Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Bayou · Feb 20, 2004, 12:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu)
As far as I know, people earn their money because of knowledge ans skills. Those skills were acquired from someone else who had to learn them. How could you have money without the help of other people ? Alone you are nothing, as free as you are. Well if you want to regress to stone age ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)
I agree with cooperation. That is the opposite of the state. The state is coercion. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No you earn money because of your worktime invested in a job that an employer decides what percentage of that worktime is yours and his.
The knowledge and skills have monetary value only which is relevant to the market value of the commodittee/service that those skills can produce.
You cannot earn money unless someone is willing to buy what youre working for, and since you cannot aquire neccessities in this society without money, a person is forced to focus on the rate of pay as the guidline to his well being.
The capitalist system is coercion, the state is coercion.
Two faces of the same side of the coin.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 01:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu)
As far as I know, people earn their money because of knowledge ans skills. Those skills were acquired from someone else who had to learn them. How could you have money without the help of other people ? Alone you are nothing, as free as you are. Well if you want to regress to stone age ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)
I agree with cooperation. That is the opposite of the state. The state is coercion. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No you earn money because of your worktime invested in a job that an employer decides what percentage of that worktime is yours and his.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What does that have to do with "the state is coercion, the opposite of cooperation"?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
You cannot earn money unless someone is willing to buy what youre working for, and since you cannot aquire neccessities in society without money, a person is forced to focus on the rate of pay as the guidline ot his well being.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Or go into business for himself, and help lots of people get what they want through trading the product of his labor for what others have to offer. How is that the same as state coercion?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
[The capitalist system is coercion, the state is coercion.
Two faces of the same side of the coin.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

__a) "If you agree to give me 'x' I will give you 'y,'

__b) "Give us a chunk of your wages, or we will lock you in a cage. If you resist, we will use lethal force to gain your compliance. Then, we will decide what you should get, if anything, in return."

Which one is cooperation, 'a' or 'b'? Which is coercion? Which represents the state?

--Jackney Sneeb

SVMc · Feb 20, 2004, 03:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I see no evidence why a state-run bureaucracy can't ration health services the same way an HMO can. There are already discussions here about the state charging "user fees" in order to reduce frivolous use of emergency room facilities.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The way I understand it and HMO can include clauses that a person with certain diseases or conditions can't be covered or treated or gain access to higher coverage of insurance without paying higher fees. For example diabetics, smokers, cancer victim have had a more difficult time obtaining full coverage over peole deemed "healthy". The discussion surrounding "user fees" largely originated (on this thread) from the idea of imposing user fees for false 911 calls, and conditions that could have been treated by a person with basic knowledge such as a common cold or flu (although the flu may be in question after SARS). HMO's seem to be able to exclude organ transplants etc... I hardly think anyone would go through an organ transplant frivoulsly.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Why? Which one maintains its power through threats of force (i.e., the law)?

And in what way are corporations different from the state, since they are created by the state?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You obviously have a very paticular view of a State that is tyrannical in-so-far as it takes *your* money from *you* in return for services *you don't use* and that equates to *threats of force* *threats of lethal force* and *theft*. I would submit that not all states are created equal. What by definition would make an anachist colony that had territorial sovereignty a non-state? Ideally states are an expansion of community co-ooperation. Realistically no state has ever achieved this. But most exist in the grey area inbetween the despotic regimes you portray states to be an the utopia that many socialists claim states could be. In so far as you have described the Canadian state I think you views are largely skewed. Altruism about most state conduct is impossible unless you are toeing a unlilateral political agenda in which case I would think policy options leading to solutions would be largely impossible.

Corporations may have been "legally" sanctioned by the state, but they were not in social form created by the state. There is a wide body of literature that discusses the arms lenght that ever crown corporations operate from the state and more so private corporations. There is also an increasing body of literature that outlines how unaccountable to people and unmanageable corporations are becomming (or perhaps have always been) to the general public.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
Also none of the Americans have answered the question: Why does a child born into wealth deserve better health care than a child born to poverty?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He doesn't. Nice straw man.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I'm not familiar with the term "straw man" but I'm assuming that is an insult of a kind. Under the American system those who can afford the best health care can purchase the best health care, thos who cannot do without unless life or limb in in danger. How can anyone legitimze this?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
__a) "If you agree to give me 'x' I will give you 'y,'

__b) "Give us a chunk of your wages, or we will lock you in a cage. If you resist, we will use lethal force to gain your compliance. Then, we will decide what you should get, if anything, in return."

Which one is cooperation, 'a' or 'b'? Which is coercion? Which represents the state?

--Jackney Sneeb
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
There no death penalty in Canada, there are no debtor prisions.... so I would say a) is the state if I give them taxes they provide me with service
b) is the health care corporation because I need to give them a chunk of my wages to secure medically necessary treatment, witholding such could be considered leathal force to gain my compliance. The HMO would decide if I "qualify" and they would also exact pressure should I have been treated upfront without insuracne in the form of collection agencies and legal reprocussions.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 05:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
I see no evidence why a state-run bureaucracy can't ration health services the same way an HMO can. There are already discussions here about the state charging "user fees" in order to reduce frivolous use of emergency room facilities.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The way I understand it and HMO can include clauses that a person with certain diseases or conditions can't be covered or treated or gain access to higher coverage of insurance without paying higher fees.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
So can the state. Anything anyone else can do, the state can do.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Why? Which one maintains its power through threats of force (i.e., the law)?

And in what way are corporations different from the state, since they are created by the state?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You obviously have a very paticular view of a State that is tyrannical in-so-far as it takes *your* money from *you* in return for services *you don't use* and that equates to *threats of force* *threats of lethal force* and *theft*.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's how the state gets its way. Maybe it sounds harsh to you when I put it in terms that refelect reality, rather than euphemisms. All states operate that way. If they didn't, no one would pay any attention to their "laws."

And they don't take your money in return for anything.

<Beginning of first thought>
They take your money.
<End of first thought>

<Beginning of second thought>
The state decides what (if anything) you get from them.
<End of second thought.>

The second thought has no correlation to the first.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
Corporations may have been "legally" sanctioned by the state, but they were not in social form created by the state.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I beg to differ with you. Corporations by definition are legal persons, i.e., created by law. The state makes the law. No state = no corporations.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
There is a wide body of literature that discusses the arms lenght that ever crown corporations operate from the state and more so private corporations. There is also an increasing body of literature that outlines how unaccountable to people and unmanageable corporations are becomming (or perhaps have always been) to the general public.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Regarding the first sentence, there are no "private corporations." By definition, all corporations are public, i.e., exist by state charter. As for the second sentence, that means anarchy must exist, since the entire rationale for having a relationship between the state and corporations is to use the power of the state to control them. If they aren't accountable to the public, then obviously the state isn't working in the best interests of the public.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
Also none of the Americans have answered the question: Why does a child born into wealth deserve better health care than a child born to poverty?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn't. Nice straw man.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I'm not familiar with the term "straw man" but I'm assuming that is an insult of a kind.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
A straw man is a notorious logical fallacy. It is when someone makes up a bogus argument (Like "rich children deserve better health care then poor ones"), attributes it to one's opponent, and then uses it to discredit him. In this case, no one has said that rich kids deserve better health care than poor ones, so the author of that comment is guilty of using the "straw man" fallacy. He did it obliquely though, which makes it slightly harder to detect. He used a question, rather than a direct accusation. Embedded in the question "So far, no Canadian has answered why it is okay to club baby seals to death," is the insinuation that Canadians think it's okay to club baby seals to death. That has no more basis in fact than the assumption that Americans think rich kids deserve better health care than poor ones.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
Under the American system those who can afford the best health care can purchase the best health care, thos who cannot do without unless life or limb in in danger. How can anyone legitimze this?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No one is legitimizing it. The solution to an injustice against some cannot be to commit injustice against all. Does my misfortune give me the right to help myself to your paycheck?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
__a) "If you agree to give me 'x' I will give you 'y,'

__b) "Give us a chunk of your wages, or we will lock you in a cage. If you resist, we will use lethal force to gain your compliance. Then, we will decide what you should get, if anything, in return."

