Liberalism is a mental disorder

cookies221

More and more top level academics are coming to the conclusion that liberalism is in fact a mental disorder. Dr Michael Savage, a political commentator in the United States and a doctor of medical anthropology, has written books on the subject, and claims the ideology is one in which logic no longer prevails yet emotion runs rampant. He always proves his points by citing hundreds of specific examples based upon remarkably well-founded research (the guy is an actual scientist after all). It's nice to see a little substance behind the political commentary.

In another example, Veteran psychologist Dr. Lyle Rossiter is the author of "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness". In his book, he compares liberals to "spoiled, angry children, rebelling against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demanding that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to the grave." This is also known as the Che phenomenon i.e. refusing to grow up, accept responsibility for yourself, and enter the real world. He argues that liberals display infantile claims to entitlement and compensation (Irish civil servants or the long-term dole leeches anyone?) and "reject the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government."

I'm not sure I agree with these academics 100% percent with classifying liberals as mentally ill. Rather, I see liberals/socialists/lefties as immature and naive, with childish opinions that they've merely adopted from TV or newspaper columnists and have put little thought into. The fact that many liberals and college students watch Jon Stewart's comedy "The Daily Show" and think it is an actual news program is scary. Yet this is probably their main source of current affairs.

The hypocrisy of the left has been clear to me from a young age - the way they support affirmative action while ostensibly opposing discrimination, for example - but this obvious double standard doesn't occur to the liberal. One wonders, do they even examine their opinions at all? Even in Ireland, the fact that the country is economically on its knees doesn't stop the left defending the outrageously high pay for civil servant paper pushers or the sky high dole payouts that are actually discouraging people from going back to work as was established on this week's Frontline show.

I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts on this.

Chuck Stone

Conservatives are evil.

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.

John Stuart Mill

The Scientician

Obvious troll is obvious.

MungBean

I think the most problematic mental disorder facing us today is stupidity.

You wouldnt be Bill O'Reilly by any chance would ya ?

Jesus Wept

A 'scientist' troll is still a troll. That or he has a mental problem of his own.

Pride Fighter

It is, Liberalism is a mental disorder. Economic liberalism and capitalism has destroyed countless lives and has caused the economic mess we are in.

What the world needs is more socialism.

Chuck Stone

cookies221 wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts on this.

No you're not.

Chuck Stone

Pride Fighter wrote: »

What the world needs is more socialism.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-afFugNMwXW4/TfjXyZGS6FI/AAAAAAAAApY/5f6uHp_ChCs/s640/lolh.gif

(state socialism anyway)

cookies221

Pride Fighter wrote: »

It is, Liberalism is a mental disorder. Economic liberalism and capitalism has destroyed countless lives and has caused the economic mess we are in.

What the world needs is more socialism.

Please read my post. I said I don't agree that liberalism is a mental disorder, rather that liberals are just uneducated and haven't really examined their opinions. As for socialism - Cuba, the Former Soviet Union and North Korea aren't exactly epitomes of successful nations, are they? Expanding the public sector but lowering the taxes to pay their wages is a recipe for disaster. It is this simple flaw in logic that I'm talking about.

I took the time to explain argue my case. Is anyone able to formulate a counter-argument or am I 100% correct? I won't even bother addressing the accusations of troll (anybody who holds a different opinion to you is a troll, right?) Once again, the statement that "liberalism is a mental disorder" are not my words but rather those of scientists who have backed up their claims with studies and evidence.

cookies221

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No you're not.

Obviously you've no interest in dealing with the subject matter. All you've posted so far are cheap one-liners in a deliberate attempt to derail the thread. You're unable to refute my arguments and your are getting frustrated and emotional. I'll repost this quote: "Liberalism is an ideology is one in which logic no longer prevails yet emotion runs rampant " You don't have to reply if you've nothing constructive to contribute, Thanks.

The Scientician

cookies221 wrote: »

Please read my post. I said I don't agree that liberalism is a mental disorder, rather that liberals are just uneducated and haven't really examined their opinions. As for socialism - Cuba, the Former Soviet Union and North Korea aren't exactly epitomes of successful nations, are they? Expanding the public sector but lowering the taxes to pay their wages is a recipe for disaster. It is this simple flaw in logic that I'm talking about.

