821
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
821 points (97.9% liked)
politics
18888 readers
3745 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's in the same category as "who would consider health care an appropriate industry for profit?".
Who would consider it? The same people who are coming for public education.
The cruelty is the point.
Their end goal is a population of moronic wage-slaves who are living a barely subsistence lifestyle that will believe anything told of them rather than challenging the wealth, power, and right to rule of the ruling class.
They aren't just conservative, they're regressive. They long for the days of Feudal lordship with themselves cast as the lords.
"The cruelty is the point."
I see this phrase often, and I disagree with it and I'm not sure why people keep repeating it.
Cruelty: inflicting pain on others. This is not the point at all. They don't wake up every morning and say "how can I cause more pain" on individuals or the general populace.
They are almost completely indifferent to the suffering of others that they cause. They are simply greedy and selfish, they want all the money and power, so they can have it all to themselves. Fucking over everyone else is just the process to get and keep what they want. This is my opinion at least.
"Cruelty is the point" is just silly, and absolutely wrong. I also feel like it misdirects talking about the true motive, which I think is mostly greed and selfishness. Cruelty is just a side affect they don't care about.
deleted by creator
You have a good point and it almost seems more malicious this way. At least with cruelty there's a point of sorts behind the action. This way is almost indifference and feels much more sociopathic since its willful not changing those actions
Except no. In reality many people make themselves feel better by making others’ lives worse. Cruelty is indeed one of the goals for many.
In this case though, I tend to agree with the previous person that it is malignant indifference. Millionaires aren't actively trying to hurt people, they just don't give a shit that they're doing it. If the same or better results could be achieved another way, they'd go the other way because it would maximize profits.
You're right that there are sadists out there who enjoy the suffering of others, but I'd wager that's a very low percentage in terms of people running companies or crafting legislation.
I think you're putting a lot of weight into greed in terms of money, and it's my belief based on watching famous rich people talk that many of them want money, power, and status. The things they say and the way they can bring other people down, those are some ways that they can demonstrate that power or status.
And that makes sense if you consider what meaning money has to the ultra rich. People who have more money than they could ever spend will probably try to get more, but that alone wouldn't be satisfying. So then they're going to look to other ways to feel like they're on top of the world. One way to create that feeling is to knock others down.
I agree with you. I do think that the temporarily embarrassed millionaires who support the oligarchs quite enjoy the racist fascist cruelty that the ruling class is encouraging them to enjoy.
coming for?
I think that there are spaces in healthcare where you could safely apply a free market. "Hey, yeah, I see you have a cane, but have you tried my super luxury high speed low drag jet-powered hover cane? Guaranteed to be 1000% more like a Nerf commercial than any standard cane!"
"Woah, check it out, we built an MRI that's way cheaper and doesn't scare the shit out of people!"
"Hey, I found a medicine that cures baldness!" Etc.
Right? I can see the intersection of luxury (in the sense that not buying it incurs no cost, not even an opportunity cost), convenience, and healthcare being a place where there's room for the free market. The problem is that we've gone and applied it to everything, including all kinds of things that shouldn't be free market. Then you end up with all kinds of goofy fucking bullshit like corporates parenting stuff that the DOD paid to develop (Epi Pens, vaccine adjuvants, etc), GSK opting to develop a singles vaccine instead of a tuberculosis vaccine, etc, etc, etc. Oh, that last one is real. Here: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-big-pharma-company-stalled-tuberculosis-vaccine-to-pursue-bigger-profits
This is probably an unpopular take on Lemmy, but I believe that free markets generally work well where they exist. But there's a lot of things that have no business being free markets, like healthcare, and aren't free markets (and won't behave like them) even if you try super hard to pretend that they are. You see, a truly free market requires the ability to say no and suffer no cost. You can buy Bob's Widget, Jan's Widget, or no Widget and be perfectly fine. This is not the case in healthcare. If you're having a heart attack, your choices are:
-Agree to pay for this widget but we can't/won't tell you how much it costs until we're done.
-Die
That's not a free market, that's not how free markets work.
Yeah. It's wild to me, because the Dutch actually have a private, insurance-based system and it works great for them. Their healthcare is affordable, as is their insurance. But the Dutch also aren't afraid of regulating.
A free market cannot have oversights or constraints. If it does it's not free. Free markets have never worked. Will never work. And simply can't exist. Either powerful entities will seek to control the market for themselves. Or if you're lucky benevolent people in government will do their best to control the markets against said group. Someone is always controlling it.
The best we could ever hope to have is a fair market. And the only way to have a fair market is to have a market that is completely optional. Markets that deal and necessities can never be optional. Because Necessities are not optional.
I don't care what they charge for luxury housing or fru fru fancy food. But we can and should provide desirable public housing and basic nutritious food for everyone. And if they want a luxury house. Or fancy food. Any of us are free to work to get it should we choose to. But the point is choose to. Not be forced to under coercion for basic survival.
Not true. Without oversight, you get corruption and monopolies, and the system collapses.
Correct. But both preclude having a free market.
My comment was a bit of a simplified hot take. And your perfectly valid reasons are why I didn't also throw housing and food right in there in the same take.
See... you kid, buuuuuut...
https://www.hurrycane.com/