Which one is cooperation, 'a' or 'b'? Which is coercion? Which represents the state?

--Jackney Sneeb
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
There no death penalty in Canada, there are no debtor prisions.... so I would say a) is the state if I give them taxes they provide me with service<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
And if you decide you're not satisfied with the service, you're free to quit paying? No armed thugs taking you to court, and locking you up for refusing to pay? You're being coy. You know you're playing games, now.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
b) is the health care corporation because I need to give them a chunk of my wages to secure medically necessary treatment, witholding such could be considered leathal force to gain my compliance. The HMO would decide if I "qualify" and they would also exact pressure should I have been treated upfront without insuracne in the form of collection agencies and legal reprocussions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
So, your local grocer is an extortionist, because he demands you give him your money, or you will die of starvation, and your landlord is similarly a brute because he provides you with shelter only if you pay him what he demands. Yes, I'm sure you really see it that way . . .

SVMc · Feb 20, 2004, 05:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The way I understand it and HMO can include clauses that a person with certain diseases or conditions can't be covered or treated or gain access to higher coverage of insurance without paying higher fees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So can the state. Anything anyone else can do, the state can do.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

With all technicality yes the state could deny services in the same way that HMO's do. The difference is that because the state run institutions are liable to the public system (although not perfectly) so far I have not encountered a significant (or any personally) number of cases where someone has been denied access to health care that we have the ability to provide. While at the same time there is an increasing number of cases of Americans who are taking their HMO's to court because they are accussed of not providing service that clients see as covered. If you have evidence of a significant number of Canadians who have been deined accessiable health care that places it at a proportional level above the number of Americans who have been denied accessiable health care by thier HMO's please provide it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

That's how the state gets its way. Maybe it sounds harsh to you when I put it in terms that refelect reality, rather than euphemisms. All states operate that way. If they didn't, no one would pay any attention to their "laws."

And they don't take your money in return for anything.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Your relying on unilateral statements that are false. I pay taxes, I have recieved health care, education, roads, public facilities, social services and community services in response. I am adequately satisfied with the remuniration I have recieved for my tax dollars. I may have specific tax areas that I address through my local MP or MPP or Ward Member, but in no way do I believe that I have recieved "nothing" in return for my money.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I beg to differ with you. Corporations by definition are legal persons, i.e., created by law. The state makes the law. No state = no corporations<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Large business associations applied for corporate status and the corporate "legal persons status". These events do not happen in a vacuum, people are behind these actions an amporphous state did not one day create an amorphous corporation. This wasn't without public debate. The question now is when peole authorized the creation of the corporation did they have any idea how it would change the face of society?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Regarding the first sentence, there are no "private corporations." By definition, all corporations are public, i.e., exist by state charter. As for the second sentence, that means anarchy must exist, since the entire rationale for having a relationship between the state and corporations is to use the power of the state to control them. If they aren't accountable to the public, then obviously the state isn't working in the best interests of the public<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

"private corporation" as opposed to "crown corporation" is what I was seperating, if you have a correct definition to distinguish between the two in language that you are more amicable to than mine I am open to suggestions.

As for the existance of anarchy in the international, or national - corporate environment, sure I think anarchy exists there, I never disputed that. The issue I have is the type of anarchy, the disproportionate power incorporated. No the state is not able to control the corporations, in creating them as legal persons there is an increasing blur between state and corporations. I would argue this is a major problem in our society that does not have clear policy solutions, although maybe ideological ones.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
No one is legitimizing it. The solution to an injustice against some cannot be to commit injustice against all. Does my misfortune give me the right to help myself to your paycheck?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Okay regarding the straw man or logical fallacy. What I am saying is similar to what you were responding to above. Private health care in the U.S. has created a system where children born to wealth have better access to better health care than children born to poverty. So you're not legitimizing this, can I take this as a sign that you agree that this occurs in the U.S.?

If so we are going to come to an ideological impass on the next issue. According to what I have read so far of exerpets of your book, and your posting on this threads of this board it seems like many Americans you prize individual freedom (especially economic freedom) above all else. Your base unit of analysis is the individual. And this is a very common outlook.

I am not a "socailist" and do not analyze from the level of the state, I use a kinship, community or small social outlook (see works by Ronnie Lipshituz for the best analysis of this). I very much believe that the individual is dependant on a community, grouping, society, kinship network for survival both socailly and biologically. States are the results (in part only there are many other factors) or growing human population. I will not argue unilaterally that the state is a "good" organization for society. I also however will not argue that we have no responsibility towards each other, espeically those who are on the margins of society. When I look at the diversity that is human poverty I do not see many people who "put" themselves into these situations, I do see comparatively a few people (myself included because I am a member of the minority read: developed world who has access to many *things*) who continue to impose poverty on many. I may not myself have set out to colonize, enslave, appropriate land and property of others for my own better existance but I am part of a society that has. So weather it is my neighbour, children in a less fortunate area of the city as me, native populations or the world in general I see a moral debt that is currently expressed in the form of currency.

SVMc · Feb 20, 2004, 05:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
So, your local grocer is an extortionist, because he demands you give him your money, or you will die of starvation, and your landlord is similarly a brute because he provides you with shelter only if you pay him what he demands. Yes, I'm sure you really see it that way . . . <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The point I was making by reversing the answers you were seeking is that you can't make unilateral references like that. To say State = Bad and Corporation = Good are equally false statements. Some states extort money and provide little service to the general public in return are largely unaccountable to their populataion so the people have no recourse. Some states are not. Some corporations are money grabbing, extroting, controlling entities which no social conscious, others are not.

Also the local grocers and landlords are hardly all corporations. We have much less "Wal-Martization" than the states. Fianlly how do you pose that question to co-operatives, of which there are many here as well as the states?

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 06:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
With all technicality yes the state could deny services in the same way that HMO's do.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Right, that's what I said.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
The difference is that because the state run institutions are liable to the public system (although not perfectly) so far I have not encountered a significant (or any personally) number of cases where someone has been denied access to health care that we have the ability to provide. While at the same time there is an increasing number of cases of Americans who are taking their HMO's to court because they are accussed of not providing service that clients see as covered. If you have evidence of a significant number of Canadians who have been deined accessiable health care that places it at a proportional level above the number of Americans who have been denied accessiable health care by thier HMO's please provide it.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I'm not defending HMOs. I think they suck. The US set them up as a precursor to a federally funded health care system, and they work badly. In the US you can take your HMOs to court, and also your doctor. If the feds took over, that would go out the window, because of the principle that you can't sue the "government" (unless it give you permission). The US military is a single-payer system, the model for a national health care monopoly. Patients cannot sue their doctors. Doctors like that, becaus ethye don't havce to have malpractice insurance. Today, the AMA regulates and certifies doctors. In a state-run monopoly, the AMA would be subordinate to the political party in power.

