[grassroots1]

Because the company only gets paid if I survive. They have a reason to care whether I live or die.

Unless you run out of money, then they couldn't give a fuck. Don't be so sure you won't find yourself there at some point, if you aren't there already, and then we can discuss the cruelty of the free market.

[KPres]

Cruelty? HA! If you run out of money in America, 90% chance it's because you don't want to work or you spent it all on dumb shit.

[Zerogouki]

Unless you run out of money, then they couldn't give a fuck.

If I run out of money, I can:

1) get a loan from a bank,
2) borrow money from my parents,
3) sell some of my crap on eGay,
4) tell them that I have a job, and ask them to let me pay it back in installments,
5) quit being such a goddamn whiny baby who expects Big Brother to solve every fucking problem in my life

[ThereBeDragons]

They have a reason to care whether I live or die.

An insurance company has an economic interest in your continued existence when you pay in more than you take out, and swiftly loses this economic interest (and in fact just as swiftly gains the opposite interest) if you start to take out more than you pay in.

[DanDaMan]

An insurance company has an economic interest in your continued existence when you pay in more than you take out, and swiftly loses this economic interest (and in fact just as swiftly gains the opposite interest) if you start to take out more than you pay in.

And for what logical reason then does a government have for keeping you alive if you can no longer contribute taxes?

I find it odd Liberals here think government is somehow better because they are going to be fiscally irresponsible. Especially in the light of what history teaches us about omnipotent governements.

[hannigaholic]

And for what logical reason then does a government have for keeping you alive if you can no longer contribute taxes?

You can still vote with no job. If the government starts denying sick people coverage then many people will vote in parties who claim that they would not do so.

[DanDaMan]

You can still vote with no job.

Yes you can. But democracies do not care about the individual nor protect them like Republics of Law. Ergo those working (paying taxes) out vote you.

Watch and learn...(the 5 minute mark explains the failing of democracies)
[youtube]DioQooFIcgE[/youtube]

[hannigaholic]

Yes you can. But democracies do not care about the individual nor protect them like Republics of Law. Ergo those working (paying taxes) out vote you.

The vid is irrelevant to the point (as well as ignoring the fact that, without some form of majority rule, the laws in a republic are made by yet another oligarchy). You asked for a logical reason that a government would be motivated to provide healthcare coverage for those who no longer pay taxes. Being voted out is such a logical reason. In a democracy, the government is motivated to keep the masses happy.

[DanDaMan]

The vid is irrelevant to the point (as well as ignoring the fact that, without some form of majority rule, the laws in a republic are made by yet another oligarchy). You asked for a logical reason that a government would be motivated to provide healthcare coverage for those who no longer pay taxes. Being voted out is such a logical reason. In a democracy, the government is motivated to keep the masses happy.

As does an insurance company to it's customer base. As I was trying to get across... you, as an individual, are not the "masses". The democracy can and will vote your rights away from you no differently than an insurance company. And what makes it worse... when the government does that you have no one to turn to.

[redcarpet]

As does an insurance company to it's customer base. As I was trying to get across... you, as an individual, are not the "masses". The democracy can and will vote your rights away from you no differently than an insurance company. And what makes it worse... when the government does that you have no one to turn to.

So you're arguing representative government, composed of politicians, is more trustworthy to protect your rights as opposed to violating them?

What a joke. Where have you been in the Regan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II years?

[Huntster]

So you're arguing representative government, composed of politicians, is more trustworthy to protect your rights as opposed to violating them?

He's clearly saying the exact opposite. Government can be trusted to violate your rights before protecting them.

What a joke. Where have you been in the Regan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II years?

Were you even born before Ronald Reagan left office?

