the cato institute explains why young people should be pissed off

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You won't find any real examples there either - you WILL find a defender of authoritarianism, though.

I don't really see it that way. Hobbes' work reads like a backhanded defense of liberal democracy to me.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So, we got Dr. S down for universal payer. Excellent.

Actually what I was trying to say is that I'm just tired of treating poor people. I'd like to branch out into serving rich folks, you know, the kind of people who pay for sevices rendered. Medicare and Medicaid look at the bills we send to them for our services, giggle hysterically, then send us whatever the heck they feel like paying. We get only about half of what we should be paid. They change fee structures and fileing procedures willy-nilly and without notification. Medicaid even got a little scam going in which they try to force us to pay them to treat their patients.

It would be interesting to have a physician in the white house.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

People aren't free to dump their trash on my lawn in a competitive market.

I'm talking about air pollution. You want to try to establish a market based on who owns what piece of air, be my guest.

This is the problem with your position, you don't understand libertarianism and the result are illogical PD's.

I seem to understand it a whole lot better than you do.

Remember, self-interest cannot include murder et al when arguing against libertarianism since freedom does not include every possible behavior dreamed up by man... only those that qualify as acts of freedom.

If you'd bothered reading you would have seen that I made special mention of the Libertarian justification of state enforcement when it comes to contracts. Even they believe Hobbes to that extent.

But collective action problems still arise for a whole swathe of things that Libertarians believe should be entirely voluntary. Like funding the police, or army, or other voluntary funding schemes.

Your position is this: libertarianism or freedom (self-interest) is self-destructive because Joe wants to pollute his neighbor's property. Well, Joe doesn't have that right under libertarianism or freedom...

That's not my position at all. My position is that rational self interest in a wide variety of cases leads to bad outcomes. Libertarians are vulnerable to this because they believe that coercion is immoral and collective action problems arise in just those situations where we need to be coerced in order to stop us from falling back into a state of nature.

Libertarians recognise this in the case of contract enforcement but refuse to recognize the same principle elsewhere.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't really see it that way. Hobbes' work reads like a backhanded defense of liberal democracy to me.

Finally it's been a year and I agree with DD.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Medicare and Medicaid look at the bills we send to them for our services, giggle hysterically, then send us whatever the heck they feel like paying. We get only about half of what we should be paid.

If Medicare and Medicade pay providers so little, why do they cost the taxpayers so much? Do they have trouble controling utilization? What does this say, if anything, about the prospects for a single payer system in the US?

[Promethus]

Only if it was a 401k where you invested most of the money into the company's stock. Japher's 401k is diversified, so he's ok. He also has a pension, which he is vested in, on top of that, and even if the company tanks, he is entitled to that money (of course it may be a bit difficult in finding the money, but he still gets 100% of it if vested).

Wrong Like A Big Dog

My grandfather worked for a company for 30 years and when they got into fisical trouble they used the pension money to try to keep alive. When they went under there was no money in the pension fund. At age 68 he had to start over.

[Lord Merciless]

401K and traditional IRA are not tax free, they are merely tax deferred. When you start distributing them after your retirement, you still have to income taxes on the distributions.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

I'm talking about air pollution. You want to try to establish a market based on who owns what piece of air, be my guest.

It's still pollution and subject to public scrutiny and/or civil remedy for those polluted by the actions of polluters. Since we all pollute we accept certain levels of pollution, but that doesn't make polluting a right and immune to civil or even criminal action. I'm still waiting for prisoner's dilemma proving your point...

I seem to understand it a whole lot better than you do.

I'm not the one claiming we have a right to pollute. If you accept that we have no such right, then your PD about pollution is illogical. If you believe libertarians advocate a right to pollute, then you don't understand libertariansim.

If you'd bothered reading you would have seen that I made special mention of the Libertarian justification of state enforcement when it comes to contracts. Even they believe Hobbes to that extent.

Then what's your point? No one here is claiming that self-interest resulting in murder should be legal, so your PD's are irrelevant if you cannot come up with one within the framework of freedom/rights.

But collective action problems still arise for a whole swathe of things that Libertarians believe should be entirely voluntary. Like funding the police, or army, or other voluntary funding schemes.

Either you have PD's indicting libertarianism or you don't. You've never shown that if taxes were voluntary wrt police and military people wouldn't fund them, that's your assumption, not proof. You see, virtually everyone would still see funding as being in their self-interest even if voluntary. Besides, many libertarians support coerced funding for the police and military.