I didn't say any Canadians have been denied health services. I said there is nothing stopping the state from regulating "friviolous" complaints just as HMOs do. You agreed.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
That's how the state gets its way. Maybe it sounds harsh to you when I put it in terms that refelect reality, rather than euphemisms. All states operate that way. If they didn't, no one would pay any attention to their "laws."

And they don't take your money in return for anything.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Your relying on unilateral statements that are false.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Prove it.

<Beginning of first thought>
#1 They take your money.
<End of first thought>

<Beginning of second thought>
#2 The state decides what (if anything) you get from them.
<End of second thought.>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)

I pay taxes,<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's an example of thought #1 above
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)

I have recieved health care, education, roads, public facilities, social services and community services in response.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Those are examples of thought #2, except it isn't "in response" to you paying taxes. If one is too poor to pay taxes, he still gets all those goodies, right? So, what is it in response to?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)

I am adequately satisfied with the remuniration I have recieved for my tax dollars. I may have specific tax areas that I address through my local MP or MPP or Ward Member, but in no way do I believe that I have recieved "nothing" in return for my money.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I'm sure you believe you're getting 'x' in exchange for 'y.' Then problem is, I don't believe it, unless you can convince me that you have the right to stop paying 'x' for services 'y' when you think those services are below your standards of approval, as you would in a true free exchange based on choice, and that people who don't pay taxes are denied the same services you get.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)

Large business associations applied for corporate status and the corporate "legal persons status". These events do not happen in a vacuum, people are behind these actions an amporphous state did not one day create an amorphous corporation. This wasn't without public debate. The question now is when peole authorized the creation of the corporation did they have any idea how it would change the face of society?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Irrelevant. You said the corporations aren't accountable to the public. Why not, if they state has the power to shut them down?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
As for the existance of anarchy in the international, or national - corporate environment, sure I think anarchy exists there, I never disputed that.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Oh, okay. Well, we agree then. You just have a prejudice in favor of thievery when politicians are doing it, and I don't.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
No one is legitimizing it. The solution to an injustice against some cannot be to commit injustice against all. Does my misfortune give me the right to help myself to your paycheck?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Okay regarding the straw man or logical fallacy. What I am saying is similar to what you were responding to above. Private health care in the U.S. has created a system where children born to wealth have better access to better health care than children born to poverty. So you're not legitimizing this, can I take this as a sign that you agree that this occurs in the U.S.?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Of course I agree that rich people get better care than poor people. While I don't think that's right, I don't agree that the solution is to start robbing everyone and trust politicians with the loot.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
If so we are going to come to an ideological impass on the next issue. According to what I have read so far of exerpets of your book, and your posting on this threads of this board it seems like many Americans you prize individual freedom (especially economic freedom) above all else. Your base unit of analysis is the individual. And this is a very common outlook.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I think it is the only legitimate outlook. Every other outlook makes the individual subordinate to the state, and the state always attracts people like lawyers, con artists, and thugs to be the ones in power. I think it is wicked to want to subject everyone, including your own children to the personal whims of such people.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)

I am not a "socailist" and do not analyze from the level of the state, I use a kinship, community or small social outlook (see works by Ronnie Lipshituz for the best analysis of this). I very much believe that the individual is dependant on a community, grouping, society, kinship network for survival both socailly and biologically.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
When the judgment of some in the community contradicts that of some others, who should decide which one prevails?

Who detemines right from wrong for you?

Who should determine right from wrong?

Notice, you're equivocating now. You're switching from a state to a loosely-defined community based on interdependence. I'm not arguing against cooperation, or interdependence (community). I'm arguing against institutionalized initiation of violence (the state). You seem to be arguing against my argument against state violence. Is that true?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
States are the results (in part only there are many other factors) or growing human population. I will not argue unilaterally that the state is a "good" organization for society. I also however will not argue that we have no responsibility towards each other, espeically those who are on the margins of society. When I look at the diversity that is human poverty I do not see many people who "put" themselves into these situations, I do see comparatively a few people (myself included because I am a member of the minority read: developed world who has access to many *things*) who continue to impose poverty on many.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Why shouldn't you be punished for your crimes against humanity?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
I may not myself have set out to colonize, enslave, appropriate land and property of others for my own better existance but I am part of a society that has.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's why I don't believe in collective guilt. If I am responsible for my own actions, then others are responsible for theirs. I am no more responsible for what a group did than you are responsible for me shooting socialists in Vietnam 35 years ago just because we both are from the "group" of people living on North America.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
So weather it is my neighbour, children in a less fortunate area of the city as me, native populations or the world in general I see a moral debt that is currently expressed in the form of currency.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
How much of this currency that you owe literally everyone else on the planet are you currently hoarding for the illegitimate benefit of you and your family?

--Jackney Sneeb

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 06:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)

The point I was making by reversing the answers you were seeking is that you can't make unilateral references like that. To say State = Bad and Corporation = Good are equally false statements.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Where did I say that? I asked you two questions. Are you saying you "reversed" the answers you would have sincerely given?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
Some states extort money and provide little service to the general public in return are largely unaccountable to their populataion so the people have no recourse. Some states are not. Some corporations are money grabbing, extroting, controlling entities which no social conscious, others are not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
All corporations are creations of the state. The state has the power to shut them down. If the corporation is evil, the state tolerates evil.

Name a state that doesn't demand taxes in some from or other, or demand compliance with its commands?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
Also the local grocers and landlords are hardly all corporations.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What does that have to do with the comparison? I'm distinguishing between cooperation and coercion. The state is coercion, whether you want to admit it or not. Cooperation is mutually voluntary. Do corporations, or grocers, or landlords shove you in a cage if you refuse to pay them? No. What would happen to you if you refused to pay taxes -- the PM would say, "Very well, then, but please don't use the roads, schools, or hospitals"?

I don't think so.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
We have much less "Wal-Martization" than the states. Fianlly how do you pose that question to co-operatives, of which there are many here as well as the states?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Cooperatives are the same as any other business. Aren't they? If you make a deal, you keep your word. If you don't, you don't participate. Where is the relevance of that?

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 06:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)

The point I was making by reversing the answers you were seeking is that you can't make unilateral references like that. To say State = Bad and Corporation = Good are equally false statements.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Where did I say that? I asked you two questions. Are you saying you "reversed" the answers you would have sincerely given?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
Some states extort money and provide little service to the general public in return are largely unaccountable to their populataion so the people have no recourse. Some states are not. Some corporations are money grabbing, extroting, controlling entities which no social conscious, others are not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
All corporations are creations of the state. The state has the power to shut them down. If the corporation is evil, the state tolerates evil.

Name a state that doesn't demand taxes in some from or other, or demand compliance with its commands?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
Also the local grocers and landlords are hardly all corporations.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What does that have to do with the comparison? I'm distinguishing between cooperation and coercion. The state is coercion, whether you want to admit it or not. Cooperation is mutually voluntary. Do corporations, or grocers, or landlords shove you in a cage if you refuse to pay them? No. What would happen to you if you refused to pay taxes -- the PM would say, "Very well, then, but please don't use the roads, schools, or hospitals"?

I don't think so.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,)
We have much less "Wal-Martization" than the states. Fianlly how do you pose that question to co-operatives, of which there are many here as well as the states?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Cooperatives are the same as any other business. Aren't they? If you make a deal, you keep your word. If you don't, you don't participate. Where is the relevance of that?

