Doesn't their existing infrastructure, and social dependency on that infrastructure, give them a somewhat legitimate need for a bailout? If other, smaller, more efficient companies can replace everything the telecom behemoths do, then let the big boys suffer, but is that the case? Can smaller tech savvy companies do everything the large telecoms do or are we talking strictly about broadband internet?
This is why we should seriously consider abolishing the government and leaving everything to the market forces.
Like health care? "Sorry, sir. I know there's a gaping wound in your skull and that it hurts, but your credit is no good here. Please go away and die outside in the gutter with all the other poor people."
Like law enforcement? "I'm sorry, sir, but there's nothing we can do. You have not paid for our police services. We cannot dispatch officers even if there's a murderous psychopath banging on your door with a bloody knife in his hand."
Like rescue services? "I'm sorry to hear that your house is on fire, sir, but we are a business not a charity. You should remember to pay your bills next time."
And so on...
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved
You can't really prove anything in even hard sciences like physics. Saying that something has been proven in economics or sociology is just ridiculous. Like psychology, economics and sociology are not hard, predictive sciences (some would say that they're not science at all) in the same sense as physics or chemistry.
If capitalism were a scientific theory, it would have been dropped a long time ago because it has no real predictive power and often contradicts with the real world observations.
The primary reason most people advocate capitalism is ETHICAL, not scientific. It was liberals and their endless dreams of micromanaging the perfect society that gave birth to that study.
Capitalism is by its nature free, it is how human beings behave when they are not acquiesing to the restrictive, violence backed will of the government. It is one man, exchanging value for value.
The reason statist economic policies always fail is because they turn free humans into criminals, and pursues them as such. The problem is, under statist regimes, too many people are treated as criminals. The end result is a society full of people who scoff at law, and refuse to participate in a corrupt system of government.
Capitalism will always win for this reason.
As far as your other statements, many of us wish there WAS no police force. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger.38 to do so. Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer. Even dialysis machines are hardly easily accessible.
Socialism on paper provides these services, but in reality, it is plagued by shortages in materials, a dejected and lazy workforce, and a sense of entitlement that makes everyone not really want to work.
You need to open your mind and realize that government is not the solution. You need to think about more than one possibility. Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
The primary reason most people advocate capitalism is ETHICAL, not scientific. It was liberals and their endless dreams of micromanaging the perfect society that gave birth to that study.
Indeed - you only have to look at the fine examples of capitalistic ethics provided recently by companies such as Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing etc to realise how unnecessary government regulation in the free market is.
As far as your other statements, many of us wish there WAS no police force. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger.38 to do so.
Ah yes, and of course the police do nothing that giving everyone a gun wouldn't. It's like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer. Even dialysis machines are hardly easily accessible.
And of course, limiting access to healthcare according to personal wealth or employability is such a fair way of arranging things, isn't it? After all, it's obviously entirely your own fault if you're poor or unemployed. I'm sure many of the/. readers left jobless by recent events in the tech industry will back me up on this one.
Incidentally, which socialist countries are you thinking of? How about Cuba as a counter-example? The health service there is excellent, and completely free at the point of use.
McDonalds cost an insane amount of money. It cost $15 for a Happy Meal.
Oh please! You are either lying, or was severely ripped off.
I am Swedish, and there is a lot to say about this country. But the parent post seems rather trollish... I mean, $15 for a happy meal for christs sake!
As for comparing New York with a city with roughly half a million people. Well, that's just plain stupid.
I will leave the rest of your troll uncommented, as it is not worth the time. I've already bitten and I hope you are satisfied. Enjoy your $15 Happy Meal benzapp, and don't let people sell you any more bridges!
Btw. Gotenburg really is a dump, but that's just my opinion.
Ah yes, and of course the police do nothing that giving everyone a gun wouldn't. It's like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Actually, the police do little to stop real crime (i'm not talking speeding tickets here i'm talking robberies, assault, murder, etc.). They are little more than glorified paper pushers labeled as a deterrent. Basically you have to commit murder before any investigative part of the police force is brought in. The local police where I live, always give the lame excuse that they are undermanned (even though there is like 1 cop per 100 people in the city). Its more like they are to busy enforcing traffic violations and petty civil issues (loud music, arresting people who haven't paid their late tickets etc.) to do anything except show up and write an incident report when a real crime occurs.