Ok, I'll actually bite. Liberalism and socialism are quite distinct things. Concentrating on socialism, you're guilty of the false dilemma. You cite extreme, authoritarian socialist régimes as societies where socialism hasn't worked. You would find few educated people who disagree with this assessment. That however doesn't prove, and isn't all that relevant, to whether some form of socialism is desirable and workable in a democratic society. For example, the NHS has for much of its existence been a good example of socialism in praxis that has benefited most British people at one time or another. Even with its structural problems, few in Britain now would abolish it entirely.

As to whether the people you label as liberals are educated or not, that's hard to say. Some are better educated than you, and know more than you'll ever know, others are idiots. The idiots who spout half-baked dogma aren't representitive of the whole.

ETA: In conclusion, leftwing thought and action is a broad church, some of it barmy, much of it not so barmy. There's no one brush you can use. I, for one, have respect for socially liberal rightwingers, even if i disagree with their sociopolitical standpoint. I can distinguish between them and their potentially fruitful ideas, and the dingbat ideas of racist, moralist, bullshítualist rightwingers.

ascanbe

cookies221 wrote: »

Obviously you've no interest in dealing with the subject matter. All you've posted so far are cheap one-liners in a deliberate attempt to derail the thread. You're unable to refute my arguments and your are getting frustrated and emotional. I'll repost this quote: "Liberalism is an ideology is one in which logic no longer prevails yet emotion runs rampant " You don't have to reply if you've nothing constructive to contribute, Thanks.

Bolding certain points in a post is a mental disorder, i've heard.
I believe the irrefutable evidence for this can be found somewhere in the writings of the venerable Dr. Michael Savage.
People should always pay attention to him: it's not like he's your typical blowhard idiot or anything.

cookies221

The Scientician wrote: »

Ok, I'll actually bite. Liberalism and socialism are quite distinct things. Concentrating on socialism, you're guilty of the false dilemma. You cite extreme, authoritarian socialist régimes as societies where socialism hasn't worked. You would find few educated people who disagree with this assessment. That however doesn't prove, and isn't all that relevant, to whether some form of socialism is desirable and workable in a democratic society. For example, the NHS has for much of its existence been a good example of socialism in praxis that has benefited most British people at one time or another. Even with its structural problems, few in Britain now would abolish it entirely. As whether the people you label as liberals are educated or not, that's hard to say. Some are better educated than you, and know more than you'll ever know, others are idiots. The idiots who spout half-baked dogma aren't representitive of the whole.

First off, thank you for the cordial reply and actually dealing with the topic. The NHS has been reasonably successful, but is it fair? There are regularly cases in the tabloids where morbidly obese people get their liposuction surgery on the NHS, courtesy of the tax payer. It's not society's fault that you ate McDonalds every day of your life so why should tax payers foot the bill for your mistakes? This just creates longer waiting lists and those in need of genuine emergency care (chemotherapy, for example) are the ones who suffer. Not to mention the sky high wages of medical consultants who the taxpayer supports for merely signing paper http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0921/health.html . These unnecessary costs would be eliminated under a private healthcare system.

I assume you identify yourself as socialist. Do you agree with the Croke Park deal for civil servants?

Victor

cookies221 wrote: »

More and more top level academics are coming to the conclusion that liberalism is in fact a mental disorder.

I'm not sure I agree with these academics 100% percent with classifying liberals as mentally ill. Rather, I see liberals/socialists/lefties as immature and naive, with childish opinions that they've merely adopted from TV or newspaper columnists and have put little thought into. The fact that many liberals and college students watch Jon Stewart's comedy "The Daily Show" and think it is an actual news program is scary. Yet this is probably their main source of current affairs.

The hypocrisy of the left

You do realise that mental disorder and mental illness aren't quite the same thing?

Are you bemoaning liberals (anti-authoritarians) or the left (socialist policies)? The two do not align. http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Or are you just ranting in an uninformed manner against people you don't like?

Chuck Stone

cookies221 wrote: »

You're unable to refute my arguments and your are getting frustrated and emotional.