Evil Baby · Feb 20, 2004, 07:22 pm

Here is a link

Medical rankings

Read the page and decide what you want. From what I could see, in the overall ratings Canada was placed higher then the US but person I think it is too close to really even matter.

However Jackney Sneeb, I don't understand how you can have so little trush of politicians yet not share the same mis-givings about CEO's. Personally there are very few of either sect that I trust.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 20, 2004, 11:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
Here is a link

Medical rankings

Read the page and decide what you want. From what I could see, in the overall ratings Canada was placed higher then the US but person I think it is too close to really even matter.

However Jackney Sneeb, I don't understand how you can have so little trush of politicians yet not share the same mis-givings about CEO's. Personally there are very few of either sect that I trust.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
CEO's don't threaten to rob me. CEOs must earn my business. CEOs don't give a shit if I have a gun, a taboo plant, the internet, a billion dollars, what size toilet tank I have, whether I got an inheritance, where I bank my money, how many pets I have, whether I have any subversive literature, if I ever was a communist, they don't make commandments for me and my fellow citizens, and no CEO ever ordered me to go overseas to shoot his little brown enemies to help convert them to democracy. Other than that, they're probably not much different from the average politician.

-Jackney Sneeb

Evil Baby · Feb 21, 2004, 12:32 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
Here is a link

Medical rankings

Read the page and decide what you want. From what I could see, in the overall ratings Canada was placed higher then the US but person I think it is too close to really even matter.

However Jackney Sneeb, I don't understand how you can have so little trush of politicians yet not share the same mis-givings about CEO's. Personally there are very few of either sect that I trust.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
CEO's don't threaten to rob me. CEOs must earn my business. CEOs don't give a shit if I have a gun, a taboo plant, the internet, a billion dollars, what size toilet tank I have, whether I got an inheritance, where I bank my money, how many pets I have, whether I have any subversive literature, if I ever was a communist, they don't make commandments for me and my fellow citizens, and no CEO ever ordered me to go overseas to shoot his little brown enemies to help convert them to democracy. Other than that, they're probably not much different from the average politician.

-Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

With no government working to protect the masses who is going to stop these CEO's from creating Cartels? Do you think Medical companies wouldn't work together to keep prices as high as possible, no matter the human cost?

Granted governments make bad dicissions but with out the government the CEO's would run the country and we would have no way to vote them out.

Hell, CEO's in the US already influence the government more then the people who vote do.

Neither are to be trusted, but people who must be responsible to their voters and not people who must be responsible to thier shareholders will do a better job at providing fair and equal Medical services.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 21, 2004, 01:18 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)

With no government working to protect the masses who is going to stop these CEO's from creating Cartels?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The state created the corporations. The two are partners. Any cartel must rely on the protection the state offers in return for the corporations collecting taxes from the goods and services they sell. Do you seriously
think politicians protect you from the guys they get their campaign contributions from, and who collect taxes from your pay to hand over to the state itself? Yeah, politicians are really looking out for you, aren't they!
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
Granted governments make bad dicissions but with out the government the CEO's would run the country and we would have no way to vote them out.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What CEOs? Without a state to create them by law, there can be no corporations. No corporations, no CEOs.

You think there's a fundamental difference between the people who wear suits and chair corporations, and the guys who go to parliament and make commandments for you to obey? What magic transformation takes place to make a guy who earns a living selling stuff turn into a saint when he gets the job of Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler and Mass Extortionist?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
Hell, CEO's in the US already influence the government more then the people who vote do.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Uh, I thought that was my argument . . .If I want to cut the ability of CEOs to influence things, the most effective way is to abolish their source of power: the state.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
Neither are to be trusted, but people who must be responsible to their voters and not people who must be responsible to thier shareholders will do a better job at providing fair and equal Medical services.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Why? The people who get elected can take whatever they want by law, and give whatever they decide in return, and you either like it or lump it. The people who run corporations don't get paid if you don't want their product. They don't get paid anything at all, if you don't want what they have to offer. Why the hell would you rather have someone take as much money as HE decides, and then HE decides what you get instead of having a CHOICE whether to pay for the stuff or not?

Evil Baby · Feb 21, 2004, 01:49 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

The state created the corporations. The two are partners. Any cartel must rely on the protection the state offers in return for the corporations collecting taxes from the goods and services they sell. Do you seriously
think politicians protect you from the guys they get their campaign contributions from, and who collect taxes from your pay to hand over to the state itself? Yeah, politicians are really looking out for you, aren't they!
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well thankfully Canada isn't nearly as bad as the US when it comes to being influenced by large sums of money from large companies. Also there are many more rules as too how much money our leaders can accept.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

What CEOs? Without a state to create them by law, there can be no corporations. No corporations, no CEOs.

You think there's a fundamental difference between the people who wear suits and chair corporations, and the guys who go to parliament and make commandments for you to obey? What magic transformation takes place to make a guy who earns a living selling stuff turn into a saint when he gets the job of Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler and Mass Extortionist?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No I don't think there is any difference. That's why I wouldn't trust a company to run Medical services any more then the state based on the mans word or integrety however as one person I feel I have a much strongy voice towards the state then I do as one consumer, especially if there is no government intervention. If the government steps back as far as it can and allows companies to do what they want then these companies will create a Cartel because as a Cartel they can make more money collectively. Just look at OPEC.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Uh, I thought that was my argument . . .If I want to cut the ability of CEOs to influence things, the most effective way is to abolish their source of power: the state.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I can't share in part of your argument?
Anywho in Canada it is different and there are not huge companies that dominate the governments decisions.

Or change their source of power...

What happen to just choosing another company? Maybe a smaller one that isn't influental enough to have an affact on the US government?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Why? The people who get elected can take whatever they want by law, and give whatever they decide in return, and you either like it or lump it. The people who run corporations don't get paid if you don't want their product. They don't get paid anything at all, if you don't want what they have to offer. Why the hell would you rather have someone take as much money as HE decides, and then HE decides what you get instead of having a CHOICE whether to pay for the stuff or not?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If that company neglect one group of people or one area of people but makes the company more money in the long run the CEO will get paid. Now those people who were neglected can go elsewhere if they are not satsified with the product , provided they don't live in a small town in the middle of the bush, but they will have a much stonger voice in an election.

Does a poor person have a choice of paying for a shotty job? Getting medical attention with less then up to date equipment compared to the next. Not everybody has a choice of where they end up for medicare. Yes the rich have a choice but the poor do not. Which is why Canada prefers and equality approach. That doesn't stop people from flying to the US to get quicker appointments but that does ensure that people who can't afford certain things will get the medical attention needed.

terstorm · Feb 21, 2004, 03:46 am

Kind of off the topic of health care, but how partisan is Canadian politics? Is it as bad as the pettiness between the Democratic and Republican Parties down here in the States? If it is, sorry to hear that. If not, why?

