@GoodFightUploads Evidently, "Doc Atomic" there doesn't get the whole point of propaganda, social reconstruction and bottom basement behaviour modification he teaches. The scary part is that they ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY. We should use the motto for them- "Shyster v. Huckster" or "How I shouldn't have listened to carpet-bagging social-cohesive kooks."
This touches a base but it is favoring certain things over others. It misses the fact that this is even a part of perpetual political theatre. I understand the argument, but it completely ignores that business plays its own role in this scenario. The government should not be working more so for business, enforcing its will as a monarchy. And constitutional democracy is far from communism. If you define socialism, they both qualify.
Dichotomies are a really bad labeling system for making any decision. It requires that you take abstract and flowing concepts, ideas with many more influences, and place them into two brick walled categories. As a species we need to stop this, it's getting worse with each generation save the last (who seem to be breaking from that).
No nation, in the history of mankind (that I can think of), have been successful by governing by ideology alone.
More / Less freedom is just another two dimensional scale between totalitarianism and anarchy and IMHO, adds little to the discussion. Avoiding a discussion on issue and the practical effects on policy in favor of "principles" is a interesting philosophical discussion, but development of practical policy is not that easy.
To the people who think there aren't any conservatives who want compulsory prayer in schools, take a look at everyone running for the GOP nomination, now look at the people who aren't named Ron Paul, there you go.
Conservatives don't want mandatory prayer, what a load of horse crap. All we want is the freedom for kids to pray in school, so long as they aren't being disruptive or distracting. Trying to tell someone they can't pray is just insanity, as would be mandatory prayer. Mainstream conservativism today is starting to lean toward Classical Liberalism, which is Maximum freedom through limited government. It's not there yet, but there is a lot of overlap.
Your political scale has a Big government big spender like George Bush to the right of Jefferson the Father of Democracy… lol I hope that is just a random scale because George Bush is hardly a conservative and certainly with his Patriot act and Dept of Edu no Libertarian he would be on the left of Jefferson and he would be slightly right from Mcain.
He mentions universal health care as a freedom issue, but I think it's more complicated than he lets on. In most countries health care is already universal, as there is a mandate that someone needing urgent care cannot be denied it regardless of their insurance or ability to pay. Requiring the purchase of insurance is designed to force everyone to pay for the health care that is already available to them.
If people don't have healthcare, then their right to life is being violated. That is why the right to healthcare is the most important right that government can grant. In America, we don't have this right. America is not a free country.
@MortimerTheClueless Says the person who believes in outlawing bacon and donuts as well as locking up and forcing medication on those who disagree. I suppose that's a free country?
@MortimerTheClueless There is no such thing as "rights" they are privileges you earn from living in a land, they can be taken away with ease, and nothing should have the "right" to live, anyway, as that would go against nature itself. Any idea that attempts to go beyond our upbringings, nature, is blatantly a bad idea, or a scam.
@MortimerTheClueless By giving someone the "right" to healthcare, you are saying that they have the right to other people's services regardless of whether or not those people want to provide those services or not. That is not freedom.
@killlagger468 No offense to Ron Paul but i wouldn't dare compare any politician to our founding fathers. They didn't just risk their careers in what they believed in, they risked their very own lives.
@Mezey5 Your right, altho its sorta hard to ignore the truth that Ron Paul is the only Veteran in this Presidential race who was drafted in the Military with a wife and two kids... so no he didnt just risk his career mind you, he risked his life and his family.
thats also a conservative is labeling people calling them liars and stupid and other names because they no liberals are for freedom unlike you authoritarian conservatives
wikipedia.Socialist_Reich_Party .wikipedia.Socialist_Reich_Party look at that article both will tell you that the Nazis were conservative if you read the article
The real political positions break down into "Authoritarian"...either left or Right...or "Libertarian". The former is anyone who wants to force someone else to do something against their free will...the latter respects everyone else's right to do what they want with their lives and property free from force. Pretty simple really.
This guy is a moron. He has no clue what Conservatism is. He's mislabeled it enough to honestly refer to him as a Liar.
Conservatives = LESS Government
Conservatives don't want "Mandatory school prayer, they just want everyone to leave them alone. However Mandatory Pledge of Allegiance would be great.
@AesopsRetreat I agree that by the actual definition of conservative (Conserving the Constitutional values set by the founders), conservative means less government. But nowadays, those claiming to be "conservative" are part of the neo-conservative movement that is ultra-nationalistic and trumpets huge military power and limiting social freedom. The media addresses neo-cons as conservatives in order to lure us into a false dichotomy in which both sides limit freedom.
@AesopsRetreat He isn't using the word "conservative" in its traditional sense. He is employing the modern usage of the word. We may use the word 'neocon' as an equivolent. By the traditional definition of "conservative", Bush would not qualify. But if you ask anyone today if Bush is a conservative, they will say yes. This man isn't an idiot. He is pointing out how the terms liberal and conservative are ambiguous while the phrases 'more freedom' and 'less freedom' are much more clear.
@RonTakeOne In a sense there is ambiguity in the whole "more freedom" "less freedom" deal. Take the minimum wage issue for instance. While requiring businesses to pay a minimum wage so that we don't go back to the way workers used to be treated, we are limiting that business' rights, but we also offer imperative and fair economic provisions for a whole class of people who are just getting on their feet. Doesn't that open them up to enjoy new freedoms? "More Freedom" is still dialectical
Totally wrong picture of liberal and conservative policy is drawn from Webster definition. This immediately turns this video into someone's baseless opinion.
Did you stop at that point? He doesn't really talk about the definitions at all. He talks about people's general beliefs within the Democrat or Republican party.
@RougeSamurai77 Maybe not, but it's a GOP issue if you ask Rick Santorum, who is doing fairly well, and the GOP claims for themselves to be the conservative party...
@RougeSamurai77 why did you point out that liberals aren't trying to ban anyone from praying in public schools? We just don't want any form of institutionalized religion. The way he generalized your issue was just as oversimplified as the way he generalized ours. I hope I am correct in presuming that you are a conservative :]
I get it. Intensifying the wealth gap allows for greater economic freedom. Minimum wage and universal health care are both tools of economic oppression. Thanks for educating me, Mr. Freedom Man.
@Numbuh7 hmm you do know that the revolution happened due to many reasons.. cheif among them is taxes. We now pay more in taxes than the start of the Revolutionary War. I say shrink the Federal government.. let them beg the states and citizens for money.. instead of us begging and hoping to get back that which was ours to begin with. Imagine everyone having to write checks to the government (vs automatic payroll tax).. what would they get away with then? I dare say far less..
He makes a very eloquent argument. However, he falls into a fallacy I have seen many times. He is redefining the terms "conservative" and 'liberal" to match his argument, then comparing them to the colloquial meanings.
@MegaLazygamer He defined the terms according to what they mean via Webster's dictionary. Then placed issues on a chart based on what people believe they are. The only fallacy I see is ignoring Webster's dictionary.
@jackie8mccall He may have defined the terms by way of the dictionary, but he interpreted those definitions in such a way to support his argument. Did you notice the part where he redefined the terms to "more freedom," and "less freedom?" That is redefining the definitions and the fallacy I was noting.
@MegaLazygamer you realize that change came with a change in the locations of the issues. He didn't say Liberals want more freedom, instead he said that you can classify those same issues in a very different way.
@ydna9 "Freedom" is a loaded word. One can look at purely property rights and say that universal health care is restricting freedom. However, when one looks at the right to life, anything other than universal healthcare could be considered an infringement upon the rights of citizens. The libertarians enjoy painting "freedom" in very black and white terms when in reality it is in shades of gray. One must give up some rights in order to establish others. This is how it has always been.
@Giftoftruth the right to life is the right to compete for life. You don't have the right to other people's hard work just because you're alive. The right to life could just mean "we won't kill you," not "we are required to keep you alive." Otherwise, dieing would be illegal. Freedom is a very clear and non-paradoxical concept, it sounds more like "rights" are what is drawing "grayness" for you. Re-read your own post for clarification and proof of that.
>>the right to life is the right to compete for life
If you want to live in a survivalist "social darwinism" experiment, move to the wilderness and don't take anything from us.
The rest of us accept that to live in a society is to make compromises with each other, and protect each other for the common welfare of everyone. The thought of leaving people to die is disgusting, and that is why our society is this way. We fight to protect the vulnerable.
@Lengo67 Actually they only want the people that work hard enough to earn healthcare to have it. Libertarians don't think any person can decide who that is, they leave it up to nature.
Universal health care is less freedom because you are forcing certain people to pay for it for everyone. Freedom would let you decide to pay for your own and whoever else's health care you want to. If someone were to offer cheap health care they would profit from being open to the most customers, catering t only the rich is not as profitable. Living is expensive, it takes hard work. No one should be required to do that work for you. You also cannot just artificially lower its cost.
@ydnab9 Yes, you would have the freedom to get healthcare. But if you can't afford it, how does that matter? Why don't we instead give everyone to freedom to receive healthcare?
@brettisrad You answered you're own question. "you would have the freedom to get healthcare," "instead give everyone to freedom to receive healthcare." There is a difference between giving someone the freedom to buy something, and buying it for them. And don't forget, if you were to "just give" everyone healthcare, who pays for the doctors' food? How about their education, the tools they use, the electricity they consume, the medicine and the development of it they depend on?
@ydnab9 Universal health care systems do not result in increased costs at the population level. Preventative care is much more efficient than palliative care, which can and will otherwise be subsidized by everyone else (via raising prices) when the $165,000 in medical bills go unpaid by someone physically disabled with net negative assets. That's why many hospitals can barely make ends meet, even when they're charging folks $53 for 2 latex gloves, $140 for 1 Tylenol, or $1,000 for a toothbrush.
