- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
"they are obliged to follow the majority's rules until they CAN."
1. obligated, or forced? there is a difference.
"health care is CHEAPER and better in the those other countries! "
1. is there any other choice in those countries?
2. If it is really cheaper, you would have no problem finding volunteers to "opt in".
" Why ANYONE would rather see fellow Americans go without health care, or go bankrupt because of an expensive illness is beyond me! "
You have the option of paying for the care of anyone you wish. I do not advocate for the highly regulated and monopolized US medical care model. I favor a free market model.
"We should be AMERICA, not individual Americans! A TEAM, which is what DEMOCRATIC socialism requires, and the Constitution expects."
What prevents those who agree with you from forming a private medical care system, paid for by and available only to members, in the "democratic socialism" model? You could vote on who pays the most dues, using any criteria you wish (wealth, income, race, etc.) with those dues paying for staff (members, of course) facilities, supplies, etc.
If it is really a more efficient and better model, no one would want to pay for the less efficient free market model. If it isn't better, and only works if there is no legal alternative, then you haven't destroyed a superior system, to test an inferior one.
(ignoring the emotional rant)
As for the roads, money was stolen from producers, not leeches, to pay for them. The roads could be built privately, paid for privately by people who actually produce things that others value, instead of voting for the wealth that others created.
>"It's possible in all other industrialized countries,...OF COURSE, the taxes are higher."
Then it isn't voluntary, is it?
Voluntary would (at least) be the ability to opt out of both the service and paying for it through taxes.
Do you believe that there are enough people who want to be in the system to sustain it, if you were allowed to opt out?
>"How come "tax" is a four letter word in America, and only 3 in most countries ?"
It isn't. It is a five letter word..."theft". ;)
Planned-Socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.
Can you describe the details of the market-socialism model?
This was a large part of Standard Oil’s business practice.
They lowered prices for the consumer. That is good for the consumer. No firm has ever been able to follow through with the lower/kill competition/raise prices, formula. Competition always comes back.
So, hoping to undermine the economic system that allowed you to achieve your success is alright?
Hoping, and ability are different. No one has ever successfully done it, and kept the market.
and by selling proprietary software bundled with nearly every home computer, as well as most business related computers... in the market has allowed technology to progress in more diverse ways than if Microsoft had continued its dominance.
Prices for consumers have continued to fall, throughout the process, including the "monopoly" years.
And licensing can be a hassle, but some people insist on having their labor licensed.
not licensing. state governments have the only authority to license. State gvts have universally given the AMA the monopoly power to accredit med schools. This is one of the reasons for the high price of doctors and med schools.
One of the earliest invocations of the Act [Sherman anti-trust act] was in 1894, against the American Railway Union led by Eugene V. Debs, with the intent to settle the Pullman Strike. Several years would pass before the first use of the Act against its intended perpetrator, corporate monopolies.
Good info. Thanks. :)
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!