there mechanisms to prevent this happening? Even worse than top heaviness is corruption.To deal with corruption what is needed above all else is plebeian outrage as in the case of Daphne Caruana Galizia of Malta, her murder, and this also illustrates what I mean by "spiritual", and to an extent also illustrates the force of fairness ranging from governmental level of power to the plebeian.

The costs of administering any social policy must be considerable. However a redesigned social policy might soon more than recover the costs of change.
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Chili »

"Obesity prevalence continues to increase in the US. Here's a graph of accurate CDC data from 1961-2016."
http://www.stephanguyenet.com/obesity-p ... in-the-us/

This will increase health care costs, for sure. A little regulation of free market advertising of hyper-palatable foods, a little more govt. initiatives to educate, these would help.

Of course if everyone lived back on the farm, working hard, no TV, no junk food, plenty of hard work, none of these liberal measures would be necessary.

On the other hand, these problems are much worse in US than in western Europe. I wonder why that is ? They are quite accepting of socialism and among the most functional places on Earth.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Steve3007 »

On the other hand, these problems are much worse in US than in western Europe.
I'd rather not be too complacent about that when it comes to the UK, for one. Where I work, in southern England, there are perhaps half a dozen fast food places with Drive Thru facilities all within a short walk of my office (not that anyone would dream of actually walking to them) and they all always seem to have a constant queue of cars slowly grinding through them. None of them were there 20 years ago.

-- Updated Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:53 pm to add the following --

We're doomed I tell you! Doomed!
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Togo1 »

GE Morton wrote:
Togo1 wrote:A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Can you see how that conflicts with your idea that socialism can only be a form of government imposed by force? Can you see how a cooperative endeavour regulated by a local community would qualify under that definition?
Are these regulations enforced? If so, how, and by whom? Has everyone subject to these regulations submitted themselves voluntarily? If the answer to the first is "No," or the answer to the second is, "Yes," then the "community regulations" are not socialism.
Why not? You're stuck on this idea that socialism can only ever be top-down imposed by government, without that appearing in the definitions you've cited.
GE Morton wrote:I made no mention of any vaccination "program." Nor is there any need for one. If you are concerned about contracting a communicable disease you go to your doc and be vaccinated (and pay for it).
Sadly it's the herd immunity, not individual protections that matter. If you just get a few people paying for themselves, they won't get effective protection. It's only large-scale vaccination that's really effective. The problem then becomes how to pursuade enough people to get vaccinated that you get a high enough % of the population at once to halt the spread of the disease. Making it free at the point of receipt works very well for that.

It's like roads, or flood defences or a military - it's not really effective unless everyone chips in, and it covers everyone. Putting sandbags just around your own house doesn't actually help.
GE Morton wrote:
Togo1 wrote:
There isn't, universal free health care is vastly more efficient.
Really? Is that why health care spending (in the US) has increased from 5% of the GDP in 1960 to 20% today?
In part, yes. You never adopted Universal Health Care.
GE Morton wrote:
The problem, from a economic point of view, is that your approach relies on people being able to tolerate a vastly inflated morbity and early mortality rate amongst their fellow citizens, from easily preventable conditions, while the resources to cure them stand by.
Er, no. There was no "vast" improvement in morbidity and mortality rates after the government's free lunch schemes took effect.
Are you seriously saying that if we cut health care to a 5th of what it is now, there would be no shift in outcomes?
GE Morton wrote:
Is it possible you live in an area where planning is done particularly badly? I understand the US has a great many such areas.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. An easement is a limited right of use granted by one property owner to another, and is written into the grantor's deed. Planners have nothing to do with them. Easements for views are so rare in the US as to not be worth mentioning.
I think we're talking about the same thing. You're missing easements by prescription, and other forms of easements that are granted by courts or planning authorities, generally in an effort to protect the character of a neighbourhood, as well as efforts through zoning and other regulations to give property owners some future certainty about the fate of the land around them, since that's a major factor in the eventually value of their property, as well as their ability to enjoy it. They are much more common in the UK than the US, in part because zoning is much less common, and partly because the UK takes urban planning much more seriously.
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Is insurance a form of Socialism?

Post by Chili »

I'll say it again. Democracy is a form of socialism. And the rise in them both together is the rise of civilization.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021