"Independent"

[tobetrained]

@tallslenderguy So to start with an answer to your Qs, first consider the above thought experiment -- typical in philosophy, economic, and political science. What did you do in thinking about that?  The only (simple) answer is to do absolutely NOTHING with the offered gold but stick in room/box and tell no one.

Answer: Even at that high volume of $, you can never help everybody. Let's say you cash it in and dole it out to people and groups you think are worthwhile, there will always be others you've missed or can't get to. But you've now flooded the gold market and devalued it. You get back to a fraction of the original (supply/demand -- markets, not capitalism). That then undermines all world currencies, which begin to collapse, as they're foundation is stores of gold. That, then, triggers global 'systems collapse' (search on that phrase).

Society is 'a system' and systems need to be as self-sustaining as possible either independently or in groups. The human body is a great example of inter-related systems to provide an analogy...simply: it's better not to need a ventilator to breathe than to need one. Most times, government programs are the ventilator.

UHC is a great example but let's only consider one of many aspects for sanity. And, with it, only the 48 contiguous states. A construct to understand one issue with UHC is population density via OMB/Census Bureau defined Urban Areas ("Places" with minimum 5k+ population or 2k+ Household; I'm using caps here to imply a defined term). 80% of our population live in Urban Areas but those cover only 3% of our land area. It's easier to provide UHC (or ANY service) in densely populated places...but a government program can't be selective. So everyone would be required to pay the same by increased personal taxes and/or increased consumer prices as corporate taxes get passed along. But rural populations always get less -- and that's OK if they're not required to pay for services they can't really use.

And this is where partisans, Democrats here but both sides across issues, stop considering other people. The 20% outside Urban Areas makes up ~30%+ of Republican voters. What's in it for them? And the cutoff of 5k people is a arbitrary thing. It's not like a city of 7,500 people is a glowing megalopolis.

But I don't want to answer your Qs purely from a UHC perspective. It's just illustrative. Government isn't a system, people are systems and the society we put together. Government programs are ventilators. They try to fix a problem but, like a ventilator, it shouldn't be permanent. At minimum government programs should not create more problems, like increased debt. I won't get into that here.

But, as a centrist, I will consider any program -- even a program I dislike -- if it's paid for. I will ignore any program which is not, even if I like it. It's hard to consider Democrats viable after their spending plans in the 2020 primary -- where multiple candidates funded multiple proposals from the same increased revenue stream, mainly on the progressive wing. And the few times they were called out for it, the reply: "it's not the plan, it's the idea." No. I can sit here and say no one should have to work so they can play all day long! That idea is great. But it's bogus.

But consider your Q, simplified here, "what should a government provide." That's sorta a Democratic perspective -- "what can government do?" I look at that this way: "How can government help the most yet be involved the least?" I'm looking for a balance. Think ACA. It's about paying for private healthcare. It's not government-run or facilitated healthcare. Principally, that's balance. Opposite side example, to demonstrate this from convos with conservative/libertarian friends, I argue: "Financial market regulation is an absolute necessity due to greed and market manipulation." But those convos don't happen on this site! I'd say it there if they occurred. 

But this is way too long. I'll leave it there but happy to have a conversation about issues, topics, etc around it, or anything.

[tallslenderguy]

22 hours ago, tobetrained said:

@tallslenderguy Conversations are never a problem. I had been responding to you videos for same reason and purpose. Equally, there a lot to unpack in your Qs. Let me figure out to write a compact reply but touch on as much as I can.

But, here's a really interest thought experiment which demonstrates the basis for the above response, I've updated the $ to approx. current prices:

Let's say you were given $100 trillion in gold (4x current tradable volume). You can't keep it for yourself or those you know. What would you do with it?

But don't cheat and use AI! 😃

i have not read your response yet... so here goes.

my initial (and continuing) thoughts and feelings to this question is to feel 99% inadequate to the task of answering. IOW, IDK, and any other answer seems presumptuous. my own particular moral code includes a primary idea that violating another's autonomy ranks up there as a top guiding principle.  Though, intuitively, giving away money for a 'good' cause feels like a 'good' gesture on the surface... but, i'm back to worries of presumption.  

When my sons were teens, i posed a sorta similar question to them (and me) on the topic of love: "Is it love to give a child chocolate cake for breakfast because they want it?"  i think the answers to this kind of question reveals more about the person answering than it actually does to answer the question?   (aside: your question also makes me feel vulnerable lol). At that point, i was trying to help them see that there isn't a universal answer to the question.  If they answered no, objecting about health considerations i'd insert, what it the child was dying and only had a week to live? An intro to situational ethics. 

But,  $100 trillion is not a piece of cake, eh?  Money is power and influence.  i do conclude that one person is ill equipped to handle that amount of power, but there is still no getting around it... well, maybe AI lol. At this point, the democratic process is looking, not so much "good," as it is  potentially more universally considerate.  

i think something i would include as a possible "prime directive" in a democratic process would be the principle that 'I' can be wrong. To me, that is one of the biggest dividing factors in the human race (i.e., the notion that i (and mine)'know' i/we am/are  right and i/we "know" you (and yours) are wrong. 

To me, that introduces (imposes?) grace in the process of decision making, because we all are in the same position of knowing and seeing in part. 

[tobetrained]

@tallslenderguy Wow... so my entry to that question was on the economic side, grossly practical. The exercise I gave myself was breaking costs down -- and damn did I spend a LOT of time back then. A tip of the iceberg was UHC, slightly included in my answer above. The lecturer, to us all was like, "you fools, here's the answer" briefly written at the start of my last post here. Of course, that was the intent on his part.

You took the philosophical route... and it's used there too (like many similar questions).

I think there are similar themes.

1) you said as part of your stated "prime directive" was, "...that 'I' can be wrong..." I think philosophical idea fits into the concept in the economic space that, no matter how much you have, you can make both the wrong decisions, and by helping "over here" you can implicitly hurt "over there."

For instance, the minimum wage increases over the last decade. It does help those getting the increase (esp. initially), but it's also helped to drive up general prices as people trade up, and it definitely creates a separation of those who can't work (temp or perm) reducing the help from other government programs provide (i.e., $0->$8 is a lot less than $0->$15), etc.

Whether you agree with the specific, the connecting idea is that every decision is a trade-off and you can never know the consequences.

2) you said, "grace in the process of decision making" this gets to the actual answer of the question, I think. In that, using a level grace is to accept emotional pain. And, given the answer to the experiment, it's only pain a moral person would feel -- doing nothing.

Curious as to your thoughts after reading the answer.