I am apparently one of the few people who doesn't take the "we need more police" line seriously. More police != lower crime rate. Even though that is usually the reason given to hire more. Instead I see 50 cops standing on street corners "showing presence" in groups of three or so on a friday night when I go downtown to drink. Since, the town I live in is pretty laid back its rare to actually see them doing anything. Most of the 'disturbances' probably occur in the bars which already have hired security there to check id's and deal with such problems.
Basically what i'm getting at, is you probably have a better chance of stopping crime if nearly everyone carried a gun. Effectively, you have a 99% of the population as a police force. Instead of the first instinct being "call the police!" the first instinct should be "lets go stop that!" Five to ten minutes later when the police show up there is a good chance that the burglar has run off with a few valuable things, the rapist has finished up and ran away, or the murderer is half way across town.
Basically what i'm getting at, is you probably have a better chance of stopping crime if nearly everyone carried a gun. Effectively, you have a 99% of the population as a police force.
No, you have 99% of the population as an untrained armed mob. Would you really feel safer if you knew that every junkie, angry drunk, borderline sufferer of mental illness and road rage perpetrator you met was packing heat? Reducing crime by arming the whole population is like limiting the probability of nuclear war by giving everyone their own atom bomb!
How about I present you will the other side of your unlikely situation.
If an angry mob (with or without guns take your pick, although I should point out most angry mobs in the US in the last few years were partially armed) were to attack your neighborhood. Would you want to have a gun to defend your home, wife and children? On the other hand you can call the police, and hope they can get though in time, or you can hope that you can escape from your house trailing your wife and children and hope that no one catches you, or your loved ones. Again, if you decide to run would you like to have a gun with you?
It's like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Is being lynched by a mob any worse than having a gang of cops shove a plunger up your ass, or being shot 42 times by the police on your way home from work?
Indeed - you only have to look at the fine examples of capitalistic ethics provided recently by companies such as Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing etc to realise how unnecessary government regulation in the free market is.
Please don't do that. That's fraud and theft nothing more.
And of course, limiting access to healthcare according to personal wealth or employability is such a fair way of arranging things, isn't it? After all, it's obviously entirely your own fault if you're poor or unemployed.
Whose fault is it then? Mine? Yours? The evil corporation? If you want my taxpaying help to send your poor sorry corpse to the doctor at least have some grace about it.
Incidentally, which socialist countries are you thinking of? How about Cuba as a counter-example? The health service there is excellent, and completely free at the point of use.
It might be free, if you don't count the fact that you're not. They are also usually out of many medicines so they don't have much to charge you for. Been there? Used it? Not with that opinion.
like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Fair and open trial?
You mean like the trial of in the UK in 1986 of Eric Butler, a 56-year old BP executive who was attacked in a London subway car? His assailants tried to strangle him and started beating his head against the door, and nobody came to his aid. He unsheathed an ornamental blade in his walking stick and stabbed one of his attackers in the stomach. He was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
Or like the English homeowner in 1994 who used a toy handgun to detain two burglars who had broken into his home while he called the police, only to be arrested upon their arrival for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate? Or elderly woman who in the following year fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a gang who were threatening her, only to be arrested for "putting someone in fear"?
Or maybe you meant Tony Martin, who after having his house burgled 6 times in a village with no local police force used a shotgun to kill one burglar and wounded another, only to receive a life sentence for defending his life and property? And, of course, the wounded man who is now out of jail has received 5,000 pounds in legal assistance from the government in order to sue Martin.
You know, putting aside the fact that an armed populace doesn't denote lynch mobs and vigilante justice, but rather the ability and willingness of a citizenry to defend itself against injustice, a heavily-armed American lynch mob certainly does sound like an entity that's more familiar with the concept of justice than most European governments I can think of.