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 21, 2004, 07:20 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)

Well thankfully Canada isn't nearly as bad as the US when it comes to being influenced by large sums of money from large companies. Also there are many more rules as too how much money our leaders can accept.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
<laughing out loud!>
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
No I don't think there is any difference. That's why I wouldn't trust a company to run Medical services any more then the state based ... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Why would you trust someone who takes your money first, then he decides what you will get for it, and you have no way to get your money back or stop paying him if you aren't satisfied with his "service"? How sane would it be to apply the "health care" model to buying a car, or a place to live? "Here, please Mr. Car Salesman, take a piece of my wages each month, and then I'll trust you to give me a car that works. And here, landlord, here is a blank check against my bank account. Take whatever you want, and just make sure I have a nice place to live.&q

View Poll Results: how would you vote in the next Canadian Fed Election?
Liberal	4	18.18%
Conservative	4	18.18%
NDP	6	27.27%
Bloq	0	0%
Green	3	13.64%
other	5	22.73%
Voters: 22. You may not vote

Feb 20, 2004, 12:43 pm	#81 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu) As far as I know, people earn their money because of knowledge ans skills. Those skills were acquired from someone else who had to learn them. How could you have money without the help of other people ? Alone you are nothing, as free as you are. Well if you want to regress to stone age ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) I agree with cooperation. That is the opposite of the state. The state is coercion. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No you earn money because of your worktime invested in a job that an employer decides what percentage of that worktime is yours and his. The knowledge and skills have monetary value only which is relevant to the market value of the commodittee/service that those skills can produce. You cannot earn money unless someone is willing to buy what youre working for, and since you cannot aquire neccessities in this society without money, a person is forced to focus on the rate of pay as the guidline to his well being. The capitalist system is coercion, the state is coercion. Two faces of the same side of the coin. <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:green'>Vote NDP "The independence of art for the revolution. "The revolution for the complete liberation of art!"</span></span></span>

Feb 20, 2004, 01:15 pm	#82 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu) As far as I know, people earn their money because of knowledge ans skills. Those skills were acquired from someone else who had to learn them. How could you have money without the help of other people ? Alone you are nothing, as free as you are. Well if you want to regress to stone age ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) I agree with cooperation. That is the opposite of the state. The state is coercion. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No you earn money because of your worktime invested in a job that an employer decides what percentage of that worktime is yours and his.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What does that have to do with "the state is coercion, the opposite of cooperation"? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) You cannot earn money unless someone is willing to buy what youre working for, and since you cannot aquire neccessities in society without money, a person is forced to focus on the rate of pay as the guidline ot his well being.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Or go into business for himself, and help lots of people get what they want through trading the product of his labor for what others have to offer. How is that the same as state coercion? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) [The capitalist system is coercion, the state is coercion. Two faces of the same side of the coin.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> __a) "If you agree to give me 'x' I will give you 'y,' __b) "Give us a chunk of your wages, or we will lock you in a cage. If you resist, we will use lethal force to gain your compliance. Then, we will decide what you should get, if anything, in return." Which one is cooperation, 'a' or 'b'? Which is coercion? Which represents the state? --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 20, 2004, 03:17 pm	#83 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I see no evidence why a state-run bureaucracy can't ration health services the same way an HMO can. There are already discussions here about the state charging "user fees" in order to reduce frivolous use of emergency room facilities. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The way I understand it and HMO can include clauses that a person with certain diseases or conditions can't be covered or treated or gain access to higher coverage of insurance without paying higher fees. For example diabetics, smokers, cancer victim have had a more difficult time obtaining full coverage over peole deemed "healthy". The discussion surrounding "user fees" largely originated (on this thread) from the idea of imposing user fees for false 911 calls, and conditions that could have been treated by a person with basic knowledge such as a common cold or flu (although the flu may be in question after SARS). HMO's seem to be able to exclude organ transplants etc... I hardly think anyone would go through an organ transplant frivoulsly. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Why? Which one maintains its power through threats of force (i.e., the law)? And in what way are corporations different from the state, since they are created by the state? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You obviously have a very paticular view of a State that is tyrannical in-so-far as it takes your money from you in return for services you don't use and that equates to threats of force threats of lethal force and theft. I would submit that not all states are created equal. What by definition would make an anachist colony that had territorial sovereignty a non-state? Ideally states are an expansion of community co-ooperation. Realistically no state has ever achieved this. But most exist in the grey area inbetween the despotic regimes you portray states to be an the utopia that many socialists claim states could be. In so far as you have described the Canadian state I think you views are largely skewed. Altruism about most state conduct is impossible unless you are toeing a unlilateral political agenda in which case I would think policy options leading to solutions would be largely impossible. Corporations may have been "legally" sanctioned by the state, but they were not in social form created by the state. There is a wide body of literature that discusses the arms lenght that ever crown corporations operate from the state and more so private corporations. There is also an increasing body of literature that outlines how unaccountable to people and unmanageable corporations are becomming (or perhaps have always been) to the general public. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by (SVMc,) Also none of the Americans have answered the question: Why does a child born into wealth deserve better health care than a child born to poverty? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He doesn't. Nice straw man. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm not familiar with the term "straw man" but I'm assuming that is an insult of a kind. Under the American system those who can afford the best health care can purchase the best health care, thos who cannot do without unless life or limb in in danger. How can anyone legitimze this? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by __a) "If you agree to give me 'x' I will give you 'y,' __b) "Give us a chunk of your wages, or we will lock you in a cage. If you resist, we will use lethal force to gain your compliance. Then, we will decide what you should get, if anything, in return." Which one is cooperation, 'a' or 'b'? Which is coercion? Which represents the state? --Jackney Sneeb <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There no death penalty in Canada, there are no debtor prisions.... so I would say a) is the state if I give them taxes they provide me with service b) is the health care corporation because I need to give them a chunk of my wages to secure medically necessary treatment, witholding such could be considered leathal force to gain my compliance. The HMO would decide if I "qualify" and they would also exact pressure should I have been treated upfront without insuracne in the form of collection agencies and legal reprocussions. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 20, 2004, 05:18 pm	#84 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) I see no evidence why a state-run bureaucracy can't ration health services the same way an HMO can. There are already discussions here about the state charging "user fees" in order to reduce frivolous use of emergency room facilities. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The way I understand it and HMO can include clauses that a person with certain diseases or conditions can't be covered or treated or gain access to higher coverage of insurance without paying higher fees.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So can the state. Anything anyone else can do, the state can do. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Why? Which one maintains its power through threats of force (i.e., the law)? And in what way are corporations different from the state, since they are created by the state? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You obviously have a very paticular view of a State that is tyrannical in-so-far as it takes your money from you in return for services you don't use and that equates to threats of force threats of lethal force and theft.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's how the state gets its way. Maybe it sounds harsh to you when I put it in terms that refelect reality, rather than euphemisms. All states operate that way. If they didn't, no one would pay any attention to their "laws." And they don't take your money in return for anything. <Beginning of first thought> They take your money. <End of first thought> <Beginning of second thought> The state decides what (if anything) you get from them. <End of second thought.> The second thought has no correlation to the first. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) Corporations may have been "legally" sanctioned by the state, but they were not in social form created by the state.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I beg to differ with you. Corporations by definition are legal persons, i.e., created by law. The state makes the law. No state = no corporations. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) There is a wide body of literature that discusses the arms lenght that ever crown corporations operate from the state and more so private corporations. There is also an increasing body of literature that outlines how unaccountable to people and unmanageable corporations are becomming (or perhaps have always been) to the general public.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Regarding the first sentence, there are no "private corporations." By definition, all corporations are public, i.e., exist by state charter. As for the second sentence, that means anarchy must exist, since the entire rationale for having a relationship between the state and corporations is to use the power of the state to control them. If they aren't accountable to the public, then obviously the state isn't working in the best interests of the public. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by (SVMc,) Also none of the Americans have answered the question: Why does a child born into wealth deserve better health care than a child born to poverty? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He doesn't. Nice straw man.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm not familiar with the term "straw man" but I'm assuming that is an insult of a kind.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> A straw man is a notorious logical fallacy. It is when someone makes up a bogus argument (Like "rich children deserve better health care then poor ones"), attributes it to one's opponent, and then uses it to discredit him. In this case, no one has said that rich kids deserve better health care than poor ones, so the author of that comment is guilty of using the "straw man" fallacy. He did it obliquely though, which makes it slightly harder to detect. He used a question, rather than a direct accusation. Embedded in the question "So far, no Canadian has answered why it is okay to club baby seals to death," is the insinuation that Canadians think it's okay to club baby seals to death. That has no more basis in fact than the assumption that Americans think rich kids deserve better health care than poor ones. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) Under the American system those who can afford the best health care can purchase the best health care, thos who cannot do without unless life or limb in in danger. How can anyone legitimze this?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No one is legitimizing it. The solution to an injustice against some cannot be to commit injustice against all. Does my misfortune give me the right to help myself to your paycheck? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) __a) "If you agree to give me 'x' I will give you 'y,' __b) "Give us a chunk of your wages, or we will lock you in a cage. If you resist, we will use lethal force to gain your compliance. Then, we will decide what you should get, if anything, in return." Which one is cooperation, 'a' or 'b'? Which is coercion? Which represents the state? --Jackney Sneeb <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There no death penalty in Canada, there are no debtor prisions.... so I would say a) is the state if I give them taxes they provide me with service<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And if you decide you're not satisfied with the service, you're free to quit paying? No armed thugs taking you to court, and locking you up for refusing to pay? You're being coy. You know you're playing games, now. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) b) is the health care corporation because I need to give them a chunk of my wages to secure medically necessary treatment, witholding such could be considered leathal force to gain my compliance. The HMO would decide if I "qualify" and they would also exact pressure should I have been treated upfront without insuracne in the form of collection agencies and legal reprocussions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So, your local grocer is an extortionist, because he demands you give him your money, or you will die of starvation, and your landlord is similarly a brute because he provides you with shelter only if you pay him what he demands. Yes, I'm sure you really see it that way . . .

