Topic: Socialism - page 3. (Read 7997 times)

the trolly situation actually happened once in real life.

Really the only reason I disagree with the trolly situation is because it is so implausible. Real life does not just have two options, and I think that the best way to discuss philosophy is use realistic situations, as opposed to hypotheticals. I can see the value in it- and I'm sure that there are situations where people would believe that they must choose between the lesser of two evils. But there is always a third choice.

I think that the trolly could (sort of) be represented by appeasement prior to world war II- the Allies knew that giving Hitler Czechoslovakia would lead to violence and death, but they thought it was justified because they thought that forcefully stopping him would lead to greater violence. Of course, 40 million corpses later the Allies choice of non-aggression was a mistake. Had they stopped Hitler in Czechoslovakia, perhaps he never would have been able to occupy Europe and slaughter millions of innocents.

In this case, it appears that non-aggression led to greater violence.

However, say that you choose to pull the lever and switch the rails. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an example of this. Allied commanders knew that they had to do something to stop Japan- the country was going to fight to the death. They believed that they were saving more lives than they were ending.

However, the problem with any of these logic traps is that you can't know more than one outcome. We can't go back in time and stop Hitler, or invade mainland Japan. That's my main problem with NAP- There's really no way to prove it either way. However, just for the record, while I don't fully agree with NAP I don't agree with initiating aggression either.


I do believe that philosophy should have a base in reality, and that it should be judged based on realistic examples. Otherwise it's very easy to prove anything. I also believe that choosing a philosophy to follow is often detrimental. We should not allow a fixed set of ideals to determine how we act. Instead, everyone should have their own philosophy.


I think that his "righteousness" would have been affected had he immediately started killing Apartheidists. It is clear that he did everything in his power to negotiate with the government, but there's no negotiating with racists. Racism in itself is one of the most illogical ideals, and racists can't see reason. I think that they forced his hand.


I agree that forced social cohesion is not a very stable system. Obviously, if everyone truly agreed to one system and one society it would be stable, as it was based on the choice of the people. But if a government forces this cohesion, it creates paranoia and distrust, like you said.

That's why I believe that laws, and "morals", should be chosen by the majority of society. That way, there's less forced social cohesion.

I don't want to bring up a hypothetical, but if I use a real world example I'll offend someone, and that's not the point. Let's say a group of aliens from Mars come to Earth. They're different from humans in every way: They look different, they communicate differently, they don't even have the same genders we do. They even breathe nitrogen instead of oxygen. Naturally, the majority of Earth, let's say 90%, distrusts them, if they don't outright hate them.

The government has two options: they can force cohesion upon the populace. The aliens are given equal rights under UN law, and maybe are even given land to start settling on. 90% will be unhappy. Some are going to get violent. The majority of society will rise up, and probably end up hurting the aliens anyways. Society is completely unstable, as Earth devolves into a civil war.

Or, they can expel the aliens from our planet. This doesn't mean genocide, just that the government will not allow the Martians on Earth. In this case, 10% would be unhappy. A relatively small amount. The majority of people remain happy. The 10% might resist with their Martian friends, but ultimately they will have to concede.

There is still violence either way- whether it is the majority enforcing social cohesion or the minority attempting to. But when the majority takes control, there is more natural cohesion.

This is why I believe that "majority rules". Going way back in the posts, someone (I forgot who) said something along the lines of "If 51% of people are against gays does it make it ok to discriminate against them?"

I support everyone's equal rights. I want to make that clear. But in this case, I believe that supporting the 51% would be the more logical decision, as it enables more "natural" social cohesion. Society will be fractured in either case, but better to see the majority of society be happy then the minority. That being said, I would not take the "logical" decision and support bigots.


This looks interesting. I'll definitely check it out.

Great discussion. I guess the NAP is vulnerable to a '51% attack' of sorts - that is to say if the majority support aggression, how can it be stopped?

Apartheid is an aggression in itself, so a certain degree of self-defense is warranted by NAP. The question is then: who are the initial aggressors, and does bombing government buildings overstep the mark of self-defense?