That's not my position at all. My position is that rational self interest in a wide variety of cases leads to bad outcomes.

You didn't say occasional "bad outcomes", you said poverty, anarchy, and destruction (or whatever).

Libertarians are vulnerable to this because they believe that coercion is immoral and collective action problems arise in just those situations where we need to be coerced in order to stop us from falling back into a state of nature.

Do you see how ironic that is? What do you find objectionable about this "state of nature"? People running around using coercion against others with relative impunity? And your solution? We should coerce each other "collectively" with impunity. Well, looks like people will use coercion either way. But let's get real... it isn't this "state of nature" you find abhorent, it's the end of the welfare state. Libertarians don't advocate this "state of nature", that's just how welfare statists like to perceive libertarianism because their goal is protecting the massive "re-distribution" of other people's money.

Libertarians recognise this in the case of contract enforcement but refuse to recognize the same principle elsewhere.

Examples of this "elsewhere"?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Promethus
My grandfather worked for a company for 30 years and when they got into fisical trouble they used the pension money to try to keep alive.

Which IIRC is illegal.

[Sava]

Young people should be pissed off... but more pissed off at ultra-right wing think tanks and politicians trying to destroy the social programs that have worked for decades.

Government programs would be working a lot better if they weren't being sabotaged from the inside. Even now, Medicare has lower overhead than every private plan.

But the Cato institute wants things to be like the 19th Century, where robber barons and corrupt trusts ran things without laws or government regulation. No Thanks.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Actually what I was trying to say is that I'm just tired of treating poor people. I'd like to branch out into serving rich folks, you know, the kind of people who pay for sevices rendered. Medicare and Medicaid look at the bills we send to them for our services, giggle hysterically, then send us whatever the heck they feel like paying. We get only about half of what we should be paid. They change fee structures and fileing procedures willy-nilly and without notification. Medicaid even got a little scam going in which they try to force us to pay them to treat their patients.

It would be interesting to have a physician in the white house.

Dr. Dean...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
If Medicare and Medicade pay providers so little, why do they cost the taxpayers so much? Do they have trouble controling utilization? What does this say, if anything, about the prospects for a single payer system in the US?

They tend to cover the sickest portions of the population, the disabled and the elderly. These groups tend to use the most expensive items of healthcare: intensive care units and institutional care - nursing homes, psychiatric hospitals, rehabilitation, etc. A week in an ICU can cost several hundred thousand dollars.

Utilization coverage tends to be a problem for both public and private insurers in the US. In our society we disdain having the government or a corporation tell us what we can and cannot have. You and I might think it a waste of money to put a seventy year old woman wiith incurable heart disease in an ICU for a half million dollars worth of treatment just to prolong her life for two weeks, but if that's what she wants the hospital will have to answer to her family's lawyers if they refuse her.

If you keep up with healthcare news in the US you'd be aware that even private insurers have a great deal of difficulty enforcing utilization rules. When an insurance company makes rules that patients and doctors disagree with the conflict soon reaches the news, and then eventually makes its way to the court room. Publicly sponsored insurance is no different. Unlike some European governments, the US government is not immune to lawsuits.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Which IIRC is illegal.

Unless of course the company goes to its workers and proclaims that without the cash infusion everyone will be without a job. At that point most workers will sacrifice their pensions.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -

It's still pollution and subject to public scrutiny and/or civil remedy for those polluted by the actions of polluters. Since we all pollute we accept certain levels of pollution, but that doesn't make polluting a right and immune to civil or even criminal action. I'm still waiting for prisoner's dilemma proving your point...

Oh really, so you think this can happen without state intervention. You can't have an accurate market for air pollution because it is too cumbersome to measure who's responsible for what.

I'm not the one claiming we have a right to pollute. If you accept that we have no such right, then your PD about pollution is illogical. If you believe libertarians advocate a right to pollute, then you don't understand libertariansim.

In no way is my argument about rights at all, it is about what happens when people act in their own self interest.

Then what's your point? No one here is claiming that self-interest resulting in murder should be legal, so your PD's are irrelevant if you cannot come up with one within the framework of freedom/rights.

That excessively voluntary schemes like Libertarian attempts to fund the police through voluntary donations and many other collective action problems we face would fail.

