What's wrong with wanting collectivist political policies like universally provided public healthcare, education...

What's wrong with wanting collectivist political policies like universally provided public healthcare, education, housing, etc.? Shouldn't you care about the people you share a nation/country with?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Unless it's rigged to be an element of wider eugenics program it's dysgenic.

>universally provided public healthcare, education, housing, etc.
We have all these things. You don't have to pay back federal student loans if you make less than 150% of the poverty level. Medicare. Public schools. Section 8, rent control ect.

but then we won't have enough money for muh guns and sandnigger wars

I consider myself a libertarian leaning radical moderate and yet I fully support a single payer option for health care. Why? I'm a business owner and as such I have a vested interest in a healthy workforce. It makes better sense to pay for it upfront than to pay out the ass to cover emergency visits for basic care.

i care too much about my own families well being to give a shit about yours. if everyone focused on themselves and their families, the world would be a better place.

fuckin commie faggot

Can you point me to a single public housing project in the US that isn't a major shithole?

Wouldn't you rather live in a country where each family cared about other families in the community, and where different communities cared about different communities, and where the nation and its people cared about each other like an extended family? Would you rather have some individualist hellscape where everybody only cared about themselves as opposed to a high-trust society?

I want all non whites dead, why would I pay for their fucking health care and schooling

nope. only certain people should be able to eat pizza.

yeah, but i need to worry about mine FIRST. THEN i can help my community.
your family your problem. be a man and stop expecting everyone to coddle you.

thats how the world was for thousands of years you fucking retard. post modernism and social marxist poison ruined it.
you take care of yours and then you can give what you can spare if you so choose. it's a christian principle.

people call that selfish and it's ridiculous. taking care of my kids isn't selfish. men working themselves to the bone to give a better life to their children is the most selfless thing you can do. RIP family unit. hello daddy government.

>dysgenic
FUCK. I never thought of that. Now I have to rethink my stance.

Wait...isn't pretty much everything in the civilized world dysgenic these days?

sure that's fine. now you liberals get a job and pay YOUR FAIR SHARE

This is where I'm at as well, by the Polish first poster makes a good point. Doesn't this lead to dysgenics?

Marxism and modern liberalism has only one goal. to destroy the traditional family and replace it with degenerates

There's a lot that needs changing these days. It wasn't always (((this way))) in the civilized world.

Sure, but don't expect me to help pay for your shit, faggot

A lot of people are selfish and irresponsible and if given access to public resources they abuse them. They contribute nothing, consume too much and collectivist systems collapse under their weight.
To work well collectivism needs reciprocity between individuals and society. If the state's providing health care you have a duty to keep yourself healthy.

For me, they aren't really a big deal... with one exception. All the support must go to whites with a preference towards white families in need. I see no problem helping my fellow whites like this and to establish a 'high trust' society once more. However since we have all these people running around with the audacity to not be white... I would not support anything of the sort.

Oh right.

Let me pay for the healthcare and well being of niggers that constantly rape, murder and steal. Let me help jews up north who constantly bag on us and tell us what to think. Let me pay for queers who contract aids from other queers.

Education? You mean common core education that favors hood niggers and lowers standards......AND EVEN WHEN whites ace those tests and have a great community and school, Tyrone and Laqueefa can't stand that their kids are dumb, so they get vouchers to be bussed across town to the good white school.

Housing? Have you ever volunteered in Section 8 housing? I have. The parents want free shit, and are more than happy to have their kids bussed off with strangers so they can shoot drugs and cover the streets with beer bottles every weekend.

All in all, why should I give a shit for a nation that doesn't give a shit about me or my values, when I've given more to this nation than most of the parasites that live here?

The concept, atleast for something as basic as healthcare, is a good idea on paper atleast, but for example here in Germany, we now see the issues that come with such a system when you get flooded with migrants that have to be checked up and cared for.

We have constant vaccine shortages, several sicknesses that were thought to be dead broke out again like the Measels or Tuberculosis, even fucking Polio made a return.

Nevertheless, I still support the base concept to have atleast the utmost basics covered by the government or governed insurance companies, like visiting different kinds of doctors for free when it comes to basic treatments. Since everyone pays a percentage fee of their income to support the system, it sure is open to flaws, tax undercutting and whatnot, but it could be a lot worse as well

1) because there is no model for human rights in collectivism.
2) because collectivism is usally based on equal outcome (literally impossible, not hyperbole... literally.... impossible) rather than equal opportunity.
3) Caring about people is one thing, but at some level it is plain irresponsible.
Hypothetical: in the context of collectivism, you have invented a procedure that costs 1,000,000 man hours but it will increaese someone's life by 50 years. Even if that person is working for every second of those 50 years, they will never make up 1,000,000 man hours of labor that are spent on them. regardless of you choice of equal opportunity or equal outcome collectivism. There is no way to justify that anyone gets this procedure without beginning to subjugate people or claim "some animals are more equal than others". But at the same time in an individualist society, you could both justify it, and could benifit both the individual and the society as a whole.
4) sometimes caring about people means letting them fail so they can grow

Care to explain

We do not need universally provided public healthcare. We need eugenics and forced healthy lifestyle as this would practically solve all health problems in the long term.

Pls stop posting feet

If your idea is so good, why don't you start a privately funded group that pools money to collectively pay for healthcare among members.
In a free market, it should thrive and grow independently of conscripted participants. That would solve your problem without infringing on the individual rights of those who have different needs...

you could call it private health insurance, you're really into something here.

Yeah good q
I guess the goal is, and always was, to hold humans to high standards (the best get to live the longest and thrive the most) until reaching the point at which humans can perform eugenics without death being involved, ie directed evolution. and we are probably nearly at that tipping point

because FEET

You are not a liberterian if you believe in any subsidy or any goverment involvement in our economy or services.
Haven't you heard about the scandal at the VA.
Or the super high prices because of OBAMA CARE.
Are you larping?

Resources are finite. Attempting to provide beyond capacity simply diminishes the amount available to any given individual until nobody has enough and a lot more people end up suffering.

You think that universal healthcare means you'll be able to see a doctor when you have cancer. What it really means is that you'll die from cancer during the six-month wait to see a doctor.

Welcome to the Soviet bread line.

Generally speaking giving unnecessary direct power to a government is a bad idea.
You should not give free healthcare, you should stimulate the medical sector and make treatments more affordable, you should not give free education but instead stimulate the brilliant minds through scholarships, you should not give free housing but make regulations to stop the bubble and put the prices back to a reasonable level, you should not give people free shit but invest in the economy and make the country rich enough so that people can afford them.

>Shouldn't you care about the people you share a nation/country with?

I only care about some of those people. And the ones I don't sure as hell don't like me either

Jesus I'm sick of these goddamn threads.

YOUR IDEAS LOST! THEY ARE DUMB! COLLECTIVISM DOES NOT WORK. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT!

Now gtFo.

>Shouldn't you care about the people you share a nation/country with?

it is interesting to me that you chose this particular phrase... "Those you share a country with"

Not, Fellow countrymen, or fellow citizens.. no...

"Those you SHARE a country with"

Now, this bit of a slip gives us an interesting psychological angle into the workings of OP's mind, and also the ultimate conclusion that OP is trying to prime discussion for.

OP want's to rob us, and give all of our money to other nations and peoples, disguised as healthcare.

I suspect a liberal poster, and possibly one who is paid by multinational pharmecutical companies that wish for a more lucrative revenue stream than the free market will currently allow.

It works for a homogeneous population where at least 90% of adults contribute. When over a quarter of adults do not work, and race relations keep tensions high, then it is a disaster.

The problem is that the government needs to balance its budget and with all the taxes the average person pays for healthcare/education/housing/anything governmental they can also use the money to get to a private version of each. Which also means better results.

Also get fucked commie we don't want to pay for shit we want to pay for quality.

I don't want to pay for other people's shit.

>Shouldn't you care about the people you share a nation/country with?

Question is really. Does anyone else care? How many? Do the politicians in charge care?

No, fuck niggers and other freeloaders.

>What's wrong with wanting collectivist political policies like universally provided public healthcare, education, housing, etc.? Shouldn't you care about the people you share a nation/country with?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Hat tip: the shared resource is white men.

