Forum Suggestion

General Discussion
102

You’ve either been brainwashed or you reject the principle of maximizing individual liberty.

It’s incredibly biased of you to attribute authoritarian tendencies to conservatism. Conservatism in a country like the U.S. = honoring the Constitution and all the principles this country was built upon. If you think there is anything authoritarian about the Constitution then I don’t know what to tell you. American conservatives wanting to protect the rule of law defined by the Constitution is NOT authoritarian.

Real libertarians are not exceptionally rare.

Socialism, by its very nature, begets authoritarianism.

Switzerland. inb4 “Switzerland is more socialist than libertarian”

Somalia cannot be further from libertarianism.

This is just completely wrong

There is no such thing as overcharging in true free markets. Market determines fair value.

Socialist healthcare is trash. Enjoy the completely f’d up “rationing of care” as opposed to the herculean efforts to treat every patient we have in the U.S. Nobody is left to die if they cannot pay. That is straight up propaganda.

Another false statement

Government run healthcare is NOT more efficient and does not produce better results. Canadians with disposable income flock to the U.S. for superior medical treatment.

UK’s NHS is a disaster. If the NHS had to deal with America’s demographic it would completely collapse in a small matter of time.

What people don’t understand is that America’s population is FAR different from that of any other in the word, particularly all these small, homogeneous populations whose healthcare systems the American system is usually compared to.

The U.S. spends more per patient than any other country on the planet. Other countries dont have to deal with the types of patients we have. Other countries do not go the whole 9 yards for patients with complicated or late progressive stage disease.

You want to know what government healthcare for American population looks like - look at the VA, which is a dumpster fire.

OK, bernie.

Hierarchies mostly result from individual liberty - the individual’s right to make his own choices.

You cannot get rid of inheritance.

Everything anyone is, is based on inheritance. Whether it’s money, land, family safety net, and even genetics.

Unless youre suggesting that every individual should be replaced by clones of each other with no differing inheritance of any kind. I guess this fits in with the hive ideology of the left.

People are born into different circumstances and with different genetics. This is the natural byproduct of a free society.

Youre acting like there are no safety nets either.

The most unfortunate here have access to public schools, orphanages and other public facilities.

Do you live in the U.S.?

In the U.S. we have public schools.

does not exist, except for Affirmative Action laws, which are racist against whites and over represented minorities

99% have access. Only in some extremely rural areas is theer no access.

What law discriminates against minorities, except for affirmative action laws that discriminate against over represented minorities

No it’s not.

Source?

Every rating I’ve seen has America at essentially the same position as Canada and always ranked high.

The U.S. will never reach the same statistic as those small European countries simply because our scale goes far beyond theres thanks to the insane wealth at the top of this country. Otherwise, our standard of living is generally higher for example

4 Likes
103

Fascists did not eliminate trade unions. As Mussolini wrote in doctrine of fascism

Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon, but when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State

Jailing workers for refusing to work is NOT capitalism at all…idk where you got that idea from.

Fascism did not have private enterprises. The owners of corporations were wealthy, but they were not private operators - they were state operators.

Fascism is in direct opposition to classical liberalism aka modern right wing positions. It’s extremely misleading of you to equate fascism with capitalism when Mussolini wrote this:

“For if the nineteenth century was a century of [individualism] ([Classical liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be a century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State.”

“Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State . . . . It is opposed to classical Liberalism . . . . Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”

Straight from the horses mouth. Classical liberalism is defined by Founding Father capitalists such as Adam Smith, Hayek, etc. and here we have Musolini saying he opposes it in his essay, Doctrine of Fascism

“Yet the Fascist State is unique, and an original creation. It is not reactionary, but revolutionary”

4 Likes
104

Uhm facism is a left wing ideology. The ww2 fascists were socialist-light. Hence they were the national socialist party.

2 Likes
105

Sorry thats the opposite of conservatism. Leftists want the government to assert their views on everyone else, they are the puritans.

3 Likes
106

Also most millionares are first generation, those that got gifted wealth often end up pissing it away.