[Ombrageux]

Theoretically, a subtle libertarian is possible. Indeed there are "soft libertarians" who make contributions of value. But the elegance and simplicity of libertarian thought, its claims to "rationalism", makes it extremely vulnerable to fundamentalism and reductionism. These kinds of excesses, that dominate the discourse of the American Right, are not worth countering. They are self-evidently parochial nonsense and plainly anti-historical. Only profound ignorance of the outside world and elementary historical truths allows libertarianism to have the hold it has on a fraction of the American imagination.

[RonPaulalways]

Libertarians are fundamentalist about their beliefs because they actually believe in something. They believe in human liberty and the human condition. They believe in economic advancement and the improvement of people's lives. They are not champagne socialists indulging in thought experiments where they manipulate society's members to achieve some grand end.

Socialists/social-democrats are like the "man of system" that Adam Smith described:

The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit, and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests or the strong prejudices which may oppose it: he seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board; he does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on earily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Hence why I am studying Psychology and Sociology, so I can get a better understanding of how people interact with one another and how certain changes affect society. I do want pretty much the same end result at you but I don't see economics as essential to human survival or improvement.

[DanDaMan]

Hence why I am studying Psychology and Sociology, so I can get a better understanding of how people interact with one another and how certain changes affect society. I do want pretty much the same end result at you but I don't see economics as essential to human survival or improvement.

What percentage of the world population or just your own countries population can you live with losing for "survival or improvement"?

[Huntster]

I don't see economics as essential to human survival or improvement.

That is a remarkable statement, considering the fact that economic activity is one of those basic activities that seperates man from beast.

The act of trade is older than recorded history.

[The Clockwork Rat]

What percentage of the world population or just your own countries population can you live with losing for "survival or improvement"?

Preferably as many cultures as possible but I wouldn't put the whole choice down to one person.

economic activity is one of those basic activities that seperates man from beast.

Doesn't mean that it's better.

The act of trade is older than recorded history.

What I'm trying to get at is that we don't need all the constant improvement of the stock market and "the economy" as an entity. I know economics as a tool to sort the value of labour and goods is necessary. Nowadays it just seems to be getting too far removed from reality and every so often, our reliance on economics ends up biting us in the ass.

[Huntster]

Quote:
economic activity is one of those basic activities that seperates man from beast.

Doesn't mean that it's better.

That's true. I rather like living like an animal on occasions for a week or two (but I still bring lots of economic goods with me like guns, tents, food, beer, etc).

Do you live like members of the Tasaday tribe?

Quote:
The act of trade is older than recorded history.

What I'm trying to get at is that we don't need all the constant improvement of the stock market and "the economy" as an entity. I know economics as a tool to sort the value of labour and goods is necessary. Nowadays it just seems to be getting too far removed from reality and every so often, our reliance on economics ends up biting us in the ass.

I agree. My problem with it is that we're tugging from each other (classes, nations, races, parties, etc) and repeatedly trying to manipulate the economy toward our own advantage (whoever happens to be in power at the moment), and consequently end up running from problems of our own creation.

Economics is a science just like biology, physics, etc. It should be managed for balance, not advantage.

[RonPaulalways]

What I'm trying to get at is that we don't need all the constant improvement of the stock market and "the economy" as an entity. I know economics as a tool to sort the value of labour and goods is necessary.

An economy is all activity by humans. Improving it means improving the human ability to meet its needs.

The way we measure economic conditions may be flawed of course, and this may be what you're getting at, but in principle, economics is essential to the human condition.

[The Clockwork Rat]

I agree. My problem with it is that we're tugging from each other (classes, nations, races, parties, etc) and repeatedly trying to manipulate the economy toward our own advantage (whoever happens to be in power at the moment), and consequently end up running from problems of our own creation.

Economics is a science just like biology, physics, etc. It should be managed for balance, not advantage.

Makes sense, we need to fix the tool before we use it and make sure we don't try to use it too much.

I would disagree that it is a science just like biology, physics, etc, because it is entirely abstract and as even many an economist would (I hope this is true) tell you, economics is not an "exact" science.

It does seem strange that states have such little control over the economy. I think these are things I will have to learn about in future.