Indeed - you only have to look at the fine examples of capitalistic ethics provided recently by companies such as Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing etc to realise how unnecessary government regulation in the free market is.
You are citing real world examples. That isn't fair.
Objectivists have based their entire philosophy on Ayn Rand's fictional novels, of which The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are just two. This is in contrast to other schools of capitalist, socialist, and even communist thought, which, however flawed they may be, at least have insight enough to cite serious academic studies as the foundation of their ethos and philisophical views.
Does this mean a world view based upon a fictional work is false, or one based upon a scientific or academic study will yield better results? Not necessarilly, any more than we can know with certainty that science will yield a more accurate understanding of the universe than religion (of whatever flavor) will.
However, the vast majority of evidence is that science does yield better practical results than religious dogma, and rigorous academic studies more useful insights than works of fiction.
Having said all that, in Ayn Rand's defense (and I say this despite disagreeing with many of her assumptions and rather myopic views on a number of subjects), she was nowhere near as extreme as many of her adherents.
BTW - When I lived and worked in Germany I made two interesting observations:
1. German taxes were not significantly higher for middle and upper-middle income people there than they are in the United States, despite their having an excellent social net, including a form of socialized medicine (socialized via a strictly regulated insurance industry and policies paid for with public moneys for those who cannot afford the premiums), and
2. The healthcare I was provided there was vastly better than what I have in the United States, despite having one of the better PPOs currently available. The American system appears to be designed to subsidize high-end medical procedures, available generally only to the very wealthy or very well insured (two groups which are quickly becoming synonymous) through vastly higher costs for standard medical procedures (like getting a checkup or an allergy shot).
We in the United States pay three times as much for our less adequate healthcare than the rest of the industrialized world does for the "less effecient" socialized healthcare -- a fact which should put to rest once and for all the myth that the free market is always more effecient than a public works equivelent. In the area of healthcare, where the customer is captive by nature of the fact that without it they will suffer and possibly die, clearly the power of the customer to choose, or reject unacceptable conditions of service vs. the power of the provider to coerce or set their own conditions, is so degraded as to make a "free" marketplace in any meaningful sense impossible. This leaves corporate oligarchies and trusts vs. socialized medicine as the two real choices we face, and the experience of the entire developed world, outside of the united states, indicates that the socialized approach is vastly more effecient and effective.
Show me some facts and figures to support you claims. I do not dispute your personal observations about healthcare in Europe. How was it outside the cities? Did you bother to look? I know the infant mortality is slightly lower and the life expectancy is slightly higher, but that's coming from a country that 50 years ago had no qualms with stuffing millions of people in ovens.
Anyways, most of the medical technology is coming from here, and people flock to the USA to cutting edge, "the best of the best" medical care, and whatnot. Sure it costs money. I'm not aware of a better place in the world to deal with cancers, heart diseases - if you can pay for it, or you get on a waiting list, but its here. I don't see rich Americans flock to other countries for "good medical care."
And judging on what most Canadians say about social medicine, I'll take my chances with American PPOs, I have little faith in western medicine, sure they can stop the bleeding. But fatal illnesses are a death sentence everywhere. The USA just capitalizes on it.
Want to live longer? The most high-aged demographic is Japan, the fish eating green tea drinking Okanawans. Is the economy collapsing under the huge stress of lots of old people around - sure is. Should we young ones sacrifice our disposable income in the better part of our lives to subsidize dying people? I don't know. If you are young, you are inclined to be austere towards old people who haven't properly prepared for their own death [a guaranteed eventuality] and somehow magically old and even though it happens to everyone and we all get old a decrepit its a sudden surprise and now that I'm old everyone must be responsible for me because its the right thing to do.
