Why Does The Left Destroy Everything It Touches?

[impermanence]

Again [ideally] you want just enough government to protect individual liberty and private property. Anything more always turns into tyranny.

Approximately the Libertarian position. Obviously I disagree. Since most countries (including those in which we both live, the US and the UK) have governments that do more than just protect individual liberty and private property, but also provide additional publicly funded services, when are you expecting our respective countries to turn into tyrannies? How is that going to work, in your view?

When? It happened a long time ago. You just don't see it. You accept the tyranny [and apparently can't get enough]. This is the history of man. People will do anything not to have to take responsibility for themselves. That was the entire idea of America, a place to go and live your own life free of people telling you what to do, how to do it, and and every other damn thing. Of course, that dream went up in smoke some time in the 19th century.

[impermanence]

You want to be everybody's mom and dad? There are innocent causalities EVERYWHERE. Look at the insanity that governments unleash all over the world. And how about what corporations do? A lot of parents are incredibly irresponsible but does it just stop with eating? How about the ones that allow their children to become phone-zombies and every other dys-functional things that people do.

Are you going to fix everything that everybody does wrong or are you going to allow people the space to try to figure it out for themselves? This is the debate and unfortunately it is the people that think they know better that create the worst f******* hell-holes on this planet.

Freedom is the best way to go about anything [but you have to take the bad with the good].

*sigh*
It would help for the purposes of discussion if you wouldn't jump to conclusions so much; if you wouldn't project onto people things they don't believe; if you wouldn't present things in terms of black-and-white dilemmas. It would really help.
*sigh*

It would help for the purposes of discussion if you would add something to the conversation. I am not interested in your feelings.

[LuckyR]

Sure there were. Simply the fact that many people [perhaps the majority depending on when you started] are repulsed by smokers is consequence enough. And how about the consequences of those who had to inhale your second hand smoke?



I disagree. I think that free markets are a very good way for efficiently solving a specific class of problems using the profit motive to drive innovation and efficiency, but not all problems. I think their most notable failings are the inability to address long term problems where solutions don't result in immediate profits for individual players in the market, and problems involving "commons" - shared resources whose upkeep benefits all but which no individual player in the market has a motive to maintain unilaterally (and where they would, in fact, put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by doing so). That's where the public sector comes in. In my view policing/judiciary, healthcare, education and environmental protection are examples of where unfettered free markets are insufficient and where the public sector therefore needs to have a role. Libertarians generally only tend to agree with the first one, because they view only the first one as protecting individual liberties.

I do enjoy parks and there are few things better than a great library, but the BS that must come along with these things... .

If you could repair three issues, many of the problems we face as a society would attenuate greatly. The first is reducing the size of government as much as is possible. The second is to revoke all corporate charters and have only non-profit corporations with 10 year maximum charters. The third is to use real money. These three fixes would help in creating an environment where individuals can once again be creative and productive.

Again [ideally] you want just enough government to protect individual liberty and private property. Anything more always turns into tyranny.

Health care needs to be about health care not sick care so it really doesn't matter how it's being funded. Society cannot afford to keep everybody alive no matter how they abuse themselves or what issues they might have through no fault of their own.

You know I hear this all the time, but so far no one can answer what they mean by this. You?

[baker]

It would help for the purposes of discussion if you would add something to the conversation. I am not interested in your feelings.

See, that's just it: You don't care about others, but you expect others to care about you.

[impermanence]

Health care needs to be about health care not sick care so it really doesn't matter how it's being funded. Society cannot afford to keep everybody alive no matter how they abuse themselves or what issues they might have through no fault of their own.

You know I hear this all the time, but so far no one can answer what they mean by this. You?

This is truly your lucky day!

I like to point out the absurdity of the present health care system by drawing the following analogy. Imagine if there was automobile insurance similar to health insurance. No matter how poorly you maintained your vehicle or how many accidents you had, society would pay for all of the repairs. How long would a system like that last? Well, this is essentially what's going on in health care.

The only sane way to approach health care delivery is to have an actual health care system where almost all of the money spent in the system was on education/prevention/teaching methods to maintain health [e.g., exercise, proper nutrition, meditation, etc.]. The only money spent on therapeutic intervention would be on those things that were extremely affordable. Otherwise, you're on your own. If you don't care about your health, so be it.

The benefits of such a system would be a population much better educated and [hopefully] much healthier and productive.

[impermanence]

It would help for the purposes of discussion if you would add something to the conversation. I am not interested in your feelings.

See, that's just it: You don't care about others, but you expect others to care about you.

Do you really believe I could have an emotional attachment to somebody that I have but a few conversations with and know absolutely nothing about?

