- 3,052
danoffOk so you're fine with it then, as long as your judgement is met - you don't give a rats ass what damage I think you're doing to me . Who gave you that power over me?
I honestly have no clue what you're talking about here. And yes, I do care if you think I'm doing damage to you.
Your definiton of a market failure is rather absurd. A poor person gets what he earns and you call it a market failure. Somebody pays for what they consume and you call it a market failure.
Why make that assumption? Why define market failure for me? I don't remember giving a definition for market failure, but here goes:
In economics, a market failure is a case in which a market fails to efficiently provide or allocate goods and services. In more general terms, market failures are situations where market forces do not serve the perceived "public interest". The two main reasons that markets fail are (1) sub-optimal market structures and (2) the lack of internalization of costs or benefits in prices and thus into microeconomic decision-making in markets.
Example of which include:
- externalities
- public goods; common property resources
- asymmetric information (read: insider trading, and price transparency)
- market power (i.e. anti-competitive behavior, predatory pricing, collusion)
Strategies to reduce these require the use of some form non-market entity. Or the infamous "state".
No, I mean "How much of our taxpayers LIVES is it worth." How much of their TIME spent earning money are we going to TAKE from them and give to those of our choosing?
Only if you believe private charity is a viable solution for those that are less fortunate.
Do you think people won't pay for immunizations? Do you think they won't pay up front for the care? They will, especially if it is law to do so for children.
So now you're saying we need a law that forces people to pay for healthcare?
What do you do to the person if they cannot afford it?
You're mixing your arugments here. First you were talking about charity, now you're talking about simple proof of insurance. They aren't the same thing.
Address both, then. Will charity work? Would insurance be more important if the doctor is not required to help the patient without it?
No. Civilization is quite simply - at its core what Rand described "the process of setting man free from men."
Then let me ask you this, then:
Are there any civilized socities in the world today based on your (or Rand's) definition civilization?
Do you need me to explain to you what she means? I'd have thought you capable of figuring this out.
Yes, please explain. And don't be so condescending next time. I must've interpreted it differently than what was originally meant.
Ok now you're being closed minded. Remember what I was saying about the tyranny of the majority? And how rights prevented that? This is what I was talking about. Read it and think about it a little more carefully before you dismiss it offhand.
*going back to read*
I consider myself an honest man. I know that it is wrong for me to consume more than I produce, that in doing so I have taken what I have not earned - which is dishonest. (unfortunately for me our system isn't set up like that, and I may never know whether I've acheived that balance)
So would you consider changing the current system so that most or all forms of socialism are eliminated?
This is the purpose of government, to protect man from criminals (and similarly, agressive countries) - to fascilitate civilization which, as she defined earlier, is the process of setting man free from man. Without government, anarchy exists and freedom cannot - because man will be enslaved by force in a world of anarchy. At it's core, that is what government is for - to prevent that most basic injustice.
Maybe. Which leads me back to the market failures again. ^^
Interesting argument. That if the converse of a statement is not true, the statement must not be true.... of course that's not a logically valid argument whatsoever. Try again.
Not until you answer the question following the argument.