Well, in case you haven't noticed, the third world is growing, the first world is shrinking. I can't afford children, not here, not Germany, not anywhere, and I'm making over 3 times the average. Is part of this due to subsidy of old people? Sure is, 7% of my pay gone for people who didn't prepare for death. Do I expect to see any of that 7%? No, because of pseudo socialism from FDR, I pay for other people's retirement and I have to pay for my own, without the prospect of subsidy. . If I was bought long term bonds/bills for all that money I put in and couldn't touch them until retirement would I have a million in the bank already? Yes. It's a corrupt slush fund. If there was a lean mean government, this wouldn't happen. And if people have more disposable income, it has been proven that in times of great economic prosperity and low taxes philanthropy goes way up. Socialists and Volvo-bike-path-Liberals talk about high taxes and responsibility, but would they care for their own dying again parents or stuff them in a nursing home? No, they get nursing home every time. They just find peace with themselves because they washed their hands of the problem by voicing out against the machine or voting for some corrupt idiot that made people vote for him single issue.
I have also heard in Engine there are statues of limitations on medical care (same as lifetime and policy pay out limits in the USA). If you are over a certain age and you get dialysis for example, you can reach a lifetime social limit, and when the society's obligation is met, if you don't pay for dialysis, plug pulled, see ya.
I can't be convinced that if I really, really needed great care for a really hard to survive illness I would want to go anywhere but the top hospital in the USA.
Christopher Reeves finger now moves. He has a broken neck. He is a rich man, he has done well, and he is giving large sums of money to cure paralysis. I refuse to believe philanthropy doesn't exist in a pure capitalist system. It's the fake socialist stuff that causes issues.
Do I trust the medical system here? No. Do I base my opinion about the system on one doctor? No, when I have a problem, I see two or three doctors. Some of them suck, some of them do great. Do I think every patient should get an MRI for every hospital visit? Yes! Is that going to cost something? YES! But here in America, I still have enough disposable cash to get the MRI, a full body scan, head scan and virtual colonoscopy is about $1000. Do they give MRIs and complete blood work if you are "paranoid" in your said country? I have been paranoid, I'm somewhat of a hypochondriac, and I have gotten complete blood work and an MRI at little cost to myself. The peace of mind is great.
I know from a friend who came from Europe what happens. Ever sniffle, sneeze cough drip-drop gastrointestinal pain costs the medical systems in the EU lots of money. Subsidized health care and social security is a huge portion of the budget in the EU nations. Do I see people here trying to find ways to retire in Sweden and burden their youth with their age and "retire in style" and get all this free shit? No. In fact, I see a lot of people here who love life, like Christopher Reeve, who advocate for a cause, and raise philanthropic (read: op in feel good money not forced tax money) interest in a cause for the love of life and liberty.
I just don't like the idea of some person's conception of the ideal being forcibly manifested. I may live in Canada, New Zealand or somewhere else someday as I am the firm believer in "don't like it? LEAVE." I haven't found a compelling reason to leave yet. I know Bush sounds silly, and Ashcroft is a fascist, and American Geopolitical policy isn't the greatest (we are not good, nor evil just as no other countries are good, nor evil, they just *ARE*, the exist, and they have a survival instincts and playing fair is back seated to survival), and the US-Reichstag may have burned, or it may have not, but if the Reichstag has burned, metaphorically, then I will live out my years somewhere else. But not for health care. For freedom.
Now don't believe the hype about the US either. If you are not fucking stupid and lazy, you can pick up a decent job for the government or an education system, with awesome retirement plans and health care, maternity leave, continuing education, education subsidy, you name it, the welfares for the taking. I find it amusing that most people who leverage this best are smart, or not from this country - they immigrate here, and they *never* leave [not that I have seen], and most of my proximal friends right now are foreign. But seriously, government jobs here are such government cheese, and if you like the Socialist way, work for the government. It's really not hard. Every single DMV, Police Station Employees (not the cops per se), City Hall, Court Clerks, Libraries, Military personnel, Government Contractors, tax exempt non profit companies and generally anyone who isn't working for a for profit business are living the great life - and having brains and working there are not mutually inclusive.
Indeed - you only have to look at the fine examples of capitalistic ethics provided recently by companies such as Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing etc to realise how unnecessary government regulation in the free market is.
A lot of the problems with the recent Enron and WorldCom, etc. scandals were caused BY government regulation. That is, government regulation that was being written by the very companies it was supposed to control.
