All Comments on 'Economic Growth Via Lie Propagation'

This article talks a lot about logic, but its argumentation is illogical and false. To suggest that the U.S. justice system is deliberately incarcerating criminals as a means of propagating economic advancement is not only illogical, but it is baseless and silly. Why doesn't the author, who is obviously a leftist, suggest ways to strengthen society through higher standards of behavior as a means of deterring crime, which would in turn shut down prisons and put more people into productive work that would generate taxes for a more robust economy and a safer nation? This is another stupid attempt by a leftist to degrade capitalism. It's really ironic that so many capitalist-hating leftists spend so much time tearing down America, yet they benefit greatly from the American guarantees of freedom of expression and assembly that allow them to air their warped views, which would never be permitted in the leftist countries that they love so much.

The author makes several statements that he seems to think are either self-evident or obvious. First, "the United States is a pure capitalist society". This is simply not true and has not been for over 100 years since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and busting trusts. A pure capitalist society would allow some company to become a monopoly and not be controlled by anyone. The government controls utilities and many other aspects of business - not pure capitalist. Second, "To put a convicted murderer to death or to keep him in prison for the rest of his life?" This is also not true. It costs over twice as much to put someone to death in this country as to feed them for the rest of their lives. This is because of the expense of the lawyers, courts, etc., that we, the taxpayers, have to foot for both sides of the issue on endless appeals because we bend over backward to avoid any possibility of error. His statements about socialized medicine are also in error because at the current time, we are only paying for Medicare for senior citizens and the disabled. The rest of the funding comes out of general funds. We don't pay a penny for all the private plans out there. The reason why the Clinton plan failed is because most of the people in the country have fairly good health care coverage and don't want the government to get into the act. Some clever person put it this way: The Clinton national health care system would have the efficiency of the postal service and the heart of the IRS. If you think government run health care is all that great, ask a few senior citizens about Medicare.

Half the points made here are themsleves lies (the US is nowhere close to being a "pure capitalist" society), and the other half are horribly reasoned (does this author honestly believe that socialized medicine provides anyone with the best quality medical care?? Canadians and Europeans would beg to diifer).

Frankly, I don't think this site needs to be polluted with political debate, but at the very least, couldn't we aim for some half-way intelligent political debate? This sort of mindless liberal drivel would far more appropriate for http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/ than for Literotica.

First, thank you for reading this essay.

Secondly, you must realize this essay was limited by the number of words that could be used. Obviously, the theme is far too broad for such a small essay, and I do intend to expand each theme with sufficient documentation.

For the record, I am not a liberal or a conservative, but a free-thinker. Whatever is logical, whatever makes sense and whatever can be proven by untampered statistics, that is what I believe.

A trite mosiac of halftruths designed to prove a belief that has no basis in fact. Why do I feel like I'm watching Fox News?

Good points were raised, and not expecting a complete dissertation here, it's an interesting summation of the relevant concerns. Good effort!

-----

"Although socialized medicine is not conducive to unequal money making, it does allow the patient to get the best medical care that can be provided by the doctors, as they would be paid by the government and not influenced by possible company kickbacks"

===

Agreed, because we all know the excellent, attentive, caring service we get from the DOT, IRS, USPS, etc.

-----

This opens up the possibilities of natural medicine, physical therapy, therapeutic message or whatever is needed by the patient to fix his condition, not to temporarily alleviate it."

===

Umm, you're allowed to do that if you want... I think. No one is stopping you from buying magnetic bracelets or getting accupuncture? Whether or not I/you/others think they are valid, you can try... or no? If you want for it to be paid/free for you, then I say why not pay for my radical stress curing remedy of a free 4 year stay in the Carribean with a harem of 40 hedonistic ladies, all 18-20 years of age?

Lemme know when I can cash your check...

-----

Once again, the European countries have had nationalized health-care programs in place for decades, but the United States of America can't seem to come up with such a plan

===

Which is why the doctors/med-students from other countries flock here... they can't handle that fairness I guess.

-----

In closing, I must confess my statements are clearly illogical and rooted in lies... after all I disagree with you. The ultimate lie.

My fault for just 'skimming' the article and hitting Health Care stuff (p.s. remember, THEY don't HAVE to research drugs to save YOUR life)

... instead of attempting to responding to each point (hah!) you make, I instead admit defeat.

I am dizzy... confused... wondering... (what else is new)

Are you purposely being contradictory? Is this post real? Is it a fiendishly crafted work of evil confusion that will allow you to rule the world? Are you serious? Are you a fruit-loop? Or are you fruit-and-cake?

A humdrum conundrum.

You win.

The recent rebuttal which I happened to read first is overtly from a capital "C" american (conservative/capitalist).

On health care; perhaps consideration of separating precription drug care from government coverage would be more palatable. Drug company lobby groups would have less impetous to try and sway things and the system would be less expensive. Seniors however would still have drug coverage as well.