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

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Fri Jul 17 14:43:07 UTC 2009

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Stathis Papaioannou<stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Charity won't reliably cover everyone. Charity is fickle and
> demeaning, although better than nothing. I know a lot of people who on
> principle would not accept charity, but do accept government provided
> services, since they are provided under a binding and reciprocal
> agreement: i.e., if they earn enough money, they will also contribute
> to these services.

### Scum. They will gladly take money wrested from workers by an
impersonal force but consider themselves too superior to acknowledge
weakness to an individual by accepting his charity.

A binding and reciprocal agreement, yeah, that we "agreed" to on pain of SWAT.

Taxes are immoral and demeaning, and mostly are used to pay for
slaughter and transfers to affluent parasites but you don't care, and
you keep trotting out the "weak and unfortunate" ploy. Whatever.

 Why is the
> Canadian system so much more efficient?

### Why do you say stuff like that?

> I could respond by saying that you want to convince yourself of the
> rightness of selfishness and contempt for the weak and the
> unfortunate.

### Yeah. Because I refuse to accept violence, it makes me
contemptuous of the weak, sure.

Brilliant logic.

> My senior schooling was actually private. The students were mostly
> conservative (from conservative families) but there were a few
> radicals but all were tolerated. Politics was not a prominent part of
> the curriculum, but when it was taught, the emphasis was on
> disinterested discussion of the facts relating to the various systems
> that have existed historically. The teachers were expressly forbidden
> from displaying their own bias, although it was often easy to guess. I
> confess that I had never heard of "libertarianism" until a few years
> ago, as it seems to be a purely American phenomenon. I have certainly
> been aware of anarchism, but traditional anarchists are usually
> opposed to capitalism, considering it a force for exploitation and
> oppression of the working class, effectively a government without even
> the pretence of allowing the governed to have a say.

### In other words, you were taught by socialists. Small surprise you
like violence.


> The consequentialist argument is that equitable wealth distribution
> and limitation of the exploitation of workers by private corporations
> is for the common good. In other words, unfettered capitalism will
> trample on peoples' lives more.

### As I said, whatever.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list