Libertarianism/Europe tangent

[Aaron]

Ghetto edit:

I'd love to hear his explanation for why we told the Brits and the Yanks "no" when they wanted us to join the Iraqi invasion then. We should be right in there with them if the Queen had any power, right? Oh wait, she has no power even in her own nation.

I see what I did, missed an H.

[scottlowther]

Do you think I am an idiot

Yes.

[Surlethe]

One-line responses are unacceptable. Either put some substance in the post or don't post at all. And I don't care if it's a liberal, conservative, libertarian, or progressive argument; incorrect substance is far better than nothing.

[scottlowther]

Hey, Scott, that list of mean life expectancy at birth is worthless without standard deviations. In other words, you're begging the question of whether the differences at the top of the list are significant.

Perhaps. But any comparison of life expectacny that does not include violent death is worthless when it comes to comparing [img]health%20care%20systems[/img].

Not that you were arrogant, batshit crazy, and possessing an ideology that consists entirely of rationalizing your own sociopathic self-regard and aggrandizing that of others.

That characterization libertarians is just silly. There are any number of reasons people become and continue to be libertarian, much like there are any number of reasons people become and continue to be any particular ideology; rationalizing sociopathic self-regard and aggrandizing others' is only one of many, and probably a very small minority at that.

Keep in mind, "AD" claimed that he was one at one point. So the logical conclusion to draw is that his illucid explanation of what "libertarian" means comes from his own example, and thus defines *him.*

[scottlowther]

Erm, there'd be outrage of course. On the other hand, that's related to a figurehead monarch... how?

Symbolism matters.

If a nation *chooses* to have a star, a cross, a person as a *symbol,* that says something about that nation, or at least about what that nation wishes to be.

[scottlowther]

the Queen is just a figurehead, she has no power or say in our affairs.

That may be so, but symbolism matters. What would y'all say around here if the next Republican candidate for President suggested that the stars in the US flag be replaced with little Christian crosses?

What symbolism? That Canada was born of a British colony?

So was the US.

Ultimately what harm is being done by having her as the head of state?

Strawman. Nobody, so far as I can tell, is suggesting "harm" comes of it.

[Aaron]

Then what is your point? If no harm is being done and the symbolism is that we used to be a British colony, what does it matter?

[scottlowther]

Then what is your point? If no harm is being done and the symbolism is that we used to be a British colony, what does it matter?

Go back to the origin of this tangent. I pointed out that I don't automatically accept the "European" standard of what is Right and Left; it was pointed out that I left out the Aussies and the Canucks; I pointed out that they both choose to employ "European" symbolism.

That's it.

It's no more "harm" than someone who claims to be all in favor of X, but uses symbolism of not-X.

[Aaron]

Right, so this was just a pointless waste of time then.

[scottlowther]

Right, so this was just a pointless waste of time then.

Pretty much, yeah. Some people just seem to need to get their panties in a bunch.

[Surlethe]

Perhaps. But any comparison of life expectacny that does not include violent death is worthless when it comes to comparing health%20care%20systems.

What does violent death have to do with error bars? My point was a general statistical critique; it didn't have anything to do with the criteria of measurement. When we can actually compare the statistics, we can talk about what went into them.

Keep in mind, "AD" claimed that he was one at one point. So the logical conclusion to draw is that his illucid explanation of what "libertarian" means comes from his own example, and thus defines *him.*

I don't know if I'd go that far. Seems to me he was more grandstanding than anything else, and I wanted to call him out on it because that sort of hyperbole bugs me - it's an insult to intelligence to package complex phenomena as simple.

[Aaron]

Right, so this was just a pointless waste of time then.

Pretty much, yeah. Some people just seem to need to get their panties in a bunch.

*shrug* Killed some time while my model dried, at least.

[scottlowther]

My point was a general statistical critique; it didn't have anything to do with the criteria of measurement. When we can actually compare the statistics, we can talk about what went into them.

That's been a problem with using mortality statistics for the "health care debate" pretty much forever... every nation has a difference of opinion regarding how to count what. A lot of the problem WRT American infant mortality compared to other nations is determining just *what* constitutes infant mortality (NOTE). And then you get into extremely exciting areas like abortion where the scores can *really* add up.

So if the WHO can use bunk stats to build a nonsensical case to slam the US, it's fair to do a simple adjustment of their numbers to add one more dimension.

NOTE: Because someone *will* ask...
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/ ... 2healy.htm
"The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. "

[scottlowther]

*shrug* Killed some time while my model dried, at least.

Broke up the tedium of drafting a layout diagram of the Douglas Missiles & Space Systems "ICARUS" rocket-powered troop transport design circa 1963.

[Surlethe]

Dude, do you understand what I am saying? I don't care how you calculated infant mortality or life expectancy at birth. All I want is some error bars so I can actually compare the numbers.

[scottlowther]

Dude, do you understand what I am saying?

Yes.

I don't care how you calculated infant mortality or life expectancy at birth. All I want is some error bars so I can actually compare the numbers.