Feb 20, 2004, 05:49 pm	#85 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The way I understand it and HMO can include clauses that a person with certain diseases or conditions can't be covered or treated or gain access to higher coverage of insurance without paying higher fees. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So can the state. Anything anyone else can do, the state can do. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> With all technicality yes the state could deny services in the same way that HMO's do. The difference is that because the state run institutions are liable to the public system (although not perfectly) so far I have not encountered a significant (or any personally) number of cases where someone has been denied access to health care that we have the ability to provide. While at the same time there is an increasing number of cases of Americans who are taking their HMO's to court because they are accussed of not providing service that clients see as covered. If you have evidence of a significant number of Canadians who have been deined accessiable health care that places it at a proportional level above the number of Americans who have been denied accessiable health care by thier HMO's please provide it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by That's how the state gets its way. Maybe it sounds harsh to you when I put it in terms that refelect reality, rather than euphemisms. All states operate that way. If they didn't, no one would pay any attention to their "laws." And they don't take your money in return for anything. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your relying on unilateral statements that are false. I pay taxes, I have recieved health care, education, roads, public facilities, social services and community services in response. I am adequately satisfied with the remuniration I have recieved for my tax dollars. I may have specific tax areas that I address through my local MP or MPP or Ward Member, but in no way do I believe that I have recieved "nothing" in return for my money. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I beg to differ with you. Corporations by definition are legal persons, i.e., created by law. The state makes the law. No state = no corporations<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Large business associations applied for corporate status and the corporate "legal persons status". These events do not happen in a vacuum, people are behind these actions an amporphous state did not one day create an amorphous corporation. This wasn't without public debate. The question now is when peole authorized the creation of the corporation did they have any idea how it would change the face of society? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Regarding the first sentence, there are no "private corporations." By definition, all corporations are public, i.e., exist by state charter. As for the second sentence, that means anarchy must exist, since the entire rationale for having a relationship between the state and corporations is to use the power of the state to control them. If they aren't accountable to the public, then obviously the state isn't working in the best interests of the public<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "private corporation" as opposed to "crown corporation" is what I was seperating, if you have a correct definition to distinguish between the two in language that you are more amicable to than mine I am open to suggestions. As for the existance of anarchy in the international, or national - corporate environment, sure I think anarchy exists there, I never disputed that. The issue I have is the type of anarchy, the disproportionate power incorporated. No the state is not able to control the corporations, in creating them as legal persons there is an increasing blur between state and corporations. I would argue this is a major problem in our society that does not have clear policy solutions, although maybe ideological ones. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by No one is legitimizing it. The solution to an injustice against some cannot be to commit injustice against all. Does my misfortune give me the right to help myself to your paycheck? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Okay regarding the straw man or logical fallacy. What I am saying is similar to what you were responding to above. Private health care in the U.S. has created a system where children born to wealth have better access to better health care than children born to poverty. So you're not legitimizing this, can I take this as a sign that you agree that this occurs in the U.S.? If so we are going to come to an ideological impass on the next issue. According to what I have read so far of exerpets of your book, and your posting on this threads of this board it seems like many Americans you prize individual freedom (especially economic freedom) above all else. Your base unit of analysis is the individual. And this is a very common outlook. I am not a "socailist" and do not analyze from the level of the state, I use a kinship, community or small social outlook (see works by Ronnie Lipshituz for the best analysis of this). I very much believe that the individual is dependant on a community, grouping, society, kinship network for survival both socailly and biologically. States are the results (in part only there are many other factors) or growing human population. I will not argue unilaterally that the state is a "good" organization for society. I also however will not argue that we have no responsibility towards each other, espeically those who are on the margins of society. When I look at the diversity that is human poverty I do not see many people who "put" themselves into these situations, I do see comparatively a few people (myself included because I am a member of the minority read: developed world who has access to many things) who continue to impose poverty on many. I may not myself have set out to colonize, enslave, appropriate land and property of others for my own better existance but I am part of a society that has. So weather it is my neighbour, children in a less fortunate area of the city as me, native populations or the world in general I see a moral debt that is currently expressed in the form of currency. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 20, 2004, 05:53 pm	#86 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by So, your local grocer is an extortionist, because he demands you give him your money, or you will die of starvation, and your landlord is similarly a brute because he provides you with shelter only if you pay him what he demands. Yes, I'm sure you really see it that way . . . <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The point I was making by reversing the answers you were seeking is that you can't make unilateral references like that. To say State = Bad and Corporation = Good are equally false statements. Some states extort money and provide little service to the general public in return are largely unaccountable to their populataion so the people have no recourse. Some states are not. Some corporations are money grabbing, extroting, controlling entities which no social conscious, others are not. Also the local grocers and landlords are hardly all corporations. We have much less "Wal-Martization" than the states. Fianlly how do you pose that question to co-operatives, of which there are many here as well as the states? Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 20, 2004, 06:45 pm	#87 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) With all technicality yes the state could deny services in the same way that HMO's do.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Right, that's what I said. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) The difference is that because the state run institutions are liable to the public system (although not perfectly) so far I have not encountered a significant (or any personally) number of cases where someone has been denied access to health care that we have the ability to provide. While at the same time there is an increasing number of cases of Americans who are taking their HMO's to court because they are accussed of not providing service that clients see as covered. If you have evidence of a significant number of Canadians who have been deined accessiable health care that places it at a proportional level above the number of Americans who have been denied accessiable health care by thier HMO's please provide it. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm not defending HMOs. I think they suck. The US set them up as a precursor to a federally funded health care system, and they work badly. In the US you can take your HMOs to court, and also your doctor. If the feds took over, that would go out the window, because of the principle that you can't sue the "government" (unless it give you permission). The US military is a single-payer system, the model for a national health care monopoly. Patients cannot sue their doctors. Doctors like that, becaus ethye don't havce to have malpractice insurance. Today, the AMA regulates and certifies doctors. In a state-run monopoly, the AMA would be subordinate to the political party in power. I didn't say any Canadians have been denied health services. I said there is nothing stopping the state from regulating "friviolous" complaints just as HMOs do. You agreed. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) That's how the state gets its way. Maybe it sounds harsh to you when I put it in terms that refelect reality, rather than euphemisms. All states operate that way. If they didn't, no one would pay any attention to their "laws." And they don't take your money in return for anything. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your relying on unilateral statements that are false.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Prove it. <Beginning of first thought> #1 They take your money. <End of first thought> <Beginning of second thought> #2 The state decides what (if anything) you get from them. <End of second thought.> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) I pay taxes,<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's an example of thought #1 above </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) I have recieved health care, education, roads, public facilities, social services and community services in response.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Those are examples of thought #2, except it isn't "in response" to you paying taxes. If one is too poor to pay taxes, he still gets all those goodies, right? So, what is it in response to? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) I am adequately satisfied with the remuniration I have recieved for my tax dollars. I may have specific tax areas that I address through my local MP or MPP or Ward Member, but in no way do I believe that I have recieved "nothing" in return for my money.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm sure you believe you're getting 'x' in exchange for 'y.' Then problem is, I don't believe it, unless you can convince me that you have the right to stop paying 'x' for services 'y' when you think those services are below your standards of approval, as you would in a true free exchange based on choice, and that people who don't pay taxes are denied the same services you get. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) Large business associations applied for corporate status and the corporate "legal persons status". These events do not happen in a vacuum, people are behind these actions an amporphous state did not one day create an amorphous corporation. This wasn't without public debate. The question now is when peole authorized the creation of the corporation did they have any idea how it would change the face of society?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Irrelevant. You said the corporations aren't accountable to the public. Why not, if they state has the power to shut them down? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) As for the existance of anarchy in the international, or national - corporate environment, sure I think anarchy exists there, I never disputed that. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh, okay. Well, we agree then. You just have a prejudice in favor of thievery when politicians are doing it, and I don't. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) No one is legitimizing it. The solution to an injustice against some cannot be to commit injustice against all. Does my misfortune give me the right to help myself to your paycheck? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Okay regarding the straw man or logical fallacy. What I am saying is similar to what you were responding to above. Private health care in the U.S. has created a system where children born to wealth have better access to better health care than children born to poverty. So you're not legitimizing this, can I take this as a sign that you agree that this occurs in the U.S.?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Of course I agree that rich people get better care than poor people. While I don't think that's right, I don't agree that the solution is to start robbing everyone and trust politicians with the loot. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) If so we are going to come to an ideological impass on the next issue. According to what I have read so far of exerpets of your book, and your posting on this threads of this board it seems like many Americans you prize individual freedom (especially economic freedom) above all else. Your base unit of analysis is the individual. And this is a very common outlook.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think it is the only legitimate outlook. Every other outlook makes the individual subordinate to the state, and the state always attracts people like lawyers, con artists, and thugs to be the ones in power. I think it is wicked to want to subject everyone, including your own children to the personal whims of such people. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) I am not a "socailist" and do not analyze from the level of the state, I use a kinship, community or small social outlook (see works by Ronnie Lipshituz for the best analysis of this). I very much believe that the individual is dependant on a community, grouping, society, kinship network for survival both socailly and biologically.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> When the judgment of some in the community contradicts that of some others, who should decide which one prevails? Who detemines right from wrong for you? Who should determine right from wrong? Notice, you're equivocating now. You're switching from a state to a loosely-defined community based on interdependence. I'm not arguing against cooperation, or interdependence (community). I'm arguing against institutionalized initiation of violence (the state). You seem to be arguing against my argument against state violence. Is that true? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) States are the results (in part only there are many other factors) or growing human population. I will not argue unilaterally that the state is a "good" organization for society. I also however will not argue that we have no responsibility towards each other, espeically those who are on the margins of society. When I look at the diversity that is human poverty I do not see many people who "put" themselves into these situations, I do see comparatively a few people (myself included because I am a member of the minority read: developed world who has access to many things) who continue to impose poverty on many.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why shouldn't you be punished for your crimes against humanity? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) I may not myself have set out to colonize, enslave, appropriate land and property of others for my own better existance but I am part of a society that has.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's why I don't believe in collective guilt. If I am responsible for my own actions, then others are responsible for theirs. I am no more responsible for what a group did than you are responsible for me shooting socialists in Vietnam 35 years ago just because we both are from the "group" of people living on North America. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) So weather it is my neighbour, children in a less fortunate area of the city as me, native populations or the world in general I see a moral debt that is currently expressed in the form of currency.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How much of this currency that you owe literally everyone else on the planet are you currently hoarding for the illegitimate benefit of you and your family? --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 20, 2004, 06:56 pm	#88 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) The point I was making by reversing the answers you were seeking is that you can't make unilateral references like that. To say State = Bad and Corporation = Good are equally false statements.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Where did I say that? I asked you two questions. Are you saying you "reversed" the answers you would have sincerely given? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) Some states extort money and provide little service to the general public in return are largely unaccountable to their populataion so the people have no recourse. Some states are not. Some corporations are money grabbing, extroting, controlling entities which no social conscious, others are not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> All corporations are creations of the state. The state has the power to shut them down. If the corporation is evil, the state tolerates evil. Name a state that doesn't demand taxes in some from or other, or demand compliance with its commands? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) Also the local grocers and landlords are hardly all corporations.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What does that have to do with the comparison? I'm distinguishing between cooperation and coercion. The state is coercion, whether you want to admit it or not. Cooperation is mutually voluntary. Do corporations, or grocers, or landlords shove you in a cage if you refuse to pay them? No. What would happen to you if you refused to pay taxes -- the PM would say, "Very well, then, but please don't use the roads, schools, or hospitals"? I don't think so. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) We have much less "Wal-Martization" than the states. Fianlly how do you pose that question to co-operatives, of which there are many here as well as the states?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Cooperatives are the same as any other business. Aren't they? If you make a deal, you keep your word. If you don't, you don't participate. Where is the relevance of that?