Firstly, you haven't put forward an argument worth adressing. Secondly you have suggested that anyone who disagrees with you is mentally ill.

I don't think you deserve a decent response tbh and I'm quite calm and unemotional.

I'll repost this quote: "Liberalism is an ideology is one in which logic no longer prevails yet emotion runs rampant " You don't have to reply if you've nothing constructive to contribute, Thanks.

Here's the thing - any response which comes from someone you deem liberal/socialists/lefties (which btw I doubt you could define in any substantive manner) you consider immature and niave (your words).

Thus, you want an echo chamber.

cookies221 wrote: »

I see liberals/socialists/lefties as immature and naive, with childish opinions that they've merely adopted from TV or newspaper columnists and have put little thought into.

cookies221

Victor wrote: »

Are you bemoaning liberals (anti-authoritarians) or the left (socialist policies)? The two do not align. http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Both, as they tend to congregate in the same rent-a-mob protest groups. The ULA in this country would consider themselves both anti-authoritarian ("stick it to the man" and Che Guevara t-shirt's aplenty) and socialist (anti-business, pro-dole). Both fall under the umbrella of left-wing ideology.

The Scientician

cookies221 wrote: »

First off, thank you for the cordial reply and actually dealing with the topic. The NHS has been reasonably successful, but is it fair? There are regularly cases in the tabloids where morbidly obese people get their liposuction surgery on the NHS, courtesy of the tax payer. It's not society's fault that you ate McDonalds every day of your life so why should tax payers foot the bill for your mistakes? This just creates longer waiting lists and those in need of genuine emergency care (chemotherapy, for example) are the ones who suffer. Not to mention the sky high wages of medical consultants who the taxpayer supports for merely signing paper http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0921/health.html . These unnecessary costs would be eliminated under a private healthcare system.

I assume you identify yourself as socialist. Do you agree with the Croke Park deal for civil servants?

Again you cite extreme examples of why the NHS isn't fair. I suppose in the strictest sense it isn't, but to work for a complex society, how could it possibly be entirely "fair"? Without using the loaded example of obesity, some people are genetically predisposed to illnesses that will require them having long term, expensive, care. Others won't have so much as a cold until the day they drop dead aged 95. We can't pick which combination of good and bad luck in our health we'll have. A socialised medical system works best for the most amount of people. Assigning blame for medical problems is cruel too, we all make a 100 choices a day that will impact on our longer term health, some of those choices are "right", some are "wrong". You don't have a crystal ball. I don't agree that unnecessary costs would be eliminated in a private healthcare system. I have loved ones who've had to deal with the US system and it is cruel and unfair, even when you pay in $1000s over decades in health insurance.

Socialism concentrates on what's best for society not for each individual. That's the primary philosophical issue. You find it unfair that society benefits whereas some individuals might be better off in a more autonomous situation.

I'm a social democrat or maybe a social pragmatist. There are some things that socialistic policies work better than private enterprise, but I admit there are also things that private enterprise does better than the state ever could.

I don't know enough about the Croke Park Agreement to comment. In the general sense, where possible waste should be eliminated within the public sector, public sector pay, mainly at the highest echelons should be lowered. I also think social welfare should probably be overhauled.

cookies221

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Firstly, you haven't put forward an argument worth adressing. Secondly you have suggested that anyone who disagrees with you is mentally ill.

*facepalm*
Once again, please read my OP. I clearly stated that I don't agree with the academics who claim liberals are mentally ill. Rather they are uneducated and have not examined their beliefs. I've already pointed out the left-wing hypocrisies of affirmative action and low-tax but pro-public sector.

I don't think you deserve a decent response tbh and I'm quite calm and unemotional.

All you've done so far is insult me. You are clearly not a "thinking man" and have no interest in politics whatsoever outside of the Daily Show and whatever Bill Hicks tells you to believe.

cookies221

The Scientician wrote: »

Again you cite extreme examples of why the NHS isn't fair. I suppose in the strictest sense it isn't, but to work for a complex society, how could it possibly be entirely "fair"? Without using the loaded example of obesity, some people are genetically predisposed to illnesses that will require them having long term, expensive, care. Others won't have so much as a cold until the day they drop dead aged 95. We can't pick which combination of good and bad luck in our health we'll have. A socialised medical system works best for the most amount of people. Assigning blame for medical problems is cruel too, we all make a 100 choices a day that will impact on our longer term health, some of those choices are "right", some are "wrong".

