We still struggle with the life and death decisions related to allocating capital do healthcare. Even single payer systems have this problem.
We can start by looking at what profit margins and administrative expenses are reasonable for health businesses. The free market generally solves these questiins, but it's notoriously deficient when it comes to healthcare.
Then we can find out how to best allocate the remaining money to maximize health outcomes while ensuring that the businesses are sustainable.
Can you please elaborate on this part? I don't see how this could be solved by market forces.
EDIT: Making healthcare for profit, would always put someone's life against someone else's new yacht. Is this how we want to assess these situations?
It isn't. Free markets always optimize for the most efficient path to maximum profits - and that's exactly what American healthcare has done.
Most countries are aware that the incentives of free market capitalism don't effectively provide for the general welfare, because the purpose of capitalism is to centralize power and control of resources to the capitalist class. Thus healthcare is considered a right to be provided by governments, rather than a privilege as it is in the US (ACA mandates notwithstanding, requiring someone to participate in the market isn't the same as granting a right, it's essentially extortion.)
The answer in this case is better, more effective government and actual socialized healthcare (again, not the ACA.) But that will never happen in the US. So I guess we'll just have to keep shooting CEOs because the impotent catharsis of violence is the only truly inalienable right the American people have.
Why not? Violence is a tool like any other, and our entire western society is predicated on it. We are cogs in a corporate-run state and if we don't like it, there is the police force. If we get evicted, the police is there to tell us to stop sleeping on the bench. If we don't listen, they have the guns. The underlying systemic violence of our society is rampant.
Personally, while I neither like nor dislike violence, it can be a useful tool in revolutions where the state has become incompatible with the needs of the majority.
The narrative is that we decide on rational reasons (which doesn't excludes violence as such) mixed with a moral superiority (which excludes violence).
I think saying that we don't like violence is just sharing the moral common sentiment and hoping that it leads to some understanding/highlighting of the contradictions. The reality is that people will fight for life when you push them. What is "violent" is generally defined by those who are more powerful I'd say.
I think the hidden war of words is over the definition of "illegitimate violence" (like premeditated murder) and "legitimate violence" (like getting tazed, kettled at a protest, or shot dead by police at a traffic stop). The latter is generally not defined as "violence" at all by those with power.
There was an interesting article that analyzed usage if the word "violent"/"violence" in mass media reporting on college campus protests in the US. Going by the reporting, when police were bashing heads, the protests were not violent, but became "violent" when protestors were fighting back against counter-protestors who got physical. Violence meted out by the government is not called that.
Of course it is. This topic has already been covered ad nauseum by philosophers and social critics, e.g. Slavoj Zizek, Mark Boyle, etc.
The ultimate aim for a primitive society really is relative order and safety. The ultimate aim of modern technological society is the advancement of technology and the creation of a large workforce to keep the unsustainable machine going. That is what mutates custom into violence and law into subjugation.
It's an absurd point system. And yes, it is underpinned by an absurd amount of hidden violence. I'm certain that it will change, since it is absolutely unsustainable. The amount of propaganda though is insane and we need to push back against it.
After all, the reason we have capitalism is because it is the most efficient system to exchange goods for technological creation. But now that we are developing AI, a new centralized control may eventually emerge as more efficient. However, we will become even more expendable and while the transition may be beneficial in the short term for some, I doubt it will be very pleasant for humanity since technological development itself is inherently unsustainable (requires mining, energy usage, habitat destruction, etc).
Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force. If you mean that certain acts are just as morally contemptible as violence, or equally likely to cause harm, just say that directly.
Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical force.
It absolutely doesn't. Historically we judged laws as violent. Germany stands as an example.
> Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical force.
Causing intentional harm is a pretty good definition of violence, don't you think?
EDIT: for instance paying someone to do physical harm. How would you assess this?
And then the next step is diluting the meaning of the word “harm.” Is hurting someone’s feelings causing harm?
Tell me, if I outsource the physical act of harm, say by paying someone to beat someone else up, would you say I am not violent?
So assuming that you are saying that hiring a hit man isn't violent, but the hit man doing the deeds is:
We are now looking at a definition of "violence" that apparently includes the tantrum of a four year old (physical attack with the intent to do harm) but does not capture hiring killers or the actions of most dictators of the last 150 years.
To be honest this doesn't sound like a useful definition and certainly doesn't match the emotional reaction the word "violence" evokes. What is the word meant for then?
Give me some leeway here, by the way—I am allowing myself to be “socratized”…
Destroying someone's livelihood is nothing else than asking someone to give up the resources they collected over time under the threat of force: if they refuse, they will have the police to talk to.
And if they do not listen to the police, the police have guns.
That is violence.
There is no sane reason to restrict sane to mean of sound mind. It should also mean blue. How sane the sky is today!
Much better.
It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence.
Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions?
How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the decision is about the price for a certain treatment and you are balancing profit expectations from investors. Is this an act of violence? I'd imagine that the outcome of deaths could probably estimated quite reliably in this instance. And you would need to justify the various salaries and profits along the way and weighing it up against the number of people suffering. Does this sound violent to you?
EDIT: And I'm particularly keen to hear from the downvoters about this. Always keen on good arguments. Thanks :)