1 Like
107

It is a matter of fact that conservatives, particularly in the US push through authoritarian laws on a regular basis. The emergency manager laws in Massachusetts (which allowed appointed dictators to override elected officials) are just one of many examples.

Yes they are. A real libertarian would not try to promote the war on drugs, restrict abortion, push prayer in schools (something that conservative lawmakers regularly do), pass laws banning or restricting the right to protest, discriminate against gays, etc.

That is false. Worker cooperatives are an example of socialism that is inherently democratic as opposed to most corporate structures which are inherently dictatorships or oligarchies.

Except that the market value for a person’s life is as much money as you can squeeze out of them.

45000 people die every year in the United States because they do not have health coverage. Many medical issues such as cancer and diabetes cannot be treated in the emergency room (which would drive many Americans bankrupt anyway even if they have insurance). They require consistent treatment over time that is simply unavailable to individuals who are not wealthy.

It is also fairly common for insurance companies in the US to deny coverage for treatments or for people to lose their jobs and health insurance because of health problems. Either will usually bankrupt a person who had insurance when he/she first got sick.

Also, all countries ration health care; including the US. It’s just that in addition to the normal rationing that takes place in all countries based on the availability and schedules of doctors (elective procedures in particular are likely to get pushed back in countries like Canada because they are low priority), the US also rations care based on how much money people have.
People in the US regularly avoid to the doctor or skip medication or get denied treatment because they simply cannot afford it.

If you tried to implement such a system in the US you would get derided as a socialist by just about every conservative politician in office, and the health insurance system would still try to fight it just like they did with the Affordable Care Act.

Countries with private healthcare systems that work regulate those systems far more than the US.

Switzerland in particular requires all citizens to have insurance, requires insurance companies to provide baseline insurance(which may be subsidized) that meets those requirements at no profit, and only allows insurance companies to make money off of supplemental insurance.

108

No, Canadians will sometimes go to other countries to get a faster diagnosis or to see a specialist, not because US care is “superior”–it isn’t.

US citizens also regularly travel to other countries because they cannot afford care in the United States.

109

State of emergency laws such as that are not necessarily unconstitutional. I don’t consider the constitution authoritarian.

I dont know the nuances of those laws in massachusettes, but even if the are unconstitutional, that does not say anything towards conservatism in the theoretical sense. All it does is highlight corruption.

I’m a libertarian. I don’t believe in the war on drugs, I’m pro-choice, don’t believe in prayers in public schools, believe in the restriction of protest, dont believe gays should be persecuted, etc.

Every other libertarian I’ve come across believes the same.

The only point of contention is the abortion situation. I’ve seen some libertarian party debates in which some candidates are pro-life. But their position stems from their belief that abortion is murder. It has nothing to do with forcing others to adhere to christian values.

I wonder where you’ve come across all these so-called libertarians.

Your worker cooperative leaves no room for dissent. If someone from the cooperative wants out then what? Then either it’s not socialism or it’s authoritarian. That’s why it’s authoritarian.

Capitalism is the opposite of authoritarian. It celebrates the right of the individual to make his/her own decisions. It is all about own volition.

That’s not how the free market works.

If you want to put it in a loaded, biased way like that, you might as well say that even NHS doctors are squeezing out as much money as possible out of patients.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. The difference is that in capitalism brings cheaper goods and services, including healthcare, than socialism/government intervention does.

That number is a meme.

First of all there are critical flaws of that study.

Second of all, it does not take into account the bigger picture - the fact that the overall healthcare system is collapsing.

It claims that X number of people die because they are uninsured, but fails to take into consideration that magnitudes more people die because they are underinsured, aka the cost of healthcare is skyrocketing thanks to government bureaucracy.

Health coverage is a meme. You can be covered on paper and still lack access to quality healthcare because of the worthlessness of Obamacare-tier coverage.

Yes, I am aware. Guess what? There are facilities that provide services to uninsured all over the country, even for things like palliative care. A lot of people dont know though There are direct payment doctors who can give treatments for low costs. Youre acting like poor people cannot get treatment over time. Even homeless people can get access in most cases.

