I hate black and white questions like this. Truth is usually gray, the color of brain matter. I will be arguing for the welfare state. This will be a good debate.
I say neither. I desire a mutualistic society in which individuals cooperate voluntarily for everyone’s benefit. I view coercion of the welfare state and the competition of the “free market” (I doubt that it is free with it’s intellectual property, rent etc) as frauds.
Metavoid, how can you join this thread and assume a stance that was not contained within the original question? I agree with you. If it were up to me, i would not exclude the middle like that, but the thread presupposes only two choices.
That said, how do you allow, coerce, convince people to mutually aid one another? I recommend education and culture first and foremost. I don’t know. What do you think?
There’s only one option, B. A is impossible.
Look at the premise, they have to try and cure any illness whatever the chance of recovery. They are thus obliged to spend every available penny on researching cures. They would collapse as a state in about 20 seconds, immediate revolution. Already you have to start making qualifications to make A work.
B is practically America.
given the phrasing, “if it can be prevented” rather than, “if it can reasonably be prevented.” i would say that you are correct.
If we assume that America is representative, look at the high crime rate and how wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few.
I did not predict the argument would become as focused on semantics this quickly; they were perceptive observations by matt and marshall. however, if the state has an obligation to keep everyone alive in option, they would be obliged to actually treat people, feed them and protect them before spending money on research…
in fact, i would say the state has an obligation to fight crime, poverty and treat known illnesses first, then use leftover revenue to fight diseases through research.
some areas, such as education funding, could indeed suffer. however, the state would not collapse immediately. therefore A is possible.
Option B is not quite america- remember america still has such programs such as medicare and medicaid, althought they are,in my view, very limited.
the USA offers some social security benefits, but does not guarantee the survival of everyone in the popuation by any means.
I believe that Option A is preferable, if you accept that the society will not collapse immediately. It is ethical to sustain the lives of those you rule, especially if they are restricted by rules set and enforced by the government. For instance, it is unfair to expect people not to steal if they do not have enough food to survive.
It is also practical, in terms of stability, to try and create a society in which the main points of resentment towards the government are removed. If people’s basic needs are satisfied, they more likely to support their government for a longer period. An large, impoverished underclass which eventually become motivated to change things, and after that it will mobilize to remove the government if they are inadequate/oppressive.
There are two points to refute/ consider. More to come later
Has government mastered the art of the lie to such an extent that it now can promise,“…the survival of everyone in the population by any means”. I think even most socialists would balk at that notion, given current medical practices. Under certain circumstances it may even be necessary to sacrifice lives to save other lives (national defense). Option a is clearly utopian naivete.
Marshall stated:
I officially retract this statement. Thought and language are codependent. try to have a decent thought without language! And the way the original statement is phrased leads me assuredly to option B.
marshall., you are correct in your point, but i think you have misinterpreted what i meant.
when i said “america does not guarantee the survival of the population by any means” I was using english terminology eqiuvalent to
"america does not guarantee the survival of the population, by any stretch of the imagination."
i did not mean “america does not use any means available to ensure the survival of the populace”
i can see how my poor wording could be easily misread and i apologize.
Quite alright, i have phrased things in the absolute and committed numerous errors here. One of my left leaning friends compares capitalism in the US to competing cells in a petri dish, the losers are just pushed off the map.
I understand there is a lot of diversity in Washington.
marshall,
i found D.C to be pretty diverse, my high school had a large asian, hispanic and jewish populations-in the more urban areas there are a lot more black americans.
I felt as if the people I met in D.C were of many different races and ethnicities,but essentially held the same views- this could have a lot to do with the suburban area i lived in. I found a lot of people to be yuppies or the sons and daughters of yuppies, with the same opinions on politics and life. It was a very money and prestige orientated area.
However, i also lived in London for a long time, which was a much more diverse community. People there come from all walks of life- recent immigrants, working class families living on government housing estates, sons of professionals- all went to my school in London.
Its as interesting comparing the capitals of the two countries as it is comparing their political economies.