Good example, thank you for this.
Madman, trolly, apartheid.  The trolly is the only one that does not appear to involve self-defense and is one of pure initiation of aggression.  It also seems to be the one with which, you most disagree.

From all appearances, you have (perhaps) a better or more evolved principle for "minimal" aggression, as it applies in the real world rather than the purely philosophical.  It is less absolutist than non-aggression.  Maybe it is closer to the Asimov 3 laws of robotics, and the struggle to find the balance between the three laws?

Would the righteousness or effectiveness of Mandela's cause with respect to moral authority have been harmed if it started with the bombing? Or was the proof of necessity so integral to the moral authority that the bombing was acceptable as minimal aggression?  Determining the point of ethical authority for aggression seems the sliding scale for where socialism finds its social traction.

Socialism in contrast places a high value on social cohesion.  It assumes societal splits are bad, or put another way, that the bigger a society gets the better it is.  The relative weighting of the value of social cohesion vs non-aggression seems to guide many.  There may be a fear that lack of social cohesion may lead to aggression and that fear/distrust conjures a higher weighting for social cohesion.

Social cohesion may also engender societal fragility as well, in much the same way that mono-cultural farming can create famine.  I am not convinced that it is always a good, even if it is more productive.
I had recommended to me: "Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (Black Swan Author).  From a discussion this weekend.  Going to have to digest that when it arrives.

Well, in the case of the trolly, wouldn't the non-aggressive way be to not touch the rails? After all, you didn't put the people there... But by switching the rails, you've killed people that otherwise would not be killed. A better situation would be that you can either choose to kill the would-be murderer, saving the people on the tracks, or do nothing. But even if you chose to do nothing, it is not your fault, and you have followed the NAP.

Edit: You basically said what I said in the quotation. I wasn't reading carefully...

The "madman" logic trap makes more sense because in this situation, the defender is directly involved and has to make a decision. Their life, and the life of the attacker, will be changed depending on the action they take. One way or another a death will be their fault.

And logic trap or not, it only proves that the NAP is illogical. And what is the point of following an illogical philosophy that is basically impossible to follow?


Does it provide the best outcome, though? Take the revolution against Apartheid in South Africa. Initially, Mandella preached non-violence. He acted similar to Gandhi or MLK. What did his non-violence accomplish? Nothing. Then, once he started bombing government buildings, South Africa started moving towards equality.


Well, that's why I dont agree with socialism.

The killing the madman logic trap.  Good.
There are other logic traps as well (the famous trolly-cart where you can switch the rail to kill fewer folks, but switching it to kill someone is an act of aggression, so greater harm would be the outcome of zero aggression)

The resolution to these seems to be that the non-aggression principle provides guidance for the best outcomes.  That the notion of "moral authority", at least in degree, seems to rest on how clearly those outcomes are best, and how much aggression is needed to achieve those outcomes, with a very strong preference for none at all, and a high bar to any initiation of aggression.

The socialist's claim appears to be that creating cases of everyone suffering, for some outcome that benefits everyone (whether or not they agree to either undergo the suffering, or whether they agree the outcome is a benefit) is an acceptable degree of moral authority.  Provided the responsibility for creating these sufferings is spread among a sufficiently large number of people (such as voters).

Where this tends to fail (sometimes but not always) in real world is in the administration of the benefits, and the costs of doing so: balancing the flexibility of the benefit (for efficiency) with the arbitrariness of managing that flexibility (spawning corruption opportunities).

Please explain to me what I said that was wrong, instead of acting condescending.

I guess I should have phrased that better. I understand why you would argue- after all the NAP says that self defense is ok (or at least it does recently; it hasn't for thousands of years). But here's the thing: When is self-defense be justified? If someone is trying to kill you, and they will not stop until they themselves are dead, at what point does self defense end and aggression begin? It is entirely based on the subjective view of the person "defending" himself. If the defender kills the attacker, they have committed greater violence, and thus they've stopped following the NAP.