Hospitals send insured people huge bills but they dont really need to be paid in full unless the patient blindly pays whatever bill is sent to him.

A symptom of government intervention

source?

Leftist agenda has seeped into every aspect of our government, that’s why. Ive heard conservatives call many Republican politicians RINOs - republicans in name only. I’m not going to pretend that republicans always implement true right wing policy. Even Trump implements many hardcore socialist/keynesian policies like tariffs, low federal funds rates, and protectionism.

Obamacare is trash and should be fought against tooth and nail.

I don’t think you understand what regulate means. the US healthcare system is HIGHLY regulated by the government, and that’s why it’s becoming increasingly strained. Go to any hospital or clinic and witness all the high paid admins needed to navigate the government regulation.

I like how you ignore the most important factors - the market is free from government regulation.

The healthcare system is not socialized.

Look at what youre saying here lmao

You realize faster diagnosis is superior healthcare right…lol !

You realize having access to specialists is superior healthcare right?

The cost of healthcare in the U.S. is due in part to the massive government intervention (demographics being another important aspect). Although we are not full blown socialized, the government intervenes for the worse. Not to mention the fact that going abroad means lower quality health care.

The answer is to stop the crazy requirements both on what insurance has to cover and on people having insurance. Everyone can have what they can pay for. Charity (government/private donations) covers the rest. When there aren’t enough people to pay some of the insane prices being charged for some things, the price will go down to a more market rate

The basis of the problem in healthcare today is the incorrect assumption that everyone should have everything without paying.

Socialized medicine is NOT the answer to the problem, unless you want to subject all of america to VA quality care. VA healthcare is a laughingstock among American doctors and nurses.

People like bernie sanders are ecnomically illiterate. He thinks the problem is that not enough resources are being spent on american healthcare, when nothing further can be the truth. As I’ve stated, America spends more per capita on healthcare than any country on the planet.

2 Likes
110
  • Acts like he doesn’t understand that a person acting against conservative ideals isn’t a criticism of conservatism.
  • Now that it (seemingly) supports his position, he flip flops like a fish:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ics1Jqha6o

When you have to flip-flop your logic faster than this fish flop flops, it’s time to realize you’ve got a sore case of double think.

3 Likes
111

On this point in particular: the place where most conservatives and libertarians draw the line is A) in a nations defense and B) in the case of human rights. For example, free market principles will be thrown out the window if they get in the way of a nation defending itself (example: tariffs preventing the exportation of a nation’s defense). The same applies for human rights issues. Child labor laws are a great example.

Abortion is a heated topic right now and here is my take on it. One of the first things Hitler did when exterminating the Jews was to dehumanize them. They aren’t real people! They are scum! Now it’s not just abortion that the left wants, but free (state funded) abortion for all poor people. They’ve even talked about the “need” for it to curb the population growth in Africa. These are targeted demographics just like the Jews. They dehumanize the victims (babies) by saying “they are just a clump of cells” and make it seem like a service (“you can’t afford a baby!”). The victims aren’t given a voice, just like the Jews weren’t given a voice.

Abortion is a particularly sinister because it (seemingly) panders to the bodily autonomy argument, which conservatives and libertarians love. Being in control over your own body is a holy of holy freedom, untouchable except in exceedingly bazaar circumstances, which seemingly gives abortion the same status. That is, when you look at it entirely from the perspective of the mother, and not the child. There are two people in the equation here. Does a mother have the right to terminate another human being in the name of her own bodily autonomy?

It really comes down to if you value the sanctity of life more than than bodily autonomy. This is the question that society has to ask itself. We give murderers the needle (seemingly violating their bodily autonomy) in the name of justice (implying that justice can trump bodily autonomy), but protecting the life of a child isn’t more important than bodily autonomy? Is it not just to protect a child’s life?