Either you have PD's indicting libertarianism or you don't. You've never shown that if taxes were voluntary wrt police and military people wouldn't fund them, that's your assumption, not proof. You see, virtually everyone would still see funding as being in their self-interest even if voluntary. Besides, many libertarians support coerced funding for the police and military.

Then they aren't real libertarians.

It is in my self interest for me not to pay for the police, since if others do I'll be better off, and if they don't I won't lose. Them's just the facts. If my self interest is defined as what benefits me, then it follows that it isn't in my self interest to pay, nor is it in anyone elses. If we can convince a few saps to pay, so much the better, but that's not going to do nearly enough.

You didn't say occasional "bad outcomes", you said poverty, anarchy, and destruction (or whatever).

That's what would happen with no police.

Do you see how ironic that is? What do you find objectionable about this "state of nature"? People running around using coercion against others with relative impunity? And your solution? We should coerce each other "collectively" with impunity. Well, looks like people will use coercion either way. But let's get real... it isn't this "state of nature" you find abhorent, it's the end of the welfare state. Libertarians don't advocate this "state of nature", that's just how welfare statists like to perceive libertarianism because their goal is protecting the massive "re-distribution" of other people's money.

Of course Libertarians don't advocate a state of nature, but they'll get us there anyway

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Young people should be pissed off... but more pissed off at ultra-right wing think tanks and politicians trying to destroy the social programs that have worked for decades.

Government programs would be working a lot better if they weren't being sabotaged from the inside. Even now, Medicare has lower overhead than every private plan.

But the Cato institute wants things to be like the 19th Century, where robber barons and corrupt trusts ran things without laws or government regulation. No Thanks.

Go, Sava, Go. You got this leftist rhetoric down better than I do -- and you are serious about it to boot!

[chequita guevara]

Do a search on google for Wyoming, "natural gas" and ranchers.

See how well one group is protected from pollution by another.

[Sava]

leftist rhetoric? nah... if leftists have this kind of rhetoric, then they are just coincidentally true...

btw, you don't have to be a leftist to see that I am right, look at the Medicare bill. The Repukes are trying to **** up Medicare so they can get rid of it.

I find it hilarious that some middle class conservatives always ***** and moan about "the left". Without "the left" stopping trusts and monopolies... creating unions, fighting for health care, fighting for benefits... the middle class wouldn't exist. It WOULD be the 19th Century... the super rich controlling everything, and everyone else is an employee.

It's rather ironic that middle class conservatives want to attack the side that has made their lives better.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Do a search on google for Wyoming, "natural gas" and ranchers.

See how well one group is protected from pollution by another.

farting and ranchers??

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
The canard that the government is highly inefficient is just that, a canard.

It is taken as a matter of faith by enemies of government but they don't show much proof beyond the colloquial-do private police forces work more efficiently? I am told public education is highly inefficeint-somehow the other industrilaized states pull it of.

IN terms of efficiency of health, for example, it would be far more efficient to force people to have one or two comprehensive checkups a year so thjat disease is caught early on and treasted preventively, thus cutting the cost of overall healthcare dramatically. Only the public sector could do this.

As for Social Security-perhaps we should get rid of SS and force people to save-certainly this would mean the end of the profligate consumer society of today in which people can spend their way towards US prosperity by having to remember you can't create huge credit card debts: no more huge consumer spending. Cause we all want fiscal responsibility, right?

Bull.

The government is efficient at certain things, and inefficient at others. Social Security is an inefficient program in that it assumed on its creation a model that in the long run is insupportable, namely that we have the knowledge (about the future) and the discipline as a society to make the frequent, large and consistent changes in SS policies to keep the program solvent. We have proven that we cannot do this, and it would be better to devise a program which is based upon individuals (ie looking at each individual as a case) rather than generations.

Aside from this debilitating structural problem, there are others. One big one is should people expect to get a better return on their entitlement than simply making life easier for Washington by making government borrowing cheaper. This is in effect the interest that the government pays on the funds you contribute, they borrow against it. I tend to believe that the money in most cases would bring a better rate in the private sector first of all, and I wonder whether cheap borrowing by the government is the healthiest long term trend we could be financing.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious

SS is not just a pension plan. It's also an insurance plan. You're comparing apples to oranges.

It's neither, while claiming to be both.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava
leftist rhetoric? nah... if leftists have this kind of rhetoric, then they are just coincidentally true...

btw, you don't have to be a leftist to see that I am right, look at the Medicare bill. The Repukes are trying to **** up Medicare so they can get rid of it.