@dackmont Because whether one is forced to buy something or is simply on the recieving end of something that someone else was forced to buy for them, somone was less free (with their resources) as a result. Anything the government mandates is done through force and therefore takes freedom away....
Disclaimer: I am a teacher that makes less than $22,000 a year. I work 55 hour weeks and I do not have healthcare.
The truth is the truth, regardless of income or social status. Truth.
To paraphrase Madeline Albright, what good is health care if you don't use it?
Is health care only for the rich?
Once again, LearnLiberty takes liberty with logic. They twist it to get others to join the Libertarian party. LearnLiberty is twisted and their intent is to twist you too. C'mon, LearnLiberty! Call yourselves Libertarians. Libertarians think our govt is coercive. Obviously, they mentally ill and are traitors.
One is privatized and one is not. One is effective and the other is not. And neither of them are monopolistic when you free yourself of idiotic right wing dogma. One you are forced to participate in a market which you may or may not normally participate in and the other there is no market. Pretty simple, because in reality people don't do much in the way of "choosing" their healthcare. They take what their employer offers and decide if that want shit coverage or half decent.
If you don't know what Ron Paul's platform is I encourage everyone to check it out, and decide for yourself. He is a Libertarian, but he has to run on the republican ticket, because we really have no third party that has the most rational values.
Liberals and Conservatives (I mean in the sene of Repubs and Dems) support freedom when it helps their agenda, and aren't concerned with it when it doesn't.
Mandatory prayer? Come on, that's a straw man argument. Conservative don't believe prayer should be mandatory, but allowed if one chooses to do so, teacher or student.
@ChrisLong1980 And prohibited prayer is also a straw man argument, Liberals don't want to "abolish religion", liberals simply believe that one should have the freedom to believe what they want how they want and simultaneously not be forced to follow the practices of a believe you yourself don't follow. I agree with you the the "mandatory prayer" thing is just plain goofy, but don't forget to look at both sides of the argument.
@ChrisLong1980 many conservatives don't believe this, but if you went to someone and asked which political party would support mandatory prayer, you would most often be pointed towards conservatives. The far right, and I mean the really far right, often supports this, while the more moderate do not.
It's definitely not a liberal issue, so in our two party political system, it's must therefore be conservative.
@pinkd0g145 uhmm.. wrong.. we believe we should be able to pray in a public place (like school) without issue. We, however, would never ask for a mandatory prayer.. because we conservatives believe also in the Constitution. Therefore, we shall make no law establishing or prohibiting religion..
Note to you.. first know what conservatives believe before trying to speak for us.
@conradpilapil If you read my comment you would realize i was walking about the super conservatives. Obviously you are not a super conservative and therefore you do't believe in obligatory prayer. But some conservatives would argue that prayer in school like that before the Supreme Court decisions should be allowed.
I'm not trying to start some debate because we both know political debates never work. Neither side will ever change their mind.
@pinkd0g145 I agree that those types of people exist.. (that would say mandatory prayer is good).. however, I will contend those are not conservatives. Much like (and I hope we agree) the Westboro Baptist Church is not Christianity. Even my atheist friends can see the difference in them vs me.
"the wrong place to start is with the effect of these things on people"...I get he's trying to make a point about having consistency in one's political views but placing the theoretical above the real in all cases seems wrong.
Your boss in this system is essentially a de facto government, thus liberal issues, while appearing to be pro-government by placing limits to business owners are actually attempting to LIMIT governence.
How will you sort out the options when you vote? I suggest that before you get caught up with anyone, including Obama, et al that you FIRST go to this web page (Get - The - Book . com) and grab a copy of a great book that few folks know about, read it, and then vote in a manner that will actually get this country a good President.
Def of liberal is of classic liberalism rather than progressive liberalism. Also, there is a huge presumption about a lot of the "issues" (which aren't actually issues, merely topics, but don't describe the positions which make them "liberal" or "conservative"). With this incredibly over-generalization of liberalism, as well and the lack of defined issues, I think that a Prof. from Duquesne should be focused maybe more on theology than economic theory.
@tim12crl In American politics, these issues are pretty much universal...
The whole point of this demonstration was to target the over generalization that goes on, focusing on the resulting confusion of citizens when they try to align their philosophical presuppositions with a political party.
what does theology have to do with anything? there was no moralism... this is just good ol’ semantics. it is looking at the central themes in political issues and correlating them with economic ideas.
@jonescomplete I agree the issues are universal, but the definitions by which the lecturer is using to establish issues as belonging to one camp (conservative camp or liberal camp). He's using a overly basic dichotomous (just as is comparing issues on the basis of whether they're liberal or conservative) on establishing what is "more free" and "less free." I don't think he's being less confusing, but just redefining the terms of an incorrect methodology.
@jonescomplete As for theology, he's a prof at a a Catholic University (I'm Catholic and I there's def. a slant on which the tenants of religiosity defines "more" and "less freedom").
@imaginepeace63 Oh dear, please stop talking before you make yourself look like more of an idiot. Wall Street benefits from corporatism (i.e. TARP, which democrats including Obama flocked in droves to vote for to an even greater extent than the GOP), as well as the barriers to entry created by regulations, tariffs, taxes, and subsidies. Libertarians, unlike liberals, understand that the wealth disparity you keep bitching about was CAUSED BY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE MARKET.
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES The government did not blow up the Applachian mountians for coal. The government is not using fracking to get natural gass which makes water flamable. The government did not make a mess in the gulf of Mexico. The government is not making the pesticide, Gaucho, to protect Monsanto farms which are killing bees.The private secotr did.
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES Idiots believe the Reagan lies that the free market can police itself. If you are right why is the Occupy movement spreading all over the world and the Tea Party losing steam? I am not the one that is a shee to wallstreet. I am not the one that is drinking Koch-a cola (Koch Brother). I am not a wallstreet cheerleader. YOU ARE!!
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES Wh is it when the conservatives "shrink ogvernment" as they call it with privatizing they are actually increasing freedom for the rich and shrinking freedom for the middle class and the poor? How come trickle down economics never works? The democrats that voted for TARP were conservative democrats not the liberal ones. You should read the vote and realixze that Obama is not a liberal. He is a conservative democrat.
>>Wh is it when the conservatives "shrink ogvernment" as they call it with privatizing they are actually increasing freedom for the rich and shrinking freedom for the middle class and the poor?
Simple. Republicans want small government so that business can be unaccountable, massive, and able to eclipse it in power. Then we will be ruled by a plutocracy who uses the government as its arms, instead of the people as was originally intended.
Corporatism is capitalism. When you try to distance yourself from corporatism while advocating for capitalism you sound peculiarly like the religious demagogues who denounce Catholicism and advocate Protestantism in its wake.
>>Libertarians, unlike liberals, understand that the wealth disparity you keep bitching about
Capitalism necessarily leads to income disparity. That is why its biggest cheerleaders are the wealthy aristocracy.
That's abjectly false. Corporatism is a system where government protects the interests of certain businesses with political connections, creating a monopolistic environment where artificially large wealth disparities are bound to occur. In a free market, government gives preferential treatment to no one and businesses succeed or fail on their on merit. You provided no facts upon which to base your assertion, so I'll assume you to be a clueless quasi-communist.
No true Scotsman fallacy. Corporatism is a subset of capitalism.
>>Corporatism is a system...In a free market...
This reminds me of theological discussions. "In Catholicism, the Church chooses dogma from above. In Protestantism, the people read the Bible in a straightforward manner and choose a relationship with Christ. It's totally different."
Put another way you can't argue that corporatism isn't capitalism, and are just repeating items of dogma.
@kDest If you want to make an assertion, you need facts to back it up if you want to to be credible. You haven't done this. Making an arbitrary comparison between two sects of a religion and trying to apply that to economics is irrelevant and inapplicable because you haven't yet established why corporatism and capitalism are the same thing beyond mindlessly asserting it. Replace the word "capitalism" with "socialism" in each of your posts and the argument makes just as much sense.
Merchants having direct control over prices in trade, with the means of production owned as private property, with market interactions driving the economy.
Corporatism is all of this in addition to business interests being represented in government. So when you say "free market capitalism is better" you are missing the point that corporatism DERIVED from free-market capitalism.
>>Replace the word
You apparently do not understand the categorical differences between them.
>>so I'll assume you to be a clueless quasi-communist
Case in point. Silly beliefs like yours always have these points of dogma "My economic system is superior to X because (it works on paper) and (government is evil)" and when they fail you resort to personal attacks.
>>All systems where any transactions occur lead to disparities in income
Actually not. Disparity happens when the they are unequal. When this happens egregiously, capitalism calls it a speculative bubble.
Capitalism doesn't work? Do you understand why you can buy a loaf of bread for $2 and not $20, or why you can afford a computer with which to go on the internet and denounce the very system that brought it to you?
"...when they are unequal."
If you're willing to pay me $5 for something that took me $2 to make, I'm not swindling you out of $3. Is that what you think? I'm trying to understand your position on pricing, but so far you haven't said much.
Name a single purely capitalist economy that is in any way successful. Every economy is managed at some level (a mixed economy of capitalism and government ownership or regulation of the means of production).
>>I'm not swindling you out of $3
No, you are contributing to the business cycle which haunts capitalism.
>>I'm trying to understand your position on pricing
Capitalism uses subjective pricing which causes bubbles. That is what I was saying.
@kDest At this point, I don't care enough to answer three of your ignorant comments. Contributing to the business cycle IS capitalism. All pricing is subjective. Hong Kong and Singapore have the closest systems to free markets, and their GDPs are the highest in Asia, factoring in population differences, and among the highest per capita in the world. The trend you'll notice when looking at the Human Poverty Index is that the most economically free countries are also the most prosperous.
