Difference between SJW and Social Justice in CCC

[Vonsalza]

I guess I’m a heretic that thinks national issues should be delt with at the national level. Silly me.

“I can do no other”.

 

[Theo520]

You just like to make everything a national issue, very convenient it is.

 

[Vonsalza]

No I don’t.

For example, Kentucky is trying to adjust it’s pension system. State level issue, that is.

 

[abucs]

And I think in a lot of cases they should be. For example, should we have Universal Health Care in just Kentucky or just New York? No. We should have it nation-wide. Ergo, it’s best treated as federal issue because it’s a nation-wide concern; likely authorised by the Commerce Clause.

Hello Vonsalza,

I am not against using the government to help people. That is what government is supposed to be about. But there are clear dangers in using government to be the primary vehicle of power and wealth transference.

This has been shown in history and in the present political situation.

In the interests of balance can I ask you to list some of the (potential) dangers and injustices in using government as the primary vehicle of power and wealth transference?

 

[abucs]

I haven’t made any proposals other than to suggest that generally the government can play a role in social justice.

Hello Mrsdizzyd84,

I am not against using the government to help people. That is what government is supposed to be about. But there are clear dangers in using government to be the primary vehicle of power and wealth transference.

This has been shown in history and in the present political situation.

In the interests of balance can I ask you to list some of the (potential) dangers and injustices in using government as the primary vehicle of power and wealth transference?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

In the interests of balance can I ask you to list some of the (potential) dangers and injustices in using government as the primary vehicle of power and wealth transference?

I don’t think government is the primary vehicle of “power and wealth transference”.

I’m not sure why you are asking me to create this list.

 

[abucs]

I’m not sure why you are asking me to create this list.

In the interests of balance.

There are problems with giving the government power to take wealth off people and use it for its own ideology. That doesn’t mean it is always bad or something that I (or you) would always disagree with, but there are dangers.

In the interests of balance I am asking you to acknowledge and list those dangers.

 

[Arkansan]

Like the title says.

What is the difference between those being social justice warriors and what the Cathecism teaches in social justice? Thanks

What is the difference between cyanide and water?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

If you have something to say then say it. If you’d like to list pitfalls then do so.

I haven’t raised these issues, so I don’t see why I should make your list for you.

 

[abucs]

If you have something to say then say it. If you’d like to list pitfalls then do so.

I haven’t raised these issues, so I don’t see why I should make your list for you

I was asking because it is important to see the other side. I find that many people on the Left refuse to even acknowledge there is any credible argument on the other side. This sometimes makes conversations impossible because they just do not want to see outside their emotionalised bubble. I think this is a very big weakness and perhaps the biggest reason why many are deserting the Left now.

So let’s put my request aside because you don’t want to participate, fine.

Let’s take single payer health which is perhaps the best argument for government welfare programs.

My experience with this is in Australia where I think it works very well.

That being said I acknowledge that there has to be constant restraints on what it can do and who can be helped because of finances. To be ignorant of the financial questions is to actually risk the sustainability of the program. It also risks going into debt and forcing future generations into paying for todays health care system which will degrade into the future.

I also have to acknowledge the use of government controlled health system to do absolutely terrible things. That is not to say that single payer health is evil, I happen to favour it. But I am aware that there are dangers and it is important to acknowledge that.

So for example :

the German Hitler socialists brought in a government universal health system and used it to exterminate first the handicapped and then with gassing of Jews.

the Chinese socialists today use the government health system to harvest organs from political prisoners against their will. They have also used the health system to perform perhaps millions of forced abortions on unconsenting mothers.

the Russian Socialists used a government controlled health care to run harmful experiments on patients against their will.

Cambodian socialists used the government run health care to torture anyone they thought politically opposed them. (North Korean socialist may also be doing this).

there have been western powers today that have used the government health systems to exoand abortions and pass laws that prevent people from becoming doctors and nurses unless they agree to do abortions. Some western powers are making / have made it mandatory for all hospitals to provide abortions.

there are western governments today who have used the public health system to underpin euthanasia and when governments run short of money they have started to give the doctors the power to refuse treatment for people over a certain age,

Now I repeat that in general I am supportive of universal health care and this is perhaps the best argument for government welfare. There are so many dangers of ‘doing your religion’ through the state. The health care examples above are but one facet of a much bigger argument.

It is important to understand and acknowledge the very credible arguments of others.

Otherwise we are living in a bubble and accepting an emotionalised ignorance.

 

[Vonsalza]

Hello Vonsalza,

Hi!

I am not against using the government to help people. That is what government is supposed to be about. But there are clear dangers in using government to be the primary vehicle of power and wealth transference.

Sure.
Show me a “perfect system” involving people and complex problems and I’ll show you a system that you just don’t understand.

But the fact of the matter is that we’re just about the only 1st world nation on the planet that hasn’t socialized either the administration or the healthcare itself. And all of the nations that outrank us in the WHO standings (about 20 or so) HAVE a socialized system in some way.

This has been shown in history and in the present political situation.

I know a lot of people think that. But between the VA, Medicare and Medicaid, our healthcare system is already roughly a third socialized. Let’s just finish the job so getting sick doesn’t automatically mean bankruptcy for your average middle class family.