Corrupt and biased regulation is far, far worse than no regulation at all. The Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lays of the world may claim to lay their alllegiance at the feet of the free market, but a system where the ground rules are written and rewritten by the biggest players to ensure their own profits is far from a free market.
In theory, government regulation would be fair and impartial to all competitors. But then, in theory communism works too. The real world is quite a bit different.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0, Flamebait)
This is why we should seriously consider abolishing the government and leaving everything to the market forces.
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved that markets are the ultimate source of truth, at least in this world.
Though it is always funny to read how commie CEO's beg for state subsidies to help their mismanaged companies.
The market economy answer is of course: sell it if it doesn't work.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like health care? "Sorry, sir. I know there's a gaping wound in your skull and that it hurts, but your credit is no good here. Please go away and die outside in the gutter with all the other poor people."
Like law enforcement? "I'm sorry, sir, but there's nothing we can do. You have not paid for our police services. We cannot dispatch officers even if there's a murderous psychopath banging on your door with a bloody knife in his hand."
Like rescue services? "I'm sorry to hear that your house is on fire, sir, but we are a business not a charity. You should remember to pay your bills next time."
And so on...
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved
You can't really prove anything in even hard sciences like physics. Saying that something has been proven in economics or sociology is just ridiculous. Like psychology, economics and sociology are not hard, predictive sciences (some would say that they're not science at all) in the same sense as physics or chemistry.
If capitalism were a scientific theory, it would have been dropped a long time ago because it has no real predictive power and often contradicts with the real world observations.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0)
Capitalism is by its nature free, it is how human beings behave when they are not acquiesing to the restrictive, violence backed will of the government. It is one man, exchanging value for value.
The reason statist economic policies always fail is because they turn free humans into criminals, and pursues them as such. The problem is, under statist regimes, too many people are treated as criminals. The end result is a society full of people who scoff at law, and refuse to participate in a corrupt system of government.
Capitalism will always win for this reason.
As far as your other statements, many of us wish there WAS no police force. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger
Socialism on paper provides these services, but in reality, it is plagued by shortages in materials, a dejected and lazy workforce, and a sense of entitlement that makes everyone not really want to work.
You need to open your mind and realize that government is not the solution. You need to think about more than one possibility. Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary reason most people advocate capitalism is ETHICAL, not scientific. It was liberals and their endless dreams of micromanaging the perfect society that gave birth to that study.
Indeed - you only have to look at the fine examples of capitalistic ethics provided recently by companies such as Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing etc to realise how unnecessary government regulation in the free market is.
As far as your other statements, many of us wish there WAS no police force. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger .38 to do so.
Ah yes, and of course the police do nothing that giving everyone a gun wouldn't. It's like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer. Even dialysis machines are hardly easily accessible.
And of course, limiting access to healthcare according to personal wealth or employability is such a fair way of arranging things, isn't it? After all, it's obviously entirely your own fault if you're poor or unemployed. I'm sure many of the /. readers left jobless by recent events in the tech industry will back me up on this one.
Incidentally, which socialist countries are you thinking of? How about Cuba as a counter-example? The health service there is excellent, and completely free at the point of use.
Above poster is a troll, and I'll bite... (Score:1)
Oh please! You are either lying, or was severely ripped off.
I am Swedish, and there is a lot to say about this country. But the parent post seems rather trollish...
I mean, $15 for a happy meal for christs sake!
As for comparing New York with a city with roughly half a million people. Well, that's just plain stupid.
I will leave the rest of your troll uncommented, as it is not worth the time. I've already bitten and I hope you are satisfied.
Enjoy your $15 Happy Meal benzapp, and don't let people sell you any more bridges!
Btw. Gotenburg really is a dump, but that's just my opinion.
Stopping crime OT (Score:1)
lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Actually, the police do little to stop real crime (i'm not talking speeding tickets here i'm talking robberies, assault, murder, etc.). They are
little more than glorified paper pushers labeled as a deterrent. Basically you have to commit murder before any investigative part of the police
force is brought in. The local police where I live, always give the lame excuse that they are undermanned (even though there is like 1 cop per
100 people in the city). Its more like they are to busy enforcing traffic violations and petty civil issues (loud music, arresting people who haven't
paid their late tickets etc.) to do anything except show up and write an incident report when a real crime occurs.