That's why the NAP is illogical. The only way in which you could truly follow it would be to do nothing to defend yourself, or to avoid conflict in general. If you think that the NAP can justify self defense, then what's the point? You're saying that you're not going to run around killing everything unless they attack you. Congratulations, that's a philosophy that only rabid dogs have a problem with.

This is inaccurate.  Health insurance is very much like insurance in general.  It is an actuarial exercise, and "value of human life" is an input to the calculus.

There is much argument and science that goes in to setting the value.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html

Governments also use this for deciding on policy and cost effectiveness.  Sometimes they change the value of it.  Sometimes that makes news.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/21/epa-value-of-life-changes-_n_812105.html

If you have worked in the health or life insurance industry, this would not be a point of issue.  It is very well understood, many articles in each of the major journals discuss it.
http://library.soa.org/search.aspx?go=True&q=human+life+value&page=1&pagesize=10&or=True

Notwithstanding this, you are certainly correct in that whether a caregiver chooses to attempt uncovered heroic efforts to preserve a life beyond what insurance will cover is an individual decision, and rarely an easy one.

It gets complicated, but I say yes, so long as the majority is talking about non-specific principles. The set of rules should be slow enough to change so as not to be distorted by momentary fads. I submit that the ethical principle does not exist without the people to think of it. So long as people have general consensus about these principles and there are checks in place to slow sudden implementation without wide support, there is not much to fear from an informed electorate. But even with an uninformed electorate there is less risk than trusting the definition of punitive law to a very small group of people without accountability to the people that law is supposed to serve.

Wow. That's what you took away?

OK, first the fundamental problem is that costs are too high. All the rest of what you're talking about stems from that simple fact. If costs were lower, there would be fewer bankruptcies etc.

Second, I have no idea how you got this from what I wrote:


No. Carrying insurance, which insulates you from catastrophic or severe expenses is good. It is something everyone should have. Carrying a health plan that insulates you from every expense and makes every decision cost-neutral, on the other hand, is a terrible idea. It guarantees that you will pay more for your healthcare than you would have without it.

It's simple math. REALLY simple math. I'm going to use round numbers that of course will vary from person to person but which have come from my own shopping for my own health plans.

A health plan that does not cover an annual checkup is $450/month. A health plan that does cover a single annual checkup (with a $25 copay) is $500/month. That means that for your annual checkup you will pay an extra $625. A doctor's office visit with complete physical will cost between $50 and $150, depending on where you go. Paying $625 for a $150 doctor's visit is stupid. Better plan? Get the most expensive general practitioner you can find and go three times a year out of pocket. Even better plan? Find a doctor you like and trust and go once a year, paying out of pocket, and leave the "office visit" line item off your policy.

Even if you have employer-provided insurance (I do not) if you think that money isn't coming out of the maximum that your employer would pay you, you're wrong.

Obviously where to set your deductible is a personal choice and will depend on income levels and other expenses. You ought to realistically assess what would be catastrophic and what would be inconvenient. If a $500 medical expense would bankrupt you and cause your family to starve to death, you probably ought to have a $250 deductible. If a $2000 expense would be a big problem but you could manage with a payment plan with the hospital or whatever, then a $2000 deductible isn't such a bad idea and will save you a hefty amount of insurance premiums.


Do I need to explain to you what an analogy is?

Do you agree that there is a difference between a plan that pays for regular, predictible, ongoing expenses and one that covers you for unexpected expenses? Insurance is about spreading the risk pool out, regardless of the kind of insurance it is. An annual checkup has no risk to spread. If your policy covers something that you know you're going to spend every year, then all you are doing is paying extra to the insurance company to get them to write the check instead of you.  


OK, just stop lying about what I wrote. Please.

How authority accrues and is maintained is another interesting question.
The notion that majority rules (and can contravene an ethical principle) likely has many limits. 
Ought majority rule be the absolute measure for how and when to violate fundamental ethics?

There are some great benefits to cooperation, tolerance, and community efforts.  To what extent is there justification to make those efforts compulsory (possibly violating NAP) rather than voluntary (adhering to NAP).
Does accruing authority make that justification stronger or weaker?