I find it hilarious that some middle class conservatives always ***** and moan about "the left". Without "the left" stopping trusts and monopolies... creating unions, fighting for health care, fighting for benefits... the middle class wouldn't exist. It WOULD be the 19th Century... the super rich controlling everything, and everyone else is an employee.

It's rather ironic that middle class conservatives want to attack the side that has made their lives better.

Actually if it made anyone's life better it was for the great grandparents of those you condemn.

It amuses me to hear people moan about compulsary service. Don't they realize that compulsary service saved Rome from the ravages of Hanibal? Now we hear people denigrating the very thing that made their lives better. Luddites!

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Utilization coverage tends to be a problem for both public and private insurers in the US. In our society we disdain having the government or a corporation tell us what we can and cannot have. You and I might think it a waste of money to put a seventy year old woman wiith incurable heart disease in an ICU for a half million dollars worth of treatment just to prolong her life for two weeks, but if that's what she wants the hospital will have to answer to her family's lawyers if they refuse her.

If you keep up with healthcare news in the US you'd be aware that even private insurers have a great deal of difficulty enforcing utilization rules. When an insurance company makes rules that patients and doctors disagree with the conflict soon reaches the news, and then eventually makes its way to the court room. Publicly sponsored insurance is no different. Unlike some European governments, the US government is not immune to lawsuits.

So should I conclude from this that the primary difference between US and healthcare and that of other industiralized countries is that the US system spends lots of money at the end of life, which results in little gain in life expectancy? Or are other countires more efficient at the provision of health care regardless of when it is provided? Or does the US system have a bias toward expensive, hi-tech procedures?

PS:
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I don't know much about the economics of health care, but would love to learn.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Oh really, so you think this can happen without state intervention. You can't have an accurate market for air pollution because it is too cumbersome to measure who's responsible for what.

Where did I say the state should not be concerned with pollution? I believe I said just the opposite when I referred to "public scrutiny" and civil or criminal remedies. And you don't have to measure pollution at it's destination, you can do what we do now, measure it at it's source too.

In no way is my argument about rights at all, it is about what happens when people act in their own self interest.

Then your argument is not about libertarianism yet you continually imply that these "prisoner's dilemmas" are an indictment of libertarianism, so make up your mind because no one here is arguing that self-interest should be unchecked. We just don't agree on the standard to be used for checking self-interest. You say "collectivism" (whatever that means) and I say freedom and rights.

That excessively voluntary schemes like Libertarian attempts to fund the police through voluntary donations and many other collective action problems we face would fail.

Well there you go again, claiming in the preceding statement you aren't talking about rights only to bring the discussion back to rights. Now, why would they face failure? Your only argument is "self-interest" but ignore that funding a police department is in the self-interest of virtually everyone.

Then they aren't real libertarians.

Why? Many libertarians support the Constitution and recognise that general services that benefit us all like police and military fall into the user fee category.

It is in my self interest for me not to pay for the police, since if others do I'll be better off, and if they don't I won't lose.

Is it in your self-interest to be ignored by the police when you're the victim of a crime because you don't support law enforcement? Is it in your self interest to be treated like a pariah by all the other people who do support the police? What happens when local store owners take a dislike to you because of your freeloading? You will quickly re-evaluate your "self-interest"...

Them's just the facts. If my self interest is defined as what benefits me, then it follows that it isn't in my self interest to pay, nor is it in anyone elses.

It's not in your self interest to have police protection? If it's in no one's interest to fund the police, then there won't be any police and people with brains will quickly see why it is in their interest to hire police regardless of what you think.

If we can convince a few saps to pay, so much the better, but that's not going to do nearly enough.

It will do enough for them, they can just exclude you from the benefits of that service.

That's what would happen with no police.

So now you're arguing that having police would be in our interest since the result would be "anarchy", etc?

Of course Libertarians don't advocate a state of nature, but they'll get us there anyway

How? Oh yeah, because if people are free they won't hire cops because it's actually in their self-interest to exits in a "state of nature" where murderers roam about with little interference. My God Agathon, do you see how ridiculous that is? If you were right, no one would ever contribute to charities, donate time to help others, or any of the thousands of things people do voluntarily to help others because everyone would be like you. Oh, maybe I should ask, do you donate to charity? Do you donate time? Do you help others without a gun being pointed at you? If the answer is yes to any of these, then you've just refuted your own argument...

chegitz -

Do a search on google for Wyoming, "natural gas" and ranchers.