Simple solution is take out health insurance. Pay a small amount of your wages per month and should you fall ill, the insurance company will take care of the medical expenses.

I don't agree that unnecessary costs would be eliminated in a private healthcare system. I have loved ones who've had to deal with the US system and it is cruel and unfair, even when you pay in $1000s over decades in health insurance.

I've already provided the example in the RTE news recently where the Irish taxpayer is shelling out over half a million euro per week to GPs for literally signing medical certs. This is an outrage at anytime, but especially when the country is in such dire financial circumstances. This would be eliminated in a private healthcare system. The thing I hate about state-owned companies is that they are answerable to nobody. Look at the state of Irish Rail. One of the most incompetent and wasteful companies around.

I don't know enough about the Croke Park Agreement to comment. In the general sense, where possible waste should be eliminated within the public sector, public sector pay, mainly at the highest echelons should be lowered. I also think social welfare should probably be overhauled.

Fair enough, at least you're honest. Nothing worse than a barstool political commentator who hasn't a clue what he's talking about. I'd agree with your sentiments regarding the public sector and social welfare by the way.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cookies221

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Liberal in the American sense. I would consider this left-wing in America and Europe.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chuck Stone

cookies221 wrote: »

Once again, please read my OP. I clearly stated that I don't agree with the academics who claim liberals are mentally ill.

Ah you're not quite being 100% truthfullnow are you OP?

I'm not sure I agree with these academics 100% percent with classifying liberals as mentally ill.

So... you agree with them 90%?

Rather they are uneducated and have not examined their beliefs.

Is this your belief or do you have some evidence for this?

I've already pointed out the left-wing hypocrisies of affirmative action and low-tax but pro-public sector.

We don't have affirmative action in Ireland to the best of my knowledge.

Also, I'd imagine most people here are for fair taxes (rather than low) and an cost effective public sector (rather than pro public sector).

All you've done so far is insult me.

In one breath you claim I insult you and in the other...

You are clearly not a "thinking man"

you make an thinly veiled attempt to insult me.

cookies221

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I 100% agree with this sentiment and this is the point I've been trying to convey, but some posters have a knee-jerk reaction to defend the left without independent thought, which is sad.

The Scientician

cookies221 wrote: »

Simple solution is take out health insurance. Pay a small amount of your wages per month and should you fall ill, the insurance company will take care of the medical expenses.

As I say, I have loved ones in the US for whom this hasn't been the case. You trust the health insurance companies for some reason, but when you're at your lowest ebb you may find they're not much help. And what's the difference between paying for health insurance and paying a percentage of tax for social health provision, assuming they provide parity of care?

With regard to the RTÉ cite of, you've shown how social care has potentially expense attached, you haven't shown that if we went to an all private system that individuals would be better off and that savings would be made. Waste, graft, incompetence, all exist in spades in private corporations too y'know.

You also don't explain why it's desirable to you for people to die or be incapacitated because they're too poor to afford health insurance.

cookies221

Chuck Stone wrote: »

We don't have affirmative action in Ireland to the best of my knowledge.

But are you for or against it in an American context? If you're against this discrimination against white people, I assume you would identify with the American Republican party. Correct?

Also, I'd imagine most people here are for fair taxes (rather than low) and an cost effective public sector (rather than pro public sector).

Then why hasn't the Croke Park deal been shredded up yet? Why was Richard Boyd Barett and his megaphone elected to Dail Eireann? These indicate an unfair bias towards to public sector by our governent.

you make an thinly veiled attempt to insult me.

I wasn't insulting you. Give me reason to assume you're a thinking man with a brain, because all you've done so far is churn out insults.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cookies221

The Scientician wrote: »

You also don't explain why it's desirable to you for people to die or be incapacitated because they're too poor to afford health insurance.

