National defense falls a long way outside socialism. An army is the sine qua non of a state. Likewise police forces. Nationalized health care is socialism, and I think it's disingenuous to argue otherwise - of course it's socialist; that's why its supporters like it!
My problem is with pretending that nationalizing an industry that accounts for one sixth of GDP is just like having a police force, or a public library. I'm sure there are plenty of purists who would argue with me, but I think that the negative aspects of socialism have to do much more with its extent than with its nature - a small parasite is not really a problem, but a big one is.
TV, where surgeons 1) are the only physicians in the hospital and are responsible for care of all patients, and 2) operate on appendices one day, bones the next, and brains the day after that.
The VA, contrary to popular belief, does not cover all former soldiers. To get free care in the VA, you have to have served in combat (and, IIRC, during a recognized conflict). There must be a connection between your activities in the service and the medical care you need, as well. Otherwise, it's just another hospital, and they will send bills.
Legally, he is alive. He's not brain-dead. His family may choose to withdraw supportive care, in which case he will die rather quickly, or may choose to continue it, in which case he will remain alive but comatose until such time as he heals or dies. This is a fairly common situation. After a month without improvement, I'd strongly suggest withdrawing.
Jobs did what anyone can do - he registered on more than one transplant center's list. What makes him special is that he can afford to fly anywhere in the country on no notice so as to be ready to receive the organ. Anyone with a bit of time and $100k to charter a private jet can do the same.
If there _ is _ a possibility of a person to be back alive after a "brain death"
If there's a possibility of coming back, they're not brain dead. Determination of brain death is not quite like verifying the absence of cardiac activity - it's usually fairly involved.
So you'd prefer that the bankrupt schmuck and his family starve? People make decisions like this all the time - ask a coal miner whose dad was a coal miner and died of black lung, but who goes underground anyway because it pays well. You're right that markets don't have a moral component, but so what? Amorality is not immorality.
Legally, once you die, your corpse belongs to your next of kin. You can write a will so that they get no money if they don't donate the organs, but you can't really force them to donate.
If it's a life-saving procedure on a minor, you can very easily do something about it legally. Have the hospital lawyers get a court order. We do it for Jehovah's Witnesses' children and blood on a reasonably frequent basis.
You know, if transplant surgeons took trauma cases, and all organs were universally compatible, and physicians liked getting sued, that might bear some tiny resemblance to an actual moral dilemma. But none of those is the case.
Just out of curiosity, why not bump sales taxes? I've seen that credited, rightly or wrongly, as one of the reasons that Texas hasn't had the problems that California has - illegals pay sales taxes.
I do make more than $250k a year. Of course, that started this year. I didn't go through a nice career progression; I went from $40k/yr to over $250k, so I haven't gotten to enjoy the life of being just a little rich. I'm 35 years old, and my net worth is STILL well below zero. I couldn't afford to contribute to an IRA through my entire 20s because I was a student. You want to tax wealth, tax wealth. But don't confuse income and wealth.
Until world hunger and homelessness are solved you have no right to more of the world's resources than that.
Yeah, that's pretty much why I can't stand socialists. I've gone out and worked hard for a long time to get to the position I'm in. It's not your money, it's mine.
I hear Somalia
Please find a different straw man for limited government.
Finally, would somebody please mod him up? I disagree with just about every political thought this guy has, but he definitely isn't trolling.
The socialists' greatest success was in coopting the name of liberalism. There are a lot of classical liberals who vote on the conservative side of the ballot because they aren't socialists. They also tend not to be opposed to MJ.
California has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The population is no doubt at fault for this, but Prop 13 has had a lot of salutary effects, too - people don't get forced out of their homes when neighborhoods gentrify and they can't afford new property taxes.
I live in Mississippi. In return for 1.5% of my home's assessed value per year in taxes, 7% sales tax on all items (including food/clothing/toiletries), and up to 5% income tax, I get
Awful roads
Schools so bad that I could not imagine sending children to them
Corrupt government
Speed traps around every corner
Education here is terrible unless you pay through the nose for private - the cheapest around here is $4500/yr for elementary, rising to $10000/yr for jr high/high school.