[Sy Borg]

[A concerned chimp says to another] Humans are malignant. The power they hold destroys other chimps and the laws to which chimps abide. They control us chimps with their fascist system.

Many chimps think humans are interesting because they have cool technology, but this matters not. The secret to being content is to be ok wherever you happen to be, to just peel another banana and forget all this progress stuff.

A chimp attempting to compete with a human tribe would be like that same chimp attempting to do battle with a hundred chimps. This is why there should be no such thing as humans.

You are comparing two different species to one individual v. say, Microsoft or Amazon?

More like comparing Amazon with Mary Bloggs down the road.

Same game, new time, new stage. Speed of technological change is not only important, but critical to a nation's survival.

If, say, the US banned corporations then their progress would slow enormously. Xi and the CCP would not only be able to plan a US takeover, they would be spoiled for choice as to how to do it.

Humans have always banded into ever larger groups to gain an advantage (as you say, one vs thousands). That is what religion is too - a group that separates itself from the many, banding together for a competitive advantage that has allowed them to strongly influence, and at times completely control, public policy. So the British Bubble Act of the 1700s was, in fact, disingenuous because the banning of independent organisations did not include religions.

In order for an efficient economic system to be in place, it is critical to have competition. The larger and more powerful corporations become, the less competition there is [not to mention that they are in a position to dis-proportionally influence government which insures even more disparity].

Greta, the only real thing you can hope for in human society is the opportunity to make your way in life. This does not happen when the few believe they know the way and use their wealth and power to make sure everybody else "understands." This is tyranny.

A few empowered people have always imposed their will on the many. It used to be called governance.

So, sure, in a way corporations and other huge organisations, eg. CCP, political parties, religions are awful, certainly not good news for any unaligned individuals. But they are the future. As above, I expect that chimps thought humans were pretty awful too as they took over their lands with, to the chimps, would have been akin to a fascist system.

Corporations are not a natural occurrence. They are a legal entity conjured up by those who want to tip the playing field in their favor. If you have no problem with corporations, why not just have one bank and one store and one everything. Just be done with it.

Btw, Xi and the CCP are a bunch of morons. China is a complete mess.

No, Xi and the CCP are incomplete morons. Complete morons are individuals at the bottom half of the Bell Curve, like the terrorists who invaded Capitol Hill yesterday.

Life is competitive and closely aligned groups of people are more powerful than individuals.

[impermanence]

Life is competitive and closely aligned groups of people are more powerful than individuals.

Life is competitive [as Nature would have it] and if you don't want to end up with what you have today [increasing disparities], you need to attenuate the potential power of the two forces that are completely marginalizing individuals [government and corporations]. Both of these mega-parasites are symbiotic ensuring serf-status [at best] for the non-affiliated.

Greta, you need to re-write your futuristic sci-fi novel and include a hero-protagonist who out-wits the villains [in both government and corporations], saves the day for the common man, gets the beautiful girl, and lives happily ever after [I do live in LA and a Hollywood ending seemed appropriate :].

[Sy Borg]

Life is competitive and closely aligned groups of people are more powerful than individuals.

Life is competitive [as Nature would have it] and if you don't want to end up with what you have today [increasing disparities], you need to attenuate the potential power of the two forces that are completely marginalizing individuals [government and corporations]. Both of these mega-parasites are symbiotic ensuring serf-status [at best] for the non-affiliated.

Greta, you need to re-write your futuristic sci-fi novel and include a hero-protagonist who out-wits the villains [in both government and corporations], saves the day for the common man, gets the beautiful girl, and lives happily ever after [I do live in LA and a Hollywood ending seemed appropriate :].

Indeed, your ending is Hollywood. David defeating Goliath is one of the most common movie tropes, a reflecting the sweet dreams of innocence and wishful thinking.

Governments and multinationals are no more parasites than orcas, eagles, tigers and humans. They are alpha predators. If not them, then religious organisations take control, and that would truly be tyranny.

The fact is that people empower each other by joining forces, and large cohesive groups usually beat smaller, less organised groups and individuals. Power vacuums are always soon filled. If, say, the US, decides to weaken itself by breaking up its largest organisations (which is probably impossible anyway) then it would simply be picked off by much more powerful Sino-Russian competitors, which would seem all-powerful by comparison.

Still, it is well past time that multinationals started paying appropriate tax, that governments stopped patronising their powerful friends, and churches paid tax like anyone else. All three, especially the first two, seem unlikely in my lifetime, though. Do you think I should write a wish fulfilment story about it?

[LuckyR]

You know I hear this all the time, but so far no one can answer what they mean by this. You?

This is truly your lucky day!