Go thee forth to the WHO and make some demands, I guess. Keeping track of dead folk ain't my schtick.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That characterization libertarians is just silly. There are any number of reasons people become and continue to be libertarian, much like there are any number of reasons people become and continue to be any particular ideology; rationalizing sociopathic self-regard and aggrandizing others' is only one of many, and probably a very small minority at that.

It does not have to be conscious for the ideology to be just that.

What is more important in libertarianism? The good of everyone, or the good of the individual? In a moral dilemma posed against a libertarian that pits the need of the many against the so-called right to property of one person, who wins? The individual.

Arguments with a libertarian regarding taxation in order to provide for civil services like healthcare will inevitably boil down to "But that money is MINE. You cant have it!"

It is a selfish ideology.

Keep in mind, "AD" claimed that he was one at one point. So the logical conclusion to draw is that his illucid explanation of what "libertarian" means comes from his own example, and thus defines *him.*

What teenager is not an idiot or self-centered at some point? I grew up.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Go thee forth to the WHO and make some demands, I guess. Keeping track of dead folk ain't my schtick.

And how does any of this have a bearing on a multi-dimensional scale for healthcare systems?

Every country has a different unit of measure for a few things. However, those smooth out. Unless their measures for things like infant mortality are way the fuck skewed instead of only slightly different than ours, we are not suddenly going to climb in the ranking by 36 slots.

Your argument does not support your conclusion. You have claimed that the united states has the best healthcare system in the world. Your burden of proof.

[Surlethe]

It does not have to be conscious for the ideology to be just that.

What is more important in libertarianism? The good of everyone, or the good of the individual? In a moral dilemma posed against a libertarian that pits the need of the many against the so-called right to property of one person, who wins? The individual.

Sure, but that doesn't make it inherently selfish. That just makes it non-utilitarian: there's a different standard of morality than maximizing the good of many. There are plenty of those kinds of systems of ethical thought, and while you can call them immoral, calling them selfish seems to be a stretch. The moral core of libertarianism is not the pleasure or welfare of people; it is the respect of certain rights. (Some justifications of libertarianism are utilitarian, but they're (a) not generally accepted by the hardcore ones and (b) bullshit anyway. Often, they're accompanied with a denial of the moral equivalence of passive harm and active harm.)

Arguments with a libertarian regarding taxation in order to provide for civil services like healthcare will inevitably boil down to "But that money is MINE. You cant have it!"

It is a selfish ideology.

Again, not so sure about that. By the way, relatively poor libertarians are certainly conceivable (and do exist); the argument is not, "But that money is MINE, you can't have it!" -- it is, "But that money is HIS, you and I can't have it!"

[Surlethe]

Dude, do you understand what I am saying?

Yes.

I don't care how you calculated infant mortality or life expectancy at birth. All I want is some error bars so I can actually compare the numbers.

Go thee forth to the WHO and make some demands, I guess. Keeping track of dead folk ain't my schtick.

It's your job to dig up the evidence if you're going to have the cajones to make a claim, pal. Either retract your infant mortality list or go find the error analysis in the original study.

[scottlowther]

Your argument does not support your conclusion. You have claimed that the united states has the best healthcare system in the world. Your burden of proof.

Our life expectancy is the best in the world (or at least among the very best) when you factor out violent deaths, which no health care system can help with. As pointed out int he references, a good chunk of our infant mortality is due not to the health care system but to the behaviors of the (often way-too-young) mothers. Our nation is far more ethnically diverse than the others at the top of the list... and like it or not, that seems to matter for reasons divorced from the health care system.

[ray245]

Your argument does not support your conclusion. You have claimed that the united states has the best healthcare system in the world. Your burden of proof.

Our life expectancy is the best in the world (or at least among the very best) when you factor out violent deaths, which no health care system can help with. As pointed out int he references, a good chunk of our infant mortality is due not to the health care system but to the behaviors of the (often way-too-young) mothers. Our nation is far more ethnically diverse than the others at the top of the list... and like it or not, that seems to matter for reasons divorced from the health care system.

Source?

[scottlowther]

Either retract your infant mortality list or go find the error analysis in the original study.

Scroll upwards. Look for the NOTE.

[scottlowther]

Your argument does not support your conclusion. You have claimed that the united states has the best healthcare system in the world. Your burden of proof.

Our life expectancy is the best in the world (or at least among the very best) when you factor out violent deaths, which no health care system can help with. As pointed out int he references, a good chunk of our infant mortality is due not to the health care system but to the behaviors of the (often way-too-young) mothers. Our nation is far more ethnically diverse than the others at the top of the list... and like it or not, that seems to matter for reasons divorced from the health care system.

Source?

Scroll upwards. Look for the "NOTE."

[ray245]

Either retract your infant mortality list or go find the error analysis in the original study.

Scroll upwards. Look for the NOTE.

For a person who proclaim himself as a rocket scientist, you are dumb as hell. The source you provided for us only talks about infant mortality rate, and do not include other factors that will affect the ranking of the US health care system.