>>The trend you'll notice when looking at the Human Poverty Index is that the most economically free countries are also the most prosperous
Not really. The nations which make it at the top by many different measures (lack of poverty, healthcare, corruption, etc.) are all hybrid economies with regulated capitalism. The United States hardly makes it near the top anymore, with European states usually passing it.
"Capitalism necessarily leads to income disparity."
All systems where any transactions occur lead to disparities in income, you ignoramus. Do you think everyone in Greece makes the same amount of money? Are you advocating a system where doctors and fast food cashiers earn the same income?
>>Do you think everyone in Greece makes the same amount of money?
What's this have to do with anything?
>>Are you advocating a system where doctors and fast food cashiers earn the same income?
You might want to study Marxism before you try attacking it with silly arguments like this one. You only reveal ignorance. Marxism (by which communist strains implement themselves) posits income distribution proportional to the amount of work you do.
Conservativism versus Liberalism is muddled by pundits and moneyed interest groups, the core definitions are still quite clear even today. Also the problems with making your social and economic decisions based on first principles is that it merely takes away your personal responsibility, as you are following an axiom not conscience, and secondly it is a tool to make cultural and personal prejudices into bits of political dogma, unable to be questioned or debated because they are "self-evident."
There are a number of things wrong with this lecture. The first is that freedom is not a gradient, it is a perspective based on who benefits from a specific policy. For example, Universal Healthcare increases freedom for a majority of citizens, who otherwise cannot afford quality healthcare, however it takes freedom away from the upper class of society who could afford high-quality, class-based healthcare coverage in the form of higher taxes, which means less personal wealth.
@kDest Freedom of choice, in your example, is still taken from beneficiaries of this policy & everyone else. No one's social or economic liberties increase from the policy. Insurance providers lose any incentive to manage risk, and that sentiment passes on to the general public, being that the financial incentive to practice healthy habits goes away. UHC can only lead to a less healthy populace, waste, & lots of easy money for drug corporations & other special interests. It's a net loss.
>>Freedom of choice, in your example, is still taken from beneficiaries of this policy & everyone else
"No Medicine" is not a choice. Freedom of choice only matters when the choices are positive.
>>No one's social or economic liberties increase from the policy
As previously stated, if you are poor or unable to afford medicine, your liberty increases from its availability. Not having coverage is not a choice one can make an argument for. That is entirely the point.
@kDest I think we're using different definitions of "liberty." I don't look at it as the range of things that someone can afford at a particular moment, but rather as the range of actions that someone can legally take with their persons or property. The whole reason healthcare costs so much is precisely because of policies that subsidize its consumption. Virtually any policy that undermines liberty creates a net loss to society, even if certain parties gain. dbmasta@gmail to discuss further
>>I don't look at it as the range of things that someone can afford at a particular moment, but rather as the range of actions that someone can legally take with their persons or property
That is precisely the problem. You need to understand positive and negative liberty, and the perspectives that come with each of them and their application. Property for example is merely one small perspective on freedom. If property were abolished, you could still have a free society, for example.
@kDest Obviously there have to be some limits. Liberty & anarchy are not synonymous. Namely, not being able to take actions that forcibly prevent others from freely choosing what to do with their lives & property. "Positive liberty," however, has to be earned, not forcibly extracted from someone else who has rightly earned it. The right to steal doesn't increase freedom. Eliminating property rights effectively legalizes theft, as does virtually all government intervention in the economy.
Legal freedom is maximized by anarchy, social freedom is minimized by it. A strong government is required to protect peoples social liberty through law.
>>not being able to take actions that forcibly prevent others from freely choosing what to do with their lives & property
There is no present mechanism to do this, and if there were libertarians would be opposed to it because it would require implants, surveillance or brainwashing.
Every liberty comes at the cost of someone else's liberty. The freedom to have accurate information comes at the expense of free speech. The freedom to not be discriminated against because of what you believe requires less religious liberty. The freedom to have clean air and water comes at the expense of a factory owner's freedom to dump waste wherever he pleases. Freedoms contradict each other, and so we choose which ones we want.
Actually, by definition it does. Just as murder is a freedom and so is rape. However we have chosen to suppress these freedoms for the interests of the victims. Murderers, thieves, and rapists however would argue that their liberty was lessened.
>>explain how reducing liberty can create a net gain
Reducing the freedom to kill makes us safer in public. Reducing the freedom to pollute makes air cleaner, and increases health.
>>The whole reason healthcare costs so much is precisely because of policies that subsidize its consumption.
In addition to public healthcare like medicare and medicaid, and the simple fact that any private healthcare system is going to be more expensive for the same quality of service as its public equivalent (profits, remember).
>>Virtually any policy that undermines liberty creates a net loss to society
Liberty doesn't work that way. Liberty is a tradeoff between interests.
@kDest "In addition to public healthcare like medicare and medicaid, and the simple fact that any private healthcare system is going to be more expensive for the same quality of service as its public equivalent (profits, remember)."
Actually, under those systems, the profit is already excessive and is insured by taxes, reducing the incentive for providers to compete on price to gain market share. Are healthcare prices not currently set privately? What change would make them rise?
>>UHC can only lead to a less healthy populace, waste, & lots of easy money for drug corporations & other special interests. It's a net loss.
Except it doesn't and isn't. The industrialized nations of the world which have it outperform us on all levels of medical statistics used to measure a society's health, such as infant mortality. A healthier society is also inherently more productive (I should think this intuitive, besides, but it is measurable anyway).
@kDest That interpretation of the statistics may or may not mean anything about the effectiveness of UHC. Correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation. Americans have very different lifestyle habits when compared to other developed nations, esp regarding diet. This is influenced by various crop subsidies, esp to corn farmers. This leads to (among other things) excess supply of high fructose corn syrup, thus artificially reducing costs of things like soda relative to fresh fruits & veggies.
>>interpretation of the statistics may or may not mean anything about the effectiveness of UHC. Correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation.
That's a very obtuse position to take considering that the United States is behind most of the developed world in healthcare quality, and just about all those ahead of it use public healthcare.
>>Americans have very different lifestyle
Thank lobbyists and advertisers for that.
Our problem is that our government is in the hands of business.
@kDest In your opinion, which CAUSES poor health? A lack of medical attention, or poor health habits & dangerous behavior? I'm all for being healthy (just my personal choice...maybe it's not for everyone), but I don't think universal healthcare attacks the root of health problems, nor should it force the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy. It's also very dangerous since no one really knows what's in those thousands of pages, and like you said, the government is run by business. I agree.
There are hundreds of causes, which I cannot effectively list here. The aim of healthcare is to ameliorate the effects of these.
>>but I don't think universal healthcare attacks the root of health problems
It isn't supposed to. The aim of a service isn't to judge, but provide something. Better health increases productivity, happiness, and makes society just a little bit better for everyone. The only "cost" is the power of insurance companies.
@kDest "Better health is good" depends on the cost of achieving it. Is it worthwhile at any per capita cost to taxpayers? Not to mention the moral cost? Or the reduced competitive pressure on related industries and the associated unfair advantages? Why force everyone into a system when only a tiny fraction are involuntarily uninsured, a further fraction of which are truly at risk? One thing that would prevent the poorest of the poor from staying that way is getting rid of minimum wage.
>>Is it worthwhile at any per capita cost to taxpayers?
Do you think we live in a zone where the laws of physics are different? Because dozens of nations have solved this problem ahead of us. We are WAY behind in healthcare quality in the world. Socialized medicine works. Capitalist healthcare does not.
>>Not to mention the moral cost?
I think only libertarians could agonize over the morality of taxing people as millions remain uninsured, and many die for want of medicine.
@kDest The hard thing about all of this is that we can't run scientific experiments on entire nations. However, having 50 states allows for a degree of experimentation, provided that the states aren't subject to federal mandates. So, if either of us is wrong, then the mistake is that much more widespread. If UHC, or any policy, turns out to be such an unquestionably great idea at a state level, then other states would be pressured to follow suit to stay competitive.
As I already said, the experiment has been run for decades already in other nations. We need to learn from them and implement it here. Your argument is just like the one used against DADT. The people defending it were pretending that suddenly the military would implode without it, even though similar laws were repealed over the last decades in other modern nations.
We have the data, we know how to improve healthcare. We refuse to do so because it hurts insurance companies.
The whole truth is that minimum wage kills jobs because our nation has made it EASY for businesses to export jobs overseas. We have low tariffs on imported goods, we have no restrictions on where those jobs might be located. We do not tax companies that do this. In essence we are making America compete with work conditions in China. Now, unless you want the pollution, sweatshops, and tainted food of China in America, you need to accept minimum wage.
@kDest Raising tariffs on imports hurts the consumer, hurts foreign workers, hurts domestic exporters since foreign workers who were laid off can no longer afford as much, and thus hurts domestic workers. It also may backfire and result in higher tariffs on our exports. Min wage reduces living standards because it prevents production from happening, hence less wealth to go around. It promotes poverty by pricing the least skilled out of the market and keeping them from gaining skills.
You're using fear-based reasoning. The facts are that businesses move their jobs overseas because they want the CHEAPEST labor supply. Not healthiest, not fairest. Our standard of living is enviable to most nations. Unless you want our standard of living to resemble China, etc. you need to de-incentivize the export of jobs. Tariffs are one way of doing this, tax codes are another. Pressuring developing nations to raise standards is another.
@kDest Your "fear-based" comment is a stretch. The word "hurts" is hardly sensational. I'm simply listing the negative results that follow higher import tariffs. I agree that unions can help negotiate market wages where needed. However, MW takes over the targeted approach of unions on specific exploitative firms and hurts all workers who otherwise would work for less than MW, which may be all their employers, perhaps small local business, could justify given the workers' productivity.
You were using unlikely negative consequences to deter acceptance of politics that would harm business interests. This is fear-based.
