I need help with this debate...Free Health Care and Educaiton..

[R_P_A_S]

I need help on replying to what the person in the BLUE font said after I told them this..

ME:

My general stance on the role of police though is very different. We don't need Police... I understand that under this system, the Capitalist system or any profit motive society based on competition, exploitation, class and social division we do need police.

First of all IF higher education & health services (planned parenthood included) were completely free and guaranteed to all people, if public parks and community centers were staffed, functioning and funded properly and if we focused on having NO unemployment that automatically leaves you with an educated. healthier, happier and more thriving society.

When a society has all these BASIC needs covered people have VERY little reason to be heavy drug users, steal and turn to a life of crime. Yes, you will always have a couple people who will for whatever reason feel the need to assault someone or commit any kind of theft. This would be rare! However, is nothing the community can't handle on their own. We can have a public trial and convict the offenders.

Some of you may say is that even possible? Of course it is! Just how it's possible for CEOs and their corporate partners to pocket billions of dollars in tax payers money.


HIM


I don't seem to agree with you, most of what you described above is based on theory. If health care, education, and all basic needs were absolutely free, it would eliminate jobs and be unattainable for people who don't want to wait 2 years for a doctor visit. Without police, you can't say with ANY certainty that the crime rate would decrease. And what about taxes in this "free" society? They would sky rocket. I don't know about you, but if I didn't have to work my ass off for EVERYTHING I have, I wouldn't. But then what would my big contribution to society be? Where would my ability to create jobs be? I think a "free" society would ultimately be a lazy society. I think education needs to be fixed to give everyone an equal opportunity, but it can't be free


_____

On a side note. What are some towns, or regions that don't employ police and seem to be getting along fine?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Start with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_health_expenditure_per_capita,_US_Dolla rs_PPP.png
proving that the welfare state system is actually cheaper than privatisation over all; even with higher tax increases.


And, btw, the very idea that a free health care/education system eliminates jobs is ridiculous. For a start you need doctors, nurses, academics, teachers, janitors to actually have those systems in place. To support them you need agriculture, electricity, precision engineering and manufacture. Society doesn't crumble if its base components are 'free'. :rolleyes:


There is an aspect of group psychology that insinuates that individual effort when a part of a group can deteriorate even as the overall productivity increases. That's because working together makes things easier and is essentially why armies throughout history have triumphed when working in a co-ordinated fashion rather than with individuals of greater skill and factories produce more than individual artisans for far less time put in.


As for an individual's ability to create jobs? In a society where labour is co-ordinated to support and prop each other up any innovation that can make things better and more efficient for the other sections of society would be embraced as long as it can be made understood and accepted. That's what general assemblies are for.


Education can be, and has been, free in the past in many countries. Privatisation only occurs when conservatives panic that the education budget might conflict with the defense budget.

[R_P_A_S]

thanks for your input. I'm gonna look into that link now.

[R_P_A_S]

I think what he means by saying if the basic needs were all free there would be no jobs is because no one is paying money for these services.

I can KINDA see where he's coming from. If health care and education were free.. How would we pay the doctors, professors and other people working in the hospitals and universities? Just from taxes and government subsidies?

[Cencus]

Politely tell him to stfu and go look at what most of the rest of the developed world does in regards to healthcare & education before spouting idiotic ideas.

I remember a few years back reading figures on per cent of GDP spent on healthcare - the U.S.A. was 19% France 14% and the U.K. 9% (These numbers were from the 1980s). Current numbers from http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tot_exp_as_of_gdp-health-total-expenditure-gdp US 13.9% France 9.4% UK 7.5% These numbers tell the true story; The U.S.A. spends a rediculous amount but leaves millions without access to any sort of access to healthcare. There are massive vested interests in keeping the current system. Considering the US has greater GDP per capita by about 1/3 [scource http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita ] too just shows how expensive the current system is.

How anyone can argue for the U.S, system who is not a Doctor, Lawyer, bureaucrat or filthy rich is beyond me.

[R_P_A_S]

This guy.. even though he seems to be a hard core Libertarian and he admitted to being a Tea Bager.. I must say he's actually polite and seems to pay attention to what I have to say...

Here's his last reply...

I'll just say that this system works if the sharp ends can be filed down. Regulate police power, fine.. Regulate corporations, fine.. Figure out health care and education, fine.. But for me, REGULATE GOVERNMENT is the most important! I personally pay $12,000 a year, sometimes more, in taxes. I don't get shit back. Never claimed unemployment, welfare or any sort of government grants.. As far as I'm concerned, I'm paying the police and firemen within the state, paying for the union workers to take way to long to finish anything and federally paying for crooked ass politicians to fuck everything up. Anyways, I highly appreciate your opinion and look forward to the next debate

[Cencus]

Does he drive? His taxes pay for roads. Got kids? State funds their education. Goes to the park? State funds that. Likes having a military industrial complex to prop up the economy? State funds that. Likes having cheap gas? State funds that. Likes not having poor people ready to lynch him for the price of a meal? The state thru welfare funds that. Likes his bins emptied, streets swept? Likes having black men more liable to go to prison than college? State funds that. He gets plenty for his 12k.