I am apparently one of the few people who doesn't take the "we need more police" line seriously. More police != lower crime rate. Even
though that is usually the reason given to hire more. Instead I see 50 cops standing on street corners "showing presence" in groups of three or
so on a friday night when I go downtown to drink. Since, the town I live in is pretty laid back its rare to actually see them doing anything. Most
of the 'disturbances' probably occur in the bars which already have hired security there to check id's and deal with such problems.
Basically what i'm getting at, is you probably have a better chance of stopping crime if nearly everyone carried a gun. Effectively, you have
a 99% of the population as a police force. Instead of the first instinct being "call the police!" the first instinct should be "lets go stop that!" Five
to ten minutes later when the police show up there is a good chance that the burglar has run off with a few valuable things, the rapist has
finished up and ran away, or the murderer is half way across town.
Re:Stopping crime OT (Score:2)
Basically what i'm getting at, is you probably have a better chance of stopping crime if nearly everyone carried a gun. Effectively, you have a 99% of the population as a police force.
No, you have 99% of the population as an untrained armed mob. Would you really feel safer if you knew that every junkie, angry drunk, borderline sufferer of mental illness and road rage perpetrator you met was packing heat? Reducing crime by arming the whole population is like limiting the probability of nuclear war by giving everyone their own atom bomb!
Re:Stopping crime OT (Score:1)
If an angry mob (with or without guns take your pick, although I should point out most angry mobs in the US in the last few years were partially armed) were to attack your neighborhood. Would you want to have a gun to defend your home, wife and children? On the other hand you can call the police, and hope they can get though in time, or you can hope that you can escape from your house trailing your wife and children and hope that no one catches you, or your loved ones. Again, if you decide to run would you like to have a gun with you?
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
It's like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Is being lynched by a mob any worse than having a gang of cops shove a plunger up your ass, or being shot 42 times by the police on your way home from work?
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
Please don't do that. That's fraud and theft nothing more.
And of course, limiting access to healthcare according to personal wealth or employability is such a fair way of arranging things, isn't it? After all, it's obviously entirely your own fault if you're poor or unemployed.
Whose fault is it then? Mine? Yours? The evil corporation? If you want my taxpaying help to send your poor sorry corpse to the doctor at least have some grace about it.
Incidentally, which socialist countries are you thinking of? How about Cuba as a counter-example? The health service there is excellent, and completely free at the point of use.
It might be free, if you don't count the fact that you're not. They are also usually out of many medicines so they don't have much to charge you for. Been there? Used it? Not with that opinion.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fair and open trial?
You mean like the trial of in the UK in 1986 of Eric Butler, a 56-year old BP executive who was attacked in a London subway car? His assailants tried to strangle him and started beating his head against the door, and nobody came to his aid. He unsheathed an ornamental blade in his walking stick and stabbed one of his attackers in the stomach. He was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
Or like the English homeowner in 1994 who used a toy handgun to detain two burglars who had broken into his home while he called the police, only to be arrested upon their arrival for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate? Or elderly woman who in the following year fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a gang who were threatening her, only to be arrested for "putting someone in fear"?
Or maybe you meant Tony Martin, who after having his house burgled 6 times in a village with no local police force used a shotgun to kill one burglar and wounded another, only to receive a life sentence for defending his life and property? And, of course, the wounded man who is now out of jail has received 5,000 pounds in legal assistance from the government in order to sue Martin.
You know, putting aside the fact that an armed populace doesn't denote lynch mobs and vigilante justice, but rather the ability and willingness of a citizenry to defend itself against injustice, a heavily-armed American lynch mob certainly does sound like an entity that's more familiar with the concept of justice than most European governments I can think of.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Much like the reference to lynch mobs as a fair and least extraordinary example of a populace capable of self-defense?
Out of curiousity, are you European or American?