>>and hurts all workers who otherwise would work for less than MW
Minimum wage is already so low that no one can live off of it. Lower than minimum wage is exploitative. That is the point of minimum wage: creating an artificial bottom that isn't conducive to debt bondage.
@kDest (page 4) In summary, import tariffs only serve to reduce the wealth of the general public. However, certain domestic, less competitive & less efficient producers and their workforce will benefit. So, the policy serves special interests at public expense. Now it's your turn to demonstrate why anything I've said is either "unlikely" or false.
>>Now it's your turn to demonstrate why anything I've said is either "unlikely" or false
Your reasoning is flawed because it relies on a specific line of assumptions to support each other. Markets are organic, they will accommodate change in less absolute ways.
For example, if high tariffs are imposed then that means the exported jobs are not as profitable. Therefore our corporations will invest less in foreign markets and instead will move back here. That means more jobs.
@kDest "Your reasoning is flawed because it relies on a specific line of assumptions" This is true, but can you show why the assumptions are wrong? The underlying assumptions are based on basic laws of supply/demand. The trade barriers/price controls established by tariffs create clear incentives with predictable consequences, which I've shown. You're overlooking the NET effect on jobs. I agree that certain protected exporters will be able to hire more, but at what cost?
Conversely, foreign markets will see a rise in unemployment, before new businesses pop up to take in these workers. If the rest of the west follows our lead with tariffs, then foreign economies will be less meshed together and more self-reliant (local businesses as opposed to multinationals). Unemployment would lower in that case, and living standards might increase because the businesses will rest in the hands of the foreigners, not our own businessmen who don't care.
@kDest "before new businesses pop up to take in these workers." Why will new business pop up? Why haven't they shown up already, and if they have, why haven't they been able to attract local workers away from the multinationals' factories? Living standards have already increased thanks to sweatshops. The fact that those workers voluntarily accept such jobs shows that the alternatives were worse. I'm all for local business thriving too, but how will tariffs somehow bring that about?
Obstinance with respect to change always opens up new niches for rivals. People who fight progress and social equality deserve to go under for having an archaic business model.
>>Why haven't they shown up already
The law and poverty in those areas attracts exploitative businesses. Therefore that is what you find.
>>Living standards have already increased thanks to sweatshops
You are making a superficial argument. The slightly increased wages
@kDest For people that are flagging kDest's comments, please stop. Let there be discussion. Don't you support freedom?
I agree that SOME governments insufficiently protect its citizens from the use of force. I don't support any FORCED labor, as is only the case in certain instances.
Speaking of taking variations into account, have you considered the likelihood of retaliatory tariffs and their consequences? Either way, efficient production is hampered, limiting wealth everywhere.
will increase quality of life slightly. However they stay that way because sweatshops need desperately poor workers to both maintain profit margins and a desperate workforce that will not revolt.
>>but how will tariffs somehow bring that about
It will make it unprofitable for our businesses to set up factories overseas. They will have to obey our laws instead of bypassing them on foreign soil. Our laws protect workers.
As for our own consumers, living costs may indeed rise. It depends on whether the good is recreated within the US or remains an imported product. If it is recreated, that means more industry and jobs, and thus more wealth flowing in the economy. It's possible that industries will leave the US. In that case they will be recreated.
This is just one scenario, but note my use of conditions. My reasoning is less confined to single assumptions, it takes into account variations.
@kDest "If it is recreated, that means more industry and jobs, and thus more wealth flowing in the economy." No it doesn't, because the industry and jobs that do arise come at a greater loss of others. The tariff effectively subsidizes comparatively less efficient producers to do what they otherwise would be doing at a loss. When a business operates at a loss, that indicates it is wasting resources, rather than putting them to better uses. What you are unwittingly supporting is waste.
@kDest (page 3) 3) How it hurts domestic exporters: Due to reason #2, foreigners have less income with which to consume US goods. 4) How it hurts domestic workers: Due to reason #1, consumers who wish to maintain their living standards by continuing to buy the same amount of goods (that are now affected by tariffs) will have less money left to spend domestically, thus reducing demand domestically, thus reducing employers' demand for workers. Same thing follows due to reason #3. (next)
@kDest (page 2) If the product is being produced less competitively in the US before tariffs, then the tariff will still force consumers to pay more for it, even if they're buying it here. 2) How it hurts foreign workers: Duh. Foreign exporters who enjoyed US demand prior to tariffs making their products too cost-prohibitive for US consumers to buy will experience a drop in demand, which will reduce employers’ demand for workers who get fired and lose income. (next)
@kDest Since you believe the negative consequences of increased tariffs on imports that I listed are "unlikely", I will gladly explain exactly why they are VERY likely, if not GUARANTEED. Then we will discover your degree of intellectual dishonesty based on your response. 1) How it hurts domestic consumers: they must pay more to get the same product from overseas. If that product was already being produced competitively in the US, then tariffs wouldn't affect demand here. (next)
I'm more free than any of you fuckers ever will be, I'm an individual, i don't have a label. Enjoy your pointless debate.
GoodFightUploads 1 day ago
@GoodFightUploads Evidently, "Doc Atomic" there doesn't get the whole point of propaganda, social reconstruction and bottom basement behaviour modification he teaches. The scary part is that they ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY. We should use the motto for them- "Shyster v. Huckster" or "How I shouldn't have listened to carpet-bagging social-cohesive kooks."
TheCaptainSlappy 1 day ago
Conservatives do not say "Mandatory" prayer in schools. Dufus :)
Teapartyla 2 days ago in playlist Political Science Playlist
hold it, hold it, hold it. Is it a foreign goat?
Oukimuni 4 days ago
This touches a base but it is favoring certain things over others. It misses the fact that this is even a part of perpetual political theatre. I understand the argument, but it completely ignores that business plays its own role in this scenario. The government should not be working more so for business, enforcing its will as a monarchy. And constitutional democracy is far from communism. If you define socialism, they both qualify.
hybridmcgee 6 days ago
Comment removed
JaxTheStallion 6 days ago
Dichotomies are a really bad labeling system for making any decision. It requires that you take abstract and flowing concepts, ideas with many more influences, and place them into two brick walled categories. As a species we need to stop this, it's getting worse with each generation save the last (who seem to be breaking from that).
KittenKoder 1 week ago
No nation, in the history of mankind (that I can think of), have been successful by governing by ideology alone.
More / Less freedom is just another two dimensional scale between totalitarianism and anarchy and IMHO, adds little to the discussion. Avoiding a discussion on issue and the practical effects on policy in favor of "principles" is a interesting philosophical discussion, but development of practical policy is not that easy.
The real world requires compromises.
henleythecat 1 week ago
To the people who think there aren't any conservatives who want compulsory prayer in schools, take a look at everyone running for the GOP nomination, now look at the people who aren't named Ron Paul, there you go.
mikedamat 1 week ago
Shut up and just enjoy the input.
love you bros
DeadHappyFilm 1 week ago
Conservatives don't want mandatory prayer, what a load of horse crap. All we want is the freedom for kids to pray in school, so long as they aren't being disruptive or distracting. Trying to tell someone they can't pray is just insanity, as would be mandatory prayer. Mainstream conservativism today is starting to lean toward Classical Liberalism, which is Maximum freedom through limited government. It's not there yet, but there is a lot of overlap.
Smullet90 1 week ago
It doesn't matter if they say they are liberal or conservative, almost all politician want to take away your freedoms in one way or another.
Ron Paul 2012!
wqwwqwqqpoppopoo 2 weeks ago
this is such a lame explanation i think it will lower your iq, but it probably got him tenure
daddiosgarage 3 weeks ago
In short, Libertarians are for more freedoms. You know, people our media and corporations are afraid of, like Ron Paul.
badluckwitcarpet 3 weeks ago
Your political scale has a Big government big spender like George Bush to the right of Jefferson the Father of Democracy… lol I hope that is just a random scale because George Bush is hardly a conservative and certainly with his Patriot act and Dept of Edu no Libertarian he would be on the left of Jefferson and he would be slightly right from Mcain.
TyZi187 3 weeks ago in playlist Political Science Playlist
He mentions universal health care as a freedom issue, but I think it's more complicated than he lets on. In most countries health care is already universal, as there is a mandate that someone needing urgent care cannot be denied it regardless of their insurance or ability to pay. Requiring the purchase of insurance is designed to force everyone to pay for the health care that is already available to them.
maemorri 3 weeks ago
If people don't have healthcare, then their right to life is being violated. That is why the right to healthcare is the most important right that government can grant. In America, we don't have this right. America is not a free country.
MortimerTheClueless 4 weeks ago
@MortimerTheClueless Says the person who believes in outlawing bacon and donuts as well as locking up and forcing medication on those who disagree. I suppose that's a free country?
2411Hellokitty 4 weeks ago
@MortimerTheClueless There is no such thing as "rights" they are privileges you earn from living in a land, they can be taken away with ease, and nothing should have the "right" to live, anyway, as that would go against nature itself. Any idea that attempts to go beyond our upbringings, nature, is blatantly a bad idea, or a scam.
piemonkey321 3 weeks ago
@MortimerTheClueless By giving someone the "right" to healthcare, you are saying that they have the right to other people's services regardless of whether or not those people want to provide those services or not. That is not freedom.
jabencarterinsurance 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
rascalz819 1 month ago
Thumbs up for replacing Thomas Jefferson's photo with Ron Paul's...The Two are practically Twins!
killlagger468 1 month ago 2
@killlagger468 No offense to Ron Paul but i wouldn't dare compare any politician to our founding fathers. They didn't just risk their careers in what they believed in, they risked their very own lives.
Mezey5 1 month ago
@Mezey5 Your right, altho its sorta hard to ignore the truth that Ron Paul is the only Veteran in this Presidential race who was drafted in the Military with a wife and two kids... so no he didnt just risk his career mind you, he risked his life and his family.
killlagger468 3 weeks ago
though i do think universal health care is a good thing no matter what he says
kwe19772002 1 month ago
thats also a conservative is labeling people calling them liars and stupid and other names because they no liberals are for freedom unlike you authoritarian conservatives
wikipedia.Socialist_Reich_Party .wikipedia.Socialist_Reich_Party look at that article both will tell you that the Nazis were conservative if you read the article
kwe19772002 1 month ago
The real political positions break down into "Authoritarian"...either left or Right...or "Libertarian". The former is anyone who wants to force someone else to do something against their free will...the latter respects everyone else's right to do what they want with their lives and property free from force. Pretty simple really.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
This guy is a moron. He has no clue what Conservatism is. He's mislabeled it enough to honestly refer to him as a Liar.
Conservatives = LESS Government
Conservatives don't want "Mandatory school prayer, they just want everyone to leave them alone. However Mandatory Pledge of Allegiance would be great.
Conservatives = Less Taxes.
Conservatives = More Freedoms.
Conservatives = More Social Freedoms.
Conservatives = More Economic Freedoms.
AesopsRetreat 1 month ago
@AesopsRetreat I kinda agree on every point with you except "more social freedom". Thats just not true. Furthermore you sound liek an ass.
TheRedLuigi 1 month ago
@AesopsRetreat I agree that by the actual definition of conservative (Conserving the Constitutional values set by the founders), conservative means less government. But nowadays, those claiming to be "conservative" are part of the neo-conservative movement that is ultra-nationalistic and trumpets huge military power and limiting social freedom. The media addresses neo-cons as conservatives in order to lure us into a false dichotomy in which both sides limit freedom.
Waltonruler5 1 month ago
@AesopsRetreat "Mandatory Pledge of Allegiance would be great"??
O.o
WTF!
WoodCroftwoodcroft 1 month ago
@AesopsRetreat
That's more of a libertarian philosophy, I.E. no gay marriage = less social freedom
yuothineyesasian 1 month ago
@AesopsRetreat He isn't using the word "conservative" in its traditional sense. He is employing the modern usage of the word. We may use the word 'neocon' as an equivolent. By the traditional definition of "conservative", Bush would not qualify. But if you ask anyone today if Bush is a conservative, they will say yes. This man isn't an idiot. He is pointing out how the terms liberal and conservative are ambiguous while the phrases 'more freedom' and 'less freedom' are much more clear.
RonTakeOne 1 month ago 15
@RonTakeOne In a sense there is ambiguity in the whole "more freedom" "less freedom" deal. Take the minimum wage issue for instance. While requiring businesses to pay a minimum wage so that we don't go back to the way workers used to be treated, we are limiting that business' rights, but we also offer imperative and fair economic provisions for a whole class of people who are just getting on their feet. Doesn't that open them up to enjoy new freedoms? "More Freedom" is still dialectical
becanshrman 5 hours ago
Totally wrong picture of liberal and conservative policy is drawn from Webster definition. This immediately turns this video into someone's baseless opinion.
vibisoft 1 month ago
@vibisoft
Did you stop at that point? He doesn't really talk about the definitions at all. He talks about people's general beliefs within the Democrat or Republican party.
TheClosestcontinuer 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
Well that's it, I'm voting Jefferson.
westpsmity 1 month ago
Jefferson, just left of Bush... hahaha. Right.
ibringthereals 1 month ago 3
Mandatory prayer!?? That is not a conservative issue...
RougeSamurai77 1 month ago 27
@RougeSamurai77
It is for many Christian conservatives.
yuothineyesasian 1 month ago
@yuothineyesasian I have yet to meet one who does.
RougeSamurai77 1 month ago
@RougeSamurai77 I've met many. Have you really never met a person who has said that "We need to bring God back into our schools" , Really?
I've heard it many times from far right christian conservatives. And they don't mean any God, they mean their God.
yuothineyesasian 1 month ago
@yuothineyesasian What does that have to do with forcing people to pray?
RougeSamurai77 1 month ago
@RougeSamurai77 it has been in the past...
1337flight 3 weeks ago
@RougeSamurai77 The elimination of certain religions to favor Biblical teachings doesn't happen?
residentzombie 1 week ago
@residentzombie What does that have to do with mandatory prayer?
RougeSamurai77 1 week ago
@RougeSamurai77 Maybe not, but it's a GOP issue if you ask Rick Santorum, who is doing fairly well, and the GOP claims for themselves to be the conservative party...
semperFi4ever100 2 days ago
@RougeSamurai77 why did you point out that liberals aren't trying to ban anyone from praying in public schools? We just don't want any form of institutionalized religion. The way he generalized your issue was just as oversimplified as the way he generalized ours. I hope I am correct in presuming that you are a conservative :]
becanshrman 5 hours ago
@becanshrman Depends on your definition.
RougeSamurai77 4 hours ago
I get it. Intensifying the wealth gap allows for greater economic freedom. Minimum wage and universal health care are both tools of economic oppression. Thanks for educating me, Mr. Freedom Man.
bigevilcorporation 1 month ago
Yeah...let's all just stop paying taxes so that our infrastructure and education can fall apart. Might as well just move to Somalia.
Numbuh7 1 month ago
@Numbuh7 hmm you do know that the revolution happened due to many reasons.. cheif among them is taxes. We now pay more in taxes than the start of the Revolutionary War. I say shrink the Federal government.. let them beg the states and citizens for money.. instead of us begging and hoping to get back that which was ours to begin with. Imagine everyone having to write checks to the government (vs automatic payroll tax).. what would they get away with then? I dare say far less..
conradpilapil 1 month ago
absolutism, is that really a healthy and logical stance on anything?
masluxx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All of this makes great sense - up until the conclusion that is. That part is just a giant leap, and a very subjective prescription.
If you chop the last 20 seconds off, this is a great video; thoroughly "academic" in the best sense.
But with the last couple of sentences on there? It's little better than propaganda, deeply mired in political agenda.
TrustMeScience 2 months ago
Comment removed
TrustMeScience 2 months ago
Down with the 2party system.
jeff4justice 2 months ago
He makes a very eloquent argument. However, he falls into a fallacy I have seen many times. He is redefining the terms "conservative" and 'liberal" to match his argument, then comparing them to the colloquial meanings.
MegaLazygamer 2 months ago
@MegaLazygamer He defined the terms according to what they mean via Webster's dictionary. Then placed issues on a chart based on what people believe they are. The only fallacy I see is ignoring Webster's dictionary.
jackie8mccall 2 months ago
@jackie8mccall He may have defined the terms by way of the dictionary, but he interpreted those definitions in such a way to support his argument. Did you notice the part where he redefined the terms to "more freedom," and "less freedom?" That is redefining the definitions and the fallacy I was noting.
MegaLazygamer 2 months ago
@MegaLazygamer you realize that change came with a change in the locations of the issues. He didn't say Liberals want more freedom, instead he said that you can classify those same issues in a very different way.
pinkd0g145 1 month ago
marry a goat?
mook5555 2 months ago
@ydna9 "Freedom" is a loaded word. One can look at purely property rights and say that universal health care is restricting freedom. However, when one looks at the right to life, anything other than universal healthcare could be considered an infringement upon the rights of citizens. The libertarians enjoy painting "freedom" in very black and white terms when in reality it is in shades of gray. One must give up some rights in order to establish others. This is how it has always been.
Giftoftruth 2 months ago
@Giftoftruth the right to life is the right to compete for life. You don't have the right to other people's hard work just because you're alive. The right to life could just mean "we won't kill you," not "we are required to keep you alive." Otherwise, dieing would be illegal. Freedom is a very clear and non-paradoxical concept, it sounds more like "rights" are what is drawing "grayness" for you. Re-read your own post for clarification and proof of that.
ydnab9 2 months ago
@ydnab9
>>the right to life is the right to compete for life
If you want to live in a survivalist "social darwinism" experiment, move to the wilderness and don't take anything from us.
The rest of us accept that to live in a society is to make compromises with each other, and protect each other for the common welfare of everyone. The thought of leaving people to die is disgusting, and that is why our society is this way. We fight to protect the vulnerable.
kDest 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lengo67 Actually they only want the people that work hard enough to earn healthcare to have it. Libertarians don't think any person can decide who that is, they leave it up to nature.
ydnab9 2 months ago
Comment removed
ydnab9 2 months ago
Universal health care is less freedom because you are forcing certain people to pay for it for everyone. Freedom would let you decide to pay for your own and whoever else's health care you want to. If someone were to offer cheap health care they would profit from being open to the most customers, catering t only the rich is not as profitable. Living is expensive, it takes hard work. No one should be required to do that work for you. You also cannot just artificially lower its cost.
ydnab9 2 months ago
@ydnab9 Yes, you would have the freedom to get healthcare. But if you can't afford it, how does that matter? Why don't we instead give everyone to freedom to receive healthcare?
brettisrad 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brettisrad You answered you're own question. "you would have the freedom to get healthcare," "instead give everyone to freedom to receive healthcare." There is a difference between giving someone the freedom to buy something, and buying it for them. And don't forget, if you were to "just give" everyone healthcare, who pays for the doctors' food? How about their education, the tools they use, the electricity they consume, the medicine and the development of it they depend on?
ydnab9 2 months ago
@ydnab9 Universal health care systems do not result in increased costs at the population level. Preventative care is much more efficient than palliative care, which can and will otherwise be subsidized by everyone else (via raising prices) when the $165,000 in medical bills go unpaid by someone physically disabled with net negative assets. That's why many hospitals can barely make ends meet, even when they're charging folks $53 for 2 latex gloves, $140 for 1 Tylenol, or $1,000 for a toothbrush.