See how well one group is protected from pollution by another.

I have a better idea, since you've already done this, post a link. And then explain how it is relevant because it is illogical to point to problems that exist under our corrupt system to draw conclusions about other systems. If the natural gas industry is polluting ranchers' lands, it's because politicians let them get away with it. That's an indictment of democracy, not libertarianism and property rights.

[DinoDoc]

Well in an attempt to make this debate shorter and there for more interesting to me, let's list a few of the points that follow if we assume that man is born equal to all others in the "state of nature" Agathon assumes:

1. From equality proceeds mutual fear.
2. From mutual fear proceeds warfare.
3. In such warfare, nothing is unjust.
4. But reason suggests a better way to self-preservation: the right and laws of nature.
5. The right of nature is the liberty we have to use our power for self-preservation.
6. The 1st law of nature is that we ought to strive for peace, but when we cannot obtain it then it's war.
7. The 2nd law of nature is that in the interests of peace we will lay down our natural right to give us as much liberty as we would allow others to have against us.
8. This mutual laying down of our natural right is a social contract.
9. There must be a coercive power to enforce this contract.
10. The commonwealth is ruled by a sovereign who embodies the will of the people and is granted certain inalienable rights to enforce the social contract.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well in an attempt to make this debate shorter and there for more interesting to me, let's list a few of the points that follow if we assume that man is born equal to all others in the "state of nature" Agathon assumes:

1. From equality proceeds mutual fear.
2. From mutual fear proceeds warfare.
3. In such warfare, nothing is unjust.
4. But reason suggests a better way to self-preservation: the right and laws of nature.
5. The right of nature is the liberty we have to use our power for self-preservation.
6. The 1st law of nature is that we ought to strive for peace, but when we cannot obtain it then it's war.
7. The 2nd law of nature is that in the interests of peace we will lay down our natural right to give us as much liberty as we would allow others to have against us.
8. This mutual laying down of our natural right is a social contract.
9. There must be a coercive power to enforce this contract.
10. The commonwealth is ruled by a sovereign who embodies the will of the people and is granted certain inalienable rights to enforce the social contract.

Half of that seems spuriously metaphysical to me. I don't think it's a law of nature at all (he pinched that from the Stoics), but I don't think that's necessary to the case.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Agathon -

Where did I say the state should not be concerned with pollution? I believe I said just the opposite when I referred to "public scrutiny" and civil or criminal remedies. And you don't have to measure pollution at it's destination, you can do what we do now, measure it at it's source too.

Yes, but you can't sue polluters unless they violate your property rights or harm you in some fashion - so measuring it at the source won't work. And you can't sue them unless you identify them. Now, am I ever going to be able to determine just whose car emissions are harming me?

No. That means no proper Libertarian compensation mechanism can function.

The best we can do is have the state measure the pollution overall and think up some sort of tax to pay into a public fund from which payouts are made to those harmed.

But that is starting to look mysteriously like a public health campaign. Oh no!! We're all turning into communists!!

This sort of problem arises for most things which are considered a "commons".

Then your argument is not about libertarianism yet you continually imply that these "prisoner's dilemmas" are an indictment of libertarianism, so make up your mind because no one here is arguing that self-interest should be unchecked.

Yes, but Libertarians will leave it unchecked to such a degree as to ensure we spend our lives grovelling in the dirt.

We just don't agree on the standard to be used for checking self-interest. You say "collectivism" (whatever that means) and I say freedom and rights.

But "freedom and rights" will leave us with no police, no army and a world in which everyone attempts to free ride (in the economists sense).

Well there you go again, claiming in the preceding statement you aren't talking about rights only to bring the discussion back to rights. Now, why would they face failure? Your only argument is "self-interest" but ignore that funding a police department is in the self-interest of virtually everyone.

Here you've totally ignored the argument for what must be the hundreth time on this forum.

Read the argument very carefully. Of course having a police department is in the interest of virtually everyone, but having a police department which everyone else but me pays for is even more preferable, since I get what I want and keep my money.

Once again, if I know the other people will pay, it is in my self interest not to since I will be better off; if I know they won't pay it is again in my self interest not to pay.

Either way, it is in my self interest not to pay. This is a deductively valid argument, you can't escape it without denying one of the premises. But all you do is deny the conclusion without attacking the premises.

