Philosophical Productive Discussion

[benji]

Yes, but it would still exist in the Confederacy, would become untenable, result in a hostile, failing state and THAT would have mass death and destruction.

Also, I assume you're not implying it would have been better for slavery to still exist in the southern states rather than end it via violence.

Yes, I'm not so cavalier as you in mass casualties of others to achieve what I want. (Not that the Union warred to end slavery anyway.) If the Confederacy had left, slavery would have collapsed because it would have no longer been subsidized by the North. Many Confederates knew this, Alexander Stephens outright publicly predicted that secession guaranteed it. The South was an impoverished backwater, being cut off from the North would have destroyed its exports of the few goods the plantation economy produced. Especially if the other countries peacefully banning slavery started searching for alternative sources as did happen when the war stopped exports. 80% of the South did not own slaves which would have mandated a diversifying of the economy that did not exist prior. This is not to mention how slavery was uneconomic if the North and Europe was no longer subsidizing it. And it's also not to mention the effect of a North unbounded from the Fugitive Slave Laws and actively hostile to the South sitting on its border.

As for it still existing in another country, slavery currently still exists, how many lives are you willing to sacrifice for ending it? For me, the number is zero because I don't believe I have the right to dispose of other's lives for my ends.

That's literally the definition, I'm sorry.

If that's the definition then the United States is borderline single-payer.

It's not "Parasitic" to ensure that your citizens are taken care of enough to participate in society to their full potential. Everyone wins.

Why do you believe that a monopoly corporation completely controlling a sector ensures that everyone is taken care of, let alone "enough ... to their full potential"? Why do you believe the managers and employees of monopoly corporations are omniscient and omnipotent? Why do you believe that constraining supply is the best method to ensure citizens are taken care of? What's the logic behind arguing that no, citizens should not be allowed to have as much healthcare as they want?

This is why I contended that you're being utopian rather than following scientific evidence. It's not like the evidence is still out on if central planning works, it doesn't, nobody has ever even come up with how it's supposed to hypothetically work. We don't centrally plan food and feeding, why is any other sector, be it education or healthcare or many other things, different in this regard? Especially to the point of outlawing the exit part of exit and voice. It's also why I pointed to how your complaints are coming in a system that is increasingly moving in the direction you desire, but when the results you want don't happen because they can't you contend it was misallocation or not enough monopolization as if this would somehow cease the complaints that are the obvious and inherent result of monopolization. Misallocation is the fundamental issue of central planning because it's literally impossible to determine wants and even establish a concept of efficiency. (Yes, I take the argument one step further (CLOSER TO EDGE AND I'M ABOUT TO BREAK) than the Great Minds because I believe the logic makes it inevitable, they felt people would wake up when they saw the obvious mistakes of the logic whereas I assume they will cling harder to the religion.)

edit: I intended "parasitic welfare state" to mean the extreme of the other end from "a safety net" neither of which yet passes over into socialism. Yes, in general, I do believe that seizing other people's labor to use for your own ends, as a way of life, is parasitic but that was not the intent of the particular phrasing. Think instead of, say, a welfare state that taxes everyone so that ResetERA.com staff members can live in luxury as deserved by their high intellectual status.