MaTrIx734 2 months ago
@dackmont Because whether one is forced to buy something or is simply on the recieving end of something that someone else was forced to buy for them, somone was less free (with their resources) as a result. Anything the government mandates is done through force and therefore takes freedom away....
Disclaimer: I am a teacher that makes less than $22,000 a year. I work 55 hour weeks and I do not have healthcare.
The truth is the truth, regardless of income or social status. Truth.
bmccall11 2 months ago
Universal health care is less freedom? LESS?
To paraphrase Madeline Albright, what good is health care if you don't use it?
Is health care only for the rich?
Once again, LearnLiberty takes liberty with logic. They twist it to get others to join the Libertarian party. LearnLiberty is twisted and their intent is to twist you too. C'mon, LearnLiberty! Call yourselves Libertarians. Libertarians think our govt is coercive. Obviously, they mentally ill and are traitors.
Lengo67 2 months ago
@Lengo67 Only a mentally ill person would associate an academic debate on youtube with the term "traitor"
tramplerofarmies 2 months ago
He confused universal health care with mandatory privatized health care.
Burns12009 2 months ago 2
@Burns12009 How is it different? Both are monopolistic.
tramplerofarmies 2 months ago
@tramplerofarmies
One is privatized and one is not. One is effective and the other is not. And neither of them are monopolistic when you free yourself of idiotic right wing dogma. One you are forced to participate in a market which you may or may not normally participate in and the other there is no market. Pretty simple, because in reality people don't do much in the way of "choosing" their healthcare. They take what their employer offers and decide if that want shit coverage or half decent.
Burns12009 1 month ago
If you don't know what Ron Paul's platform is I encourage everyone to check it out, and decide for yourself. He is a Libertarian, but he has to run on the republican ticket, because we really have no third party that has the most rational values.
SupaFlyTNTRocknRolla 2 months ago
I find this a very helpful video
bodinian 2 months ago
Neither of them do.
Liberals and Conservatives (I mean in the sene of Repubs and Dems) support freedom when it helps their agenda, and aren't concerned with it when it doesn't.
heatbucspies55 2 months ago 2
Mandatory prayer? Come on, that's a straw man argument. Conservative don't believe prayer should be mandatory, but allowed if one chooses to do so, teacher or student.
ChrisLong1980 2 months ago
@ChrisLong1980 True they just throw that out there to brand us as religious nuts
anonymousguitarguy 2 months ago
@ChrisLong1980 And prohibited prayer is also a straw man argument, Liberals don't want to "abolish religion", liberals simply believe that one should have the freedom to believe what they want how they want and simultaneously not be forced to follow the practices of a believe you yourself don't follow. I agree with you the the "mandatory prayer" thing is just plain goofy, but don't forget to look at both sides of the argument.
WastingDeath 2 months ago
@ChrisLong1980 many conservatives don't believe this, but if you went to someone and asked which political party would support mandatory prayer, you would most often be pointed towards conservatives. The far right, and I mean the really far right, often supports this, while the more moderate do not.
It's definitely not a liberal issue, so in our two party political system, it's must therefore be conservative.
pinkd0g145 1 month ago
@pinkd0g145 uhmm.. wrong.. we believe we should be able to pray in a public place (like school) without issue. We, however, would never ask for a mandatory prayer.. because we conservatives believe also in the Constitution. Therefore, we shall make no law establishing or prohibiting religion..
Note to you.. first know what conservatives believe before trying to speak for us.
conradpilapil 1 month ago
@conradpilapil If you read my comment you would realize i was walking about the super conservatives. Obviously you are not a super conservative and therefore you do't believe in obligatory prayer. But some conservatives would argue that prayer in school like that before the Supreme Court decisions should be allowed.
I'm not trying to start some debate because we both know political debates never work. Neither side will ever change their mind.
pinkd0g145 1 month ago
@pinkd0g145 I agree that those types of people exist.. (that would say mandatory prayer is good).. however, I will contend those are not conservatives. Much like (and I hope we agree) the Westboro Baptist Church is not Christianity. Even my atheist friends can see the difference in them vs me.
conradpilapil 1 month ago
"the wrong place to start is with the effect of these things on people"...I get he's trying to make a point about having consistency in one's political views but placing the theoretical above the real in all cases seems wrong.
123RobertDarakjianx 2 months ago
neither, search liberTARianism not liberalism
subscribefori 2 months ago
Your boss in this system is essentially a de facto government, thus liberal issues, while appearing to be pro-government by placing limits to business owners are actually attempting to LIMIT governence.
pantheon777 2 months ago
CTHULHU 2012
WVWVWVWWVVW 3 months ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
How will you sort out the options when you vote? I suggest that before you get caught up with anyone, including Obama, et al that you FIRST go to this web page (Get - The - Book . com) and grab a copy of a great book that few folks know about, read it, and then vote in a manner that will actually get this country a good President.
TMIAmerica 3 months ago
Def of liberal is of classic liberalism rather than progressive liberalism. Also, there is a huge presumption about a lot of the "issues" (which aren't actually issues, merely topics, but don't describe the positions which make them "liberal" or "conservative"). With this incredibly over-generalization of liberalism, as well and the lack of defined issues, I think that a Prof. from Duquesne should be focused maybe more on theology than economic theory.
tim12crl 3 months ago 3
@tim12crl I bet you're not a computer programmer.
OhMyGoog 2 months ago
@tim12crl In American politics, these issues are pretty much universal...
The whole point of this demonstration was to target the over generalization that goes on, focusing on the resulting confusion of citizens when they try to align their philosophical presuppositions with a political party.
what does theology have to do with anything? there was no moralism... this is just good ol’ semantics. it is looking at the central themes in political issues and correlating them with economic ideas.
jonescomplete 2 months ago
@jonescomplete I agree the issues are universal, but the definitions by which the lecturer is using to establish issues as belonging to one camp (conservative camp or liberal camp). He's using a overly basic dichotomous (just as is comparing issues on the basis of whether they're liberal or conservative) on establishing what is "more free" and "less free." I don't think he's being less confusing, but just redefining the terms of an incorrect methodology.
tim12crl 2 months ago
@jonescomplete As for theology, he's a prof at a a Catholic University (I'm Catholic and I there's def. a slant on which the tenants of religiosity defines "more" and "less freedom").
tim12crl 2 months ago
you know what else is not very useful. classinfing your idelogy, libertarian, as the truth when it benefits wallstreet.
imaginepeace63 3 months ago
@imaginepeace63 Oh dear, please stop talking before you make yourself look like more of an idiot. Wall Street benefits from corporatism (i.e. TARP, which democrats including Obama flocked in droves to vote for to an even greater extent than the GOP), as well as the barriers to entry created by regulations, tariffs, taxes, and subsidies. Libertarians, unlike liberals, understand that the wealth disparity you keep bitching about was CAUSED BY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE MARKET.
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 3 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES The government did not blow up the Applachian mountians for coal. The government is not using fracking to get natural gass which makes water flamable. The government did not make a mess in the gulf of Mexico. The government is not making the pesticide, Gaucho, to protect Monsanto farms which are killing bees.The private secotr did.
imaginepeace63 3 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES Idiots believe the Reagan lies that the free market can police itself. If you are right why is the Occupy movement spreading all over the world and the Tea Party losing steam? I am not the one that is a shee to wallstreet. I am not the one that is drinking Koch-a cola (Koch Brother). I am not a wallstreet cheerleader. YOU ARE!!
imaginepeace63 3 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES Wh is it when the conservatives "shrink ogvernment" as they call it with privatizing they are actually increasing freedom for the rich and shrinking freedom for the middle class and the poor? How come trickle down economics never works? The democrats that voted for TARP were conservative democrats not the liberal ones. You should read the vote and realixze that Obama is not a liberal. He is a conservative democrat.
imaginepeace63 3 months ago
@imaginepeace63
>>Wh is it when the conservatives "shrink ogvernment" as they call it with privatizing they are actually increasing freedom for the rich and shrinking freedom for the middle class and the poor?
Simple. Republicans want small government so that business can be unaccountable, massive, and able to eclipse it in power. Then we will be ruled by a plutocracy who uses the government as its arms, instead of the people as was originally intended.
kDest 2 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES
>>Wall Street benefits from corporatism
Corporatism is capitalism. When you try to distance yourself from corporatism while advocating for capitalism you sound peculiarly like the religious demagogues who denounce Catholicism and advocate Protestantism in its wake.
>>Libertarians, unlike liberals, understand that the wealth disparity you keep bitching about
Capitalism necessarily leads to income disparity. That is why its biggest cheerleaders are the wealthy aristocracy.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest
"Corporatism is capitalism."
That's abjectly false. Corporatism is a system where government protects the interests of certain businesses with political connections, creating a monopolistic environment where artificially large wealth disparities are bound to occur. In a free market, government gives preferential treatment to no one and businesses succeed or fail on their on merit. You provided no facts upon which to base your assertion, so I'll assume you to be a clueless quasi-communist.
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 2 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES
>>That's abjectly false.
No true Scotsman fallacy. Corporatism is a subset of capitalism.
>>Corporatism is a system...In a free market...
This reminds me of theological discussions. "In Catholicism, the Church chooses dogma from above. In Protestantism, the people read the Bible in a straightforward manner and choose a relationship with Christ. It's totally different."
Put another way you can't argue that corporatism isn't capitalism, and are just repeating items of dogma.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest If you want to make an assertion, you need facts to back it up if you want to to be credible. You haven't done this. Making an arbitrary comparison between two sects of a religion and trying to apply that to economics is irrelevant and inapplicable because you haven't yet established why corporatism and capitalism are the same thing beyond mindlessly asserting it. Replace the word "capitalism" with "socialism" in each of your posts and the argument makes just as much sense.
