Libertarianism and Morality

[SPC]

I find your suggestion that the American lower-class is wealthier than seeventeenth-century monarchs is completely laughable and really exposes a lack of historical knowledge.

I'll get back to your other points later, but I have a couple questions for you:
Could 17th century monarchs get vaccinated to prevent them from getting bacterial disease?
Could 17th century monarchs fly from one part of the Earth to another in a matter of hours?
Could 17th century monarchs keep their food cold for later use?
Could 17th century monarchs drink water without the fear of getting a terminal illness?
Could 17th century monarchs get the news by turning on their television or their laptop?
Could 17th century monarchs get +3 hours of entertainment from a disc?
etc.

It is clear from all of these examples that the American poor enjoy a higher standard of living than 17th century monarchs.

[SPC]

My interpretation of society would make all transactions be voluntary, and you say that is somehow 'unworkable'? Are people are too dumb to make choices for themselves?

I do think that sometimes people make bad decisions but that isn't my objection to your system. The problem is that it is one where mutual obligations to one another would seldom be fulfilled. By making the entire system voluntary you end up with a system whereby people will inevitably take decisions that benefit themselves at the expense of many of those around them. I think it is important to recognise that rights come with responsibilities; in that respect your proposed system is inherently selfish because it fails to recognise our responsibilities.

And where do these responsibilities come from? To burden adults with responsibilities against their will is slavery. In reality, everyone benefits from voluntary transactions, or else they would not happen. If I purchase a milk for $2, I obviously value the milk more than the $2, whereas the person selling me the milk values the $2 more than the milk. Thus, both parties benefit through voluntary transaction. However, if I force the milk supplier to provide me the milk at a lower price, stating that it is his responsibility to provide the neighborhood with affordable milk, then I benefit at the expense of the milk supplier. Therefore, your concept of responsibities is counter-productive. If one party fails to uphold his side of the deal, then the other party can take him to court. The only "responsibility" every individual has is to pursue his/her happiness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only thing that would lead to is gridlock; if I have clearly committed a crime then I can simply prevent justice by refusing to agree on which court will try the case. I'm hardly going to agree to go before a court - however neutral and law-abiding - if it is going to convict me.

Your proposal essentially turns justice into a profit-driven industry; why would a judge  find in favour of someone who has no money to donate when it could find in favour of a multi-millionaire who will make a sizeable donation? Similarly, who regulates the appointment of judges?

Do you believe in the right to trial by jury? That right would be incredibly problematic under such a system because a court cannot force people to serve in the way the state can which means you end up with an inherently flawed justice system; if jury service is voluntary then who do you think will step forward to serve on a jury?

I also notice you have conveniently ignored the problem of how the prison service runs. [/quote]

I'll admit I'm not that educated about Rothbardian court theory, I think the best way to answer those questions would be to consult the author himself. A judge would be willing to be neutral toward a multi-millionaire because if he is biased, the public will find out and put him out of business. I believe that trial by jury would be the best system. Regarding jury duty, have you ever thought of say, paying jurors for their services? That is the way every other job functions. Would it make sense for the state to mandate that attorney work for free, and then to conscript random citizens to make them be lawyers for a trial? Can you imagine how the quality of lawyers would decline in such a system? Given the nonsense of conscripting lawyers, I think it only makes sense to pay jurors as well. Since the punishment for all crimes would be restitution for the victim, prisons would undergo a dramatic decline in population.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That isn't government, that is simply another private security firm and such an organization would never be able to provide a similar standard of justice or protection as the private security firms of the wealthy would be because it would simply lack the revenue. In other words, even with your so-called 'government' you have a situation whereby the rich enjoy a far greater degree of safety and protection.

Well done on spotting the basis of my argument; I don't think it is fair that the rich should be afforded better protection because they have the financial clout. As I said before, it is hardly fair if one person receives preferential legal treatment because they were born into a wealthier family while another person receives no protection whatsoever because their parents are both struggling to put food on the table. Even with your supposed compromise - which is hardly a compromise - the wealthy end up receiving preferential treatment. [/quote]

So you'd rather have the poor receive the same treatment and the wealthy receive worse treatment? Also, the only difference between the government I propose and the government we currently have is that the former would be voluntary. However, you just cannot seem to fathom the idea of individual choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, that means a higher standard of justice for the wealthy than for the poor. How is someone who lives on the margins supposed to fund a lengthy criminal investigation to establish who murdered their son or who raped their daughter? Once again we would end up with a legal system whereby the rich receive a far better standard of justice, a point that is only reinforced by the absence of a state prosecution service.[/quote]

If a applied your arguments to life insurance, the argument would sound ridiculous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. I don't want to run society according to my dictums. I want everyone to be free to run their own lives according to their dictums.
2. They should not be forced to accept my interpretation. They should just permit people who disapprove of the government's job to secede from it and not pay taxes toward it.
3. Again, you confuse society with government. I view government as the servant of the people, not the master of them. Thus, if the government is not fulfilling the needs of the people, they should not be coerced into maintaining it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I find your suggestion that the American lower-class is wealthier than seeventeenth-century monarchs is completely laughable and really exposes a lack of historical knowledge.

I'll get back to your other points later, but I have a couple questions for you:
Could 17th century monarchs get vaccinated to prevent them from getting bacterial disease?
Could 17th century monarchs fly from one part of the Earth to another in a matter of hours?
Could 17th century monarchs keep their food cold for later use?
Could 17th century monarchs drink water without the fear of getting a terminal illness?
Could 17th century monarchs get the news by turning on their television or their laptop?
Could 17th century monarchs get +3 hours of entertainment from a disc?
etc.

It is clear from all of these examples that the American poor enjoy a higher standard of living than 17th century monarchs.

I'll answer these questions, though I must say despite this I find it strange the way you measure "standard of living" in part in terms of modern entertainment. As if Louis XIV didn't have servitors, hunting and war to keep him occupied.

Vaccinated? This is indisputely true but this has nothing to do with Free market, the first major vaccination was that of Edward Jenner's Cowpox vaccine but to quote Wikipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As with Smallpox most later vaccination programmes were supported by large and powerful states or state-like bodies such as the WTO. To give one example that I would know of it was thanks to Health Minister Noel Browne that programs to iradicate human TB went into action in Ireland in the early 1950s, within a decade one of the most dangerous killers in the country was to reduced to mere fractions of the original number of infected. Not to mention that the period of history where the greatest increase in the standard of care ever recorded was in the post-1945 period, when most health care systems were being nationalized. So we can exclude the theory that the expansion and the development of Medicine had anything to do with the rise of Modern capitalism and the free market except as far as both are children of the so-called "scientific revolution".

Flight? Historically development in the study of flight was mostly done by classic spirted amateurs and not by professional scientists prior to the 20th Century. The Wright Brothers were more in this mode and later went out of their way to protect their interests via patents (that didn't quite work out). Like alot of the 20th Century technology later developments were not done for profit but many military purposes, with the US, the UK and German air forces as well as the above spirted amateurs and adventurers (like Lindbergh and Earhart) playing a key role in the development of early aeroplanes and their popular uses.

Here I will also point out that the Internet and the Television were mainly developed by states. The latter during WWII for communications and the former was by military researchers in the 1960s and was later developed a codified language (HTML) in the 1990s by Tim Berners Lee. Neither of these scientists became Bill Gates Rich.

This shouldn't be read btw as in praise of states. Rather states have the capital (both 'social capital' and economic) to hire the best scientists and researchers and also have a greater degree of power over a particular terriortial area than a corporation (this isn't to say that corporations can't exceed state power) and have greater public legitimacy, even if fading. What this all goes to prove is that most scientists have developed technology either out of their own personal interests or because of their job, those who get Bill Gates rich are usually who can control the organisation to spread goods and therefore must have a form of personal authority inserted, rather than visionaries.

[JohnFKennedy]

I'll get back to your other points later, but I have a couple questions for you:
Could 17th century monarchs get vaccinated to prevent them from getting bacterial disease?
Could 17th century monarchs fly from one part of the Earth to another in a matter of hours?
Could 17th century monarchs keep their food cold for later use?
Could 17th century monarchs drink water without the fear of getting a terminal illness?
Could 17th century monarchs get the news by turning on their television or their laptop?
Could 17th century monarchs get +3 hours of entertainment from a disc?
etc.

It is clear from all of these examples that the American poor enjoy a higher standard of living than 17th century monarchs.

This can be demonstrated by the fact that the Amrican lower-class is still wealthier than the 17th century monarchs. 

I see you're backtracking because before you were saying that the American 'lower-class' was 'wealthier' than seventeenth-century monarchs, a point which is clearly ludicrous as I showed you, and now you’re saying they enjoy a higher standard of living. Yes, Americans have better access to modern medicine but as Gully has pointed out, many of these innovations were hardly down to free-market economics but to the labours and travails of interested amateurs and government employed scientists. Equally there were plenty of other entertainments afforded to seventeenth-century monarchs that many modern Americans could never dream of; I can hardly see your average American having his own orchestra available to him whenever he wishes or the ability to commission a play as Louis XIV did with Moliere and Racine. What's the point in watching television when I could simply have my court dramatist produce a completely new play and have my court troupe perform it? Alternatively, I could just gather my noblemen and go on a hunt.

I'd also imagine that there were economically deprived areas in the USA where life-expectancy would be lower than that of a monarch in the seventeenth-century but I couldn't be sure there so don't quote me on that.

And where do these responsibilities come from?

'No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.' - John Donne

I could, of course, just as easily say that these are ‘natural responsibilities’ granted by a theoretical God and suddenly their basis is just as strong as ‘natural rights’. Where would the difference lie? Of course, I believe that these responsibilities come from living as a part of a community – technically I prefer the German Gemeinschaft as it has a subtly different meaning to ‘community’, but we’ll stick with community for the sake of the English language. Historically, community meant the parish community and thus the enforcement of these responsibilities was far simpler than it is today in our modern ‘society’; it was done by social pressure such as the use of charivari. Yet, with population expansion and the breakdown of this traditional moral community, I believe it is now important that the state exists as the enforcer of these responsibilities. In that respect, democracy plays an important part as it gives the population the ability to voice its opinion on these matters and keeps government responsive.

To burden adults with responsibilities against their will is slavery. In reality, everyone benefits from voluntary transactions, or else they would not happen. If I purchase a milk for $2, I obviously value the milk more than the $2, whereas the person selling me the milk values the $2 more than the milk. Thus, both parties benefit through voluntary transaction. However, if I force the milk supplier to provide me the milk at a lower price, stating that it is his responsibility to provide the neighborhood with affordable milk, then I benefit at the expense of the milk supplier. Therefore, your concept of responsibities is counter-productive. If one party fails to uphold his side of the deal, then the other party can take him to court.

Except that the proper functioning of our society isn’t as simple as you popping to the local supermarket and buying a bottle of milk. In the wider world these voluntary transactions often have consequences that affect others outside of the transaction and it is these negative externalities – such as pollution - that the free market tends to fail to take into account. Many of these transactions are not simple dichotomies between the seller and the buyer but have wider reaching consequences.

The only "responsibility" every individual has is to pursue his/her happiness.

And that is why I think your system is selfish.

[JohnFKennedy]

I'll admit I'm not that educated about Rothbardian court theory, I think the best way to answer those questions would be to consult the author himself. A judge would be willing to be neutral toward a multi-millionaire because if he is biased, the public will find out and put him out of business. I believe that trial by jury would be the best system. Regarding jury duty, have you ever thought of say, paying jurors for their services? That is the way every other job functions. Would it make sense for the state to mandate that attorney work for free, and then to conscript random citizens to make them be lawyers for a trial? Can you imagine how the quality of lawyers would decline in such a system? Given the nonsense of conscripting lawyers, I think it only makes sense to pay jurors as well. Since the punishment for all crimes would be restitution for the victim, prisons would undergo a dramatic decline in population.

This all comes from Rothbard? Now I have further reason to doubt the veracity of his historical work - which according to every academic historian I have come across on the topic is deeply flawed.