Why do you think the state entitles you to anything? I don't own a ferarri. Am I entitled to one by the state? Sorry if you're in ill health, but why is it the state's responsibility to take care of you. I don't mean to sound nasty and I'm not talking about you personally, but one should seek help from their loved ones. It's this nanny state "take care of me from the cradle to the grave" attitude that bugs me.

The state doesn't owe you free medical care, free education, free transport, a cushy job, a council house - nothing. Ever hear of the saying you get what you earn?

Chuck Stone

The Scientician wrote: »

you haven't shown that if we went to an all private system that individuals would be better off and that savings would be made. Waste, graft, incompetence, all exist in spades in private corporations too y'know.

Corporations are creations of government. That's what pisses me off about 'the right'.

Those who identify with the right imagine themselves to be for freedom and getting out of the way of business. They are only too happy to have the government use the monopoly of force that the state is to shape the world how they want.

The right want to reach into your living room and throw you into prison for taking drugs. There are millions of people involved with the justice system in the US for drug 'offences' and a huge, fantastically expensive, state apparatus to keep the farce going.

The right is happy to have state laws which support limited liability, copyright, patent protection, low corporate taxes, weapons manufacturing, and a massive adventurous military etc.

Freedom and free market my arse.

The Scientician

cookies221 wrote: »

Why do you think the state entitles you to anything? I don't own a ferarri. Am I entitled to one by the state? Sorry if you're in ill health, but why is it the state's responsibility to take care of you. I don't mean to sound nasty and I'm not talking about you personally, but one should seek help from their loved ones. It's this nanny state "take care of me from the cradle to the grave" attitude that bugs me.

The state doesn't owe you free medical care, free education, free transport, a cushy job, a council house - nothing. Ever hear of the saying you get what you earn?

You first, explain to me why you'd rather let the poor die.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MungBean

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah the poor little minority that is right wing thinkers drowning in a sea of deluded leftist wasters with no real political choice as every party is left wing. Thats how I'd describe Ireland.

Talk about deluded :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MungBean

The Scientician wrote: »

You first, explain to me why you'd rather let the poor die.

Because he's not poor. So he doesnt give a fcuk.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cookies221

The Scientician wrote: »

You first, explain to me why you'd rather let the poor die.

I never said I'd rather let the poor die so please stop trying to put words into my mouth. The important word here is choice. People should be allowed to choose whether they want to opt into a private health insurance scheme which would cover all medical costs should they fall ill, rather than be forced to pay taxes for social healthcare. If they choose to opt out, fair enough, but if you're poor and get cancer then you will likely die. This is your own fault.

Now: why do you think the state should take care of you or owes you anything? Aren't you an independent adult who can think for himself?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chuck Stone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I didn't say right-wing libertarian. I said people who identify with 'the right' in the traditional sense.

Personally I don't think 'right wing' and 'libertarian' belong together. 'Free market libertarian' would be more descriptive of an anti state libertarian imho.

I don't use illegal drugs btw not that it makes a difference. I just believe that drug prohibition is immoral and hypocritical.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chuck Stone

The Scientician wrote: »

You first, explain to me why you'd rather let the poor die.

That's a bit of a straw man in fairness.

The Scientician

cookies221 wrote: »

I never said I'd rather let the poor die so please stop trying to put words into my mouth. The important word here is choice. People should be allowed to choose whether they want to opt into a private health insurance scheme which would cover all medical costs should they fall ill, rather than be forced to pay taxes for social healthcare. If they choose to opt out, fair enough, but if you're poor and get cancer then you will likely die. This is your own fault.

Why is choice so important? If I'm poor I have no choice but to die in your system. And despite being right now well off, I have the imagination, and the knowledge of reality to realise that there might be be a point in my life where I'm not.

Now: why do you think the state should take care of you or owes you anything? Aren't you an independent adult who can think for himself?

Well partly because I've paid for the state to exist, so it does owe me one way or another. Also, the idea of independent adult, autonomous from society doesn't bear real scrutiny. It's an old argument but for example, stop using roads if you don't want government interference in your life. The fact is we live in a society, with all the compromises being in a society entails, sometimes it benefits you, othertimes you're at a loss, but the greater good is more or less served.

A Permabearian libertarian society would have all roads being toll roads etc. The fire brigade not turning up unless you subscribed, the cops not turning up unless you paid for a subscription. I agree that there are elements of our society where the state shouldn't interfere, but as to which they are, I can safely say it isn't the entirety of society.

Try living on one of the uninhabited islands off the west coast for a while and see what the lack of state interference does for your wellbeing. Some people I'm sure would get on grand, but most of us will accept the tyranny of the state, if it guarantees us certain minima of living.

The Scientician

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's a bit of a straw man in fairness.

Not in the slightest. If you advocate for choice, you have to explain the lot of those for whom choice is an unobtainable luxury in any real society. Unless the OP naively believes that all in a society who work hard will reap the economic benefits.

cookies221

@Chuck Stone: I actually cringed reading your post. It's of the standard I'd expect from the caricature "angry socialist" at a college debate. I'll be polite however and deal with your unfounded claims.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Corporations are creations of government. That's what pisses me off about 'the right'.

No, nationalized state owned companies are the creation of government. Think of ESB, Irish Rail, the HSE. In a socialist utopia, all companies would be owned and run by the state. The right is for private enterprise. You couldn't be more wrong.

Those who identify with the right imagine themselves to be for freedom and getting out of the way of business. They are only too happy to have the government use the monopoly of force that the state is to shape the world how they want.

Yes I'm for personal freedom and the free market. Is that supposed to be something to be ashamed of? I don't understand what you're trying to say with the part in bold, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The right want to reach into your living room and throw you into prison for taking drugs. There are millions of people involved with the justice system in the US for drug 'offences' and a huge, fantastically expensive, state apparatus to keep the farce going.

Putting people in jail for taking illegal drugs, imagine that. I suppose you'd prefer to have crack addicts roaming the streets and mugging old women to get the money for their next hit.

The right is happy to have state laws which support limited liability, copyright, patent protection, low corporate taxes, weapons manufacturing, and a massive adventurous military etc.

Yes I support copyright and patent protection. I presume you like to download illegally? How can your favourite bands continue to produce music if they have no money? Again, it's this flaw in logic that is so prevalent in the left that I don't understand. Do you guys ever think? As for the second point about weapons and the military - I believe the former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, and Iran all spend a significant portion of their budget on weapons manufacturing. They are the exact opposite of right wing states. Although, there is nothing inherent in the left or right for that matter that dictates bigger militaries or more guns.

Try again but please think before you reply. If I can make even one socialist actually consider their views for a second, I'll be happy.

Chuck Stone

The Scientician wrote: »

Not in the slightest. If you advocate for choice, you have to explain the lot of those for whom choice is an unobtainable luxury in any real society.

In fairness it carricatures people who advocate free market solutions for health care as being callous with life and uncaring of the poor which isn't true.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Scientician

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In fairness it carricatures people who advocate free market solutions for health care as being callous with life and uncaring of the poor which isn't true.

I'm only talking about the OP. I'm sure there are compassionate freemarket advocates out there, but the OP hasn't made that case so I feel comfortable asking that question without it poisoning the well. I think I've been mostly civil thus far in this thread, as have others who disagree with me.

The Scientician

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes but in infrastructural matters, as opposed to consumerism, choice is less feasible. Because the state isn't fulfilling its role entirely doesn't automatically mean that private enterprise can and will do better at the same task. In, say, our society how much choice is really feasible? I'm not saying grin and bear it, if state-based services are lacklustre complain, vote out the dominant party etc. I'm just not convinced that private enterprise is the panacea that you make it out to be.

It's worth noting though for the sake of this particular argument that our society allows you to send your child to a private school and for you and your family to avail of private medical care. I'm not sure if this two tier system is a boon or a the worst of both worlds but that is the reality in Ireland.

Tordelback

Anecdote + anecdote + anecdote = strawman = 100% correct!

Plato taught me that - bloody liberal.

