What should the state be responsible for? And why? — frank

A society can't be considered a good one if large numbers of its members are without basic needs, including healthcare. It doesn't really matter to me how those needs are supplied. One thing we know - globalization and corporatism won't do it. So - it doesn't have to be government, but if no other institution provides it, the government should.

A society can't be considered a good one if large numbers of its members are without basic needs, including healthcare. — T Clark

How about small numbers without basic needs?

"He who does not work, neither shall he eat is a New Testament aphorism traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle, later cited by John Smith in the early 1600s colony of Jamestown, Virginia, and by the Communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin during the early 1900s Russian Revolution.". -- Wikipedia in the quote from 1 Thessalonians

It looks like various societies through history have left some members without basic needs per principle. Why would this be wrong?

Good question. The way I see it, a functional society should look after its members as and when necessary. Ideally, in a "one for all, all for one" situation.

So I agree with @T Clark, someone has to provide assistance to those in need. If family, churches, or charitable organizations, etc. cannot do it, then the state has a duty to step in and help out in some way.

I think a healthy society should have no problem in finding a solution. If society cannot do it, then something is fundamentally wrong.

Obviously this should not be allowed to lend itself to system abuse.

I don’t think so. The simple reason is that wherever the state is responsible for health care—for anything—we aren’t. When we delegate our essential responsibilities to one another to a “grinding ruthless piece of machinery”, a state monopoly, we also lose any will to maintain those responsibilities in our own relationships and communities.

What do you think?

As I see it, one problem with state welfare is that it has abolished the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor. An EMT friend of mine has had to resuscitate the same reckless, criminal drug user seven times, essentially eliminating the gravest penalties to his kind of lifestyle. I’m not so cold hearted to think this man should suffer the worst consequences of his activities, but it is clear that vast resources are spent trying to eliminate the consequences of reckless behavior, and I wonder the societal effects of that.

The state is responsible for bringing individuals under its effective authority, and thus can be considered morally responsible for every single one of those individuals.

Like, a child does not choose to be born, or who their parents are, so the individual does not choose to be born either, or in which state.

Is a parent responsible for the well-being of their children? Is a parent responsible for the failures of their children? Can a child be held responsible for not knowing things it hasn't been taught? Can a child be held responsible for perpetuating those ideas it has been taught?

Some on this forum consider childbirth to be immoral. What does that mean for the existence of states?


I suppose your intended question was more about what powers states should have, and whether they should control healthcare, but I kind of wanted to share this train of consciousness.

What should the state be responsible for? And why? — frank

I think furthermore Healthcare or basic needs, the State is responsible for not teaching the citizens how to live properly. It is interesting your example: "pregnant teens." this is an issue which are the states have to deal with. It is not about to provide a good health care service to avoid a pregnancy or even promote "free" abortion due to no consent (or promiscuous) sex but a better biology/ethical/sexual education system.
When a citizen goes to a hospital demanding health care because he or she had irresponsible relationships or took drugs, is also a fail of the State.
But, if you keep promoting a better system, then you will have less situations like those.

Note: I am not want to make negative prejudices. I do understand that probably someone could take drugs or been promiscuous without bad faith. I do believe everybody deserves an opportunity to be cured and rehab. What I want to say is that the state has to be responsible to avoid all these dramatic at all costs.

He who does not work, neither shall he eat — frank

The problem here is a definition of 'work'. Is getting out of bed sufficient? It's certainly some work. To supply benefits in any way to those who 'work', you have to relate work to reward, but work is not related to reward - the super rich don't work (by any reasonable measure) 10 billion times harder than the poor. Reward is (in our society) related only to your ability to secure that reward by any legal means. One of those means might be to lobby governments, protest, vote..etc until one has a government which pays for one's every need without one even having to get out of bed. All legal, so on what grounds could we deny the reward gained from doing so (or from one's ancestors having done so - as with inherited wealth)?

To the actual question, which I realise I didn't address...poor health is, as we've discussed, difficult to discern the cause of, but without doubt it is at least contributed to by the consequences of government policy (anything from investing in a factory to taxing sports equipment) so it seems only fair that same institution pay for the health impact of those consequences.