Why? Many libertarians support the Constitution and recognise that general services that benefit us all like police and military fall into the user fee category.

There's a difference between a user fee and a coercive tax. Libertarians do not support the latter. But it doesn't matter in the police case because even if you don't pay the fee you still "capture some of the value" because the mere presence of a policeman in the community will ward off criminals.

Is it in your self-interest to be ignored by the police when you're the victim of a crime because you don't support law enforcement? Is it in your self interest to be treated like a pariah by all the other people who do support the police? What happens when local store owners take a dislike to you because of your freeloading? You will quickly re-evaluate your "self-interest"...

But these people are also stuck in the prisoner's dilemma, so it wouldn't happen if people were rational.

Anyway, what would happen in such a case is that non-payers would form a clique of non-payers. And there's nothing you could do.

It's not in your self interest to have police protection? If it's in no one's interest to fund the police, then there won't be any police and people with brains will quickly see why it is in their interest to hire police regardless of what you think.

Again, you have ignored the deductive validity of the argument. It is not in your interest to pay, whatever the others do.

I know it's perverse - that's why economists call these "perverse outcomes".

It will do enough for them, they can just exclude you from the benefits of that service.

But they can't in the case of the police. Merely having a cop around is sufficient to deter criminals. So the non-payer reaps some benefit from the police service even though he doesn't pay for it.

So now you're arguing that having police would be in our interest since the result would be "anarchy", etc?

It's in our collective interest. Everyone is better off if they settle for second best.

You still don't appear to me to understand the subtlety of the prisoner's dilemma. No one is arguing that it wouldn't be better for everyone, if we had police. But it doesn't follow from that, that paying for a police force is in everyone's individual interest if that is defined as what benefits solely them.

Again, it's clear that I'm better off if I don't pay because if the others pay I get the protection and keep my money, and if they don't I still shouldn't pay, because if I did, I would be worse off with no protection.

The key is, I'm better off not paying, no matter what the others do. But we all agree to settle for second best then everyone is better off. But if payment is made voluntary, people will reasonably conclude that they shouldn't pay. So we need someone to have the right to force people to pay. That "person" is the state. The state prevents us from realizing the bad consequences of our individual self interest when we face problems of collective action.

There will always be some good people who pay, but these people are in essence saps, who are letting everyone else free ride off them.

How? Oh yeah, because if people are free they won't hire cops because it's actually in their self-interest to exits in a "state of nature" where murderers roam about with little interference.

It's not in their self interest, but that is what the result of pursuing individual self interest will be if everyone does it.

My God Agathon, do you see how ridiculous that is?

Why do you think they are called "perverse" outcomes.

If you were right, no one would ever contribute to charities, donate time to help others, or any of the thousands of things people do voluntarily to help others because everyone would be like you.

But hardly anyone does. And the reason is another prisoner's dilemma.

As I said, there are always some good people around who put their self interest aside, but these people are being taken for a ride by the selfish.

Here's why:

Let's take homelessness as an example. No one likes walking though groups of drunken lunatics on their way to work. The world would be improved for everyone if this problem was solved.

Charities exist by voluntary donation. Is it in my self interest to donate. Here's the possibilities:

1. I don't donate, everyone else does. Result: no homeless people I keep my money.

2. Everyone donates. Result: no homeless people, I lose my money.

3. I don't donate, no one else does. Result: no change, I keep my money.

4. I donate, no one else does. Result: virtually no change, I lose my money.

I, personally, am better off not donating: no matter what others do.


If I do donate, then the non-payers benefit from the donations of me and others for free. That's a free lunch - who in their right mind would turn it down.

Oh, maybe I should ask, do you donate to charity? Do you donate time? Do you help others without a gun being pointed at you? If the answer is yes to any of these, then you've just refuted your own argument...

I do, but that's because I am not very selfish. It irks me that non-givers are free riding from my generosity, but when the revolution comes, it's re-education camps for them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Half of that seems spuriously metaphysical to me.

Most philosophy is. However, it is essentially what you are arguing.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Agathon
No, you are just one of those cloud cuckoo land folk who bought into the failed Rogernomics rubbish. New Zealand is better off without you.

This is all I need to read to know you are an economic ignoramus. It's left-wing loonies like you that ran NZ into the ground pre-1984. But only socialists are REAL New Zealanders.

[chequita guevara]

So does that make me a Kiwi?

[Caligastia]

erm...he basically said I'm not a real Kiwi because I'm not a socialist.