Again, how exactly will a decision be taken about which court the case will be tried in if neither of us can agree? Who are the watchdogs that ensure these courts function neutrally and properly? It seems to me that it would be perfectly easy for a multi-millionaire to make a private donation to a judge without it becoming public knowledge.

Is there an appeals process to this court system or is the verdict final and binding? That is my ultimate problem with the death penalty; judges and juries sometimes make mistakes and under your system that would result in the supposed criminal's rights having been taken away by another. You say that only you can forfeit your natural rights and that nobody can take them away from you but the very existence of a court system mandates that there will be cases of people having their rights taken away from them. It seems to me that in cases of murder your system completely undermines the right to appeal; given that the convicted's life and all they own is immediately passed into the hands of the victim's family, the convict can never appeal because he has no means to.

As I said, the trouble with turning jury duty into a business endeavour is that you have to consider who is going to step forward to serve on a jury if it is turned into a form of employment as you propose. It would hardly be trial by a jury of your peers if the only people stepping forward are those who would like to see all murderers brutally slaughtered. Similarly, you would likely lack the differing levels of experience or knowledge that are associated with having a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds on a jury. How exactly would these jurors be paid? Is it conviction related? Performance related? Each method of paying jurors will have its own problems for the nature of a fair and just judicial system. Further to that, the difference between lawyers and jurors is that lawyers have to be specifically versed in the law whereas the jury need not know the intricacies of every bit of law.

I also have problems with the method of punishment under your system. Firstly, it provides no mechanism to prevent repeat offences. If I am a professional thief then all I have to worry about is occasionally having to return the goods. Similarly, there is no method of rehabilitating criminals. Also, how is a business meant to perform a criminal record background check on any new employees?

So you'd rather have the poor receive the same treatment and the wealthy receive worse treatment?

Firstly, under the US system many poor people don't receive treatment at all so it would hardly be 'the same treatment'. Secondly, you're assuming that suddenly all the best doctors will disappear under my system In fact, you have a system where the best doctors will see people of all financial backgrounds. While the quality of treatment received by the wealthy may not be better than under the current American system, the poor would receive far improved treatment. Just a few links to have a look at:

World Health Organization Healthcare Rankings
New York Times Article on Healthcare

(Those two articles also slot in to some extent with your discussion of seventeenth-century monarchs)

Also, the only difference between the government I propose and the government we currently have is that the former would be voluntary. However, you just cannot seem to fathom the idea of individual choice.

Of course I can fathom the idea of individual choice and I believe it has an important part to play in society. However, I think there are some circumstances where the existence of individual choice would be damaging to other members of society. While many wouldn't agree with me on the matter of healthcare, I think most would on the justice and policing system; without an ultimate arbiter or a uniform system, the rights of the rich are greater than the rights of the poor. If this 'government' is voluntary in the way you suggest then it is hardly a government at all. The government that exists today is voluntary; you choose to live within its territories and therefore abide by its rules; if you don't want to live under that government then you can leave the country.

1. I don't want to run society according to my dictums. I want everyone to be free to run their own lives according to their dictums.

Perhaps here it would have been better to put in the Donne quotation; society cannot properly function if people think only of themselves. Yes, we are individuals, but we are not just individuals but a part of an indivisible whole.
 

2. They should not be forced to accept my interpretation. They should just permit people who disapprove of the government's job to secede from it and not pay taxes toward it.

As I have already said, you can secede from society. The society you live in is a participatory democracy and if you don’t like that then you can go and live somewhere else.

3. Again, you confuse society with government. I view government as the servant of the people, not the master of them. Thus, if the government is not fulfilling the needs of the people, they should not be coerced into maintaining it.

No, I am not confusing society with government. Government is the servant of the people. That is why democracies have elections; to ensure that government remains responsive to the needs and will of the people. Government is there to ensure that both the rights and responsibilities of the members of society are enforced and that often means a government should intervene.

[SPC]

I see you're backtracking because before you were saying that the American 'lower-class' was 'wealthier' than seventeenth-century monarchs, a point which is clearly ludicrous as I showed you, and now you’re saying they enjoy a higher standard of living. Yes, Americans have better access to modern medicine but as Gully has pointed out, many of these innovations were hardly down to free-market economics but to the labours and travails of interested amateurs and government employed scientists. Equally there were plenty of other entertainments afforded to seventeenth-century monarchs that many modern Americans could never dream of; I can hardly see your average American having his own orchestra available to him whenever he wishes or the ability to commission a play as Louis XIV did with Moliere and Racine. What's the point in watching television when I could simply have my court dramatist produce a completely new play and have my court troupe perform it? Alternatively, I could just gather my noblemen and go on a hunt.

I'd also imagine that there were economically deprived areas in the USA where life-expectancy would be lower than that of a monarch in the seventeenth-century but I couldn't be sure there so don't quote me on that.

I was talking in terms of real wealth, meaning the goods they has availbility to, not the amount of paper or gold they has in their bank account. Americans can buy a ticket to an orchestra if they wanted to see one. I doubt any monarch could ever dream of watching such a play from thousands of miles away. Americans can still hunt with friends. The very fact that you are uncertain about whether the American poor or the 17th century monarchs have a higher life expectancy simply shows that the standard of living has improved since then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.' - John Donne

I could, of course, just as easily say that these are ‘natural responsibilities’ granted by a theoretical God and suddenly their basis is just as strong as ‘natural rights’. Where would the difference lie? Of course, I believe that these responsibilities come from living as a part of a community – technically I prefer the German Gemeinschaft as it has a subtly different meaning to ‘community’, but we’ll stick with community for the sake of the English language. Historically, community meant the parish community and thus the enforcement of these responsibilities was far simpler than it is today in our modern ‘society’; it was done by social pressure such as the use of charivari. Yet, with population expansion and the breakdown of this traditional moral community, I believe it is now important that the state exists as the enforcer of these responsibilities. In that respect, democracy plays an important part as it gives the population the ability to voice its opinion on these matters and keeps government responsive. [/quote]

The catch is that democracy allows the majority to plunder the minority. If 51% of the public demand that government force everyone to revert back to hunter-gatherer society, there's no way to stop them in a democracy. Also, the very fact that many American voters  vote for candidates based on their personality disproves any theory that a democratic election guarentees the wills of the voters. I would prefer consumer democracy, where everyone votes for businesses they like with their wallet. I'll explain howthisis more efficient by using an example. Say that 51% of the population prefers Coke while 49% of the population prefers Pepsi. In a consumer democracy, both Coke and Pepsi will have incentive to improve the taste of their soda in hopes of winning over some of the other soda's customers. The customers are all free to drink the soda they please. This is a Win-Win Scenario, since everyone benefits. On the other hand, in a political democracy, the 51% Coke would outnumber the 49% Pepsi, thus meaning that everyone would have to drink Coke. Since Coke is in power for the next 2-4 years, they have no incentive to improve the taste, and every incentive to make it worse. Pepsi, since they will not be selling soda for the next 2-4 years, has no incentive to improve either. Thus, this is a Win-Lose scenario, since Coke will be making twice as many transactions in the next 2-4 years, but the customers will be forced to buy filthy-tasting soda.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that the proper functioning of our society isn’t as simple as you popping to the local supermarket and buying a bottle of milk. In the wider world these voluntary transactions often have consequences that affect others outside of the transaction and it is these negative externalities – such as pollution - that the free market tends to fail to take into account. Many of these transactions are not simple dichotomies between the seller and the buyer but have wider reaching consequences.[/quote]

The solution to pollution is private ownership of land and water. If the business owns the land they pollute on, they have no problem. If they pollute on someone else's land, they will be looking at a lawsuit, which will cost them more than polluting will save them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that is why I think your system is selfish.
[/quote]

So, it is "selfish" to propose that nobody do somethign against their will? I suppose by that line of thinking, you would call Hariet Tubbman and Frederick Douglass "selfish" because they think that blacks should be free to choose their job.

[SPC]

As I said, the trouble with turning jury duty into a business endeavour is that you have to consider who is going to step forward to serve on a jury if it is turned into a form of employment as you propose. It would hardly be trial by a jury of your peers if the only people stepping forward are those who would like to see all murderers brutally slaughtered. Similarly, you would likely lack the differing levels of experience or knowledge that are associated with having a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds on a jury. How exactly would these jurors be paid? Is it conviction related? Performance related? Each method of paying jurors will have its own problems for the nature of a fair and just judicial system. Further to that, the difference between lawyers and jurors is that lawyers have to be specifically versed in the law whereas the jury need not know the intricacies of every bit of law.

That still happens under the current system. The only difference is that, rather than simply not volunteering, the people who really don't want to serve on a jury simply come on with reasons why they cannot. Can you deny that someone unwilling to do a job is going to be bad at it? If so, then why would it be any different with the job of a juror? Shouldn't the jury be knowledgeable about the law is they are charged to determine if someone violated it? Maybe you don't see the ridiculousness in that, but it seems pretty obvious to me. They would be paid for their services, not whether they got a conviction or not. Just as in the current system, they would be hired by the defense attorney and the prosecution attorney.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where did I say that criminals would not have a criminal record?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, under the US system many poor people don't receive treatment at all so it would hardly be 'the same treatment'. Secondly, you're assuming that suddenly all the best doctors will disappear under my system In fact, you have a system where the best doctors will see people of all financial backgrounds. While the quality of treatment received by the wealthy may not be better than under the current American system, the poor would receive far improved treatment. Just a few links to have a look at:

World Health Organization Healthcare Rankings
New York Times Article on Healthcare

(Those two articles also slot in to some extent with your discussion of seventeenth-century monarchs)[/quote]

I've already explained this. Many poor people don't receive treatment because insurance companies with the help of government artificially raise medical prices. In a true free-market health care system, insurance companies would only be able to pay for emergency operations. Thus, people will be more selective as far as when they go to the doctor, because any non-emergency visit will come from the customer's wallet. This will lower health care prices to a level where the poor can afford both insurance and a occasional check-up.

On the other hand, in the socialistic system you propose, there is no price that makes people use discretion for when the go to the doctor, because every visit is paid by their taxes. Thus, people will be going to the doctor for every scratch they get. Because of this artificial increase in demand, and since doctors are not allowed to raise the price to ration, a line will exist for health care, meaning that rather than being served based on how serious the problem is, patients will be seen on a first come, first serve basis. This is largely the reason why my great-uncle has been waiting forever for a hip replacement. Unfortunately for him, his hip is so bas that he cannot fly to the United States to have a hip replacement, so he will likely perish before he gets a hip. Also, my great-uncle is far from rich. Looking from a different perspective, doctors will be paid the same regardless of the quality of their services, unlike in a free-market system. Thus, they have no incentive to provide high-quality service, and medical quality will decline overall. With longer lines and lower quality services, it can hardly be said that the socialistic system is better, regardless of the intentions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I can fathom the idea of individual choice and I believe it has an important part to play in society. However, I think there are some circumstances where the existence of individual choice would be damaging to other members of society. While many wouldn't agree with me on the matter of healthcare, I think most would on the justice and policing system; without an ultimate arbiter or a uniform system, the rights of the rich are greater than the rights of the poor. If this 'government' is voluntary in the way you suggest then it is hardly a government at all. The government that exists today is voluntary; you choose to live within its territories and therefore abide by its rules; if you don't want to live under that government then you can leave the country. [/quote]

Suppose I applied your arguments to market services:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This sounds ridiculous at best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps here it would have been better to put in the Donne quotation; society cannot properly function if people think only of themselves. Yes, we are individuals, but we are not just individuals but a part of an indivisible whole. [/quote]

Individuals would still be free to trade with one another, they would just be able to choose who provides their security. Also, the several secessionist movements over the centuries (American, Indian, etc.)show that societies are in fact "divisible".
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I am not confusing society with government. Government is the servant of the people. That is why democracies have elections; to ensure that government remains responsive to the needs and will of the people. Government is there to ensure that both the rights and responsibilities of the members of society are enforced and that often means a government should intervene.
[/quote]

I've already explained why democracies are not as efficient as the market in gauging the peoples' needs. Also, I should be free to fire any servant of mine that does a bad job.

[JohnFKennedy]

I was talking in terms of real wealth, meaning the goods they has availbility to, not the amount of paper or gold they has in their bank account. Americans can buy a ticket to an orchestra if they wanted to see one. I doubt any monarch could ever dream of watching such a play from thousands of miles away. Americans can still hunt with friends. The very fact that you are uncertain about whether the American poor or the 17th century monarchs have a higher life expectancy simply shows that the standard of living has improved since then.

Of course standards of living have improved since then on the whole – although people do die of diseases in the modern world that were unheard of in the seventeenth-century – but your original post ascribed this increase in wealth to an increase in capital. Are you now saying that this increased standard of living is due to the free market? As Gully has pointed out, you’d be deluding yourself if you believed that these discoveries were solely down to the free market. Certainly market economics has helped improve people’s lives, but it has not acted alone; governments have done a great deal to provide for the population as well.

The catch is that democracy allows the majority to plunder the minority. If 51% of the public demand that government force everyone to revert back to hunter-gatherer society, there's no way to stop them in a democracy. Also, the very fact that many American voters  vote for candidates based on their personality disproves any theory that a democratic election guarentees the wills of the voters. I would prefer consumer democracy, where everyone votes for businesses they like with their wallet. I'll explain howthisis more efficient by using an example. Say that 51% of the population prefers Coke while 49% of the population prefers Pepsi. In a consumer democracy, both Coke and Pepsi will have incentive to improve the taste of their soda in hopes of winning over some of the other soda's customers. The customers are all free to drink the soda they please. This is a Win-Win Scenario, since everyone benefits. On the other hand, in a political democracy, the 51% Coke would outnumber the 49% Pepsi, thus meaning that everyone would have to drink Coke. Since Coke is in power for the next 2-4 years, they have no incentive to improve the taste, and every incentive to make it worse. Pepsi, since they will not be selling soda for the next 2-4 years, has no incentive to improve either. Thus, this is a Win-Lose scenario, since Coke will be making twice as many transactions in the next 2-4 years, but the customers will be forced to buy filthy-tasting soda.

I’ll just quickly pull out your point on ‘personality’ before I move on to the rest of your point. Essentially what you are saying is that people do not always act rationally; given that the entire structure of your free market ideal is based on people always making rational decisions, I would say that is particularly problematic. So, for instance your argument that people wouldn’t drink and drive because of the financial penalties only works if people make a rational choice which people are often prone not to – particularly when they have had an alcoholic drink. Equally, if people are forced to pay for healthcare then they will often put off treatment for what may seem a minor ailment – as they believe their money is better spent elsewhere – until that minor ailment becomes a major problem, by which point it is generally a lot harder – and consequently a lot more expensive – to treat.

I find your ‘tyranny of the majority’ point to be quite simplistic. Firstly, I favour a system of checks and balances. I think in that respect that the US system can work well; you have a division between legislature and executive which requires both to work together to pass and administer laws. The trouble with your analogy is that you are assuming that once elected a government will slack off which is generally a bad idea if it wants to get re-elected. Similarly, you are expecting that in a legislature, all members of the party will act in the same way which a quick glance at the voting records of any parliament in any part of the world will show you is simply not true. Equally, the opposition parties – I would far prefer a multi-party rather than a two party system and that is where I prefer European democracies, in particular those with proportional representation – will be actively working to increase their popularity in order that they can get into government and implement their policies. This is not something that only comes into play for a short time when an election is on. I think you’ll find that is particularly true with institutions such as the US House of Representatives where terms are so short that its members are effectively always vying for re-election. It’s important to have that compromise between that responsiveness to the people and the greater longevity of an institution such as the Senate which allows for greater reflection and less in the way of demagoguery; these are representatives and not mere delegates.

Furthermore, I would argue that your system is also open to tyranny. As there is no state to act as the Weberian monopoliser of the legitimate use of force, a minority can effectively seek to dominate society through force of arms. If an individual – or an group – are wealthy and powerful enough to hire and control the private security firms operating in a town or city then they can effectively instate a monarchy – or oligarchy – and impose their will upon the rest of the population. Sure other people within that area may have guns, but if this individual or group has the necessary financial power then they can easily equip their police force with better weapons and body armour. This new quasi-state is far more problematic than the state we live under now because it is in no way responsive to the population; provided those in charge keep those who enforce their will happy, they will continue to dominate.

The other problem with your system of private security is that if a client leaves the area patrolled by their private security system then they are not protected; if someone is mugged under the current system and there are police in the area then they are likely to be caught, whereas under your system it is far less likely that your private security firm will be patrolling the streets. This is a particular problem if you go on holiday; suddenly you need to pay for your security whilst you are on holiday in a different part of the country and it all begins to get rather complicated.

So how would you respond to the suggestion that these responsibilities could be just as ‘natural’ as the rights you are so insistent upon? I believe that many natural rights theorists believed in human beings having responsibilities as well as rights; Aquinas certainly did and to my recollection Locke did as well.

The solution to pollution is private ownership of land and water. If the business owns the land they pollute on, they have no problem. If they pollute on someone else's land, they will be looking at a lawsuit, which will cost them more than polluting will save them.

That’s a very short-sighted response. As I said, people will seldom consider the long-term ramifications of their actions and this could quite conceivably happen under your system. That land won’t belong to the business for eternity and the pollution they leave behind is a poor legacy to bequeath to the next generation. Of course, a wealthy business could pollute land and then buy up more and pollute that again, but then eventually you have a significant problem with much of the land becoming unusable.

Further to that, how exactly does this system deal with air pollution or global warming? The fact is that free market transactions between two parties fail to take into account the impact that that transaction has on a third party.

So, it is "selfish" to propose that nobody do somethign against their will? I suppose by that line of thinking, you would call Hariet Tubbman and Frederick Douglass "selfish" because they think that blacks should be free to choose their job.

No, because as I have said I believe that there are certain inalienable rights. I am saying that the system is selfish because it is effectively a system based solely on self-interest.

[JohnFKennedy]

That still happens under the current system. The only difference is that, rather than simply not volunteering, the people who really don't want to serve on a jury simply come on with reasons why they cannot. Can you deny that someone unwilling to do a job is going to be bad at it? If so, then why would it be any different with the job of a juror? Shouldn't the jury be knowledgeable about the law is they are charged to determine if someone violated it? Maybe you don't see the ridiculousness in that, but it seems pretty obvious to me. They would be paid for their services, not whether they got a conviction or not. Just as in the current system, they would be hired by the defense attorney and the prosecution attorney.

It doesn’t happen to the same extent it would under your system. As you pointed out, it is only those ‘who really don’t want to serve’ who find ways to get out of jury duty. There are still those who would rather not, but do go ahead with serving on a jury. I would argue that the right to a trial by one’s peers would mandate the need for a system of jury duty as exists now and I believe that is a duty that theorists such as John Locke would be firmly committed to. I think having a jury composed of career jurists undermines the point of a trial by one’s peers and also narrows the range of experience. It is important that you have people from different backgrounds and different experiences in the jury which simply wouldn’t be the case under your system.

Equally, I don’t think it is necessarily true that someone who doesn’t like their job is going to be bad at it. A good friend of mine works in a clothing shop and hates it, but he still has the best sales of anyone in the shop. At the heart of my point, though, is this belief that justice is not a business. The jury is not actually ‘hired’ by the lawyers involved in the case under the current system; both lawyers can object to jurors, but they do not get given a list to choose from. Similarly, in order for these lawyers to be able to pick and choose – as under your system – you have to have a greater pool of jurors available than there are places on a jury, otherwise there really is no choice at all. Equally, such a system will inevitably lead to the build up of relationships between lawyers and jurors which is something the current system seeks to minimise – so lawyers are generally excluded from jury duty for that reason.

I don’t think that jurors need to have an intricate knowledge of the law for the simple reason that they do not decide what a defendant is being tried on. They are given the charges to decide upon and the judge will impress upon them the detail of the law to ensure that they fully understand it. It is then for them to make a decision. Of course, I don’t believe that the current system is perfect – there are certainly flaws – but I do see it is as preferable to the system you propose.

Where did I say that criminals would not have a criminal record?

You didn’t. My point is that without a monopolistic organization to turn to, it would be very difficult to discover someone’s criminal background. Given you support competition in all ‘markets’ you assumedly believe there should be more than one criminal register. Correct me if I am wrong there. In those circumstances, it becomes a lot harder to check somebody’s background than it currently is where there is a national database to turn to. Equally, I would imagine it was far easier to evade one’s criminal past by changing one’s name. Again, without a national system of registration it is easy for someone to simply change their name and lose their past identity.

I've already explained this. Many poor people don't receive treatment because insurance companies with the help of government artificially raise medical prices. In a true free-market health care system, insurance companies would only be able to pay for emergency operations. Thus, people will be more selective as far as when they go to the doctor, because any non-emergency visit will come from the customer's wallet. This will lower health care prices to a level where the poor can afford both insurance and a occasional check-up.

Do you honestly believe that everyone could afford the healthcare they need under a perfect free market? If so then you’re living in a dream world because the nature of both the economy and humanity means that there will always be some level of unemployment. Similarly, there will always be those on low wages. If you had read the article that I linked, you would have seen that one of the key problems of charging people for healthcare is that – as I have already said – people will tend to put off treatment for something that seems minor until it becomes a bigger problem. By that point it will be far more expensive to treat and also far riskier. This is especially true of problems like cancer which are much easier to treat in their early stages.

On the other hand, in the socialistic system you propose, there is no price that makes people use discretion for when the go to the doctor, because every visit is paid by their taxes. Thus, people will be going to the doctor for every scratch they get.

That’s a gross exaggeration; there are certainly waiting lists in the UK but people hardly go to the doctor for ‘every scratch they get’. I am not saying our system is perfect, but it does provide greater access to healthcare for the general populace than the US system does. There are problems with the system and I would never deny that – in particular I think people who miss their appointments should pay for them unless they have serious mitigating circumstances – but I do think it is fairer and better to a system whereby all healthcare is paid for at the point of need.

Just to take a trip down memory lane, quite a few years back when I was studying economics at school, my teacher began the course by talking about what ‘economics’ is. The basic problem that economics seeks to solve is the allocation of scarce resources; I don’t believe that it is necessarily fair to allocate those resources solely based on wealth.

Because of this artificial increase in demand, and since doctors are not allowed to raise the price to ration, a line will exist for health care, meaning that rather than being served based on how serious the problem is, patients will be seen on a first come, first serve basis.

Firstly, I don’t think healthcare should be ‘rationed’ by price increases because – as I have said – I don’t think that is fair. I think it is particularly unfair when it comes to children; if two babies are born with the same rare condition, one to a wealthy family and the other to a poor family, I hardly think it is fair that the child with the richer parents will receive better treatment than that of the poorer person; in my eyes that is punishing someone for circumstances they have no control over. In particular, that is a problem that is close to my heart; my closest friend was born with an incredibly rare condition that required almost immediate operation and regular check-ups and treatment. Given the rarity of the condition, treatment would likely be very expensive under a market system.

Equally, the UK’s system does not simply operate on a ‘first come, first serve basis’. For instance, when it comes to organ transplants, people who are in dire need are often bumped up waiting lists. I would far rather it went to the neediest than the person who could pay the most for it. I’d also like to see an opt-out system of organ donations introduced whereby everyone is automatically on the organ donation register but they can opt out if they choose; I am willing to bet that the number of available organs would be far greater under such circumstances than are available now (another problem I have with the UK status quo).

This is largely the reason why my great-uncle has been waiting forever for a hip replacement. Unfortunately for him, his hip is so bas that he cannot fly to the United States to have a hip replacement, so he will likely perish before he gets a hip. Also, my great-uncle is far from rich.