The problem, as ever, is distinguishing the extent to which the massively obese smoker is responsible for their own diabetes from the extent to which poverty, fast food, recreational facilities, and advertising are.

Sorry to say that the broad (and boring) answer is still some balance exactly of the sort we already do. The question for policy, I think, is the extent to which the government's responsibility should be exercised by investing in prevention rather than cures. But that question is adequately answered by capitalism. Cures are more profitable.

How about small numbers without basic needs? — frank

Providing for everyone is the goal, but it'll never get met. People always fall through the cracks. So, keep trying.

It looks like various societies through history have left some members without basic needs per principle. Why would this be wrong? — frank

It doesn't matter what other people have done. We should do what we think is right, based on our values. There are people in our society who don't agree with me. What we actually get will have to be a compromise between their goals and ours. That's the best we'll be able to do. As Aristotle, or was it Pauly Shore, wrote - Good enough is good enough.

"but it is clear that vast resources are spent trying to eliminate the consequences of reckless behavior, and I wonder the societal effects of that."

Vast resources? Trying to reanimate 7 times? Why do you wonder the societal effects of re-animating a drug addict? It shows me contempt for drug addicts under the comforting guise that you mean them no harm.

but it is clear that vast resources are spent trying to eliminate the consequences of reckless behavior, and I wonder the societal effects of that. — NOS4A2

This seems to be one of the weak points where state welfare tends to go wrong.

The problem can be redressed only by establishing some form of balance and this would be for a particular society or community to decide.

But I think it would have to start with upbringing, education, and with creating adequate opportunities for all or most to avoid finding themselves in a position of being dependent on others.

What should the state be responsible for? And why? — frank

Look to what Neandertals did for each other in and around the cave. That. Space, water, food, clothing, shelter, medical, education, defense.

Pretty fucking simple, really.

A wolf pack will no longer provide any of that to a lone wolf who decides to leave the pack. Unfortunately, we extend the protections to the lone wolf and deny them to ourselves. "Ourselves" will someday wise up and reset. And the lone wolf will whine like a little bitch.

It is interesting your example: "pregnant teens." this is an issue which are the states have to deal with. — javi2541997

I agree that pregnant teens may be a problem depending on the situation and circumstances, but in the Western world, Europe in particular, there is a falling population. So, we must be careful that this is not pushed in the opposite extreme where pregnancy in general comes to be viewed as undesirable.

I may be wrong but my impression is that teens get pregnant not because they don't know better but because pressure is put on them by male teens to have sex. And this has to do with the popular culture and social media that tend to override everything that teens learn in school and at home ....

If family, churches, or charitable organizations, etc. cannot do it, then the state has a duty to step in and help out in some way. — Apollodorus

Is this view based on a principle such as liberalism? Ot what?

but it is clear that vast resources are spent trying to eliminate the consequences of reckless behavior, and I wonder the societal effects of that. — NOS4A2

Let's back away from social engineering via heartless and criminally inclined paramedics.

Why should a drug addict be more responsible for herself than we are to her? What's the principle?

Let's back away from social engineering via heartless and criminally inclined paramedics.

Why should a drug addict be more responsible for herself than we are to her? What's the principle?

There is nothing criminally inclined about saving lives. The man is a saint.

The principle is that there are risks to certain behavior, and if people do not suffer them society will never learn to avoid them.

Is this view based on a principle such as liberalism? Ot what? — frank

I think it's just common sense, really. In the old days there were high birthrates so a community or society could afford a percentage of citizens that failed to make it or fell on bad times.

When you had large families and close-knit rural communities where everyone knew one another, it was easier to get support in times of need. With growing urban populations where a lot of people don't know one another and are perhaps more indifferent to strangers, it tends to be more difficult.

But I think the state has an interest to eliminate poverty, disease, crime, etc. from society as much as possible. Otherwise a vacuum can develop that can threaten the state's own existence. Political groups and foreign powers are always ready to exploit any weakness in a given society to their own advantage.