Yeah, OK. So I'm still on board with the NAP being a principle that I at least generally support and adhere to (there is some disagreement as to the specific interpretation and that sounds just fine.) I have not stated any opposition to the NAP as a principle. 

I was never arguing that the NAP should or should not be a part of a system of laws; I was saying that in order for it to be part of a system of laws, it either must be a principle that is widely held by the people who live under those laws or else it has to be dictated from outside, which would itself not be in keeping with the NAP. So I stand by my earlier statement: first a system of laws should generally reflect the values of the people who live under those laws, second it would be nice to include that principle in a system of laws, as that would be a symptom of good (in my opinion) values in a society.

Oh my god you're a fucking idiot trying to find something wrong with material you have no understanding of. I'm not even going to waste my time with someone like you. See here: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/trophic-cascades-across-diverse-plant-ecosystems-80060347

Please, move to Somalia already.

Law, by its very nature, is aggressive, and thus can't be the NAP itself. Thus it's a non-aggression principle, not a non-aggression law that we want.

I'm going to do something weird and compare the NAP to our favorite currency:
The NAP is basically a fundamental concept, upon which many rules and agreements can be built on. All it is, is just the understanding that "I will not initiate aggression against you, but will defend myself if you initiate aggression against me." (Which, by the way, does not mean "deadly force," you anti-NAP freaks! It could be as simple as yelling, "Git off mah lawn!") Like Bitcoin, it doesn't need a government to exist; all it needs is a person to hold such a belief. Each person who follows the idea that they shouldn't initiate force, that others shouldn't initiate force against them, and that they will defend themselves against force, is essentially like a single node in a NAP system. Other laws can be passed that try to interfere with this system, such as laws that take away your land, property, or life, but since the NAP is a distributed principle held by individuals, those laws are, on the whole, as effective as financial regulation law are for Bitcoin.
So for NAP to exist, it doesn't have to be enshrined into law and enforced by a government. It can, and is, enforced by individuals already (if you respect other's stuff and defend your, you already follow the NAP), and only needs more "nodes" to come to understand it and accept it in order to grow.

Sorry, but, if that is what you believe, then you have no idea what the non-aggression principle is, and the rest of your argument is pretty much not relevant.

Sorry, but that post is pretty much trash. Aside from apparently not understanding what a trophic cascade is (you said  "Their [the wolf's] elimination resulted in a deleterious effect on the ecosystem services, due to the removal of a trophic cascade effect." when the result is actually an exacerbation NOT elimination of the trophic cascade, which results larger than normal ripples and damages multiple ecosystems in the cascade) the extremely TL;DR post said pretty much absolutely nothing about how it's best to preserve such environmental structures. All you have done is claim, as part of your opinion or wish, that such structures should be preserved, with no reason as to why, and much of the methods you have mentioned have been and are used by private property owners, as well as public.
So please stop pointing to that text as if it's some sort of a great argument for government-based environmental protection. It's not. It's a waste of people's time, masked in big words and oversized paragraphs.

Well, don't worry, I only stuffed it full of more dangerous half-knowledge. ACA has a lot of other provisions in it; there is a lot more to it than I described or could describe. And you're 100% right that the debate in the US is pretty insane. Republicans didn't want ACA because it is socialism (even though it isn't) and Democrats wanted it because if it failed it would mean the Republicans won the fight. So it really didn't matter how good or bad the bill was. The talking points are the same no matter what. Republicans calling Democrats socialists and Democrats calling Republicans meanies.


One of the biggest problems we have is that health insurance isn't insurance. Health insurance is a subscription. People here expect that if they have a full time job, they will never pay for any medicine or doctor's bills, aside from a nominal co-payment.

I pay my doctor out of pocket, and I have conversations with him about what the most cost-effective treatment is. Very often an older medicine is just as effective as a newer medicine but with a higher risk of side effects. If I go with the cheaper version I save hundreds of dollars every month and get just as good care. With health plans, doctors write out prescriptions for the newest, most expensive drugs because they aren't paying for it and the patient isn't paying for it, so you may as well get the absolute best option.

