Subject:
|
Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 May 2002 19:05:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
873 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> Again, you're characterizing the system to portray it as unfair, but it's
> not a fair characterization. The fact that it's a 2-tier system is actually
> irrelevant, since it would be that way in any case. If health care is
> privatized, and if Person X can't afford top notch care, then he's got to
> settle for whatever he can get, and too bad for him. However, if my taxes
> help pay for the public health care, but if I never ever use that system,
> then I'm the poor sap who's been abused by the system, and too bad for me.
> There will be insiders and outsiders for any system.
When it comes to having Doc Martens vs no-name sneakers, or an SUV vs
S.P.O.C., or veal vs pork chops, that's to the wealth of the individual. I
could care less if my fellow human has the whereforall to afford the 54 inch
screen TV or the P.O.C. 17 inch used TV. In no shape or form should any
responsibility of material possessions be dictated by someone else--that's
the extent of the capitalism I like. I choose to buy no-name shoes 'cause I
don't need the 150 dollar shoes--they're shoes--get over it! I choose to
drive a piece of crap pick up truck. It's mine and is paid for. I choose
to buy lotsa LEGO bricks! All these are my choices and should not be
affected by others.
But health and education? The future of our country is based on the
education of the children *today*. The strength of our country is based on
the health of the individual. I *am* selfish about it--If I want me to be
taken care of when I'm old and gray, I have to put into the system *today*.
I don't go to the doctors regularly. I cut myself and I needed stitches, I
broke my arm, and I got stung by a hive of bees falling on me. Other than
that, there haven't been too many times I have had to see a physician. Yet
my tax dollars (20ish percent of my gross paycheque) go *somewhere*. Do I
care? Enough to make sure the gov't doesn't abuse my hard earned dollars.
I make more money than my American counterparts, but I also get taxed
more--who really cares? In the end, I don't pursue the 'almighty dollar'.
I make enuf to get me outta debt and enuf to buy little pieces of coloured ABS.
> Even your public health care system has inherent flaws: I'm on good,
> personal terms with Doctor X, so he recommends a good specialist who can
> treat my illness efficiently; or I'm not on personal terms with Doctor X, so
> he recommends a mediocre specialist whom he owes a favor, who may or may not
> treat my illness as efficiently. Obviously I'm not saying that this sort of
> caricature is the norm, but the system itself is no more inherently proof
> against "insiderism" than capitalism.
This analogy is not inherent in the system, it's in the individual doctor.
The system gets you the help you need and you don't have to pay for it out
of your pocket. Everyone pays in the taxes. A proper analogy would be 'Oh
I'm sick, what can I do?' Canada--Go to the hospital and you will be cared
for. America--Do I have coverage, insurance? Yes? Go to hospital, get
taken care of, and pay. No? go to lesser hospital and get treated, more
than likely okay treatment (I have yet to meet a doctor anywhere who doesn't
care about the health of their patients), but is less than the paid for
treatment.
Look at the *system*, not the *individual issues*.
> > If a chain is as strong as its weakest link, the capitalist system fosters
> > lots of weak links. It also fosters big thick strong links, but the chain
> > will still break at its weakest link--I don't care how many millionaires and
> > multi millionaires are in the equation--look where it's deficient.
>
> Actually, a chain isn't as strong as it's weakest link, unless the chain
> only attaches at two points, and only if those two points are on opposing
> sides of the weak link. To if a chain has 10 links, and link 7 is weak,
> there's no problem chaining Ship A to Ship B, as long as we use links 1 and
> 6 to do it.
When you have a chain in this particular analogy, you use the entire chain.
But let's try it your way. Every citizen is a link in the chain. You put
the weak ones to one side and don't use them (want them, whatever)--links 1
thru 6 are great and can hold the ships together. Links 7 and on are just
hanging there--you have just subjugated, written off, done away with, *en
masse*, that group of people.
> Similarly, if the chain attaches in a bunch of places, than
> only the section containing the weak link will be compromised.
> I'm not being pedantically literal here; I'm extending your metaphor.
> Capitalism isn't a simple binary "us-vs-them" system; it's a network of
> interrelations between various subsets of the system and is therefore not
> prone to simple "one-weakest-link" characterization.
I once used the metaphor, 'Tapestry' in a paper I wrote years ago. I do
believe that everyone and everything is interconnected and interdependant.
Nothing *ever* happens in a vacuum--what affects one of us, affects all of
us, even if in a completely small way. It is likened to the 'Butterfly
Effect' (butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil in March, affecting the air
molecules around, could prevent or help a hurricane in August off the coast
of the Carolinas). Here's where Dave gets existential: Look at the
tapestry--if there are weak spots, it will detract from the entire tapestry.
If there are loose threads, the overall tapestry is weakened. There is no
'Us and Them', there is only 'Us' and 'Us' includes *everybody* (so there
can't be a 'them')
> > Capitalism is not a Just system. At best, it ignores the poor.
>
> At best it ensures that individuals working within the system have the
> opportunity to achieve solvency and security. At worst, it requires people
> to accept that they are only entitled to goods and services that they are,
> within the particular capitalist system, able to afford. I'm not applying a
> value judgment to either extreme--I'm simply trying to summarize the system
> in terms not dependent on "better-and-worse" or "right-and-wrong."
You might not put a value judgement to either extreme, but the *system* has
the inherent dichotomy built into it. Poor people should have a poor health
system because they are poor is exactly what the system is saying. I don't
have to put a value judgement on it, it's already there. Value in a
capitalist society equals money. When money becomes the base denominator,
those who don't have it automatically have no value--it's right there in the
equation of capitalism.
And if we believe in a capitalistic society we would say, 'Well, if they got
more money, they would be worth more'. They have 'the opportunity to
achieve solvency and security'. What about the arts? What about research?
What about all the things in the world that don't have price tags attached
to them but are so much part of just being human? There is no price tag on
those--there can be no capitalistic judgement attached.
>
> Moreover, I'm *absolutely* not a capitalist stooge, and I'm greatly in favor
> of public funding for a whole range of programs. I'm so strongly
> anti-corporation, in fact, that I can almost hear Larry laughing as he reads
> my defense of capitalism. I just don't think it's reasonable to criticize a
> system for shortcomings not actually inherent, and certainly not unique, to
> that system.
The problems are not unique to the American system--we all face these
issues. It will also take, as I know, bigger and greater minds than mine to
find solutions to the very issues we discuss here. For me, though, it does
help to look at a bigger picture every once in a while and put things into a
better perspective. Sometimes we get so immersed into our own little 'world
view' that we lose sight of being human.
>
> > > And if Canada's public systems are so great, why did Neil Peart prattle on
> > > about all that Objectivist silliness? 8^)
> >
> > I'm up on alotta things but I missed this reference.
>
> Just a nod to Rush's odd exploration of Ayn Rand's scribblings (as in
> Farewell to Kings, among others...)
>
> Dave!
Thanks--I'll look it up.
Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | DMs (was: Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant)
|
| (...) Doc Martens are actually very nice shoes, and affordable, too. Perhaps they are more expensive "over there"? My "office shoes" (dressy DMs) are ten years old, and they still look new. My ten-hole shoes are close to ten years old, and are (...) (22 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant
|
| (...) Again, you're characterizing the system to portray it as unfair, but it's not a fair characterization. The fact that it's a 2-tier system is actually irrelevant, since it would be that way in any case. If health care is privatized, and if (...) (22 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