Feb 20, 2004, 06:57 pm	#89 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) The point I was making by reversing the answers you were seeking is that you can't make unilateral references like that. To say State = Bad and Corporation = Good are equally false statements.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Where did I say that? I asked you two questions. Are you saying you "reversed" the answers you would have sincerely given? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) Some states extort money and provide little service to the general public in return are largely unaccountable to their populataion so the people have no recourse. Some states are not. Some corporations are money grabbing, extroting, controlling entities which no social conscious, others are not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> All corporations are creations of the state. The state has the power to shut them down. If the corporation is evil, the state tolerates evil. Name a state that doesn't demand taxes in some from or other, or demand compliance with its commands? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) Also the local grocers and landlords are hardly all corporations.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What does that have to do with the comparison? I'm distinguishing between cooperation and coercion. The state is coercion, whether you want to admit it or not. Cooperation is mutually voluntary. Do corporations, or grocers, or landlords shove you in a cage if you refuse to pay them? No. What would happen to you if you refused to pay taxes -- the PM would say, "Very well, then, but please don't use the roads, schools, or hospitals"? I don't think so. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SVMc,) We have much less "Wal-Martization" than the states. Fianlly how do you pose that question to co-operatives, of which there are many here as well as the states?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Cooperatives are the same as any other business. Aren't they? If you make a deal, you keep your word. If you don't, you don't participate. Where is the relevance of that?