Do you like the fire department? The public library? Public education? Guess what...you like socialism! We really need to throw away the false dichotomy between Capitalism and Socialism. There is room for the two to coexist. I am a Christian myself, but I will fight to the death to prevent a Theocracy of any kind from taking hold in the United States.
If you think a public safety mechanism like a fire department is socialism, then "socialism" has no meaning. Fire departments, police departments, armies... these are not argued against by any sane person I've ever met, from communist to Randroid. Public libraries? You know, I can't recall anyone arguing against those, either, since they're very cheap ways to provide the public with means to educate itself. (Also: they're run by local governments, not the feds.) Public schools? Well, now you're talking about something where there's no reason to believe that the government can do the job better than anyone else. We don't generally give poor people food; we give them food stamps. We don't give them housing; we give them housing vouchers. There's not really a way to provide "library vouchers", but it's pretty easy to provide school vouchers.
You could just provide vouchers in lieu of public schools, and give the fundamentalists the finger as you sent your kids to whatever hippie school you ever wanted. See? Liberalism need not be wedded to socialism.
I've seen this argument quite a lot lately, but one thing bothers me - if it irks you so much, why don't you start voting against taxes and let them go adrift? Be realistic - most of those dollars go to programs, like Medicare, Social Security, and welfare, that are championed by the coasties. I live in a net recipient state, and I vote Republican because I don't want a 50% overall tax rate. I can't imagine any set of government services that is worth half my income year in and year out. (I don't mind outliers - for example, right now I think that extending unemployment benefits is a very important use of tax dollars, and I'm not averse to a sunsetted tax to pay for them.) If you think that a high-tax, high-government-benefit regime is best, move to NY or MA.
If $100/mo is a problem, either your financial situation or your expectations need to change. The guy is a student at a foreign university - not his state school an hour from home. Either he needs to make a good case to his parents for them to pay for it, or do without a smartphone, or get a job that pays him enough to be able to swing for the phone.
Depends on what you do. I did my job without a smartphone. Then I got a smartphone. It's worth $100/week for me to have it. (But don't tell Verizon that, they'd raise my rates.)
Slashdot Mirror
National defense falls a long way outside socialism. An army is the sine qua non of a state. Likewise police forces. Nationalized health care is socialism, and I think it's disingenuous to argue otherwise - of course it's socialist; that's why its supporters like it!
My problem is with pretending that nationalizing an industry that accounts for one sixth of GDP is just like having a police force, or a public library. I'm sure there are plenty of purists who would argue with me, but I think that the negative aspects of socialism have to do much more with its extent than with its nature - a small parasite is not really a problem, but a big one is.
TV, where surgeons 1) are the only physicians in the hospital and are responsible for care of all patients, and 2) operate on appendices one day, bones the next, and brains the day after that.
The VA, contrary to popular belief, does not cover all former soldiers. To get free care in the VA, you have to have served in combat (and, IIRC, during a recognized conflict). There must be a connection between your activities in the service and the medical care you need, as well. Otherwise, it's just another hospital, and they will send bills.
Legally, he is alive. He's not brain-dead. His family may choose to withdraw supportive care, in which case he will die rather quickly, or may choose to continue it, in which case he will remain alive but comatose until such time as he heals or dies. This is a fairly common situation. After a month without improvement, I'd strongly suggest withdrawing.
Jobs did what anyone can do - he registered on more than one transplant center's list. What makes him special is that he can afford to fly anywhere in the country on no notice so as to be ready to receive the organ. Anyone with a bit of time and $100k to charter a private jet can do the same.
If there _ is _ a possibility of a person to be back alive after a "brain death"
If there's a possibility of coming back, they're not brain dead. Determination of brain death is not quite like verifying the absence of cardiac activity - it's usually fairly involved.
So you'd prefer that the bankrupt schmuck and his family starve? People make decisions like this all the time - ask a coal miner whose dad was a coal miner and died of black lung, but who goes underground anyway because it pays well. You're right that markets don't have a moral component, but so what? Amorality is not immorality.
