Art Vandelay
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,787
In a flag desecration thread, a side discussion developed regarding Canada. I didn't expect it to go as long as it did, so I thought I should start a new thread. Of course, now that I'm doing that, it will probably die off.
With regards to the idea that Americans fund Canadian drug companies:
With regard to outlawing private universities:
And quotes from a blog:
The example of food, in fact, shows the inconsistency of the "need" versus "want" line of reasoning. If the socialization of medicine were truly predicated on the view that "needs" and "wants" should play by different rules, then surely calls for free food and water should have preceded calls for free medical care.
While it is it true that the urgency of a demand affects the workings of a marketplace, it is absurd to claim that "the dynamics of supply and demand become moot", and any remaining pretense of rational argument is lost by the completely unsupported claim that the element of need "eliminates the efficiencies inherent in fair market capitalism". The author is clearly demanding that we accept a ridiculous dichotomy: either the idealized models of free markets perfectly describe the world, or else they must be completely discarded, along with capitalism.
With regards to the idea that Americans fund Canadian drug companies:
I never said that Canadian don't pay any of the drug costs. But if Canadian drug companies invest in a drug, then sell in America for a high price, and in Canada for a low price, then most of the funding is ultimately coming from America.Orwell said:
With regard to outlawing private universities:
You're completely ignoring what I'm saying. I didn't say "If it were illegal for you to put out a newspaper", I said "If it were illegal to put out a newspaper". As in, it's illegal for everyone. Someone else wouldn't be able to do it.
But that's completely irrelevant. Prohibiting private education isn't going to make public education better.
There's a difference between unfairness and injustice. When deserving people can't get medical care, that may be unfair, but it is not unjust. Furthermore, it's rather conceited to declare that the Canadian system is not only fairer, but unquestionably so.
So you're willing to give up the right to have private education in order to have universal health care? Not only do I not agree with that decision, I don't see how the two have anything to do with each other.
There is simply no way that we can raise everyone's standard of living to the current level of the rich, therefore the only way poor people will have as much as the rich is if we take away from the rich. Furthermore, you've basically said that there's no value to a freedom if only the rich can take advantage of it.
On the contrary, the Canada that you have presented knows little of what a liberal democracy is. Your own response is evidence of this, with your dropping the word "liberal" from the term "liberal democracy", and your discussion of freedoms as if were the same thing. Liberty is not freedom in the sense of "being able to do what one wants". Liberty is not something which one casually discards once it becomes inconvenient. While extraordinary situations may necessitate compromises, "I don't approve of your views" is hardly an extraordinary situation. And most of all, liberty belongs to people, not a country. The idea that "Canadians" have chosen to give up their freedom merely because the Canadian government has chosen to do so shows how little you understand the difference between a democracy and a liberal democracy.
And quotes from a blog:
The idea that there is a sharp distinction between "need" and "want" is flawed. While air travel and telecommunications are given of services solidly in the "want" category, it should not be difficult for one with a moderate amount of imagination to think of situation in which both would mean the difference between life and death. Once we allow special pleading on the basis that something is a "need", we are sure to find ourselves on a slippery slope.
The example of food, in fact, shows the inconsistency of the "need" versus "want" line of reasoning. If the socialization of medicine were truly predicated on the view that "needs" and "wants" should play by different rules, then surely calls for free food and water should have preceded calls for free medical care.
While it is it true that the urgency of a demand affects the workings of a marketplace, it is absurd to claim that "the dynamics of supply and demand become moot", and any remaining pretense of rational argument is lost by the completely unsupported claim that the element of need "eliminates the efficiencies inherent in fair market capitalism". The author is clearly demanding that we accept a ridiculous dichotomy: either the idealized models of free markets perfectly describe the world, or else they must be completely discarded, along with capitalism.