I’m sorry for your great-uncle and I wish the system was better, but I don’t think that its privatization is the way to go to ensure that everyone receives fair treatment.

Looking from a different perspective, doctors will be paid the same regardless of the quality of their services, unlike in a free-market system. Thus, they have no incentive to provide high-quality service, and medical quality will decline overall. With longer lines and lower quality services, it can hardly be said that the socialistic system is better, regardless of the intentions.

Pay for doctors is not uniform in the United Kingdom, I believe there is a degree of performance related pay but I would have to consult my medical friends to find out the extent of it. I also doubt that doctors do what they do solely in the interest of making money. I think a greater incentive is saving people's lives.

[JohnFKennedy]

Suppose I applied your arguments to market services:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This sounds ridiculous at best.

That sounds ridiculous because you have purposefully distorted my argument to make it sound that way. The soft drink market is not there to provide justice and security to the population; it is a business and is driven by financial gain. Government should not be profit-driven but should seek to deliver a service. Equally, if we do suppose there to be a similarity between government and the soft drink market, then surely – given that there are numerous different states around the world – each ‘government’ is akin to one soft drink company. In that respect, in the same way if you don’t like a soft drink you can choose to drink another one, if you don’t like one particular state you can go and live in another one. I still think the simile is a poor one; but the way you have used it is purposefully distorting.

Individuals would still be free to trade with one another, they would just be able to choose who provides their security. Also, the several secessionist movements over the centuries (American, Indian, etc.)show that societies are in fact "divisible".

Oh, I believe humanity are all part of one indivisible whole; mankind. In a sense you do too because you believe each member of humanity has his own natural rights in common. On secessionist movements proving society is divisible, I could just as easily say that the fact that rights can be taken away suggests they are not natural.

I've already explained why democracies are not as efficient as the market in gauging the peoples' needs. Also, I should be free to fire any servant of mine that does a bad job.

That is what elections are for; government is not your servant alone, it serves its citizenry and as a collective they can ‘fire’ a government.

-------------------------

Anyway, on a more important note I am afraid in future I will be less responsive to this debate as I have a great deal of work to do and have someone coming to stay so won't be spending as much time on the internet. Apologies in advance if I either don't get back to your next post or take a long time to get back to it.

[SPC]

Don't worry about it. I don't spend all m time on the Atlas either. Feel free to respond/concede whenever you get the chance.

That still happens under the current system. The only difference is that, rather than simply not volunteering, the people who really don't want to serve on a jury simply come on with reasons why they cannot. Can you deny that someone unwilling to do a job is going to be bad at it? If so, then why would it be any different with the job of a juror? Shouldn't the jury be knowledgeable about the law is they are charged to determine if someone violated it? Maybe you don't see the ridiculousness in that, but it seems pretty obvious to me. They would be paid for their services, not whether they got a conviction or not. Just as in the current system, they would be hired by the defense attorney and the prosecution attorney.

It doesn’t happen to the same extent it would under your system. As you pointed out, it is only those ‘who really don’t want to serve’ who find ways to get out of jury duty. There are still those who would rather not, but do go ahead with serving on a jury. I would argue that the right to a trial by one’s peers would mandate the need for a system of jury duty as exists now and I believe that is a duty that theorists such as John Locke would be firmly committed to. I think having a jury composed of career jurists undermines the point of a trial by one’s peers and also narrows the range of experience. It is important that you have people from different backgrounds and different experiences in the jury which simply wouldn’t be the case under your system.

What is about getting paid for a service that makes it so that they are not 'peers'?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You friend would probably be even better as his job if he enjoyed it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe in jury nullification, i.e. that juries should be free to find someone innocent if the law they violated was unconstitutional or immoral.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You didn’t. My point is that without a monopolistic organization to turn to, it would be very difficult to discover someone’s criminal background. Given you support competition in all ‘markets’ you assumedly believe there should be more than one criminal register. Correct me if I am wrong there. In those circumstances, it becomes a lot harder to check somebody’s background than it currently is where there is a national database to turn to. Equally, I would imagine it was far easier to evade one’s criminal past by changing one’s name. Again, without a national system of registration it is easy for someone to simply change their name and lose their past identity. [/quote]

Sounds familiar. And if one criminal register works well, why wouldn't two or three?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you honestly believe that everyone could afford the healthcare they need under a perfect free market? If so then you’re living in a dream world because the nature of both the economy and humanity means that there will always be some level of unemployment. Similarly, there will always be those on low wages. If you had read the article that I linked, you would have seen that one of the key problems of charging people for healthcare is that – as I have already said – people will tend to put off treatment for something that seems minor until it becomes a bigger problem. By that point it will be far more expensive to treat and also far riskier. This is especially true of problems like cancer which are much easier to treat in their early stages.[/quote]

Poorer people can get treatment from charity hospitals, as was done before the "Great Society". It would seem that you've failed to address any of the problems I pointed out with socialist health care, and instead attacked my free-market ideal system (BTW, I forgot to mention that abolishing the FDA would make prescription drugs cheaper and save lives). Could you also explain how a socialistic system would make people treat health problems in earlier stages, other than forcing them to go to the doctor?

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That’s a gross exaggeration; there are certainly waiting lists in the UK but people hardly go to the doctor for ‘every scratch they get’. I am not saying our system is perfect, but it does provide greater access to healthcare for the general populace than the US system does. There are problems with the system and I would never deny that – in particular I think people who miss their appointments should pay for them unless they have serious mitigating circumstances – but I do think it is fairer and better to a system whereby all healthcare is paid for at the point of need.[/quote]

If this is true, then why do world leaders choose to have operations in the US instead of the UK? Obviously our system must be cheaper and/or of higher quality. Of course I was exageratting with a scratch, but the point stands. I people do not have a price that will ration their medical visits, they will go at every opportunity possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope, resources are not allocated based on wealth in capitalism. They are allocated based upon supply and demand. If there is high demand for a good, the price will go up. Because of the profits they can make, producers will have an incentive to increase the supply of the good, thus lowering prices. Under your socialistic system, when there is high demand for a good, and prices are not allowed to rise, then there will bo no incentive on behalf of the producers to increase the supply, and there will be shortages of that good. This is a simple economic law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, I don’t think healthcare should be ‘rationed’ by price increases because – as I have said – I don’t think that is fair. I think it is particularly unfair when it comes to children; if two babies are born with the same rare condition, one to a wealthy family and the other to a poor family, I hardly think it is fair that the child with the richer parents will receive better treatment than that of the poorer person; in my eyes that is punishing someone for circumstances they have no control over. In particular, that is a problem that is close to my heart; my closest friend was born with an incredibly rare condition that required almost immediate operation and regular check-ups and treatment. Given the rarity of the condition, treatment would likely be very expensive under a market system.[/quote]

Yes, better for both babies to die from waiting too long than to have the rich one survive. Also, if a family member has a life-threatening condition, under capitalism, they can have an insurance policy cover that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not simply allow people to sell their organs? That will insure they won't be any shortages or organs for transplants. Also, who is going to be the person to determine which patients are in dire need and which ones aren't? My dad actually has that job, so don't deny that it wouldn't exist in a socialistic health care system. Because there will be doctors who have to determine which patients need to be served first, they cannot be treating patients, thus making the lines even longer for patients declared to not be in dire need.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pay for doctors is not uniform in the United Kingdom, I believe there is a degree of performance related pay but I would have to consult my medical friends to find out the extent of it. I also doubt that doctors do what they do solely in the interest of making money. I think a greater incentive is saving people's lives.
[/quote]

Performance-replated pay?! Why not simply let patients decide what their salary is? They can do this by deciding to come back to a doctor if he treats them well.

[JohnFKennedy]

Don't worry about it. I don't spend all m time on the Atlas either. Feel free to respond/concede whenever you get the chance.

Concede what? Why would I believe your system to be more moral than the one which stands in accordance with my moral code? As far as I can see, your system would make things cheaper for the rich and more expensive for the poor as it requires everyone to contribute equally for the same services, irrespective of ability to pay. I am sure you would hardly be surprised to hear that I believe ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ is a good principle when it comes to governance. I am not saying I believe the entire economy should be run on a ‘socialist’ system, but that I believe that taxation should be progressive and that government has more of a duty to the poor than it does the rich.

What is about getting paid for a service that makes it so that they are not 'peers'?

Juries are meant to be socially representative in terms of occupation and background; if they are employees of a court then they are not going to be so. Equally, the point of having different professionals sitting on a jury is that they bring different areas of knowledge which is something that would again not happen if these were career jurors. Further to that I believe that career service on a jury would tend to have an effect on the judgment handed down by the jurors as previous cases would tend to prejudice them.

You friend would probably be even better as his job if he enjoyed it.

Perhaps, but I don’t think it is necessarily true that one must enjoy their job to be better at it. Equally, I think in many cases it is better not to enjoy one’s job. So for instance in the USA I would prefer that those who administer the death penalty did not enjoy their job.

I believe in jury nullification, i.e. that juries should be free to find someone innocent if the law they violated was unconstitutional or immoral.

How is that inconsistent with what I argued? The UK employs the system that I support and jury nullification still occurs as it did in the Ponting case during the Falklands War.

Sounds familiar. And if one criminal register works well, why wouldn't two or three?

If one criminal register works well, why do we need two or three? As far as I can see, having more than one register would actually make the service worse. Are courts required to give all information to each register or do the criminal registers buy the data? It seems to me this would end up as more expensive and complicated for businesses as they could very well end up having to pay for checks on several different registers in order to find out if their employees’ records are clean. It’s far simpler if there is one unified and national database, particularly if you end up with regional registers as one could evade their criminal record by leaving the region.

Poorer people can get treatment from charity hospitals, as was done before the "Great Society".

Which worked ever so well didn’t it? Do you honestly believe that the poor would have better access to healthcare under such a system than they do in a socialist system?

It would seem that you've failed to address any of the problems I pointed out with socialist health care, and instead attacked my free-market ideal system (BTW, I forgot to mention that abolishing the FDA would make prescription drugs cheaper and save lives). Could you also explain how a socialistic system would make people treat health problems in earlier stages, other than forcing them to go to the doctor?

What were the problems you pointed out? As far as I can see your biggest gripe with socialist healthcare systems was that everyone will show up at the doctors for every minor scratch that they get which is simply not true. Then there was the waiting list problem and I pointed out that urgent cases were actually moved up the waiting list. Further to that I pointed out my own problems with the system that I felt could help to alleviate the problems of waiting lists including an opt-out organ donation system and charges for cancelled appointments. I also stated that I felt it was more moral that healthcare was provided on the basis it is here than under a system whereby the highest bidder gets the best healthcare. It seems to me that I did address your problems with the socialist system.

I find it difficult to believe that you can’t fathom how a socialised healthcare system means people are more likely to receive treatment in the early stages of illnesses. As you pointed out, if people have to pay for healthcare then they are only likely to seek treatment in an emergency whereas under a socialist system they are more likely to go for regular check-ups as well as to seek medical advice in the earlier stages of an illness which means it is more likely that a disease will be caught earlier.

If this is true, then why do world leaders choose to have operations in the US instead of the UK? Obviously our system must be cheaper and/or of higher quality. Of course I was exageratting with a scratch, but the point stands. I people do not have a price that will ration their medical visits, they will go at every opportunity possible.

Do you think these ‘world leaders’ just go to the average US hospital? Of course not, if one of these leaders is seeking healthcare in the US then they are probably going to be attending the most expensive clinics. That doesn’t prove that the US system is cheaper or of higher quality, it simply suggests that there are a few very specialist clinics there. Out of interest, could you provide me with an example of one of these world leaders? I’d be curious which countries you think they are coming from. I can’t think of any British or French politicians who have sought treatment in the USA.

On visiting ‘at every opportunity possible’ I think you are exaggerating again. You’re drastically exaggerating the extent of waiting lists present in the UK system; for instance last summer I fell ill in another part of the UK and visited the nearest doctor’s surgery; I was seen within forty-five minutes (and would have been seen sooner if it had been more serious). This point about rationing is one that would only apply to those who cannot afford to go ‘at every opportunity possible’; it simply means that people who are wealthy can afford to get every comfort and luxury within the system when they feel like it whilst those who are less well off cannot.

