- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Gee ( si ) on April 09, 1999 at 11:59:05:

In Reply to: Indeed. posted by Red Deathy on April 08, 1999 at 13:24:22:

: Hah- eh sun is one of teh most virulently right-wing papers

As I said to gideon, if its right wing then it is so because of its collectivist tribal nationalism, not any 'libertarian' pretension. If the gaurdian (i admit to reading it only twice) is liberal, I assume it means 'liberal' in the sense used in modern america (ie the so called mommy state, nanny state)

: But also as health rates have declined due to poverty, as well (heart disease being a favourite). Like I said, the NHS is being cuaght by a declining rate of profit, as all otherindustries are.

The general declining rate of profit is (i believe) largely due to information, you cant 'get away' with a high prove now, its becoming transparent. Thats whats been forcing companies to become efficient and lower prices to allow more people more access to things previously out of reach.

: : In the 1998-9 tax year Britain spent 22billion on defense and 100 billion on social security. Other bottomless pits included health & personal social services (56bn), education (33bn). Even debt interest was more than defence!! (30bn).

: But much of that money would need to be spent anyway, and would manifest as wage increases were the state to cease to provide those functions.

I would not for an instant imagine that any of those functions would 'cost' so much if handled by provate individuals and not by burgeoning inefficient governments, always at cross purposes and with various goals which conflict with efficient provision of these services. You do get the point that arguing over weapons costs may be valid, but its small fry relative to the rest.

: No, two votes to you one says we're not putting all that time and effort into making rolls royces

If people dont want RRs they wont make them. They are 'voting' already.

: Whereas now, if I have millions od dollars I can prevent them having their choice, by exercising my choice over them. What about a rich man with a broken toe being treated before the poor man needing a hip?

Assuming a static quantity of treatment. If the sum demand for hips n toes goes up then supply tends to follow. What you seem to be after is instantaneous equality in claim upon a given resource.

: Dispossession is a relativist term, in a society where everyone has castles, the man with the semi-detatched is a puaper.

If he wants to accept himself as such. Its like Carnegies brother drowing his sorrow because he was forever in his brothers shadow, despite being very wealthy in his own right - the fool.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup