As it should be. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 11/09/2010 09:27:20 PM
I used to be able to do that. Maybe my patience and equanimity will return now that that place isn't sapping my will to live. I know one thing, next time I need an injectable, I'll request bags from our only competitor. Yea, "free" market? 
As mentioned, I've no way of knowing your own circumstances. If you got screwed in that department, I'd guess you came up heads somewhere else, it tends to balance out. Not completely of course, some people exist in a 'when it rains it pours' existence, others the sun always seems to shine and the grass is greener but for most of us, it tends to break even. Maybe your teeth are just naturally sucky, I don't know. You're an intelligent person in an Age that tends to value that highly, most would consider that a fair trade. Me, I'd rather cut off a finger than lose an IQ point, but I'd rather keep my hand then a single IQ point.
It's a little, no a LOT frustrating because, with the very notable exception of my fiancee, the last two years have been one unbroken crap storm. I finally stopped telling myself the clouds have to break sooner or later even as I kept saying it to others because it was just too depressing; every time I seemed to be back on my feet, everything paid for, bills taken care of for the foreseeable, bank account rising instead of falling, I'd get submarined by something. The past year (ironically given your example) it's been this freaking lemon of a car; it's been out of the shop for 8 whole days this time, yet after I stopped for gas on the way home from work today I had an idiot light come on for my engine. And I've got to sell this piece of crap in less than two months, because I no longer have a job and still owe nearly $4000 on it. And so it goes....
The fact remains there's only so much water on the planet so it can't rain forever. Still, I distinctly remember my uncle saying he feels like the whole family is under active assault by the devil. That was a little over a year ago. Fortunately for all of us, that's not the top of the food chain.
Most objectivists aren't particularly anarchic, and I am not one, as you know, and do not particular subscribe to Dickens-esque " and decrease the surplus population." thinking. Rand actually does not knock charity, she just knocks a mindset that makes it moral duty and major virtue, and she definitely does not knock cooperation. Generally speaking objectivist solutions to poverty tend to be of the 'let's ten of us get together and high Bob to do housework, eleven people profit' variety, not 'let Bob starve in the streets', it doesn't even frown on charity, again, it just rejects the notion that charity is a duty and more is better. And it totally embraces non-financial-profit behavior, it isn't money driven. Yes, certainly many use the ideology as a vehicle to excuse their own failings or greed but that's hardly unique to her philosophy.
Regardless, most of us who are against these sorts of programs aren't objectivists, on top of taxes US citizens voluntarily contribute more money to charitable works than any other country, oops, make that all other countries combined. And its definitely not greed inspiring most conservatives, who statistically give 30% more to charity then libs while also statistically having a smaller average income. Not that libs in the US have much to feel ashamed over, they give 2-3 times as much per capita as the European average, needless to say, since Europe and the US contain slightly over half the world's money between them, nobody else is in a position to have much effect, in case anyone's curious, #1 giver on the list I have was Spain, per capita, at less then half the US per cap donations, followed very closely by Belgium and the UK, the UK of course has a much large number of people, the other two big population areas, France and Germany, do just just over half and roughly a third the per cap of those top 3 respectively. Germans were averaging 1/7th the donations per person of Americans, the study is from earlier in the decade, hopefully that's changed, I don't feel like hunting for anything newer.
None of this revolves then around a desire to harm or even ignore poverty. People who are starting to ask "Who is John Galt?" aren't doing it because they resent helping the needy. You don't hear them demanding massive cuts to police, fire, military etc because those groups represent undeniable benefits as collective actions. To you, healthcare represents a different thing, a necessity, and thus should be provided by all for all. Hardly a crazy idea, but to most of us on the right, its no different then getting your car or roof fixed, realistically maintaining either of those in poor condition is more likely to kill you then a lot of health ailments, same as not fencing in your pool is 1000x times more likely to kill your kids then leaving a loaded fire arm lying around the house. My teeth aren't my problem, my car is (its not, just an example) my tires are going bald and I need it to function to get to work and the grocery store. Or the engine needs and expensive tune up, both, thats pretty common for a lot of poorer people and it is, like a neglect of dental checkups, something which costs more money in the long term then the maintenance would have if done properly. All the wasted gas will add up, and the chance of a critical failure, death by lack of sufficient tire tread, is very real. Should we then have collective car maintenance? Done properly, it would certainly save us all money, the Army on most posts provides facilities where you can 'rent' for about $5 an hour usually, a bay in a garage and access to all the tools. Its a pretty effective policy, but you can get away with that better in the tyrannic setup that is the military, because abuse can be dealt with quickly (and arbitrarily), not too compatible with our normal civilian setup, plus virtually everyone in the military has some vehicle mechanic training... however, there is nothing stopping a group of people from collectively getting together and buying a garage and tools and doing the same. Costs overall will often parallel simply taking it to a mechanic though. Regardless, there is not, and never has been anything stopping liberals from getting together and pooling their resources for medical and dental or anything else. Its not like liberals over all are poorer than the national average. There is not and never has been anything preventing our countries socialist leaning sorts from forming groups (heck, lots of religious groups do this) and pooling their resources as they saw fit, a simple contract on entry making release of tax filings and continued dues on penalty of expulsion is quite legal. I have no objection to such a thing, and might even join one - voluntarily - but I'll not have others force me into it. Its perfectly possible to have socialism under capitalism, families tend to run that way, many business and organizations do some of that, but forcing people to contribute against their will? Nope, only when you can show it is beyond reasonable doubt a vastly superior method.
The thing I've always found annoying about Rand and her followers is that she seems to urge, almost command, not just individuality in itself, but the particular form she prefers. Everyone should be free in exactly the way she says they should, and that makes me VERY nervous, because it's the kind of thing Stalin and Mao used to say.
The thing is, I think ensuring necessities are universally acceptable is itself an undeniable benefit to society. It's reminiscent in some ways of the debate over the infamous "Selfish Gene", but, as I said elsewhere, dead workers tend to produce very little, and a starving soldier is a poor defense, which is why we (theoretically) don't allow our soldiers to starve (though as much as some (not you) think all liberals hate America and its military, I don't think service families, particularly with deployed breadwinners, get nearly as much government help as they need. ) Whether it's moral or gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling is really irrelevant to national policy, and I recognize that; love still can't be coerced, and if it's mandatory it's not charity, it's just a tax. We tax to provide government services from which all or most benefit directly or indirectly; if we don't maintain some basic minimal standards the cops won't protect us from looters: They'll JOIN them. That's the primary reason corruption is so rife in underprivileged countries; wave a ham under the nose of a man whose family's starving and he'll often forget his duty very quickly. So there's a passive and active benefit to society individually and collectively. We can debate whether or not something falls into the category of an essential need of this sort that it's in everyones best interest to make accessible, but if/when we establish that something IS an essential need, to my mind we've conceded that interest exists. When someone's always had such access without the need of government aid, however, it can be a lot harder to see. It's not a malicious thing, no (at least not usually) it's a perception thing. I can't relate to Warren Buffets problems either, but my inability to do so isn't going to cost him his life and isn't what's dulling Americas competitive edge (if we even still have one; biggest thing we have going right now is we have so many consumers of high dollar goods other economies can't afford to lose us, but since we're buying from them on credit, that can't continue indefinitely. )
As to comparing per capita charitable donations around the world, I suspect it would be rather like our discussion of the HDI: How do you measure, what do you measure, and how do you normalize it? I don't doubt Americans donate more than say, the Burmese, however you measure it, but not because we're so noble or they're so heartless: We have the money. Even comparing us to Europe is difficult because, outside of foreign aid, a great many things that depend on charitable aid here are financed by taxes there, so even if the income levels are comparable, the need isn't necessarily, and (except for people seeking tax shelters) people don't donate money just for the hell of it: They donate money with the intent to make a positive difference.
There's no denying you're right: I have been neglectful, not in terms of dentist care (if you don't got it, you don't got it; that's not a new situation for me or anyone) but in terms of personal care and personal choices. Of course, if I brushed, flossed and gargled five times a day and took all my food intravenously it would be all the same as far as going to a dentist now; I almost certainly wouldn't have as many dental problems, but whether or not I did I'd be every bit as much on my own.
As mentioned, I've no way of knowing your own circumstances. If you got screwed in that department, I'd guess you came up heads somewhere else, it tends to balance out. Not completely of course, some people exist in a 'when it rains it pours' existence, others the sun always seems to shine and the grass is greener but for most of us, it tends to break even. Maybe your teeth are just naturally sucky, I don't know. You're an intelligent person in an Age that tends to value that highly, most would consider that a fair trade. Me, I'd rather cut off a finger than lose an IQ point, but I'd rather keep my hand then a single IQ point.
It's a little, no a LOT frustrating because, with the very notable exception of my fiancee, the last two years have been one unbroken crap storm. I finally stopped telling myself the clouds have to break sooner or later even as I kept saying it to others because it was just too depressing; every time I seemed to be back on my feet, everything paid for, bills taken care of for the foreseeable, bank account rising instead of falling, I'd get submarined by something. The past year (ironically given your example) it's been this freaking lemon of a car; it's been out of the shop for 8 whole days this time, yet after I stopped for gas on the way home from work today I had an idiot light come on for my engine. And I've got to sell this piece of crap in less than two months, because I no longer have a job and still owe nearly $4000 on it. And so it goes....
The fact remains there's only so much water on the planet so it can't rain forever. Still, I distinctly remember my uncle saying he feels like the whole family is under active assault by the devil. That was a little over a year ago. Fortunately for all of us, that's not the top of the food chain.
I'm about to the point where I wanna say remove all the taxes, shut down the government and let the Ayn Rand groupies live in the world of anarchy they so fervently desire. I have too much integrity to last five seconds in it, but they're too self absorbed to last any longer.
Most objectivists aren't particularly anarchic, and I am not one, as you know, and do not particular subscribe to Dickens-esque " and decrease the surplus population." thinking. Rand actually does not knock charity, she just knocks a mindset that makes it moral duty and major virtue, and she definitely does not knock cooperation. Generally speaking objectivist solutions to poverty tend to be of the 'let's ten of us get together and high Bob to do housework, eleven people profit' variety, not 'let Bob starve in the streets', it doesn't even frown on charity, again, it just rejects the notion that charity is a duty and more is better. And it totally embraces non-financial-profit behavior, it isn't money driven. Yes, certainly many use the ideology as a vehicle to excuse their own failings or greed but that's hardly unique to her philosophy.
Regardless, most of us who are against these sorts of programs aren't objectivists, on top of taxes US citizens voluntarily contribute more money to charitable works than any other country, oops, make that all other countries combined. And its definitely not greed inspiring most conservatives, who statistically give 30% more to charity then libs while also statistically having a smaller average income. Not that libs in the US have much to feel ashamed over, they give 2-3 times as much per capita as the European average, needless to say, since Europe and the US contain slightly over half the world's money between them, nobody else is in a position to have much effect, in case anyone's curious, #1 giver on the list I have was Spain, per capita, at less then half the US per cap donations, followed very closely by Belgium and the UK, the UK of course has a much large number of people, the other two big population areas, France and Germany, do just just over half and roughly a third the per cap of those top 3 respectively. Germans were averaging 1/7th the donations per person of Americans, the study is from earlier in the decade, hopefully that's changed, I don't feel like hunting for anything newer.
None of this revolves then around a desire to harm or even ignore poverty. People who are starting to ask "Who is John Galt?" aren't doing it because they resent helping the needy. You don't hear them demanding massive cuts to police, fire, military etc because those groups represent undeniable benefits as collective actions. To you, healthcare represents a different thing, a necessity, and thus should be provided by all for all. Hardly a crazy idea, but to most of us on the right, its no different then getting your car or roof fixed, realistically maintaining either of those in poor condition is more likely to kill you then a lot of health ailments, same as not fencing in your pool is 1000x times more likely to kill your kids then leaving a loaded fire arm lying around the house. My teeth aren't my problem, my car is (its not, just an example) my tires are going bald and I need it to function to get to work and the grocery store. Or the engine needs and expensive tune up, both, thats pretty common for a lot of poorer people and it is, like a neglect of dental checkups, something which costs more money in the long term then the maintenance would have if done properly. All the wasted gas will add up, and the chance of a critical failure, death by lack of sufficient tire tread, is very real. Should we then have collective car maintenance? Done properly, it would certainly save us all money, the Army on most posts provides facilities where you can 'rent' for about $5 an hour usually, a bay in a garage and access to all the tools. Its a pretty effective policy, but you can get away with that better in the tyrannic setup that is the military, because abuse can be dealt with quickly (and arbitrarily), not too compatible with our normal civilian setup, plus virtually everyone in the military has some vehicle mechanic training... however, there is nothing stopping a group of people from collectively getting together and buying a garage and tools and doing the same. Costs overall will often parallel simply taking it to a mechanic though. Regardless, there is not, and never has been anything stopping liberals from getting together and pooling their resources for medical and dental or anything else. Its not like liberals over all are poorer than the national average. There is not and never has been anything preventing our countries socialist leaning sorts from forming groups (heck, lots of religious groups do this) and pooling their resources as they saw fit, a simple contract on entry making release of tax filings and continued dues on penalty of expulsion is quite legal. I have no objection to such a thing, and might even join one - voluntarily - but I'll not have others force me into it. Its perfectly possible to have socialism under capitalism, families tend to run that way, many business and organizations do some of that, but forcing people to contribute against their will? Nope, only when you can show it is beyond reasonable doubt a vastly superior method.
The thing I've always found annoying about Rand and her followers is that she seems to urge, almost command, not just individuality in itself, but the particular form she prefers. Everyone should be free in exactly the way she says they should, and that makes me VERY nervous, because it's the kind of thing Stalin and Mao used to say.
The thing is, I think ensuring necessities are universally acceptable is itself an undeniable benefit to society. It's reminiscent in some ways of the debate over the infamous "Selfish Gene", but, as I said elsewhere, dead workers tend to produce very little, and a starving soldier is a poor defense, which is why we (theoretically) don't allow our soldiers to starve (though as much as some (not you) think all liberals hate America and its military, I don't think service families, particularly with deployed breadwinners, get nearly as much government help as they need. ) Whether it's moral or gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling is really irrelevant to national policy, and I recognize that; love still can't be coerced, and if it's mandatory it's not charity, it's just a tax. We tax to provide government services from which all or most benefit directly or indirectly; if we don't maintain some basic minimal standards the cops won't protect us from looters: They'll JOIN them. That's the primary reason corruption is so rife in underprivileged countries; wave a ham under the nose of a man whose family's starving and he'll often forget his duty very quickly. So there's a passive and active benefit to society individually and collectively. We can debate whether or not something falls into the category of an essential need of this sort that it's in everyones best interest to make accessible, but if/when we establish that something IS an essential need, to my mind we've conceded that interest exists. When someone's always had such access without the need of government aid, however, it can be a lot harder to see. It's not a malicious thing, no (at least not usually) it's a perception thing. I can't relate to Warren Buffets problems either, but my inability to do so isn't going to cost him his life and isn't what's dulling Americas competitive edge (if we even still have one; biggest thing we have going right now is we have so many consumers of high dollar goods other economies can't afford to lose us, but since we're buying from them on credit, that can't continue indefinitely. )
As to comparing per capita charitable donations around the world, I suspect it would be rather like our discussion of the HDI: How do you measure, what do you measure, and how do you normalize it? I don't doubt Americans donate more than say, the Burmese, however you measure it, but not because we're so noble or they're so heartless: We have the money. Even comparing us to Europe is difficult because, outside of foreign aid, a great many things that depend on charitable aid here are financed by taxes there, so even if the income levels are comparable, the need isn't necessarily, and (except for people seeking tax shelters) people don't donate money just for the hell of it: They donate money with the intent to make a positive difference.