EI_Flyboy

Healthcare should never be for profit. Private healthcare for profit does not provide best care for patients. The thing with scientists is they're to fond of glory and also to pander to certain parties for funding and if they belong to one school of thought, they're findings will be coloured by it. It's a great thing to be intelligent, it allows us to build unassailable arguments for the flimsiest of illusions. When you start out with one particular point of view, it is small wonder that the evidence we seize hold of reinforces our beliefs, sure we all know how scientists proved cigarettes have nothing to do with cancer. What we all choose to believe is highly subjective and often bears little relation to reality.

The truth is probably that either system would work just fine if it were run fairly and competently but that is a tall order in this day and age. The American system is not fair and neither is ours largely because they aren't run properly, the lunatics are running the asylum.

cookies221

The Scientician wrote: »

Yes but in infrastructural matters, as opposed to consumerism, choice is less feasible. Because the state isn't fulfilling its role entirely doesn't automatically mean that private enterprise can and will do better at the same task. In, say, our society how much choice is really feasible? I'm not saying grin and bear it, if state-based services are lacklustre complain, vote out the dominant party etc. I'm just not convinced that private enterprise is the panacea that you make it out to be.

But they government of the day isn't really the one pulling the strings at the top of these state owned companies. Take Irish Rail for example (I know I'm mentioning them a lot in this thread, but it's just that I'm forced to deal with their shoddy service and incompetence on a daily basis). The heads of Irish Rail are not voted in by anyone, yet they enjoy their cushy job for life which they probably inherited from their fathers, with a high salary courtesy of the tax payer, and are protected by the unions. No matter how bad a service they provide, there is little we can do because they run a monopoly. They've wasted millions of tax money on creating the western rail corridor which serves a tiny proportion of our population and stops off at every tiny bog village in the west of Ireland. Privatize the company and bring in some new fresh college graduates who are qualified and eager to work.

It's worth noting though for the sake of this particular argument that our society allows you to send your child to a private school and for you and your family to avail of private medical care. I'm not sure if this two tier system is a boon or a the worst of both worlds but that is the reality in Ireland.

The two-tier system is good imo. It provides a choice. We don't have to opt for one extreme or the other - we can have both private and public schools. Thus everyone is happy.

Chuck Stone

cookies221 wrote: »

@Chuck Stone: I actually cringed reading your post. It's of the standard I'd expect from the caricature "angry socialist" at a college debate. I'll be polite however and deal with your unfounded claims.

You're ill-informed and the cringe is returned with interest. Read up on it and get back to the subject.

I'll start you off.

Corporation


A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members.[1] There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business. Early corporations were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration.

Corporations are fictional entities granted by government and bolstered by the laws of the state.

No, nationalized state owned companies are the creation of government. Think of ESB, Irish Rail, the HSE. In a socialist utopia, all companies would be owned and run by the state.

Obviously.

The right is for private enterprise. You couldn't be more wrong.

The right, in it's traditional sense, is for corporatism and using the state to shape the world in the way it sees fit.

Putting people in jail for taking illegal drugs, imagine that. I suppose you'd prefer to have crack addicts roaming the streets and mugging old women to get the money for their next hit.

You're conflating assault/drug abuse with drug consumption. Either you're doing this deliberately or you don't understand the issue.

Yes I support copyright and patent protection.

So you're pro state. Why should I care about patents and copyright?

I presume you like to download illegally?

I don't download illegally but I don't believe downloading is always stealing.

How can your favourite bands continue to produce music if they have no money?

I don't care if they do or not tbh I just don't think that taxes should be used to enforce copyright for the lengths of time it does

Again, it's this flaw in logic that is so prevalent in the left that I don't understand. Do you guys ever think?

I'm not a leftist. And yes I think quite a bit.

As for the second point about weapons and the military - I believe the former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, and Iran all spend a significant portion of their budget on weapons manufacturing.

It absolutely pales in comparison to the leviathon military that the US has.

Try again but please think before you reply. If I can make even one socialist actually consider their views for a second, I'll be happy.

I'm not a socialist.

Lol, you are the one who has given these issues little thought not I.

You're exactly the type of hypocritical, ill informed, right winger I have little interst in engaging with.

You're making a right show of yourself but do go on - it's mildly entertaining at least.