I might answer that if you explain how the validity of an argument is affected by the nationality of the one making it.
Understanding Objectivists (Score:2)
You are citing real world examples. That isn't fair.
Objectivists have based their entire philosophy on Ayn Rand's fictional novels, of which The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are just two. This is in contrast to other schools of capitalist, socialist, and even communist thought, which, however flawed they may be, at least have insight enough to cite serious academic studies as the foundation of their ethos and philisophical views.
Does this mean a world view based upon a fictional work is false, or one based upon a scientific or academic study will yield better results? Not necessarilly, any more than we can know with certainty that science will yield a more accurate understanding of the universe than religion (of whatever flavor) will.
However, the vast majority of evidence is that science does yield better practical results than religious dogma, and rigorous academic studies more useful insights than works of fiction.
Having said all that, in Ayn Rand's defense (and I say this despite disagreeing with many of her assumptions and rather myopic views on a number of subjects), she was nowhere near as extreme as many of her adherents.
BTW - When I lived and worked in Germany I made two interesting observations:
1. German taxes were not significantly higher for middle and upper-middle income people there than they are in the United States, despite their having an excellent social net, including a form of socialized medicine (socialized via a strictly regulated insurance industry and policies paid for with public moneys for those who cannot afford the premiums), and
2. The healthcare I was provided there was vastly better than what I have in the United States, despite having one of the better PPOs currently available. The American system appears to be designed to subsidize high-end medical procedures, available generally only to the very wealthy or very well insured (two groups which are quickly becoming synonymous) through vastly higher costs for standard medical procedures (like getting a checkup or an allergy shot).
We in the United States pay three times as much for our less adequate healthcare than the rest of the industrialized world does for the "less effecient" socialized healthcare -- a fact which should put to rest once and for all the myth that the free market is always more effecient than a public works equivelent. In the area of healthcare, where the customer is captive by nature of the fact that without it they will suffer and possibly die, clearly the power of the customer to choose, or reject unacceptable conditions of service vs. the power of the provider to coerce or set their own conditions, is so degraded as to make a "free" marketplace in any meaningful sense impossible. This leaves corporate oligarchies and trusts vs. socialized medicine as the two real choices we face, and the experience of the entire developed world, outside of the united states, indicates that the socialized approach is vastly more effecient and effective.
Re:Understanding Objectivists (Score:1)
Anyways, most of the medical technology is coming from here, and people flock to the USA to cutting edge, "the best of the best" medical care, and whatnot. Sure it costs money. I'm not aware of a better place in the world to deal with cancers, heart diseases - if you can pay for it, or you get on a waiting list, but its here. I don't see rich Americans flock to other countries for "good medical care."
And judging on what most Canadians say about social medicine, I'll take my chances with American PPOs, I have little faith in western medicine, sure they can stop the bleeding. But fatal illnesses are a death sentence everywhere. The USA just capitalizes on it.
Want to live longer? The most high-aged demographic is Japan, the fish eating green tea drinking Okanawans. Is the economy collapsing under the huge stress of lots of old people around - sure is. Should we young ones sacrifice our disposable income in the better part of our lives to subsidize dying people? I don't know. If you are young, you are inclined to be austere towards old people who haven't properly prepared for their own death [a guaranteed eventuality] and somehow magically old and even though it happens to everyone and we all get old a decrepit its a sudden surprise and now that I'm old everyone must be responsible for me because its the right thing to do.
Well, in case you haven't noticed, the third world is growing, the first world is shrinking. I can't afford children, not here, not Germany, not anywhere, and I'm making over 3 times the average. Is part of this due to subsidy of old people? Sure is, 7% of my pay gone for people who didn't prepare for death. Do I expect to see any of that 7%? No, because of pseudo socialism from FDR, I pay for other people's retirement and I have to pay for my own, without the prospect of subsidy. . If I was bought long term bonds/bills for all that money I put in and couldn't touch them until retirement would I have a million in the bank already? Yes. It's a corrupt slush fund. If there was a lean mean government, this wouldn't happen. And if people have more disposable income, it has been proven that in times of great economic prosperity and low taxes philanthropy goes way up. Socialists and Volvo-bike-path-Liberals talk about high taxes and responsibility, but would they care for their own dying again parents or stuff them in a nursing home? No, they get nursing home every time. They just find peace with themselves because they washed their hands of the problem by voicing out against the machine or voting for some corrupt idiot that made people vote for him single issue.