Feb 20, 2004, 07:22 pm	#90 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	Here is a link Medical rankings Read the page and decide what you want. From what I could see, in the overall ratings Canada was placed higher then the US but person I think it is too close to really even matter. However Jackney Sneeb, I don't understand how you can have so little trush of politicians yet not share the same mis-givings about CEO's. Personally there are very few of either sect that I trust.

Feb 20, 2004, 11:13 pm	#91 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) Here is a link Medical rankings Read the page and decide what you want. From what I could see, in the overall ratings Canada was placed higher then the US but person I think it is too close to really even matter. However Jackney Sneeb, I don't understand how you can have so little trush of politicians yet not share the same mis-givings about CEO's. Personally there are very few of either sect that I trust.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> CEO's don't threaten to rob me. CEOs must earn my business. CEOs don't give a shit if I have a gun, a taboo plant, the internet, a billion dollars, what size toilet tank I have, whether I got an inheritance, where I bank my money, how many pets I have, whether I have any subversive literature, if I ever was a communist, they don't make commandments for me and my fellow citizens, and no CEO ever ordered me to go overseas to shoot his little brown enemies to help convert them to democracy. Other than that, they're probably not much different from the average politician. -Jackney Sneeb

Feb 21, 2004, 12:32 am	#92 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) Here is a link Medical rankings Read the page and decide what you want. From what I could see, in the overall ratings Canada was placed higher then the US but person I think it is too close to really even matter. However Jackney Sneeb, I don't understand how you can have so little trush of politicians yet not share the same mis-givings about CEO's. Personally there are very few of either sect that I trust.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> CEO's don't threaten to rob me. CEOs must earn my business. CEOs don't give a shit if I have a gun, a taboo plant, the internet, a billion dollars, what size toilet tank I have, whether I got an inheritance, where I bank my money, how many pets I have, whether I have any subversive literature, if I ever was a communist, they don't make commandments for me and my fellow citizens, and no CEO ever ordered me to go overseas to shoot his little brown enemies to help convert them to democracy. Other than that, they're probably not much different from the average politician. -Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> With no government working to protect the masses who is going to stop these CEO's from creating Cartels? Do you think Medical companies wouldn't work together to keep prices as high as possible, no matter the human cost? Granted governments make bad dicissions but with out the government the CEO's would run the country and we would have no way to vote them out. Hell, CEO's in the US already influence the government more then the people who vote do. Neither are to be trusted, but people who must be responsible to their voters and not people who must be responsible to thier shareholders will do a better job at providing fair and equal Medical services.

Feb 21, 2004, 01:18 am	#93 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) With no government working to protect the masses who is going to stop these CEO's from creating Cartels?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The state created the corporations. The two are partners. Any cartel must rely on the protection the state offers in return for the corporations collecting taxes from the goods and services they sell. Do you seriously think politicians protect you from the guys they get their campaign contributions from, and who collect taxes from your pay to hand over to the state itself? Yeah, politicians are really looking out for you, aren't they! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) Granted governments make bad dicissions but with out the government the CEO's would run the country and we would have no way to vote them out.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What CEOs? Without a state to create them by law, there can be no corporations. No corporations, no CEOs. You think there's a fundamental difference between the people who wear suits and chair corporations, and the guys who go to parliament and make commandments for you to obey? What magic transformation takes place to make a guy who earns a living selling stuff turn into a saint when he gets the job of Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler and Mass Extortionist? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) Hell, CEO's in the US already influence the government more then the people who vote do.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Uh, I thought that was my argument . . .If I want to cut the ability of CEOs to influence things, the most effective way is to abolish their source of power: the state. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) Neither are to be trusted, but people who must be responsible to their voters and not people who must be responsible to thier shareholders will do a better job at providing fair and equal Medical services.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why? The people who get elected can take whatever they want by law, and give whatever they decide in return, and you either like it or lump it. The people who run corporations don't get paid if you don't want their product. They don't get paid anything at all, if you don't want what they have to offer. Why the hell would you rather have someone take as much money as HE decides, and then HE decides what you get instead of having a CHOICE whether to pay for the stuff or not?

Feb 21, 2004, 01:49 am	#94 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The state created the corporations. The two are partners. Any cartel must rely on the protection the state offers in return for the corporations collecting taxes from the goods and services they sell. Do you seriously think politicians protect you from the guys they get their campaign contributions from, and who collect taxes from your pay to hand over to the state itself? Yeah, politicians are really looking out for you, aren't they! <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well thankfully Canada isn't nearly as bad as the US when it comes to being influenced by large sums of money from large companies. Also there are many more rules as too how much money our leaders can accept. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by What CEOs? Without a state to create them by law, there can be no corporations. No corporations, no CEOs. You think there's a fundamental difference between the people who wear suits and chair corporations, and the guys who go to parliament and make commandments for you to obey? What magic transformation takes place to make a guy who earns a living selling stuff turn into a saint when he gets the job of Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler and Mass Extortionist? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No I don't think there is any difference. That's why I wouldn't trust a company to run Medical services any more then the state based on the mans word or integrety however as one person I feel I have a much strongy voice towards the state then I do as one consumer, especially if there is no government intervention. If the government steps back as far as it can and allows companies to do what they want then these companies will create a Cartel because as a Cartel they can make more money collectively. Just look at OPEC. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Uh, I thought that was my argument . . .If I want to cut the ability of CEOs to influence things, the most effective way is to abolish their source of power: the state. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I can't share in part of your argument? Anywho in Canada it is different and there are not huge companies that dominate the governments decisions. Or change their source of power... What happen to just choosing another company? Maybe a smaller one that isn't influental enough to have an affact on the US government? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Why? The people who get elected can take whatever they want by law, and give whatever they decide in return, and you either like it or lump it. The people who run corporations don't get paid if you don't want their product. They don't get paid anything at all, if you don't want what they have to offer. Why the hell would you rather have someone take as much money as HE decides, and then HE decides what you get instead of having a CHOICE whether to pay for the stuff or not? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If that company neglect one group of people or one area of people but makes the company more money in the long run the CEO will get paid. Now those people who were neglected can go elsewhere if they are not satsified with the product , provided they don't live in a small town in the middle of the bush, but they will have a much stonger voice in an election. Does a poor person have a choice of paying for a shotty job? Getting medical attention with less then up to date equipment compared to the next. Not everybody has a choice of where they end up for medicare. Yes the rich have a choice but the poor do not. Which is why Canada prefers and equality approach. That doesn't stop people from flying to the US to get quicker appointments but that does ensure that people who can't afford certain things will get the medical attention needed.

Feb 21, 2004, 03:46 am	#95 (permalink) (top)
terstorm Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 60	Kind of off the topic of health care, but how partisan is Canadian politics? Is it as bad as the pettiness between the Democratic and Republican Parties down here in the States? If it is, sorry to hear that. If not, why? <span style='color:blue'>Things Fall Apart---the centre cannot hold</span> Storm