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 2 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES
>>you need facts to back it up if you want to to be credible
You made rudimentary errors in definition. If you doubt me, look it up.
>>Making an arbitrary comparison
It isn't arbitrary or inapplicable. It is a prosaic comparison designed to highlight your reliance on dogma over reason.
>>you haven't yet established why corporatism and capitalism are the same thing
I thought it was obvious enough, but very well. Capitalism is a monetary system characterized by...
kDest 2 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES
Merchants having direct control over prices in trade, with the means of production owned as private property, with market interactions driving the economy.
Corporatism is all of this in addition to business interests being represented in government. So when you say "free market capitalism is better" you are missing the point that corporatism DERIVED from free-market capitalism.
>>Replace the word
You apparently do not understand the categorical differences between them.
kDest 2 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES
>>so I'll assume you to be a clueless quasi-communist
Case in point. Silly beliefs like yours always have these points of dogma "My economic system is superior to X because (it works on paper) and (government is evil)" and when they fail you resort to personal attacks.
>>All systems where any transactions occur lead to disparities in income
Actually not. Disparity happens when the they are unequal. When this happens egregiously, capitalism calls it a speculative bubble.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest (continued)
"Case in point."
Capitalism doesn't work? Do you understand why you can buy a loaf of bread for $2 and not $20, or why you can afford a computer with which to go on the internet and denounce the very system that brought it to you?
"...when they are unequal."
If you're willing to pay me $5 for something that took me $2 to make, I'm not swindling you out of $3. Is that what you think? I'm trying to understand your position on pricing, but so far you haven't said much.
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 2 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES
>>Capitalism doesn't work?
Name a single purely capitalist economy that is in any way successful. Every economy is managed at some level (a mixed economy of capitalism and government ownership or regulation of the means of production).
>>I'm not swindling you out of $3
No, you are contributing to the business cycle which haunts capitalism.
>>I'm trying to understand your position on pricing
Capitalism uses subjective pricing which causes bubbles. That is what I was saying.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest At this point, I don't care enough to answer three of your ignorant comments. Contributing to the business cycle IS capitalism. All pricing is subjective. Hong Kong and Singapore have the closest systems to free markets, and their GDPs are the highest in Asia, factoring in population differences, and among the highest per capita in the world. The trend you'll notice when looking at the Human Poverty Index is that the most economically free countries are also the most prosperous.
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 2 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES
>>I don't care enough to answer three of your ignorant comments
They defy your dogma.
>>Contributing to the business cycle IS capitalism
Obviously. That is why we have the Federal Reserve.
>>All pricing is subjective
Not really. Only under capitalism.
>>Hong Kong and Singapore have the closest systems to free markets
Completely wrong. Do your homework. Government heavily interferes in their markets. HK heavily taxes cars for example, SG has universal healthcare.
kDest 2 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES
>>The trend you'll notice when looking at the Human Poverty Index is that the most economically free countries are also the most prosperous
Not really. The nations which make it at the top by many different measures (lack of poverty, healthcare, corruption, etc.) are all hybrid economies with regulated capitalism. The United States hardly makes it near the top anymore, with European states usually passing it.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest
(continued)
"Capitalism necessarily leads to income disparity."
All systems where any transactions occur lead to disparities in income, you ignoramus. Do you think everyone in Greece makes the same amount of money? Are you advocating a system where doctors and fast food cashiers earn the same income?
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES
>>Do you think everyone in Greece makes the same amount of money?
What's this have to do with anything?
>>Are you advocating a system where doctors and fast food cashiers earn the same income?
You might want to study Marxism before you try attacking it with silly arguments like this one. You only reveal ignorance. Marxism (by which communist strains implement themselves) posits income distribution proportional to the amount of work you do.
kDest 2 months ago
Which is entirely what this lecture is really, the speaker's points of dogma informing his critique of liberalism and conservatism.
kDest 3 months ago
Conservativism versus Liberalism is muddled by pundits and moneyed interest groups, the core definitions are still quite clear even today. Also the problems with making your social and economic decisions based on first principles is that it merely takes away your personal responsibility, as you are following an axiom not conscience, and secondly it is a tool to make cultural and personal prejudices into bits of political dogma, unable to be questioned or debated because they are "self-evident."
kDest 3 months ago
There are a number of things wrong with this lecture. The first is that freedom is not a gradient, it is a perspective based on who benefits from a specific policy. For example, Universal Healthcare increases freedom for a majority of citizens, who otherwise cannot afford quality healthcare, however it takes freedom away from the upper class of society who could afford high-quality, class-based healthcare coverage in the form of higher taxes, which means less personal wealth.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest Freedom of choice, in your example, is still taken from beneficiaries of this policy & everyone else. No one's social or economic liberties increase from the policy. Insurance providers lose any incentive to manage risk, and that sentiment passes on to the general public, being that the financial incentive to practice healthy habits goes away. UHC can only lead to a less healthy populace, waste, & lots of easy money for drug corporations & other special interests. It's a net loss.
dbmasta 3 months ago
@dbmasta
>>Freedom of choice, in your example, is still taken from beneficiaries of this policy & everyone else
"No Medicine" is not a choice. Freedom of choice only matters when the choices are positive.
>>No one's social or economic liberties increase from the policy
As previously stated, if you are poor or unable to afford medicine, your liberty increases from its availability. Not having coverage is not a choice one can make an argument for. That is entirely the point.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest I think we're using different definitions of "liberty." I don't look at it as the range of things that someone can afford at a particular moment, but rather as the range of actions that someone can legally take with their persons or property. The whole reason healthcare costs so much is precisely because of policies that subsidize its consumption. Virtually any policy that undermines liberty creates a net loss to society, even if certain parties gain. dbmasta@gmail to discuss further
dbmasta 3 months ago
@dbmasta
>>I don't look at it as the range of things that someone can afford at a particular moment, but rather as the range of actions that someone can legally take with their persons or property
That is precisely the problem. You need to understand positive and negative liberty, and the perspectives that come with each of them and their application. Property for example is merely one small perspective on freedom. If property were abolished, you could still have a free society, for example.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest Obviously there have to be some limits. Liberty & anarchy are not synonymous. Namely, not being able to take actions that forcibly prevent others from freely choosing what to do with their lives & property. "Positive liberty," however, has to be earned, not forcibly extracted from someone else who has rightly earned it. The right to steal doesn't increase freedom. Eliminating property rights effectively legalizes theft, as does virtually all government intervention in the economy.
dbmasta 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>Liberty & anarchy are not synonymous
Legal freedom is maximized by anarchy, social freedom is minimized by it. A strong government is required to protect peoples social liberty through law.
>>not being able to take actions that forcibly prevent others from freely choosing what to do with their lives & property
There is no present mechanism to do this, and if there were libertarians would be opposed to it because it would require implants, surveillance or brainwashing.
kDest 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>has to be earned, not forcibly extracted
Every liberty comes at the cost of someone else's liberty. The freedom to have accurate information comes at the expense of free speech. The freedom to not be discriminated against because of what you believe requires less religious liberty. The freedom to have clean air and water comes at the expense of a factory owner's freedom to dump waste wherever he pleases. Freedoms contradict each other, and so we choose which ones we want.
kDest 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>The right to steal doesn't increase freedom
Actually, by definition it does. Just as murder is a freedom and so is rape. However we have chosen to suppress these freedoms for the interests of the victims. Murderers, thieves, and rapists however would argue that their liberty was lessened.
>>explain how reducing liberty can create a net gain
Reducing the freedom to kill makes us safer in public. Reducing the freedom to pollute makes air cleaner, and increases health.
kDest 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>The whole reason healthcare costs so much is precisely because of policies that subsidize its consumption.
In addition to public healthcare like medicare and medicaid, and the simple fact that any private healthcare system is going to be more expensive for the same quality of service as its public equivalent (profits, remember).
>>Virtually any policy that undermines liberty creates a net loss to society
Liberty doesn't work that way. Liberty is a tradeoff between interests.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest "In addition to public healthcare like medicare and medicaid, and the simple fact that any private healthcare system is going to be more expensive for the same quality of service as its public equivalent (profits, remember)."
Actually, under those systems, the profit is already excessive and is insured by taxes, reducing the incentive for providers to compete on price to gain market share. Are healthcare prices not currently set privately? What change would make them rise?
dbmasta 2 months ago
@kDest
Also, please explain how reducing liberty can create a net gain in society, if that's what you're implying.
dbmasta 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>UHC can only lead to a less healthy populace, waste, & lots of easy money for drug corporations & other special interests. It's a net loss.
Except it doesn't and isn't. The industrialized nations of the world which have it outperform us on all levels of medical statistics used to measure a society's health, such as infant mortality. A healthier society is also inherently more productive (I should think this intuitive, besides, but it is measurable anyway).
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest That interpretation of the statistics may or may not mean anything about the effectiveness of UHC. Correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation. Americans have very different lifestyle habits when compared to other developed nations, esp regarding diet. This is influenced by various crop subsidies, esp to corn farmers. This leads to (among other things) excess supply of high fructose corn syrup, thus artificially reducing costs of things like soda relative to fresh fruits & veggies.
dbmasta 3 months ago
@dbmasta
>>interpretation of the statistics may or may not mean anything about the effectiveness of UHC. Correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation.
That's a very obtuse position to take considering that the United States is behind most of the developed world in healthcare quality, and just about all those ahead of it use public healthcare.
>>Americans have very different lifestyle
Thank lobbyists and advertisers for that.
Our problem is that our government is in the hands of business.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest In your opinion, which CAUSES poor health? A lack of medical attention, or poor health habits & dangerous behavior? I'm all for being healthy (just my personal choice...maybe it's not for everyone), but I don't think universal healthcare attacks the root of health problems, nor should it force the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy. It's also very dangerous since no one really knows what's in those thousands of pages, and like you said, the government is run by business. I agree.
dbmasta 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>which CAUSES poor health
There are hundreds of causes, which I cannot effectively list here. The aim of healthcare is to ameliorate the effects of these.