Nope, resources are not allocated based on wealth in capitalism. They are allocated based upon supply and demand. If there is high demand for a good, the price will go up. Because of the profits they can make, producers will have an incentive to increase the supply of the good, thus lowering prices. Under your socialistic system, when there is high demand for a good, and prices are not allowed to rise, then there will bo no incentive on behalf of the producers to increase the supply, and there will be shortages of that good. This is a simple economic law.

My point was that it is not always possible for supply to simply be ‘increased’, particularly when it comes to something like healthcare where supply is limited by the number of trained doctors and their working hours. In which case, if there is high demand, the price goes up and only richer people can afford to pay for the services meaning that the resource is being allocated based on wealth. I am not disputing this ‘simply economic law’.

Equally, I am not proposing that the entire economy be run by the government, simply that there are areas where it is right for the government to intervene to ensure at least the basic provision of things like healthcare and education. Equally, under such a system it is in the interest of the government to increase the availability of healthcare because poor provision will threaten their electoral success.

[JohnFKennedy]

Yes, better for both babies to die from waiting too long than to have the rich one survive. Also, if a family member has a life-threatening condition, under capitalism, they can have an insurance policy cover that.

Except that as I have pointed out, urgent cases are pushed forward and the UK system is hardly crippled by waiting lists as you depict it being. Further to that, what sort of premiums do you think an insurance company is likely to charge for someone who is suffering from a condition already? Do you know how difficult it is to find affordable insurance if you already suffer from a life-threatening condition? Equally, as I have pointed out before, people do not always act rationally and thus in many cases will find other uses for their money in the short term than health insurance because they see themselves as young and fit and not likely to contract a threatening illness/condition. I notice that when I pointed out before that human beings do not act in the rational way you ascribe to them you ignored my point.

Why not simply allow people to sell their organs? That will insure they won't be any shortages or organs for transplants. Also, who is going to be the person to determine which patients are in dire need and which ones aren't? My dad actually has that job, so don't deny that it wouldn't exist in a socialistic health care system. Because there will be doctors who have to determine which patients need to be served first, they cannot be treating patients, thus making the lines even longer for patients declared to not be in dire need.

Firstly I will assume by ‘don’t deny that it wouldn’t exist’ you actually mean that it would exist and secondly, why would I deny that someone has to decide who is in dire need? It is patently obvious that that has to be done. I believe that the way the system works currently is that patients go on a waiting list unless the doctor placing them on recommends that they are in urgent need of treatment, in which case they can be pushed up the list. I believe the people responsible for organising the system are hospital administrators who need not necessarily be trained doctors; they work on the basis of a doctor’s recommendation. Also, as I have pointed out, these ‘lines’ are nowhere near as long as you keep trying to make them out to be; it is not like every person in the United Kingdom or France or any other country with a socialised healthcare system is sitting on a waiting list for treatment.

Performance-replated pay?! Why not simply let patients decide what their salary is? They can do this by deciding to come back to a doctor if he treats them well.

Your system allows that level of choice to the well-off and not the poor. It is perfectly easy to change one’s GP in the UK; you simply go to another surgery and register there. Further to that, when you book an appointment at the doctors it is possible to see a doctor other than your primary doctor if they have an appointment available sooner; that is how doctors’ surgeries work. Equally, I believe that doctors receive bonuses for the number of patients they have which means that patients do – to some extent – determine a doctor’s salary by choosing whether or not to have them as their doctor.

[SPC]

What is about getting paid for a service that makes it so that they are not 'peers'?

Juries are meant to be socially representative in terms of occupation and background; if they are employees of a court then they are not going to be so. Equally, the point of having different professionals sitting on a jury is that they bring different areas of knowledge which is something that would again not happen if these were career jurors. Further to that I believe that career service on a jury would tend to have an effect on the judgment handed down by the jurors as previous cases would tend to prejudice them.

If the jurors are paid by a neutral person (the judge), then their neutrality isn't effected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but I don’t think it is necessarily true that one must enjoy their job to be better at it. Equally, I think in many cases it is better not to enjoy one’s job. So for instance in the USA I would prefer that those who administer the death penalty did not enjoy their job.[/quote]

You list one occupation out of the hundreds of thousands out there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If one criminal register works well, why do we need two or three? As far as I can see, having more than one register would actually make the service worse. Are courts required to give all information to each register or do the criminal registers buy the data? It seems to me this would end up as more expensive and complicated for businesses as they could very well end up having to pay for checks on several different registers in order to find out if their employees’ records are clean. It’s far simpler if there is one unified and national database, particularly if you end up with regional registers as one could evade their criminal record by leaving the region.[/quote]

The criminal registers could buy the data and then sell it to the businesses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which worked ever so well didn’t it? Do you honestly believe that the poor would have better access to healthcare under such a system than they do in a socialist system? [/quote]

Yes, and they did. Only after Medicare and Medicaid did health care prices rise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What were the problems you pointed out? As far as I can see your biggest gripe with socialist healthcare systems was that everyone will show up at the doctors for every minor scratch that they get which is simply not true. Then there was the waiting list problem and I pointed out that urgent cases were actually moved up the waiting list. Further to that I pointed out my own problems with the system that I felt could help to alleviate the problems of waiting lists including an opt-out organ donation system and charges for cancelled appointments. I also stated that I felt it was more moral that healthcare was provided on the basis it is here than under a system whereby the highest bidder gets the best healthcare. It seems to me that I did address your problems with the socialist system.

I find it difficult to believe that you can’t fathom how a socialised healthcare system means people are more likely to receive treatment in the early stages of illnesses. As you pointed out, if people have to pay for healthcare then they are only likely to seek treatment in an emergency whereas under a socialist system they are more likely to go for regular check-ups as well as to seek medical advice in the earlier stages of an illness which means it is more likely that a disease will be caught earlier.[/quote]

The fact is you will be more likely to see the doctor if the visit is free than if you have to pay with your own wallet. Don' deny simple economics. I've already explained that organ sales should simply be legalzed if you want to alleviate the organ shortage, which you have yet to reply to. It isn't moral for someone with a common cold and someone with a serious illness to pay the same amount for their healthcare, it is nonsensical. Also, another economics question: If a doctor is paid the same regardless of the quality of his service, will he have any incentive to do a good job, other than his morality? In a free-market, the most skilled doctors are rewarded; under socialism the reverse happens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point was that it is not always possible for supply to simply be ‘increased’, particularly when it comes to something like healthcare where supply is limited by the number of trained doctors and their working hours. In which case, if there is high demand, the price goes up and only richer people can afford to pay for the services meaning that the resource is being allocated based on wealth. I am not disputing this ‘simply economic law’.

Equally, I am not proposing that the entire economy be run by the government, simply that there are areas where it is right for the government to intervene to ensure at least the basic provision of things like healthcare and education. Equally, under such a system it is in the interest of the government to increase the availability of healthcare because poor provision will threaten their electoral success.
[/quote]

High prices aren't going to deter someone with a serious illness from seeing a doctor. It will deter those with non-serious illnesses.

[SPC]

Yes, better for both babies to die from waiting too long than to have the rich one survive. Also, if a family member has a life-threatening condition, under capitalism, they can have an insurance policy cover that.

Except that as I have pointed out, urgent cases are pushed forward and the UK system is hardly crippled by waiting lists as you depict it being. Further to that, what sort of premiums do you think an insurance company is likely to charge for someone who is suffering from a condition already? Do you know how difficult it is to find affordable insurance if you already suffer from a life-threatening condition? Equally, as I have pointed out before, people do not always act rationally and thus in many cases will find other uses for their money in the short term than health insurance because they see themselves as young and fit and not likely to contract a threatening illness/condition. I notice that when I pointed out before that human beings do not act in the rational way you ascribe to them you ignored my point.

The market rewards people who act rationally. Under socialism, people who act irrationally are rewarded.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly I will assume by ‘don’t deny that it wouldn’t exist’ you actually mean that it would exist and secondly, why would I deny that someone has to decide who is in dire need? It is patently obvious that that has to be done. I believe that the way the system works currently is that patients go on a waiting list unless the doctor placing them on recommends that they are in urgent need of treatment, in which case they can be pushed up the list. I believe the people responsible for organising the system are hospital administrators who need not necessarily be trained doctors; they work on the basis of a doctor’s recommendation. Also, as I have pointed out, these ‘lines’ are nowhere near as long as you keep trying to make them out to be; it is not like every person in the United Kingdom or France or any other country with a socialised healthcare system is sitting on a waiting list for treatment.[/quote]

Under capitalism, those in dire need are willing to pay the most. There is no need for a doctor to be rationing patients.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your system allows that level of choice to the well-off and not the poor. It is perfectly easy to change one’s GP in the UK; you simply go to another surgery and register there. Further to that, when you book an appointment at the doctors it is possible to see a doctor other than your primary doctor if they have an appointment available sooner; that is how doctors’ surgeries work. Equally, I believe that doctors receive bonuses for the number of patients they have which means that patients do – to some extent – determine a doctor’s salary by choosing whether or not to have them as their doctor.
[/quote]

Again, this would be completely redundant under capitalism, where doctors who perform well are automatically rewarded.

[JohnFKennedy]

If the jurors are paid by a neutral person (the judge), then their neutrality isn't effected.

Hardly. Bias doesn’t simply stem from who pays one’s wages. As I said, having served on a jury for numerous similar cases, one’s judgment is bound to be clouded by previous cases.

You list one occupation out of the hundreds of thousands out there.

Yes, but that was simply my closing comment. As I said, it is not necessarily true that someone who enjoys their job will be better at it. I’m sure there are plenty of jobs I would enjoy that I would be absolutely awful at.

The criminal registers could buy the data and then sell it to the businesses.

You’ve completely neglected to answer my question: if one criminal register works well, why is there a need for two or three?

If these firms are buying the data from the courts and selling it on to the business, can the courts choose to only sell to one register? You’ll end up with a system whereby every company either has to turn to all of these competing registers or two of the three registers are completely pointless; what is the point of having several different registers recording identical data?

Yes, and they did. Only after Medicare and Medicaid did health care prices rise.

Firstly, do you have any proof whatsoever that the poor had good access to healthcare prior to the Great Society? I can provide you with plenty of evidence from the United Kingdom that demonstrates access to healthcare was far better following the introduction of the National Health Service.

For the US, I just had a look at a report compiled by a couple of doctors in Connecticut and found these figures interesting:

1.   The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care.
2.   Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.
3.   Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.
4.   There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits

Just to pause for a second, I think that is an important fact which you neglect to examine when you say that private insurance is best; most private insurance companies have signed on doctors who their patients can see and so the ‘choice’ you talk about under a free market system is severely restricted anyway.

5.   Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.
6.   The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more

The fact is you will be more likely to see the doctor if the visit is free than if you have to pay with your own wallet. Don' deny simple economics.

I never denied that, I simply denied that this means every man and his mother will be showing up at the doctors complaining of a slight twinge in his little finger which is the picture you have painted of the British system. In fact, I argued that in many cases it is better if people see their doctor more and I will return to that when I address your point about earlier treatment.

I've already explained that organ sales should simply be legalzed if you want to alleviate the organ shortage, which you have yet to reply to.

Well, firstly I have issues with people selling their body parts. More importantly though, that would mean that richer people are more likely to receive organs than poorer people because they can afford to pay more. I can also see a major problem with things like heart and liver transplants because who gets the money? The family? Suppose the deceased did not want their organs sold after they died? My system would clearly be more effective in addressing that question; if someone does not wish to have their organs donated they can remove themselves from the register, but if they don’t vehemently object then they are unlikely to have their name removed from the list. That means there would most certainly be more organs and because there is no cost to the patient it wouldn’t be simply those who can afford it who would receive them. 