I like to point out the absurdity of the present health care system by drawing the following analogy. Imagine if there was automobile insurance similar to health insurance. No matter how poorly you maintained your vehicle or how many accidents you had, society would pay for all of the repairs. How long would a system like that last? Well, this is essentially what's going on in health care.

The only sane way to approach health care delivery is to have an actual health care system where almost all of the money spent in the system was on education/prevention/teaching methods to maintain health [e.g., exercise, proper nutrition, meditation, etc.]. The only money spent on therapeutic intervention would be on those things were extremely affordable. Otherwise, you're on your own. If you don't care about your health, so be it.

The benefits of such a system would be a population much better educated and [hopefully] much healthier and productive.

Okay, so would you spend money on childhood leukemia? It's not that affordable.

[Steve3007]

Again [ideally] you want just enough government to protect individual liberty and private property. Anything more always turns into tyranny.

...when are you expecting our respective countries to turn into tyrannies? How is that going to work, in your view?

When? It happened a long time ago. You just don't see it. You accept the tyranny [and apparently can't get enough]. This is the history of man. People will do anything not to have to take responsibility for themselves. That was the entire idea of America, a place to go and live your own life free of people telling you what to do, how to do it, and and every other damn thing. Of course, that dream went up in smoke some time in the 19th century.

OK. So apparently your view is that all countries which contain any publicly funded services other than the police and judiciary (i.e. pretty much all countries in the world) are tyrannies. Publicly funded schools? Tyranny!. An unusual use of the word "tyranny" which, of course, drains it of genuine meaning when applied to regimes that really are tyrannical (a bit like the modern trend of routinely referring to all of one's enemies as "terrorists"), but I guess it takes all sorts.

Do you plan to do anything about the tyranny which you regard as oppressing you in your own country? Perhaps storm the citadels of power, dressed like JK from Jamiroquai, and overthrow your oppressors by force or something?

[baker]

Do you plan to do anything about the tyranny which you regard as oppressing you in your own country? Perhaps storm the citadels of power, dressed like JK from Jamiroquai, and overthrow your oppressors by force or something?

There is a fine solution for the OP's problem: He should put in the work and get a job in the fancy private health care sector where he gets to choose whom he will treat, for what problem, and what he gets payed for it.
Yay!

[impermanence]

Governments and multinationals are no more parasites than orcas, eagles, tigers and humans. They are alpha predators. If not them, then religious organisations take control, and that would truly be tyranny.

Obviously you are not going to completely extinguish government/corporations, but you have to do what you can to keep them at bay. Otherwise, we are all be slaves again. You and I have enjoyed what we have in our lives because those from previous generations fought the good fight which gave individuals many opportunities to succeed. The power of government and the power is corporations is legislated, not natural. And, as a matter of pure speculation, its seems quite unnatural.

The fact is that people empower each other by joining forces, and large cohesive groups usually beat smaller, less organised groups and individuals. Power vacuums are always soon filled. If, say, the US, decides to weaken itself by breaking up its largest organisations (which is probably impossible anyway) then it would simply be picked off by much more powerful Sino-Russian competitors, which would seem all-powerful by comparison.

National defense is one area where you must be strong. If you can't protect yourself, you've got little chance. The other area is in protecting property rights. Btw, when are you guys going to pony-up some AUD's for protecting your butts for the last 75 years?

Still, it is well past time that multinationals started paying appropriate tax, that governments stopped patronizing their powerful friends, and churches paid tax like anyone else. All three, especially the first two, seem unlikely in my lifetime, though. Do you think I should write a wish fulfillment story about it?

Many of these things are going to happen on their own volition because the elite have just about completely destroyed the geese that have been laying their golden eggs.

A story would be nice.

[impermanence]

Okay, so would you spend money on childhood leukemia? It's not that affordable.

If society determines it not affordable, then it becomes similar to a situation where a person has a condition where there is no treatment available.

The bottom-line is that you cannot bankrupt your society trying to keep everybody alive. People need to suck it up and accept this reality.

[impermanence]

OK. So apparently your view is that all countries which contain any publicly funded services other than the police and judiciary (i.e. pretty much all countries in the world) are tyrannies. Publicly funded schools? Tyranny!. An unusual use of the word "tyranny" which, of course, drains it of genuine meaning when applied to regimes that really are tyrannical (a bit like the modern trend of routinely referring to all of one's enemies as "terrorists"), but I guess it takes all sorts.

Pretty much. Didn't you ever have a teacher that was a tyrant?

Do you plan to do anything about the tyranny which you regard as oppressing you in your own country? Perhaps storm the citadels of power, dressed like JK from Jamiroquai, and overthrow your oppressors by force or something?

I have always tried live by my principles and help others where and when I can.

The first thing one has to do is overthrow them 'self.' Only then do things become clear.