>universal public anything
Listen up you twelve year old fuckwit, literally any time anybody tries to sell you on anything "free" or "universal" like this, you only need to ask one question to expose the cancer behind it.
WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT?

You can NOT pay for these programs without putting a gun to SOMEBODY's head and pulling the money from their wallet. There will be people who don't want to pay, and if you have any sense of empathy, you'd understand that you wouldn't feel very good if you were threatened with jailtime if you didnt give half your paycheck to jobless, skillless, lazy, inconsiderate niggers.

So stop trying to justify socialism. It can't work without admitting your penchant being a filthy thieving nigger.

>working yourself to the bone for a better life for future generations
>creating a society of 'fuck you, got mine' that won't help your kids if they fall on hard times.
Wew lad.

>trying to cure the cancer instead of preventing it
You're the reason the world is dying

I'm 'liberal' and have a job and pay taxes. Where is your narrative now?

>supportive society
>cancer
How did I never see the resemblance?!

Several reasons.

The first of which is that it's immoral to rob people of resources and give them to other people using force. That leads to economic flight away from your country, the rich people take the jobs and business elsewhere.

Second. There are a group of people who could afford to have private versions of these things but are stopped from doing so because they have to chip into the public pot, and they don't have enough money to do both.

Lastly, public versions of anything dont face competition and so have no mechanism for improving over time, which means the quality of care you get is worse than what you'd get in a private system, because a private system will constantly innovate.

>What's wrong with wanting collectivist political policies like universally provided public healthcare, education, housing, etc.?
As a general humanitarian idea? Nothing worth mentioning. In a pragmatical sense? Everything. Even the best governments theoretically possible would fuck it up because they must, by definition, be a lot slower to react than a true free market. Add the fact that every government will chose not to cut spending in order to suck up to the voters because next elections are coming and you have a recipe for disaster. Tons of taxpayer shekels end up being wasted.
>Shouldn't you care about the people you share a nation/country with?
I do care. So much that it really hurts on the inside to see my nation the way it is. That is why I oppose the idea you propose. Central planning is a recipe for disaster. Always.

user, I live with the crap you advocate. Educational standards get lower, there's hordes of people graduating with degrees that already fill up the unemployment offices but the quotas don't get lowered, socialized healthcare is abysmal (I'd be dead right now if it weren't for my contacts in my local gummint run hospital) and housing would inevitably end up becoming the god awful commie blocks. Nanny state kills the nation by slowly draining the basics of humanity from it's citizens and turning them into dependent, unthinking slaves.

>Shouldn't you care about the people you share a nation/country with?
Government forcibly taking money to pay for other people's shit =/= caring

>Taxation is theft.
Live in the wild using your own means then. You can either use the market and infrastructure created by the public for the public and pay the fee to access it. Or you can go and do it all on your own.
>People might be able to pay for private if they weren't taxed so much.
Tax refunds?
>Public has no competition
Okay but it also does not expect to get infinitely increasing profits that is asked for in a capitalist system and can focus its efforts on just providing good care.

>You can either use the market and infrastructure created by the public for the public and pay the fee to access it.

Free trade doesn't rely on market infrastructure made by the government. The government mandate that requirement by law and then punish anyone who trades outside of governments watchful eye.

>Tax refunds?
What tax refunds? How do I get all my tax I paid into the NHS back if I take out private healthcare? Come back to reality.

>Okay but it also does not expect to get infinitely increasing profits that is asked for in a capitalist system and can focus its efforts on just providing good care.
Capitalist systems do not expect infinitely increasing profits, that's not possible. You don't understand capitalism at all.

The problem you have is that focusing efforts on just providing good care is not motivated by anything because no one has any reason to do that in a public system, all that happens is people go to work, collect their pay and do the bare minimum, because why do any more? Their business is not at risk from going under because the government gurantees their funds through taxation.

Actual free market businesses need to compete otherwise people flock to the better care of the competition, so it drives progress.

Because such central planning leads to a totalitarian system, no matter the good intentions.
If you value freedom, the only planning a government should do is to ensure individuals are free to plan their own lives. Not plan how they should live their lives.