I think the petri dish analogy of American capitalism is almost accurate- but he/she has to remember that in reality there are a lot of non institutional forms of help for those who arent as talented or fortunate. Community service, charity work, NPOs are all very prominent in the American social system, and do a lot to look out for the little guys. Institutional socialist systems seem to result in people expecting the government to care for them and others. There is less emphasis on communiyt service and volunteer work in England because people are either lazy, or expect the government to take care of other people welfare…(or both).
I see American society more as a continuously moving group of people who, motivated mainly by the opportunity to improve their own lives, move around to wherever is beneficial for them. The majority of the population lay only temporary roots before moving on to a better school, better paying job etc…Some help others along the way if they can afford to, but the economy is so competitive that most people are so busy trying to accumulate a safe amount of wealth that they forget the unfortunate and have little time to engage with their family and the community.
Interesting that you notice that views are delineated more by socio-economic strata. That is probably true for the most part.
Life in the USA is also more individual-oriented (due to a variety of factors religion, technology, etc) which takes even more time, energy, and resources away from the less fortunate.
We do have a more comprehensive social welfare programme than America I think, as does almost all of Europe. I’ve read that the percentage of children in poverty in America is at 30% which is much higher than most Western European countries.
When you put it in that context a far higher amount of our tax goes on welfare systems so technically every day we work we spend a certain percentage of the day working for the disadvantaged. The most ironic thing about our system at the moment is that we have what should be a socialist government in power that has done little to improve the lot of the disadvantaged compared to when we had a conservative group in power.
matt, i’m willing to accept your poverty figures but i think it needs to be agreed that americans pay lower taxes and a great number of goods are lower in price. whenever i’m in europe, the only good that seems equal or less then in price from what i’m used to having paid in america is liquor. not sure about the message there. …
the theory then would go that americans can choose to donate money they want, regardless of the governement. this almost never works out because pepole don’t care, they are too busy looking forward than behind.
what needs to be pointed out is that, materially speaking, a poor person in detroit is far better off than a poor person in Uganda. and this is only because of the material wealth of the nation. and such material wealth is only achieved through deregulation. a bit of a paradox
Alcohol in England’s not as cheap as the rest of Europe, that’s for certain! 
I was sticking up for England saying it’s not necessarily that we’re lazy that there are less activists in our country, it is because we’ve a much more comprehensive welfare program as well as better workers rights, enviromental laws, etc. which we have to pay for through income tax. We don’t need to be so active because in a way we’ve a much fairer system which reigns in big business and protects the weak. The higher goods prices (ignoring the 17.5% VAT we have over here) is something that no-one really knows why it happens, our tabloids are always moaning about it, doing price comparisons with America etc. There was quite a big furore when it was found that the car industry was price fixing so our car prices were significantly higher than even the rest of Europe, let alone America.
As for deregulation being a source of wealth, I really have to question that. Europe has always been fairly regulated, compared to America of course, and we’re doing fine. What buggered up Africa (in a very basic explanation) was what we did to them in the 60s-80s, lent them a shit load of money, forced them to industrialize without creating a market and then called in the loans with no warning when we all got in trouble with recession, causing their emerging markets to collapse because they couln’t afford to repay. The industrialisation process also meant that workers flooded the cities looking for work because of the new factories creating huge slums of pure misery. That’s why the buzz words these days are sustainable development, which in itself is a regulated type of development.
Deregulation pretty much brings misery to many and wealth to a few, look at what happened in the fast food industry in the 60s-90s, Americans should be ashamed of what they did, instead they’re probably quite proud. Read “Fast Food Nation” to see the horror and poverty deregulation can bring about. It’ll also stop you ever contemplating going to get fast food again.
i’m awear of your arguements for deregulation of goods – i’ve taken several course about that, am a little weary of the arguements, but am happy to talk about it.