100 years from now they are going to look back on this period in history like we look back on Hitler and the Jews. Preying on women (and men) and their fears of being a parent to push the extermination of tens of thousands of lives is an abomination.

2 Likes
112

Appointing a dictator who can overriding a city or county’s elected officials is an authoritarian act. Regardless whether that act is constitutional or not.

A market is directly governed by the incentives of the industry.

If the incentives to make money are harmful to consumers, then corporations in that industry are going to make decisions that are directly harmful to consumers.

For the health insurance industry, the best ways to make money are to over-charge for coverage, and to deny care or kick sick people off their plans whenever they can. That is exactly what insurance companies did in the United States prior to the Affordable Care Act (which banned at least a few of those practices and set profit limits on insurance companies that force them to spend 80% of all money that they take in on health-care). This is the same reason why Switzerland explicitly requires insurance companies to sell plans that they cannot legally profit from.

Johnson and Johnson is another example of corporations making harmful decisions for profits. The company knowingly sold talcum baby-powder that causes cancer for decades and covered up the research because it was more profitable to keep selling that product than to formulate a new product or warn consumers about the risk.

Health-care is not like the food industry or the clothing industry (which always have plenty of alternatives that you can choose for a given product).
You often do not have treatment multiple options to treat a given condition, you often do not have the option to ignore the condition (or doing so long-term may cause death or disability and become more expensive to treat later), you rarely have a choice which doctor or hospital to go to in an actual emergency, and patent law can prevent alternatives to a given medical device or drug for decades (which is not a problem for other industries where the products are optional).
The result of these factors is that patients have no ability to negotiate or control prices. That usually has to be accomplished through government regulations or negotiation through a government body.

First of all, the cost of healthcare was skyrocketing at a faster rate before the Affordable Care Act than after it. The Affordable Care Act slowed the rate of increase, but it did not do nearly enough to bring health-care costs under control.

Second, countries with cheaper healthcare achieve that through government regulations or through single-payer programs (which reduce administrative costs and create a single body that has the power and authority that it needs to negotiate prices).

That is false. Government services are usually much cheaper than private services; and they are often much more efficient.
However, governments are not effective at making non-essential consumer goods where variety is a desired trait. You would not want a government to make shoes, clothing, food, games or other entertainment, cars, or other products for consumers for that reason.

Private health-care systems tend to be more expensive than public systems. For example, Switzerland’s system cost almost twice as much per person as the NHS in the UK (a completely public system where the doctors and hospitals are employed by the government) and 63% more per person than the French system (a single-payer system where the government provides the insurance and the hospitals and doctors are private) in 2017. The US healthcare system cost more than twice as much per person as both the French and UK systems and about 27% more per person than the Swiss system in that same year.

That is not how a worker cooperative functions at all. Your statement shows that you clearly do not understand what a worker cooperative is, and you don’t understand what socialism is.
You probably don’t understand what authoritarian means either, but I will assume that you do.

Socialism refers to any system where the workers own and manage the means of production.

A worker cooperative is a form of cooperative that is owned and self-managed by its workers. You can think of it as a socialist corporation. There are multiple ways that a worker cooperative can be structured, but in all cases the workers either directly vote on decisions or elect a body of representatives to vote on decisions for them. This makes worker-coops democratic. Their very structure is antiauthoritarian, contrary to your claim. The structure of your average capitalist corporation (one private owner or an unelected board of shareholders that makes all the decisions, effectively an oligarchy or dictatorship) is very authoritarian by comparison.

A worker-cooperative can function (and normally does) within a market system just like any corporation, in which case the same market forces apply to it. This said, the incentives for the cooperative are different, because the goal is to maximize benefit for the workers rather than a CEO and/or shareholders. The cooperative itself is not a capitalist enterprise, because of the differences in ownership.

As for what to do if you don’t want to be part of a worker cooperative that you are currently in. You can just leave.
If you don’t like the decisions made by the cooperative, you can vote for another representative or vote against that decision depending on how that cooperative is structured. Workers in a standard company have far less power, even when they are unionized.

You clearly don’t understand what either word means.