Legally, once you die, your corpse belongs to your next of kin. You can write a will so that they get no money if they don't donate the organs, but you can't really force them to donate.
If it's a life-saving procedure on a minor, you can very easily do something about it legally. Have the hospital lawyers get a court order. We do it for Jehovah's Witnesses' children and blood on a reasonably frequent basis.
You know, if transplant surgeons took trauma cases, and all organs were universally compatible, and physicians liked getting sued, that might bear some tiny resemblance to an actual moral dilemma. But none of those is the case.
I know, bad form to reply to self, but haven't you and I had a particularly fun flame war before?
Let me know when you recover the ability to read a chart.
Just out of curiosity, why not bump sales taxes? I've seen that credited, rightly or wrongly, as one of the reasons that Texas hasn't had the problems that California has - illegals pay sales taxes.
Until world hunger and homelessness are solved you have no right to more of the world's resources than that.
Yeah, that's pretty much why I can't stand socialists. I've gone out and worked hard for a long time to get to the position I'm in. It's not your money, it's mine.
I hear Somalia
Please find a different straw man for limited government.
Finally, would somebody please mod him up? I disagree with just about every political thought this guy has, but he definitely isn't trolling.
The socialists' greatest success was in coopting the name of liberalism. There are a lot of classical liberals who vote on the conservative side of the ballot because they aren't socialists. They also tend not to be opposed to MJ.
California has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The population is no doubt at fault for this, but Prop 13 has had a lot of salutary effects, too - people don't get forced out of their homes when neighborhoods gentrify and they can't afford new property taxes.
How dare hoi polloi speak about what they think. Do you apply the same standard to union organizers?
Education here is terrible unless you pay through the nose for private - the cheapest around here is $4500/yr for elementary, rising to $10000/yr for jr high/high school.
If you think that "socialism" is the word for anything government-funded, then it has no meaning.
Do you like the fire department? The public library? Public education? Guess what...you like socialism! We really need to throw away the false dichotomy between Capitalism and Socialism. There is room for the two to coexist. I am a Christian myself, but I will fight to the death to prevent a Theocracy of any kind from taking hold in the United States.
If you think a public safety mechanism like a fire department is socialism, then "socialism" has no meaning. Fire departments, police departments, armies... these are not argued against by any sane person I've ever met, from communist to Randroid. Public libraries? You know, I can't recall anyone arguing against those, either, since they're very cheap ways to provide the public with means to educate itself. (Also: they're run by local governments, not the feds.) Public schools? Well, now you're talking about something where there's no reason to believe that the government can do the job better than anyone else. We don't generally give poor people food; we give them food stamps. We don't give them housing; we give them housing vouchers. There's not really a way to provide "library vouchers", but it's pretty easy to provide school vouchers.
You could just provide vouchers in lieu of public schools, and give the fundamentalists the finger as you sent your kids to whatever hippie school you ever wanted. See? Liberalism need not be wedded to socialism.
I've seen this argument quite a lot lately, but one thing bothers me - if it irks you so much, why don't you start voting against taxes and let them go adrift? Be realistic - most of those dollars go to programs, like Medicare, Social Security, and welfare, that are championed by the coasties. I live in a net recipient state, and I vote Republican because I don't want a 50% overall tax rate. I can't imagine any set of government services that is worth half my income year in and year out. (I don't mind outliers - for example, right now I think that extending unemployment benefits is a very important use of tax dollars, and I'm not averse to a sunsetted tax to pay for them.) If you think that a high-tax, high-government-benefit regime is best, move to NY or MA.
Well, straight lines are much easier to survey and build roads on.
If $100/mo is a problem, either your financial situation or your expectations need to change. The guy is a student at a foreign university - not his state school an hour from home. Either he needs to make a good case to his parents for them to pay for it, or do without a smartphone, or get a job that pays him enough to be able to swing for the phone.
Depends on what you do. I did my job without a smartphone. Then I got a smartphone. It's worth $100/week for me to have it. (But don't tell Verizon that, they'd raise my rates.)