I have also heard in Engine there are statues of limitations on medical care (same as lifetime and policy pay out limits in the USA). If you are over a certain age and you get dialysis for example, you can reach a lifetime social limit, and when the society's obligation is met, if you don't pay for dialysis, plug pulled, see ya.
I can't be convinced that if I really, really needed great care for a really hard to survive illness I would want to go anywhere but the top hospital in the USA.
Christopher Reeves finger now moves. He has a broken neck. He is a rich man, he has done well, and he is giving large sums of money to cure paralysis. I refuse to believe philanthropy doesn't exist in a pure capitalist system. It's the fake socialist stuff that causes issues.
Do I trust the medical system here? No. Do I base my opinion about the system on one doctor? No, when I have a problem, I see two or three doctors. Some of them suck, some of them do great. Do I think every patient should get an MRI for every hospital visit? Yes! Is that going to cost something? YES! But here in America, I still have enough disposable cash to get the MRI, a full body scan, head scan and virtual colonoscopy is about $1000. Do they give MRIs and complete blood work if you are "paranoid" in your said country? I have been paranoid, I'm somewhat of a hypochondriac, and I have gotten complete blood work and an MRI at little cost to myself. The peace of mind is great.
I know from a friend who came from Europe what happens. Ever sniffle, sneeze cough drip-drop gastrointestinal pain costs the medical systems in the EU lots of money. Subsidized health care and social security is a huge portion of the budget in the EU nations. Do I see people here trying to find ways to retire in Sweden and burden their youth with their age and "retire in style" and get all this free shit? No. In fact, I see a lot of people here who love life, like Christopher Reeve, who advocate for a cause, and raise philanthropic (read: op in feel good money not forced tax money) interest in a cause for the love of life and liberty.
I just don't like the idea of some person's conception of the ideal being forcibly manifested. I may live in Canada, New Zealand or somewhere else someday as I am the firm believer in "don't like it? LEAVE." I haven't found a compelling reason to leave yet. I know Bush sounds silly, and Ashcroft is a fascist, and American Geopolitical policy isn't the greatest (we are not good, nor evil just as no other countries are good, nor evil, they just *ARE*, the exist, and they have a survival instincts and playing fair is back seated to survival), and the US-Reichstag may have burned, or it may have not, but if the Reichstag has burned, metaphorically, then I will live out my years somewhere else. But not for health care. For freedom.
Now don't believe the hype about the US either. If you are not fucking stupid and lazy, you can pick up a decent job for the government or an education system, with awesome retirement plans and health care, maternity leave, continuing education, education subsidy, you name it, the welfares for the taking. I find it amusing that most people who leverage this best are smart, or not from this country - they immigrate here, and they *never* leave [not that I have seen], and most of my proximal friends right now are foreign. But seriously, government jobs here are such government cheese, and if you like the Socialist way, work for the government. It's really not hard. Every single DMV, Police Station Employees (not the cops per se), City Hall, Court Clerks, Libraries, Military personnel, Government Contractors, tax exempt non profit companies and generally anyone who isn't working for a for profit business are living the great life - and having brains and working there are not mutually inclusive.
The Enron anti-free-market argument (Score:2)
A lot of the problems with the recent Enron and WorldCom, etc. scandals were caused BY government regulation. That is, government regulation that was being written by the very companies it was supposed to control.
Corrupt and biased regulation is far, far worse than no regulation at all. The Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lays of the world may claim to lay their alllegiance at the feet of the free market, but a system where the ground rules are written and rewritten by the biggest players to ensure their own profits is far from a free market.
In theory, government regulation would be fair and impartial to all competitors. But then, in theory communism works too. The real world is quite a bit different.