It isn't moral for someone with a common cold and someone with a serious illness to pay the same amount for their healthcare, it is nonsensical.

Why is it nonsensical to have a system that is free at the point of need? At some point in there life almost everyone will need some sort of healthcare and when that need arises, they can have it addressed by a decent healthcare system.

Also, another economics question: If a doctor is paid the same regardless of the quality of his service, will he have any incentive to do a good job, other than his morality? In a free-market, the most skilled doctors are rewarded; under socialism the reverse happens.

Well, firstly, the threat of medical malpractice suits and the loss of one’s licence to practice medicine is a good enough threat to prevent general carelessness. Secondly, doctors tend to be motivated more by a desire to help people than to fill their pocketbooks; most of them are intelligent enough to know that if they really wanted more money they could earn it in a different industry.

But then, if you think doctors are solely motivated by money then surely it is in their interest on the free market to take more risks and cut more corners to save money. After all, if they can do the job adequately and only spend $10,000, why do it excellently when it will cost more?

[JohnFKennedy]

High prices aren't going to deter someone with a serious illness from seeing a doctor. It will deter those with non-serious illnesses.

If that person cannot afford to pay the high price then it is prohibitive. Equally, I think it is naïve to suggest this is simply a question of serious illnesses and non-serious illnesses because plenty of conditions or illnesses can start out seeming to be relatively minor and get worse over time. So for instance, it is perfectly possible for a common cold to develop into pneumonia. Equally, a seemingly insignificant mole on your skin could lead to skin cancer. What may at one point seem trivial can quickly – or slowly – worsen to the point where it is serious. So someone with the common cold will be deterred from seeing a doctor under your system but as that cold persists it can get worse and worse and eventually develop into a life threatening condition. The point is that people are more likely to have check-ups under a socialised system and thus they’re more likely to spot something serious or potentially life-threatening early.

The market rewards people who act rationally. Under socialism, people who act irrationally are rewarded.

You’re assuming that there is always a rational and an irrational choice when presented with options. Suppose I am presented with a choice of buying health insurance or a new car. I could buy the health insurance and never need to use it and thus my money is wasted. Similarly, I could buy the new car and then be diagnosed with cancer. Given that every outcome is based on contingency and luck, neither are guaranteed to produce the most rational outcome. You’re simply assuming that in every choice there is a right and a wrong.

Equally, I think it is too strong to suggest that only those who act irrationally benefit from socialised healthcare. It benefits those who are most in need of help – the sick – because it provides them with access to the necessary treatment and medication. Further to that, I would argue that someone who is born with a serious condition is probably less likely to receive adequate treatment under your proposed system because their insurance premiums will be high. Insurance companies don’t simply seek to provide a great level of healthcare to their clients; they seek to make money. If there is a patient that is clearly going to require extensive treatment – and therefore expensive treatment – then they are less likely to want to take them on – due to the potential cost to them – or else will charge them far higher premiums. That means that someone born impoverished with a serious medical condition is far less likely to receive treatment than someone born to a rich family that can afford to pay the insurance premiums or simply pay the bills themselves.

Under capitalism, those in dire need are willing to pay the most. There is no need for a doctor to be rationing patients.

That’s ludicrous because it assumes that those in dire need have adequate access to the necessary capital. If one person is living in poverty but in dire need then it is clear that they are going to be less able to pay for their treatment than someone who may be in less need but is a billionaire.

Again, this would be completely redundant under capitalism, where doctors who perform well are automatically rewarded.

And will only have to treat the rich.

[SPC]

If the jurors are paid by a neutral person (the judge), then their neutrality isn't effected.

Hardly. Bias doesn’t simply stem from who pays one’s wages. As I said, having served on a jury for numerous similar cases, one’s judgment is bound to be clouded by previous cases.

By that logic, someone on the jury without pay is going to be just as biased.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You’ve completely neglected to answer my question: if one criminal register works well, why is there a need for two or three?

If these firms are buying the data from the courts and selling it on to the business, can the courts choose to only sell to one register? You’ll end up with a system whereby every company either has to turn to all of these competing registers or two of the three registers are completely pointless; what is the point of having several different registers recording identical data?[/quote]

Sure. But I will answer your question with another question: If one criminal register works well, why should all other criminal registers be prohibited?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, do you have any proof whatsoever that the poor had good access to healthcare prior to the Great Society? I can provide you with plenty of evidence from the United Kingdom that demonstrates access to healthcare was far better following the introduction of the National Health Service.

For the US, I just had a look at a report compiled by a couple of doctors in Connecticut and found these figures interesting:

1.   The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care.
2.   Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.
3.   Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.
4.   There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits

Just to pause for a second, I think that is an important fact which you neglect to examine when you say that private insurance is best; most private insurance companies have signed on doctors who their patients can see and so the ‘choice’ you talk about under a free market system is severely restricted anyway.

5.   Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.
6.   The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more[/quote]

The United States doesn't have a free health care system. It only has a freer health care system than the other countries of the world. The countries with socialized health care have lower quality health care, so merely comapring the price doesn't do anything. I advocate a completely free health care system, one without Medicare or Medicaid, patents for prescription drugs, free trade with countries with universal health care, no mandatory medical licensing, and insurance being for emergencies only.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never denied that, I simply denied that this means every man and his mother will be showing up at the doctors complaining of a slight twinge in his little finger which is the picture you have painted of the British system. In fact, I argued that in many cases it is better if people see their doctor more and I will return to that when I address your point about earlier treatment.[/quote]

The likelyhood of someone going to the doctor for a slight twinge in his little finger is significantly more likely under socialized health care than it is under truly free health care.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, firstly I have issues with people selling their body parts. More importantly though, that would mean that richer people are more likely to receive organs than poorer people because they can afford to pay more. I can also see a major problem with things like heart and liver transplants because who gets the money? The family? Suppose the deceased did not want their organs sold after they died? My system would clearly be more effective in addressing that question; if someone does not wish to have their organs donated they can remove themselves from the register, but if they don’t vehemently object then they are unlikely to have their name removed from the list. That means there would most certainly be more organs and because there is no cost to the patient it wouldn’t be simply those who can afford it who would receive them. [/quote]

So, you'd rather nobody be able to to receive organs due to shortages? Also, why do you have a problem with what someone else does with their body? Additionally, the legalization of organ sales would not prohibit the donation of organs, so every who can receive an organ now would still be able to do so. Therefore, the ability of the poor to receive organs would be no different than itis today, even better for those who can afford an organ. Therefore, any reason to prohibit organ sales because of the fear that some people will not have organs is patently absurd. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is it nonsensical to have a system that is free at the point of need? At some point in there life almost everyone will need some sort of healthcare and when that need arises, they can have it addressed by a decent healthcare system.[/quote]

That is what insurance is for. Also, do you intend to force everybody to use this socialist health care system, or would they be free to see a private doctor if they so wished?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, firstly, the threat of medical malpractice suits and the loss of one’s licence to practice medicine is a good enough threat to prevent general carelessness. Secondly, doctors tend to be motivated more by a desire to help people than to fill their pocketbooks; most of them are intelligent enough to know that if they really wanted more money they could earn it in a different industry.[/quote]

I agree. However, what about the doctors who genuinely aren't good? What motivation is there for the socialist health care system to fire them? Under socialism, all the good doctors would either be in the private sector, if that is allowed, or would be in charge of rationing the socialist system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is a paradox there. The doctor who does the job excellently will have more patients and thus actually make more money.

[SPC]

High prices aren't going to deter someone with a serious illness from seeing a doctor. It will deter those with non-serious illnesses.

If that person cannot afford to pay the high price then it is prohibitive. Equally, I think it is naïve to suggest this is simply a question of serious illnesses and non-serious illnesses because plenty of conditions or illnesses can start out seeming to be relatively minor and get worse over time. So for instance, it is perfectly possible for a common cold to develop into pneumonia. Equally, a seemingly insignificant mole on your skin could lead to skin cancer. What may at one point seem trivial can quickly – or slowly – worsen to the point where it is serious. So someone with the common cold will be deterred from seeing a doctor under your system but as that cold persists it can get worse and worse and eventually develop into a life threatening condition. The point is that people are more likely to have check-ups under a socialised system and thus they’re more likely to spot something serious or potentially life-threatening early.

If someone were truly in dire need, then there insurance would pay for it. Of course, if someone has insurance, their insurance company is likely to cover only those who have regular check-ups as a precondition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You’re assuming that there is always a rational and an irrational choice when presented with options. Suppose I am presented with a choice of buying health insurance or a new car. I could buy the health insurance and never need to use it and thus my money is wasted. Similarly, I could buy the new car and then be diagnosed with cancer. Given that every outcome is based on contingency and luck, neither are guaranteed to produce the most rational outcome. You’re simply assuming that in every choice there is a right and a wrong.[/quote]

You will make the choice that seems more logical at the time. The formula to dictate whether one should purchase health insurance or a car is (the cost of the health insurance)*(probabilty I will have a life-threatening illness in the near future)-(the cost of the car). If that number is high, I should buy the health insurance, if that number is low, I should buy the car.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those is most need of help are provided with second-rate health care under socialised medicine. If the number of people with illnesses from birth is high, there will be an incentive for one to look for a cure to such an illness, as they will reap large profits if they do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That’s ludicrous because it assumes that those in dire need have adequate access to the necessary capital. If one person is living in poverty but in dire need then it is clear that they are going to be less able to pay for their treatment than someone who may be in less need but is a billionaire. [/quote]

Again, a poor person's insurance will pay for them if they are in dire need.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And will only have to treat the rich.

[/quote]

A ridiculous non-sequiter. Should we have a socialised textile industry because only the rich will be able to afford good clothing? </devil's advocate>

[JohnFKennedy]

By that logic, someone on the jury without pay is going to be just as biased.

No, because what you are proposing is essentially career jurors. The way the current system works is that someone will be called up for service for a short period of time (I believe here it is two weeks) and could very well never serve again.

Sure. But I will answer your question with another question: If one criminal register works well, why should all other criminal registers be prohibited?

In other words, you have no reason for another criminal register to exist when one works perfectly well. As far as I know, the only thing prohibiting the creation of other criminal registers – at least in the UK – is the Data Protection Act which governs the conduct of companies holding records of living people. If there is only a need for one, I do not think there is a point to more than one existing.

The United States doesn't have a free health care system. It only has a freer health care system than the other countries of the world. The countries with socialized health care have lower quality health care, so merely comapring the price doesn't do anything. I advocate a completely free health care system, one without Medicare or Medicaid, patents for prescription drugs, free trade with countries with universal health care, no mandatory medical licensing, and insurance being for emergencies only.

Except that the WHO ranks the US system 37 as I have already said. Meanwhile, the UK with its National Health Service ranks at 18 and France with its system of compulsory health insurance ranks top. Further to that, the USA has a much lower level of popular satisfaction as is recorded here. Incidentally, that link also has a few other interesting pieces of information which tend to go against your claim of American superiority in quality such as a higher infant mortality rate. Further to that, the evidence I cited – along with the link given here – also goes against your claims of private profit-making hospitals being better and more efficient; as both demonstrate, the cost of healthcare increased following the transition from non-profit to for-profit hospitals with a greater proportion of their money being spent on administrative costs. This study also demonstrates that the UK system is actually cheaper per capita than the US system. Strange that. Then there’s this which notes that the US rates last out of 19 countries for deaths potentially preventable by timely and effective care’. We can also see the benefits of private insurance here: ‘Cost was the biggest obstacle to care for both the insured and the uninsured, the study said. For the insured, individuals said they were unable to get their health insurer to pay for treatment, or that a doctor or hospital would not accept their insurance.’

So that dealt with, let’s move on to your next point about patents for prescription drugs. I am no fan of drug patents (I think there should be a maximum price that drug companies should be legally allowed to charge) but even I recognise that eliminating drug patents is a mistake. If a drug company cannot make a profit from developing a new drug, what is the point in their investing in research and development? Why not simply wait for someone else to do the hard part and then simply copy their product? Without patent law there is nothing to prevent them doing that. I don’t like drug patents, but I think they are a necessary evil in order that R&D continues.