In the US, if you start talking about cost-effective medicine people freak out like it means cutting corners and getting shoddy care. But because I pay out of pocket, I get to make reasoned choices about the health care options in front of me and I'd like to think that I'm not making the whole health care charliefoxtrot here in the US worse than it already is.

Because very few people have to be concerned about prices and healthcare costs don't hit their paychecks in a visible way, costs skyrocket with medical waste. The doctors prescribe the most expensive stuff because it's the best, the patients don't complain because it costs them the same $10/month either way, the pharmaceutical companies love it because they're selling the primo expensive stuff and taking it to the bank. The insurance companies don't care because they just pass the higher costs on to higher monthly premiums, and the employer doesn't care (the employer probably cares, but it doesn't hit home) about the higher insurance rates because they have to pay the increase or be seen as "cutting back the health benefits" and besides, the employer can just give everyone a smaller raise next year so it doesn't hit their bottom line. The patient, well, the patient just keeps getting more and more of their paycheck going to health coverage, but it comes out of their check before they receive the check so it's hard to miss what you never had.

Unless people start paying for their own health care, this cycle will never end and eventually the country will be basically a "company town" where we all work for the health care industry. ACA guarantees us this future. If ACA required people to carry only minimal, high-deductable insurance (something that is actually insurance) it wouldn't be nearly as bad. But the minimum requirements mean that we'll never have the opportunity to directly pay for our regular doctor visits or medicine again.

And that's something people here in the US don't understand: paying someone to pay your regularly occurring bills is a bad idea, whether that someone is your employer, a commercial entity, or the government. I have insurance on my motorcycle. If I crash it, I'll be paid some money so that I can buy another one. I hope I never crash my motorcycle, but I have a plan in place to protect me financially in case it happens. I do NOT have an "insurance" policy where I pay a monthly fee for my gasoline. Why not? Because I know I'm going to buy gasoline. In order to offer me such a policy, the issuer would have to charge me more than I would pay at the pump, or else go out of business. There is no way that that could be a good deal for me. But people just don't seem to get that when it comes to, say, their annual checkups.

TL;dr: there is a lot more wrong with the US's health care system than attempts at socialism.

thanks for stuffing another hole of my dangerous half-knowledge.   didn't follow that in the news too deeply.

seen from that new perspective that is in fact an obvious case of companies getting their trimmed laws to profit from the people.
Man I'm glad that sector didn't get too much out of hand in germany. Though we have stuff like immunization schedules advised by governments, and lots of laws in favor of pharmaceutical companies to fill their pockets,
but at least health insurance runs really good and is paid directly by employer indepently from the loansystem. so like this employers would go on warpath if they have to pay more.
(as a freelancer health insurance is quite expensive though...around 200€ depending on your business).
There's still a big difference between treatment with national or private health insurance but the overall standard is really good.
I just couldn't believe my eyes when i saw some documentary lately where dentists provided free treatment for american citizens because they simply couldn't afford it.

The more i think about it the more i doubt that a similar insurance system would function in the USA. I often underestimate the sheer scale of it as a country with its socioeconomic differences in many regions.

You may have missed some crucial information. The Affordable Care Act is not national health insurance, and it is not nationalized or socialized medicine. It is not even socialism, as people have claimed. It is a law requiring people to have health insurance at higher rates than ever before. The government is not providing that insurance. The same insurance companies that played a big role in getting us in this mess, now they get a lot more money than ever before. We do not have the option to decline their services or only sign up for a catastrophic high-deductible plan while paying for our regular services out of pocket. It is not a law to help people, it is a law to make enormous insurance and pharmaceutical corporations even wealthier than they are now.

If it were actual socialism, I would have supported it. I don't think that eg single payer is the right path, but I would have been completely OK with giving the "public option" a try to see what happens. The Affordable Care Act is just a scam to get the friends of Democrats richer. So, please understand that it's not just about Americans hating health or any such nonsense.