People will always complain that taxes are too hard for them no matter how wealthy they are, and never look at what their taxes pay for beyond their own immediate profit. It's a pointless arguement you'll never win because the immediate profit is not their.

Just ask him how much he pays annually for his medical insurance which will drop him at any excuse the second he gets anything expensive to treat. Average US spending person on healthcare is about $5000 per annum in the U.K. it's less the $4000 the French system is under $4500 and thats included in my taxes

[Black_Rose]

I would say that he is an ideological captive of bourgeois imperialism (as he identified himself as a Teabagger). I actually have some respect for anarcho-libertarians like Justin Raimando, who want to remove government interference in the market and limit the government's ability to tax commerce but are also against imperialistic wars).

He is not even close to being a revolutionary. I said this earlier today:


As a revolutionary socialist, my conviction to the cause of revolution ultimately emanates from an edifice of sympathy, amity, mercy, and benevolence towards the working class.He does not exhibit those characteristics since he does not respect the material interests of the working class such as union workers and firemen. I would regard it as a waste your time if you try to argue that the institutions of the welfare state are benign arrangements, either operating within a capitalist system or in a socialist command economy, that can effectively alleviate some of the burdens of life since he does not regard the welfare state to be in his financial self-interest (or it may violate his individualistic persona) nor does he express any concern for the welfare of his countrymen.

However, we should remember the anger is a potent emotion, and it is useful to direct it towards an enemy. He is concerned with his economic self-interest and he believes that "[doesn't] get shit back". But he does not list military spending as a grievance on how his tax money spent.

I would imagine that he would concur with you if you brought up the issue of financing the Iraq and Afghanistan security occupations, and that he briefly thinks about the issue instead of regurgitating neoconservative propaganda.

http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-11366&y=-4488&z=5

Point out that the cumulative cost of the two wars exceed $1.1 trillion, not including interest and veteran's benefits. Would he regard those wars to be in his self-interest?

[R_P_A_S]

I appreciate you guys taking the time to read and voice your replies. It helps out a lot. I do however have one question. Maybe I missed the memo on this one lol.. But how exactly does HIS TAXES pay Union workers?

[ColonelCossack]

We have a welfare state here in the UK and it doesn't seem to be causing the problems your opponent mentions. Also, we used to have grants for universities; they also did not cause the issues highlighted by the person in blue.

[R_P_A_S]

I would say that he is an ideological captive of bourgeois imperialism (as he identified himself as a Teabagger). I actually have some respect for anarcho-libertarians like Justin Raimando, who want to remove government interference in the market and limit the government's ability to tax commerce but are also against imperialistic wars).

He is not even close to being a revolutionary. I said this earlier today:

He does not exhibit those characteristics since he does not respect the material interests of the working class such as union workers and firemen. I would regard it as a waste your time if you try to argue that the institutions of the welfare state are benign arrangements, either operating within a capitalist system or in a socialist command economy, that can effectively alleviate some of the burdens of life since he does not regard the welfare state to be in his financial self-interest (or it may violate his individualistic persona) nor does he express any concern for the welfare of his countrymen.

However, we should remember the anger is a potent emotion, and it is useful to direct it towards an enemy. He is concerned with his economic self-interest and he believes that "[doesn't] get shit back". But he does not list military spending as a grievance on how his tax money spent.

I would imagine that he would concur with you if you brought up the issue of financing the Iraq and Afghanistan security occupations, and that he briefly thinks about the issue instead of regurgitating neoconservative propaganda.

http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-11366&y=-4488&z=5

Point out that the cumulative cost of the two wars exceed $1.1 trillion, not including interest and veteran's benefits. Would he regard those wars to be in his self-interest?

dude.. WTF is up it that chart? where did you get it?

[R_P_A_S]

I'm also having a hard time understanding this chart.

is it supposed to highlight how much stuff cost now and 30 years ago?

[Leftsolidarity]

"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital."

- The Communist Manifesto

[Black_Rose]

I'm also having a hard time understanding this chart.

is it supposed to highlight how much stuff cost now and 30 years ago?
No, it just shows how much things, services costs, and the unfathomable size of the financial sector (for instance, the notional value of all derivative contracts in the trillions section.)

Everything is listed in 2005 USD.

[Belleraphone]

I think education needs to be fixed to give everyone an equal opportunity, but it can't be free

http://media.steampowered.com/steamcommunity/public/images/avatars/27/2787cb33b244799a24bdce2b1b6676815fabb4e6_full.jpg