Onto medical licensing, I think that it is important that there is a system that allows for the regulation of who can and cannot practice medicine. Otherwise there is nothing to stop some quack opening up his own practice with no experience or knowledge of medicine and preying on the disadvantaged to make a quick bit of money before hightailing it off somewhere else.

On insurance being only for emergencies. As I have said, it is far cheaper, easier and more effective to treat illnesses and medical conditions if they are caught early. With a system whereby one can only use their insurance in case of emergencies then problems are more likely to go undiagnosed. It’s all very well to say that you could make these insurance systems dependent upon regular check-ups, but if someone can’t afford to have regular check-ups then they have a problem, particularly if they are paying for medical insurance, police protection, fire services, not to mention all other costs associated with the absence of a government. As far as I can see, your proposals work out as being cheaper for the rich but far more expensive for the poor to receive the same treatment they would under a universal healthcare system and a government that provides the necessary services to its citizens. In other words, your system is hardly ‘free’ and the evidence doesn’t back up your claims of superiority of care and access.

The likelyhood of someone going to the doctor for a slight twinge in his little finger is significantly more likely under socialized health care than it is under truly free health care.

Again, your system is hardly what can be described as ‘free health care’. I have never claimed that people weren’t more likely to visit their doctor under a national health service than under a private fee-paying service, I merely pointed out that your claims were hyperbolic; there may be waiting lists in Britain but they are nothing like how you depict them. Further to that – and as I have said repeatedly now – if people visit their doctor more frequently then they are more likely to have a condition diagnosed earlier which is a point you have yet to address. To back my point up I will provide you with a quotation from a British Medical Journal article on the point:

‘Starfield’s research has shown that countries whose healthcare systems have a strong primary care orientation tend to perform better than those that lack this orientation. In the comparative studies undertaken by Starfield and colleagues, the United Kingdom emerges as the country that has made most progress in developing provision of primary care, and this is one factor that explains why it is able to deliver universal and comprehensive health care for a much lower level of spending than the United States.’

That is taken from here if you are interested.

I've already explained that organ sales should simply be legalzed if you want to alleviate the organ shortage, which you have yet to reply to.

Well, firstly I have issues with people selling their body parts. More importantly though, that would mean that richer people are more likely to receive organs than poorer people because they can afford to pay more. I can also see a major problem with things like heart and liver transplants because who gets the money? The family? Suppose the deceased did not want their organs sold after they died? My system would clearly be more effective in addressing that question; if someone does not wish to have their organs donated they can remove themselves from the register, but if they don’t vehemently object then they are unlikely to have their name removed from the list. That means there would most certainly be more organs and because there is no cost to the patient it wouldn’t be simply those who can afford it who would receive them. [/quote]

So, you'd rather nobody be able to to receive organs due to shortages? Also, why do you have a problem with what someone else does with their body? Additionally, the legalization of organ sales would not prohibit the donation of organs, so every who can receive an organ now would still be able to do so. Therefore, the ability of the poor to receive organs would be no different than itis today, even better for those who can afford an organ. Therefore, any reason to prohibit organ sales because of the fear that some people will not have organs is patently absurd.[/quote]

No, I would rather that the system was fairer and more equitable as I laid out previously. However, my moral objection to people selling organs are slight compared to the other issues I pointed out – which I stated in my original post – because I recognise that is my own personal preference. I am not defending the current system; I am proposing one that would almost certainly increase the availability of organs, but not in a manner that would primarily benefit the wealthy.

I also wonder what your response is to my original questions regarding the consent of a deceased?

Further to that, I can see significant problems with allowing people to sell their organs in terms of who will be selling their organs and how it will impact on their own health.

[JohnFKennedy]

That is what insurance is for. Also, do you intend to force everybody to use this socialist health care system, or would they be free to see a private doctor if they so wished?

As I’ve pointed out, not everyone can afford insurance or will choose to buy it as they may decide another option is more suited to their situation in the short term. I don’t think that people should be punished due to their financial situation – because the choice of whether or not health insurance is cost-effective is undoubtedly not one that the wealthy have to bother themselves with – and so I think it is important to have a state run system that provides them with healthcare.

Morally, I would prefer everyone to use the state system rather than to see private doctors but in practice I don’t think that can necessarily be forced. I believe in the current UK system, doctors who practice privately are required to see patients on the NHS as well. I know that my dentist when I was younger was primarily a private practitioner but took me on as an NHS patient.

I agree. However, what about the doctors who genuinely aren't good? What motivation is there for the socialist health care system to fire them? Under socialism, all the good doctors would either be in the private sector, if that is allowed, or would be in charge of rationing the socialist system.

Firstly, medical training – here at least – is very rigorous and so those who aren’t fit to practice medicine are unlikely to get through the system. Further to that, the British Medical Association regulates and assesses the quality of doctors practicing in the field. As I have said, I would prefer there wasn’t a private sector, but I do generally approve of a system whereby doctors are allowed to take on some patients privately, provided that they participate in the National Health Service. Further to that, I think it is a stretch to suggest that all the ‘good’ doctors simply take up jobs in the private sector or are in charge of ‘rationing’ my proposed system; all the GPs I have seen have received excellent training and been highly qualified, and my current home address is hardly in the most wealthy or salubrious part of the country.

There is a paradox there. The doctor who does the job excellently will have more patients and thus actually make more money.

Firstly, there is a limit to the number of patients a doctor can see. Secondly, the best doctors will only have to deal with the wealthy; if anything the system you suggest is one in which ‘bad’ doctors would be more common, it is just that they will only be treating those who cannot afford to see a better doctor. Of course, you can suggest that this encourages the ‘bad’ doctors to improve, but there are natural limitations to our skills and abilities and so those doctors who lack the ability can easily continue to practice and make a living from those who cannot afford better. By contrast, under a well regulated system, doctors who are incompetent are more likely to be struck off the register and disbarred from practicing.

If someone were truly in dire need, then there insurance would pay for it. Of course, if someone has insurance, their insurance company is likely to cover only those who have regular check-ups as a precondition.

Again, we return to the problem that not everyone has insurance or can afford insurance. One of the articles I have previously cited notes that ‘about 47 million people in the United States do not have health insurance, a number that has been climbing since 2000.’ So those who cannot afford insurance will not get the treatment they need. Equally, if insurance is only in case of emergencies and patients are required to have regular check-ups then you will find people with insurance being unable to receive treatment because they cannot afford their regular check-ups or may miss one through carelessness. Under those circumstances, I cannot see the insurance company being so friendly. Let us not forget that the motive of an insurance company is profit and not doing what is best for their customers.

You will make the choice that seems more logical at the time. The formula to dictate whether one should purchase health insurance or a car is (the cost of the health insurance)*(probabilty I will have a life-threatening illness in the near future)-(the cost of the car). If that number is high, I should buy the health insurance, if that number is low, I should buy the car.

A system that requires an adequate ability to gauge the ‘probability I will have a life-threatening illness in the near future’. If it were that easy to do then I am sure we’d all be fine but this simply isn’t the case; even accounting for lifestyle and genetics there is always the chance that one will fall ill and such a calculation fails to take that contingency into account. Equally, it is virtually impossible to predict the likelihood that I may have an accident on my way to work or – less likely I will grant – that I will be exposed to a nasty chemical or my house will burn down. Given the level of uncertainty, such an equation is hardly a binding formula or a way to live one’s life; the choice that is most logical at the time could comfortably – or uncomfortably perhaps – turn out to be the wrong one a few years down the line. 

Further to that I would just like to point out that humans are, by their very nature, not rational automatons. Not every choice we make is guided by pure, cold, logic; it is a combination of our reason and our passion that guides us. Given that, what your system does is rewards those who are either wealthy enough that they do not have to make a decision, or are guided solely by logic and thus have sacrificed an essential part of their humanity, or have perfect knowledge of what the future holds for them. Given the impossibility of such knowledge and the improbability of someone being guided solely by logic, it seems that the only people who really benefit from your system are those with the financial capability to do so.

Those is most need of help are provided with second-rate health care under socialised medicine. If the number of people with illnesses from birth is high, there will be an incentive for one to look for a cure to such an illness, as they will reap large profits if they do.

Except that the health care provided by ‘socialised medicine’ is hardly second-rate, a point that I have repeatedly backed up with evidence from think thanks, medical professionals and the World Health Organization. Equally, as I have already pointed out, with the abolition of patents for drugs that you propose there is no real incentive for a company to seek a cure for an illness because once they have ploughed a fortune into research and development, another company can simply copy their idea and undercut them, thereby reaping the rewards of the hard work of another.

Again, a poor person's insurance will pay for them if they are in dire need.

Your repeated insistence on this seems to suggest you are living on another planet. As I have pointed out, there are those who simply cannot afford health insurance, a point which I have backed up with evidence. Meanwhile, you simply assert that they will be fine and able to afford it with no evidence to back up your claims.

A ridiculous non-sequiter. Should we have a socialised textile industry because only the rich will be able to afford good clothing? </devil's advocate>

My point is hardly a non-sequitur. If a doctor is so skilled that they can charge anything then they will only have to treat those who can afford the cost meaning that they only have to treat those wealthy enough to pay for their services.

Further to that, as I have repeatedly said, I do not believe that all industries should be state-run. I have argued for something in accordance with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which states in Article 25 that:

‘Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.’

I am not suggesting that everyone has the right to own a Ferrari or anything like that, simply that people have a right to a standard of living which is requiring of the provision of healthcare free at the point of need. Further to that, I believe that this right is not simply something which nobody can infringe upon, but that it is the duty of society – and therefore government – to ensure that right by virtue of a shared humanity.

[SPC]

Except that the WHO ranks the US system 37 as I have already said. Meanwhile, the UK with its National Health Service ranks at 18 and France with its system of compulsory health insurance ranks top. Further to that, the USA has a much lower level of popular satisfaction as is recorded here. Incidentally, that link also has a few other interesting pieces of information which tend to go against your claim of American superiority in quality such as a higher infant mortality rate. Further to that, the evidence I cited – along with the link given here – also goes against your claims of private profit-making hospitals being better and more efficient; as both demonstrate, the cost of healthcare increased following the transition from non-profit to for-profit hospitals with a greater proportion of their money being spent on administrative costs. This study also demonstrates that the UK system is actually cheaper per capita than the US system. Strange that. Then there’s this which notes that the US rates last out of 19 countries for deaths potentially preventable by timely and effective care’. We can also see the benefits of private insurance here: ‘Cost was the biggest obstacle to care for both the insured and the uninsured, the study said. For the insured, individuals said they were unable to get their health insurer to pay for treatment, or that a doctor or hospital would not accept their insurance.’

How does the WHO get their statistics regarding satisfaction?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, I forgot to mention the abolition of the FDA, so that the sick can get vital medicine without having to wait 10 years for the approval process. Second, why should a mutual voluntary agreement between a customer and a pharmacy be prohibited on the basis that "it's too high"? If that law were implemented, that would mean that their would be shortages of presciption drugs if the market price were to rise above the legal price. Third, if a drug company makes a new innovation, they will have good slaes in the short run, and will be able to make even more innovations while the other companies are busy incorporation the more recent innovation into their drugs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Few patients will go to quacks, and the unlicensed but good doctors will be able to treat the poor for a lower price.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They pays those costs anyway through taxes. Because of competition, the prices for the absense of government would actually be cheaper than with a coercive government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, your system is hardly what can be described as ‘free health care’. I have never claimed that people weren’t more likely to visit their doctor under a national health service than under a private fee-paying service, I merely pointed out that your claims were hyperbolic; there may be waiting lists in Britain but they are nothing like how you depict them. Further to that – and as I have said repeatedly now – if people visit their doctor more frequently then they are more likely to have a condition diagnosed earlier which is a point you have yet to address. To back my point up I will provide you with a quotation from a British Medical Journal article on the point:

‘Starfield’s research has shown that countries whose healthcare systems have a strong primary care orientation tend to perform better than those that lack this orientation. In the comparative studies undertaken by Starfield and colleagues, the United Kingdom emerges as the country that has made most progress in developing provision of primary care, and this is one factor that explains why it is able to deliver universal and comprehensive health care for a much lower level of spending than the United States.’

