[ExI] Private and government R&D [was Health care in the USA]

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Stathis Papaioannou<stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/7/3 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>:
>
>>> I might be financially better off without taxation since I am in a
>>> relatively high tax bracket, but the people who currently can't work
>>> for one reason or another would definitely be worse off,
>>
>> ### Why would they be worse off? Can't they use charity, insurance?
>
> They're not as efficient. The US has an extensive public health
> system, as well as charity and insurance, and *still* millions of
> people can't access adequate medical services.

### So you think this statement (which BTW is factually incorrect),
*supports* the need for taxation?

You mean, the US taxes me a lot, and people still don't get what you
think they should get, but it only means I should be taxed more?

Let me give you a one-word answer:

Insane.

And you unfavorably compare the efficiency of charity with taxation?

Jesus H. Christ wept.
--------------------------

>
>> What about the inevitable fact that without violence economic growth
>> would be much higher, making the median citizen much wealthier? (look
>> at the difference between South and North Korea caused by 50 years of
>> a mild reduction in violence achieved in the south)
>
> By "violence" I assume you mean taxation and government regulation. It
> isn't the case that less of this leads to greater economic growth,
> consistently over time. The Soviet Union grew very quickly in its
> first few decades, then stagnated. China is growing very quickly but
> it has very extensive government involvement in industry. Switzerland
> is growing very slowly despite being one of the most
> capitalist-friendly countries in the world.

### You want to convince yourself about the rightness of violence so much.....

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

>
>>  You don't believe this,
>>> obviously, but most people do, which is why they agree to be taxed
>>> when taxation is such an intrinsically unpleasant thing.
>>
>> ### Oh, they have been bamboozled by years of schooling in government
>> controlled schools, where the fox teaches the chickens to appreciate
>> what he does to the integrity of their coop.
>
> An overriding principle in the curriculum of the government-controlled
> schools that I attended was that a partisan approach to teaching was
> to be avoided at all times. I don't remember being taught that one
> political or economic system was better than another, although perhaps
> the propaganda was *so good* that it infected my mind without my even
> realising it.

### Freedom and non-violence were never even described in their true
meaning in your school which is why you do not understand them.

It's just like the term "people's republic" used in my
communist-controlled grade school - a newspeak reuse of an old word to
mean its opposite.

------------------
>
>> But, you are not "most"
>> people, you are a smart dude, you can see that there are two main
>> reasons for the acceptance of this form of violence: envy of the rich
>> and a callous disregard for the well-being of others (because if you
>> care, you don't threaten them with violence except in defense). No?
>
> The only reason for accepting any political system as far as I'm
> concerned is that it leads to people being better off. If a particular
> policy has the opposite effect, whether it's a right wing or left wing
> policy, it should be dropped. When I was younger I believed more in
> ideological purity, but I now see that that's nonsense, and the only
> thing that matters is the result.
>
### Yet you are consistently refusing consequentialist arguments if
they conflict with your conviction that you have the right to trample
over other people's lives.

Rafal