>>but I don't think universal healthcare attacks the root of health problems
It isn't supposed to. The aim of a service isn't to judge, but provide something. Better health increases productivity, happiness, and makes society just a little bit better for everyone. The only "cost" is the power of insurance companies.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest "Better health is good" depends on the cost of achieving it. Is it worthwhile at any per capita cost to taxpayers? Not to mention the moral cost? Or the reduced competitive pressure on related industries and the associated unfair advantages? Why force everyone into a system when only a tiny fraction are involuntarily uninsured, a further fraction of which are truly at risk? One thing that would prevent the poorest of the poor from staying that way is getting rid of minimum wage.
dbmasta 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>Is it worthwhile at any per capita cost to taxpayers?
Do you think we live in a zone where the laws of physics are different? Because dozens of nations have solved this problem ahead of us. We are WAY behind in healthcare quality in the world. Socialized medicine works. Capitalist healthcare does not.
>>Not to mention the moral cost?
I think only libertarians could agonize over the morality of taxing people as millions remain uninsured, and many die for want of medicine.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest The hard thing about all of this is that we can't run scientific experiments on entire nations. However, having 50 states allows for a degree of experimentation, provided that the states aren't subject to federal mandates. So, if either of us is wrong, then the mistake is that much more widespread. If UHC, or any policy, turns out to be such an unquestionably great idea at a state level, then other states would be pressured to follow suit to stay competitive.
dbmasta 2 months ago
@dbmasta
As I already said, the experiment has been run for decades already in other nations. We need to learn from them and implement it here. Your argument is just like the one used against DADT. The people defending it were pretending that suddenly the military would implode without it, even though similar laws were repealed over the last decades in other modern nations.
We have the data, we know how to improve healthcare. We refuse to do so because it hurts insurance companies.
kDest 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>Or the reduced competitive pressure
Government research is competitive. Plus it benefits the public, whereas private research is secretive and might never be published.
>>Why force everyone
Because it isn't a tiny fraction. It is tens of millions of people who are either uninsured, or insured but afraid to use it due to raised premiums.
>>getting rid of minimum wage
Would reduce our standard of living. It is a half-truth of libertarianism that minimum wage kills jobs.
kDest 2 months ago
@dbmasta
The whole truth is that minimum wage kills jobs because our nation has made it EASY for businesses to export jobs overseas. We have low tariffs on imported goods, we have no restrictions on where those jobs might be located. We do not tax companies that do this. In essence we are making America compete with work conditions in China. Now, unless you want the pollution, sweatshops, and tainted food of China in America, you need to accept minimum wage.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest Raising tariffs on imports hurts the consumer, hurts foreign workers, hurts domestic exporters since foreign workers who were laid off can no longer afford as much, and thus hurts domestic workers. It also may backfire and result in higher tariffs on our exports. Min wage reduces living standards because it prevents production from happening, hence less wealth to go around. It promotes poverty by pricing the least skilled out of the market and keeping them from gaining skills.
dbmasta 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>Raising tariffs on imports hurts
You're using fear-based reasoning. The facts are that businesses move their jobs overseas because they want the CHEAPEST labor supply. Not healthiest, not fairest. Our standard of living is enviable to most nations. Unless you want our standard of living to resemble China, etc. you need to de-incentivize the export of jobs. Tariffs are one way of doing this, tax codes are another. Pressuring developing nations to raise standards is another.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest Your "fear-based" comment is a stretch. The word "hurts" is hardly sensational. I'm simply listing the negative results that follow higher import tariffs. I agree that unions can help negotiate market wages where needed. However, MW takes over the targeted approach of unions on specific exploitative firms and hurts all workers who otherwise would work for less than MW, which may be all their employers, perhaps small local business, could justify given the workers' productivity.
dbmasta 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>Your "fear-based" comment is a stretch
You were using unlikely negative consequences to deter acceptance of politics that would harm business interests. This is fear-based.
>>and hurts all workers who otherwise would work for less than MW
Minimum wage is already so low that no one can live off of it. Lower than minimum wage is exploitative. That is the point of minimum wage: creating an artificial bottom that isn't conducive to debt bondage.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest (page 4) In summary, import tariffs only serve to reduce the wealth of the general public. However, certain domestic, less competitive & less efficient producers and their workforce will benefit. So, the policy serves special interests at public expense. Now it's your turn to demonstrate why anything I've said is either "unlikely" or false.
dbmasta 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>Now it's your turn to demonstrate why anything I've said is either "unlikely" or false
Your reasoning is flawed because it relies on a specific line of assumptions to support each other. Markets are organic, they will accommodate change in less absolute ways.
For example, if high tariffs are imposed then that means the exported jobs are not as profitable. Therefore our corporations will invest less in foreign markets and instead will move back here. That means more jobs.
kDest 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kDest "Your reasoning is flawed because it relies on a specific line of assumptions" This is true, but can you show why the assumptions are wrong? The underlying assumptions are based on basic laws of supply/demand. The trade barriers/price controls established by tariffs create clear incentives with predictable consequences, which I've shown. You're overlooking the NET effect on jobs. I agree that certain protected exporters will be able to hire more, but at what cost?
dbmasta 2 months ago
@dbmasta
Conversely, foreign markets will see a rise in unemployment, before new businesses pop up to take in these workers. If the rest of the west follows our lead with tariffs, then foreign economies will be less meshed together and more self-reliant (local businesses as opposed to multinationals). Unemployment would lower in that case, and living standards might increase because the businesses will rest in the hands of the foreigners, not our own businessmen who don't care.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest "before new businesses pop up to take in these workers." Why will new business pop up? Why haven't they shown up already, and if they have, why haven't they been able to attract local workers away from the multinationals' factories? Living standards have already increased thanks to sweatshops. The fact that those workers voluntarily accept such jobs shows that the alternatives were worse. I'm all for local business thriving too, but how will tariffs somehow bring that about?
dbmasta 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>Why will new business pop up?
Obstinance with respect to change always opens up new niches for rivals. People who fight progress and social equality deserve to go under for having an archaic business model.
>>Why haven't they shown up already
The law and poverty in those areas attracts exploitative businesses. Therefore that is what you find.
>>Living standards have already increased thanks to sweatshops
You are making a superficial argument. The slightly increased wages
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest For people that are flagging kDest's comments, please stop. Let there be discussion. Don't you support freedom?
I agree that SOME governments insufficiently protect its citizens from the use of force. I don't support any FORCED labor, as is only the case in certain instances.
Speaking of taking variations into account, have you considered the likelihood of retaliatory tariffs and their consequences? Either way, efficient production is hampered, limiting wealth everywhere.
dbmasta 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dbmasta
will increase quality of life slightly. However they stay that way because sweatshops need desperately poor workers to both maintain profit margins and a desperate workforce that will not revolt.
>>but how will tariffs somehow bring that about
It will make it unprofitable for our businesses to set up factories overseas. They will have to obey our laws instead of bypassing them on foreign soil. Our laws protect workers.
kDest 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dbmasta
>>No it doesn't, because the industry and jobs that do arise come at a greater loss of others
Except they do not, because unemployment here is above 0%, meaning we have a surplus of labor and workers.
>>The tariff effectively subsidizes
It subsidizes nothing. It pressures businesses to make choices which do not naturally exist due to the world labor market.
>>workers voluntarily accept such jobs shows that the alternatives were worse
That is the narrow, out-of-context view.
kDest 2 months ago
@dbmasta
As for our own consumers, living costs may indeed rise. It depends on whether the good is recreated within the US or remains an imported product. If it is recreated, that means more industry and jobs, and thus more wealth flowing in the economy. It's possible that industries will leave the US. In that case they will be recreated.
This is just one scenario, but note my use of conditions. My reasoning is less confined to single assumptions, it takes into account variations.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest "If it is recreated, that means more industry and jobs, and thus more wealth flowing in the economy." No it doesn't, because the industry and jobs that do arise come at a greater loss of others. The tariff effectively subsidizes comparatively less efficient producers to do what they otherwise would be doing at a loss. When a business operates at a loss, that indicates it is wasting resources, rather than putting them to better uses. What you are unwittingly supporting is waste.
dbmasta 2 months ago
@kDest (page 3) 3) How it hurts domestic exporters: Due to reason #2, foreigners have less income with which to consume US goods. 4) How it hurts domestic workers: Due to reason #1, consumers who wish to maintain their living standards by continuing to buy the same amount of goods (that are now affected by tariffs) will have less money left to spend domestically, thus reducing demand domestically, thus reducing employers' demand for workers. Same thing follows due to reason #3. (next)
dbmasta 2 months ago
@kDest (page 2) If the product is being produced less competitively in the US before tariffs, then the tariff will still force consumers to pay more for it, even if they're buying it here. 2) How it hurts foreign workers: Duh. Foreign exporters who enjoyed US demand prior to tariffs making their products too cost-prohibitive for US consumers to buy will experience a drop in demand, which will reduce employers’ demand for workers who get fired and lose income. (next)
dbmasta 2 months ago
@kDest Since you believe the negative consequences of increased tariffs on imports that I listed are "unlikely", I will gladly explain exactly why they are VERY likely, if not GUARANTEED. Then we will discover your degree of intellectual dishonesty based on your response. 1) How it hurts domestic consumers: they must pay more to get the same product from overseas. If that product was already being produced competitively in the US, then tariffs wouldn't affect demand here. (next)
dbmasta 2 months ago
@dbmasta
>>Again with the correlation = causation logic
So now you're just ignoring evidence that is in front of