That is taken from here if you are interested.[/quote]

By free health care, I mean a system where the participants are free to exercise their personal freedoms to the fullest extent, not one where prices are artifically fixed at zero. Also, I find it interesting that you often cite one sucessful country with socialized medicine, the UK, and not the several third-world countries with socialized medicine, such as Cuba?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your system violates individuals' right to property. By proposing that one choice be the default choice for donating one's organs, you are saying that a government knows how to run people's lives better than they can. A better system would be one where people freely choose whether to donate or sell their organs or not. Also, you have not given me any coherent reason to ban the sale of organs, instead you have merely said you wish to impose your morality on others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whether or not the deceased's organs will be donated/sold to a patient or not depends upon the wishes of his/her next of kin. Also, why should voluntary actions be prohibited?

[JohnFKennedy]

How does the WHO get their statistics regarding satisfaction?

I believe the WHO uses expert opinion as well as some popular polling but it was not their data I used for popular satisfaction. The article I cited which compared popular satisfaction referenced a number of research papers by Robert Blendon who is Professor of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard School of Public Health. 

Firstly, I forgot to mention the abolition of the FDA, so that the sick can get vital medicine without having to wait 10 years for the approval process. Second, why should a mutual voluntary agreement between a customer and a pharmacy be prohibited on the basis that "it's too high"? If that law were implemented, that would mean that their would be shortages of presciption drugs if the market price were to rise above the legal price.

Prices should be capped because otherwise there will be those who cannot afford to pay for prescription drugs. In the UK, prescription drugs are subsidised meaning that patients pay a small fee towards the cost – with the exception of children, the elderly, those on low incomes and a few other exceptions for whom prescription drugs are totally free. To my knowledge there are few problems of shortages in prescription drugs; the longest I have ever had to wait for a prescription was less than 24 hours and that was simply because the pharmacy had run out of stock.

Third, if a drug company makes a new innovation, they will have good slaes in the short run, and will be able to make even more innovations while the other companies are busy incorporation the more recent innovation into their drugs.

You’re deluded if you think that short term sales are enough to fund medical research and development. The lowest estimate I have seen of cost in developing a new drug is around the $50 million mark. Equally, much of the research done by drug companies is low risk as it is with few companies willing to take on research and development that is likely to prove costly which is where another problem of your system kicks in: publicly funded research plays an incredibly important role in discovering and developing drugs.

‘A study by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) scholar of the 21 most
important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992 found that publicly funded research
played a part in discovering and developing 14 of the 21 drugs (67 percent).’

‘45 of the 50 top-selling drugs from 1992-1997 received government funding for some
phase of development, according to an investigation by The Boston Globe. In all,
taxpayers spent at least $175 million helping to develop these 50 drugs.’

Both of those pieces of information come from here. I also found it interesting that publicly-funded researchers have won 90 Nobel Prizes while industry scientists have only won 4. Now, if heavy government investment is already necessary for major developments in pharmaceutical research, why will eliminating the only way for drug companies to make money – as well as government – result in better research and development? As far as I can see, the only thing your proposal will lead to is stagnation in research.

Few patients will go to quacks, and the unlicensed but good doctors will be able to treat the poor for a lower price.

If there is no system of licensing, how is a first-time patient to know whether their doctor is trustworthy or fully qualified? Further to that, if a doctor is good you have pointed out that they can charge more and thus make more money. If that is the case, why are these good doctors going to be treating the poor?

They pays those costs anyway through taxes. Because of competition, the prices for the absense of government would actually be cheaper than with a coercive government.

Except that, as I pointed out, the amount that the poor pay in taxes is probably less than they would be paying for all the same services under your proposed system. It is the rich who end up paying more but they are able to afford that. As I have said before, I think it is important to recognise that as individuals we are part of a society and I think that collective aspect is important. Further to that, you have provided no evidence to suggest that your system would be cheaper. As I have pointed out, the cost of healthcare in the UK is less than in the United States where there is more competition.

By free health care, I mean a system where the participants are free to exercise their personal freedoms to the fullest extent, not one where prices are artifically fixed at zero.

Which means that many end up missing out.

Also, I find it interesting that you often cite one sucessful country with socialized medicine, the UK, and not the several third-world countries with socialized medicine, such as Cuba?

I chose the UK as it is a country that is more comparable to the United States in economic development and I have also noted France which has a slightly different system that I know less about. Also, if you’re interested, your beloved Switzerland runs a system of compulsory national insurance for healthcare. However, if you wish I’ll have a look at the Cuban system in comparison to the US system.
US life expectancy at birth: 75/80
Cuba life expectancy at birth: 76/80

US healthy life expectancy at birth: 67/71
Cuba healthy life expectancy at birth: 67/70

US infant mortality (per 1000 live births): 8
Cuba infant mortality (per 1000 live births): 7

US deaths 15-60 m/f (per 1000 population): 137/80
Cuba deaths 150-60 m/f (per 1000 population): 127/82

US health expenditure per capita: 6,350
Cuba health expenditure per capita: 333

Those figures are all from the WHO. Now, I don’t hold as high an opinion of the Cuban health system as Michael Moore does, but for those figures to be even remotely similar suggests a damning indictment of the US system. However, there are shortages in Cuba, but I would ascribe that less to the fact that it is a state healthcare system and more to the fact that Cuba is a small, impoverished country.

Your system violates individuals' right to property. By proposing that one choice be the default choice for donating one's organs, you are saying that a government knows how to run people's lives better than they can. A better system would be one where people freely choose whether to donate or sell their organs or not. Also, you have not given me any coherent reason to ban the sale of organs, instead you have merely said you wish to impose your morality on others.

My system does grand people the choice to donate their organs or not except that it changes the default situation; while currently the default is that one’s organs will not be donated, mine flips it round so that they will be. The individual still has the right to choose not to donate their organs, but those who do not feel strongly about the matter are more likely to have theirs donated.

Further to that, I did provide some reasons for banning the sale of organs other than my own beliefs. Firstly I think it is more likely to result in people selling than donating their organs which decreases their availability for the poor. Secondly, as I pointed out, you have to consider the social background of those who will be selling their organs:

‘Professor Stephen Wigmore, chairman of the British Transplantation Society Ethics Committee, said: "People who are the most financially disadvantaged will be the donors, and there is little evidence to suggest financial reward to paid organ donors produces long-term benefit in terms of change of lifestyle."’

However, I recognise that there is a current problem with the illegal sale of human organs that needs resolving. My principal reason for opposition is that I believe an opt-out system would be more effective at tackling the problem, whereas, if people were allowed to sell their organs they would be more likely to sell them rather than donate them through the system I propose. That is where my objection principally lies; it would increase access for the rich but not the poor, whereas the system I suggest would increase access for all equitably. 

Whether or not the deceased's organs will be donated/sold to a patient or not depends upon the wishes of his/her next of kin. Also, why should voluntary actions be prohibited?

Why should the next of kin decide? There is a particular problem there when one party steps forward and expresses the wishes of the deceased but the next of kin wishes to sell their organs because it profits them.

As I have pointed out consistently, voluntary actions will often have an effect on a third party that is not factored into the equations of free market economists and thus government intervention is often necessary.

[SPC]

Firstly, I forgot to mention the abolition of the FDA, so that the sick can get vital medicine without having to wait 10 years for the approval process. Second, why should a mutual voluntary agreement between a customer and a pharmacy be prohibited on the basis that "it's too high"? If that law were implemented, that would mean that their would be shortages of presciption drugs if the market price were to rise above the legal price.

Prices should be capped because otherwise there will be those who cannot afford to pay for prescription drugs. In the UK, prescription drugs are subsidised meaning that patients pay a small fee towards the cost – with the exception of children, the elderly, those on low incomes and a few other exceptions for whom prescription drugs are totally free. To my knowledge there are few problems of shortages in prescription drugs; the longest I have ever had to wait for a prescription was less than 24 hours and that was simply because the pharmacy had run out of stock.

If there are no shortages of presciption drugs with that price cap, then obviously the price cap must be above the market price level. If the price were to suddenly rise above the price cap, there would be shortages.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You’re deluded if you think that short term sales are enough to fund medical research and development. The lowest estimate I have seen of cost in developing a new drug is around the $50 million mark. Equally, much of the research done by drug companies is low risk as it is with few companies willing to take on research and development that is likely to prove costly which is where another problem of your system kicks in: publicly funded research plays an incredibly important role in discovering and developing drugs.[/quote]

If that is true about public research, than the drug companies are receiving corporate welfare at the expense of the rest of the population! I would think that you'd be opposed to something like that, but I guess not. Also, you neglected to mention my plan for abolition of the FDA, so I assume you have no problem with that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, why should the taxpayers paid for research? Suppose the drug companies did the transaction directly without government and pointed a gun at your head demanding $175 million for their research. That is essentially what they are doing. Also, if those scientists weren't working for the federal government, which they are likely doing because a government is less likely to go out of business in the near future than a drug company, than all those researchers would be working for private companies. Thus, free market health care would have all the research that the current system provides, plus it will be cheaper for the consumer and the taxpayer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there is no system of licensing, how is a first-time patient to know whether their doctor is trustworthy or fully qualified? Further to that, if a doctor is good you have pointed out that they can charge more and thus make more money. If that is the case, why are these good doctors going to be treating the poor? [/quote]

Would you rather there be no doctors treating the poor? Actually, the more qualified doctors would be able to charge more than their competitors, but less overall, since they have more competition. If you don't like your doctor, you can simply go to a less-qualified doctor for a cheaper price.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that, as I pointed out, the amount that the poor pay in taxes is probably less than they would be paying for all the same services under your proposed system. It is the rich who end up paying more but they are able to afford that. As I have said before, I think it is important to recognise that as individuals we are part of a society and I think that collective aspect is important. Further to that, you have provided no evidence to suggest that your system would be cheaper. As I have pointed out, the cost of healthcare in the UK is less than in the United States where there is more competition. [/quote]

The research you have shown about the UK is suspect at best, given the socialist lean of most professors. Also, I could take that 'society' argument and twist it to mean anything I want. "As individuals, we are part of a society, and that collective aspect is important to look at when discussing universal automobile care. Everyone should have the same access to the cars of their choosing and be free to get them repaired whenever they want, at no cost." You see, the socialist argument just sounds ridiculous when you try to apply it to something else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which means that many end up missing out.[/quote]

It is their responsibility to get health care, not yours or mine. I have no more responsibility to pay for your helath care than you do to pay for my laptop.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I chose the UK as it is a country that is more comparable to the United States in economic development and I have also noted France which has a slightly different system that I know less about. Also, if you’re interested, your beloved Switzerland runs a system of compulsory national insurance for healthcare. However, if you wish I’ll have a look at the Cuban system in comparison to the US system.
US life expectancy at birth: 75/80
Cuba life expectancy at birth: 76/80

US healthy life expectancy at birth: 67/71
Cuba healthy life expectancy at birth: 67/70

US infant mortality (per 1000 live births): 8
Cuba infant mortality (per 1000 live births): 7

US deaths 15-60 m/f (per 1000 population): 137/80
Cuba deaths 150-60 m/f (per 1000 population): 127/82

US health expenditure per capita: 6,350
Cuba health expenditure per capita: 333

Those figures are all from the WHO. Now, I don’t hold as high an opinion of the Cuban health system as Michael Moore does, but for those figures to be even remotely similar suggests a damning indictment of the US system. However, there are shortages in Cuba, but I would ascribe that less to the fact that it is a state healthcare system and more to the fact that Cuba is a small, impoverished country. [/quote]

Why do you think that Cuba is an impoverished country? Also, how was the Soviet Union's socialist health care system, or Maoist China's socialist health care system?