you’re right, deregulation in developing countries can be a disaster. especially with poor governance. i’m not arguing that, i agree. the last part, however, i think needs to be stressed. stressed very very strongly. deregulation doesn’t mean the government can pack in, call it a day, and chillax over on the coast while buisnesses exploit the hell out everything it can. as contradictory as it may sound, i think that governments needs to do actually more work under a deregualted system than a publiclly owned one. to carry out such work requires a government with access to a bunch of resources that developing countries usually don’t have.
yes, europe is doing okay living under a mostly socialist-ish government. (is that why they had to form an EU, i wonder?) 
many european countries are not. there’s a lot of factors invovled. america, however, is undisputedly the world’s richest country. the poor in the country are relatively better off because of it – financially speaking. is it a model? on economic terms yes. but there are other terms that can be argued against, but i don’t think they pertain to this topic.
The “capitalism-causes-crime” thesis is not invalid. Remember that under the “free market” regime of Margret Thatcher crime doubled and I’ve read that similar happened under Reagan.
lol, maybe. I wouldn’t call them socialist governments though, thoroughly unsocialist when compared to the old USSR, but on the other hand more socialist than America, that’s true.
As for the deregulation thing, I can see the havoc New Labour are wreaking to our businesses over here with over-regulation, for example some shop stewards are complaining that they have to spend so much time on red tape safety documents that they are endangering their workers by not being able to spend enough time on the shop floor. Sort of defies the point huh!
But I think we’re also talking about slightly different things, just because an industry is regulated I see no reason for it to be publically owned. Regulations just draw lines in the sand which say “cross this and you’ll be in trouble” (though sometimes without any true conviction, again see several rulings against fast-food industries in the 90s, rediculous to be honest).
This can range from workers rights to the environment, and there’s absolutely no market reasons to treat the environment well in many industries, quite the opposite, and to be honest America’s one of the most guilty for that one. Don’t forget America has virtually destroyed all of its natural resources because of its lack of regulation, there’s a damn good chance that will lead to America’s long term economic ruin unless they can keep a knowledge base advantage because they don’t have much else left.
I think as usual the optimum ground lays somewhere between the two extremes, it is better to let companies have some some room to manouver, it encourages competition, but never give them too much because an unethical one will always enter the market place and force all the others to follow suit for economic reasons. It never pays to be safety conscious unless you have highly skilled workers, who, almost by definition, really don’t need telling in the first place because they are skilled.
In conclusion I feel there is no such thing as a fairness to workers in a unregulated laissez-faire capitalist system, we’ve been taught that many times, especially at the dawn of the industrial revolution, and it’s a lesson we should never forget.
i suppose then, matt, you’re opening up an arguement on what is fairness. even though everyone is not equal, society should act like they are? or should we just provide the freedom, and then they choose to act? deregulation requires a strong courts system, which is managed by the government. while initally it can be horrific, i think the result is one of the best systems out there.
I wouldn’t argue for something like that, as I’ve said in another post fairness isn’t really something you can legislate on. What is needed is a system which balances the power between the investors of capital and the providers of labour, otherwise capital gets more and more concentrated in the hands of the few and the rich/poor divide grows. Eventually you end up living in Feudal England again, which is certainly not what so many people died for in WW1 and 2.
Unfortuantly, and I don’t like to bash the place as I quite respect it, but that is exactly what is happening in America. The gap is growing, and quite rapidly too. The national minimum wage has been steadly decreasing over the last few decades as it hasn’t been increasing in line with inflation (it is now worth something like 60% of what it was originally). So voila, proof that your deregulation doesn’t work in any resonable judgement of what makes a successful country, unless you judge it on solely economic terms.
I also don’t understand why deregulation would need a strong courts system, after all you are reducing the amount of laws and thus law breakers.
Metavoid said:
The “capitalism-causes-crime” thesis is not invalid. Remember that under the “free market” regime of Margret Thatcher crime doubled and I’ve read that similar happened under Reagan.
[/quote]
I just look at the murder rates here as compared to European countries, and the difference is appalling.
Matt stated:
Balance and fairness are important. But do we treat causes or effects? A few people’s greed causes a billion people in this World to be malnourished and starving every day.