No capitalism is not the opposite of authoritarianism. Capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production. You can have that in a dictatorship or an oligarchy. That is actually the norm in most such countries.

Capitalist corporations in a market system are typically structured as either dictatorships (the owner/CEO decides everything and owns everything) or oligarchies (shareholders may decide the CEO or have the ability to vote on policies, but the workers have no power unless they unionize and their power in that case usually relies on legal protections and their willingness to go on strike).

Excuse me? Look at Canada’s system.
Hospitals in the US often need to hire entire floors of people to handle the billing and price negotiations with the numerous insurance companies. That is a major factor that affects cost. A hospital in Canada with the same number of doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc can hire 2 people to do the same job.

No, the market is not free from government regulations. I just described two of those regulations in the very post that you quoted.

Insurers are legally required to provide plans that meet the MHI requirements.
Insurers are legally restricted from profiting from those plans.

113

The Swiss system that you touted has both of those requirements. Citizens are required by law to purchase health insurance, and the mandatory insurance plans must provide exact benefits specified by law and treat all insured persons equally by law.

It is difficult to get the full list of laws regarding the healthcare system in another county, but they are definitely not running some laissez-faire market system where anyone can become a doctor or run a hospital, perform whatever procedures they want, charge whatever they want, etc, etc, etc.
The only countries that don’t tightly regulate their health-care markets are countries that are too corrupt or inept.

114

Agreed.

However, unless they are a defacto common carrier like Twitter/Facebook (a different discussion) they also get to decide what rules regarding speech they want in their own spaces.

1 Like
115

Then they have to decide if they are public platform, or a publisher, not a weird legally grey hybrid of both.

1 Like
116

Yeah, Kant and Mill, these effing millennials and their effing entitlement attitude…

The term “liberal” means something completely different in the USA. It has pretty much nothing in common with anything the rest of the world considers to be “liberal”.

117

Since I generally don’t disagree with your politics, economic, or moral stances very often, I was wondering if you ever thought there was a time when abortion would be acceptable?

118

What do you understand liberal to mean, then?

119

The solution is: the thread starter chooses whether it will require mmr to post or not , while a silv leaguer can start a thread all they like. This is to bug forum trolls off trolling and derailing.

(pretending that i care how the forum goes on)

Are you sure you know what you’re talking about? Nazz’m and fascism are national-socialism it is considered far right (or maybe im mixing it since today’s nationalism is right). And im talking about Europe where these things have history, not familiar with what is considered right/left in US.

Yep I was right… afterall have studied history as part of my major in far far long ago, I know something: From wikI: " Fascism is a form of far-right(…". Eu history knowledge 1 : 0 NA history knowledge. lul

1 Like
120

Most long-standing [political] spectra include the left–right dimension, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–1799), with radicals on the left and aristocrats on the right. While communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, conservatism and fascism are regarded internationally as being on the right.

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

That’s what libertarians (which are called “liberals” everywhere outside of the US) believe in.

The word Conservatism comes from the Latin word “conservare” which means “to maintain”/“to conserve”. By definition, a conservative wants to maintain the status quo, nothing more, nothing less. Since the status quo changes, the meaning of “conservative” changes, too. Monarchists where considered to be conservative during the French Revolution while Republicans where considered to be progressive - nowadays Republicans are considered to be conservative and so on.
Conservatives want to maintain a free market because it’s the western status quo, not because they have an anti-authoritarian attitude.

1 Like
121

I honestly think the word has lost a clear and distinct meaning in the US. It’s basically used as a pejorativ term to subsume people conservatives and right-wingers don’t like (LGBTQIAXYZ activists, Civil Rights activists, Women’s Rights activists, gender activists, left-wingers, socialists…). It’s pretty impossible to find a common denominator all those people share (which could serve as a definition of the US term “liberal”) besides the animosity of the political right. (I think the spectrum of persons called “liberals” nowadays is far too heterogenous to say everyone of them supports social liberalism since at least some of them have quite an authoritarian attitude.)