In the interests of balance can I ask you to list some of the (potential) dangers and injustices in using government as the primary vehicle of power and wealth transference?

Sure, you can ask, but it’s kinda hard to answer.

We’re talking about government healthcare, in this case. And there’re a lot of ways to implement such a system and they’re not all the same. For instance, are you talking about a scheme where the government employs all the medical providers (Like the British NHS), or where the government acts as the insurer for everyone and providers are still private entities?

In the same interest, would you be willing to list the benefits of a social system?
There are a bunch of them!

 

[abucs]

Sure.
Show me a “perfect system” involving people and complex problems and I’ll show you a system that you just don’t understand.

But the fact of the matter is that we’re just about the only 1st world nation on the planet that hasn’t socialized either the administration or the healthcare itself. And all of the nations that outrank us in the WHO standings (about 20 or so) HAVE a socialized system in some way.

I think it is clearly a mistake to think in terms of a perfect system, especially of complex systems.

Well I think we need to define what is a ‘socialised’ health system. Ii think what we are referring to is government controlled system. My request above is to consider that there are good arguments against it and the examples given are not just small problems but some of the worse examples of injustice in history.

Again I repeat that I am in general for universal health systems. But it must be discussed with eyes wide open and acknowledging very real dangers.

 

[abucs]

I know a lot of people think that. But between the VA, Medicare and Medicaid, our healthcare system is already roughly a third socialized. Let’s just finish the job so getting sick doesn’t automatically mean bankruptcy for your average middle class family.

see above.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I know a lot of people think that. But between the VA, Medicare and Medicaid, our healthcare system is already roughly a third socialized. Let’s just finish the job so getting sick doesn’t automatically mean bankruptcy for your average middle class family.

see above.

I see!

The Japanese socialists outperform us on colon cancer and I forget what the Brits, French and Nords do better than the US. But pretty much the only thing we beat them on - slightly - was heart disease outcomes. Pretty much any other illness you get, some socialist country does a better job treating it than we do.

 

[abucs]

We’re talking about government healthcare, in this case. And there’re a lot of ways to implement such a system and they’re not all the same. For instance, are you talking about a scheme where the government employs all the medical providers (Like the British NHS), or where the government acts as the insurer for everyone and providers are still private entities?

I am asking you to list some of the dangers. I am leaving it to you. I mentioned health care because Mrsdizzyd84 would not engage on the greater question of the dangers of government control and wished me to name such an aspect. So I spoke about universal health care and mentioned that I in general support it but there are not just dangers but horrific instances of its use…

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

We’re talking about government healthcare, in this case. And there’re a lot of ways to implement such a system and they’re not all the same. For instance, are you talking about a scheme where the government employs all the medical providers (Like the British NHS), or where the government acts as the insurer for everyone and providers are still private entities?

I am asking you to list some of the dangers. I am leaving it to you.

Respectfully, I’m not going to make your argument for you. And assuming that “If ‘socialist’ Cambodia did it, then…” is as ridiculous as me saying “Well, if laissez faire Somalia did it, then…”.

I mentioned health care because Mrsdizzyd84 would not engage on the greater question of the dangers of government control and wished me to name such an aspect. So I spoke about universal health care and mentioned that I in general support it but there are not just dangers but horrific instances of its use…

Sure! And there are horrific dangers of private care where when you run out of money, essentially, it’s your time to die.

 

[abucs]

In the same interest, would you be willing to list the benefits of a social system?
There are a bunch of them!

Well I already have done that in listing my support of universal health care.

In general government controlled welfare has strengths of being able to co-ordinate large sums of money, it has universal reach, it (in theory) is subject to democratic scrutiny.

I have no problem in listing such advantages. I am looking for reciprocal acknowledgement of the weaknesses. Over to you. what are the weaknesses of government controlled income power and re-distribution?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I am not a leftist. I am a centrist. I am socially center-left and fiscally center-right.

I don’t have any problems acknowledging that government is not always good. Like you, I acknowledge that governments can play a role. Like you, I believe that role should be constrained. As a matter of fact (and I’ve said this several times now), I think any government assistance should be in addition to/ a complement to private efforts to address social justice issues. I do not believe government has all the answers.

 

[abucs]

I see!

The Japanese socialists outperform us on colon cancer and I forget what the Brits, French and Nords do better than the US. But pretty much the only thing we beat them on - slightly - was heart disease outcomes. Pretty much any other illness you get, some socialist country does a better job treating it than we do.

For a start I have been to Japan on multiple occasions and they are not socialist. They are very much capitalistic which helps to explain their development. I am not sure on the relevance of you telling me that Japan does something better than the US with regards to medicine. Is there a point?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I see!

The Japanese socialists outperform us on colon cancer and I forget what the Brits, French and Nords do better than the US. But pretty much the only thing we beat them on - slightly - was heart disease outcomes. Pretty much any other illness you get, some socialist country does a better job treating it than we do.

For a start I have been to Japan on multiple occasions and they are not socialist.

Japan socialized their healthcare at the insurance/administrative level. You just apparently don’t know that.