The principle is that there are risks to certain behavior, and if people do not suffer them society will never learn to avoid them. — NOS4A2

You jump from people suffering the risks of certain behavior, to society learning to avoid them. I think that, from the opium dens to nicotine, to alcohol, opioids, meth and beyond, and all the suffering of the people who risk certain behavior, and the friends and family and society around, which likewise suffers therefrom, for hundreds of years, that society might want to finally take a fucking seat and think: "What, exactly, is it about me, society, that keeps producing people who would do this shit to themselves? I mean, I, society, have tried the "stick" and it just doesn't seem to work. Am I, society, fundamentally fucking stupid for continuing to use the stick? For treating a disease like a crime? Why are my citizens the way they are? Do they have hope? Do they have prospects? Are there any other societies around the world trying anything else? How is that working out for them?"

Nah, fuck 'em. Let 'em learn the hard way and die. That'll teach em. Next!

Yes, some people suffer the risk of certain behavior while others learn from their example. While you may blame yourself and society for the conditions of some, I refrain from idealizing my object, and am still capable of knowing that some happen to bear the penalties of their misdeeds.

Is misery not a natural consequence of certain behavior? The assumption that all social suffering is removable, and that it is the duty of the state (never yourself) to remove it, is as artificial as it is false. All you can do is penalize society for the wretchedness of a few.

What should the state be responsible for? And why? — frank

My view is that a civilized state works to build cohesive community and the health and happiness of its citizens through the provision of care, essential services and amenities.

We have free medical care in Australia and have had so for many decades, It works pretty well and people are not bankrupted here if they get sick.

Funny thing is, pretty much anywhere outside of 'merica, the provision of healthcare to all is taken as a given.

And the world does not fall appart.

The only curiosity here is, why can't 'mercans see this? What went astray in 'mercan culture?

Yes, some people suffer the risk of certain behavior while others learn from their example. While you may blame yourself and society for the conditions of some, I refrain from idealizing my object, and am still capable of knowing that some happen to bear the penalties of their misdeeds.

Is misery not a natural consequence of certain behavior? The assumption that all social suffering is removable, and that it is the duty of the state (never yourself) to remove it, is as artificial as it is false. All you can do is penalize society for the wretchedness of a few. — NOS4A2

I think you miss my point. We have been playing your game, to no avail, since time immemorial. When will you ever learn? Your way does not work. If it did, you would not be opining about this issue and saying the same shit your ilk has been saying forever, and saying it now, again, to no avail.

Nobody said "never yourself". If you don't think those people are suffering for the bad choices they made, then you have no experience with them whatsoever. They suffer greatly, as do their family and friends, and society at large. The question you need to ask yourself is not whether or not they are forced to suffer for their bad choices, or if they maybe have not suffered enough (because, after all, they keep making them). Rather, the question you should ask is, why do they make the bad choices in the first place? You think they make bad choices because they don't have enough evidence around them of what happens when people make bad choices? If that is what you think, then again, you have no experience with them whatsoever.

You should actually relate to them. I mean, here you are, doing the same wrong thing, over and over and over again, to no avail. Yet you want to double down and keep doing it. LOL! And here I am, trying to help you and you, like them, won't learn. You keep smashing your thumb with a hammer and wondering why it hurts. LOL! Stop! Help.

I've used this analogy before: A rider will pick a soft-broke horse out of the remuda every time, over a hard-broke horse. No comparison. But yeah, you let your pony run through the bob war all you want.

The state is responsible for bringing individuals under its effective authority, and thus can be considered morally responsible for every single one of those individuals. — Tzeentch

Well your boss exerts authority over you, but you're still responsible for yourself, right?

All legal, so on what grounds could we deny the reward gained from doing so (or from one's ancestors having done so - as with inherited wealth)? — Isaac

I think you stretched that factor all out of shape. I brought it up just to show that many cultures have allowed citizens to suffer hunger. On what principle do we say they're wrong?

Funny thing is, pretty much anywhere outside of 'merica, the provision of healthcare to all is taken as a given. — Banno

This is utter bullshit Sparky. China doesn't have universal healthcare.

Look to what Neandertals did for each other in and around the cave. — James Riley

They were cannibals. :roll:

They were cannibals. :roll: — frank

We are too, when the need arises. :roll:

This is utter bullshit Sparky. China doesn't have universal healthcare. — frank

... pretty much...

So your point of comparison is China? Not, say, Canada, Australia, or a European nation?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health-expenditure