LuckyNumber23

Liechtenstein is doing so well for other reasons as well. They don't have an army, the Swiss will defend them if need be. In addition, it is notorious for laundering money. Like Luxembourg this status has become quasi official. Governments all over Europe use trusts in Vaduz to fund secret projects or to hide stolen money. Good luck with your job search Dylan! Austrian and Liechtenstein are both wonderful countries.

There is discussion on UPB, up to a point. Has been the case since the forum was started. And yes, there are double standards.

Have a look at what remained of this thread: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/28481-moral-opposites-upb/There is a simple explanation why there seem to be logical incosistencies. More than half of the thread disappeared (evil people say it was deleted). Also, listen to the Sunday shows when Noesis called in. In the first show she talked with Stef about UPB, on the second it was about her childhood/ her current relationship. Stef asked to write her an e-mail concerning her questions. When she did, he said he would "mull over it". This took some time, and when Noesis asked he asked her to wait. Iirc, she was banned before the long waited for discussion could take place.

So consequentialism has brought some good results via the scientific method but you may not use it in ethical reasoning? I assume you refer reasoning a priori (in a synthetic way) as morality. In this case I have to disappoint you. Mixing a priori reasoning and a posteriori (via statistics) is committing a categorial mistake. You have been had. Americans pay the highest price for health insurance and get a mediocre product at best. If they chose to have a more rational system they would be better off. Both financially and in terms of health.

Stef does not mind using statistics to make a point. Is this consequentialism as well? I did. I wanted to compare countries on a similar level of GDP. This was true some 50 years ago. Siemens, Toshiba, Phillips, Bayer, BASF, Roche are typical American companies.

You seem to know me really well. Good. Disprove me then. I have a maths degree. Present your strong case. I am still waiting. So far you could only insult. I will take that as a compliment. Insults do not replace an argument. Can you point out where I smeared Americans? A tip from doge: Make arguments but don't take refuge in ad homs or insults. They kind of reveal your lack of intelligence.

Let's remove Japan then. Does not change much in the overall results. However, let's say that diet plays a much larger role than healthcare for the sake of the argument. Then you have the same point, namely that people in 'Socialist' countries live longer than Murricans due to a better diet. The sum total of all services interests me. You can draw conclusions from them. This is what statistics is about.

First of all, sorry to read that. To misquote Friedman: There is no such thing as waiving. The bill did not disappear. Rather, other patients with insurance had to pay for it by higher premiums. I wrote about a healthcare that Austrians call Socialist. I used that term and showed, that a relative free system does not necessarily bring better results compared to one that is more market oriented when it comes to healthcare.Life expectancy is the sum total of a healthcare system. To make it more clear, imagine three companies making cars. Company A makes cars that last for 10 000 miles. Company B makes cars that last for 11 000 miles. Company C makes cars that last 12 000 miles. Which company makes the best cars in average? One golden point for anyone who discovers a strawman. I read all of Hoppe's books, even his thesis. Re: the video. There are large areas of the world where doctors practice without supervision. The name for them is Medicine Men. The state created the modern health care system. As a side effect, life expectancy became much longer, due to investments in research and in better treatments. During the time the system was unregulated it was around 50 years, while it reached 70 years around 1950.http://www.prb.org/images11/us_life_expectancy.gifIf Long's thesis was true, you would see a decline from the time that government got involved in healthcare. This is evidently not true.

Chronical illnesses have gone up because in the past people died, before they could develop them. A further reason is that a lot more babies survived that would have died in previous times without the medical care that is available now or in the near past. Can you back up your claim? With statistics preferably. These barriers exist in other countries as well. This cannot be the difference. This is a good point. However, you can compare medical services by looking at death rates of newborns. An abysmal health system correlates with a high rate of death at birth. Insurance companies are interested in making money. Thus, they can exclude from entering a contract with them by introducing clauses like preexisting conditions. These may include: hay fever, high blood pressure, cander and what have you.

Hypothesis: A capitalist healthcare system (or one that is more free than others) will provide better goods and services than monopolistic ones. Better goods and services will increase the life expectancy of the people living in that country.The US has, compared to other countries, a relative free system of healthcare. Thus, it should rank high on the table, compared to socialist countries.Lets have a look at the numbers: 1) Monaco (Socialist Europe) 2) Japan (No idea, but I guess Socialist as well)3) Andorra (Socialist Europe)6) Australia (Socialist)9) Canada (Socialist) 11) Switzerland (Socialist)12) Spain (Socialist)17) Norway (Socialist)19) Germany (Socialist)20) UK (LOL)...37 US (Capitalist)You can find the list at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country#List_by_the_CIA_.282012.29The general life expectancy of US citizens is about 80. In Sweden, one of the top 10 countries it is 83 years. Given the distribution of life expectancy you can deduct that the Swedish health system is overall much more effective than it's US counterpart.Hypothesis disproven.

Many of my relatives were killed in these architectural masterpieces.

This has never happened. 'Traditional' England consists of People, from a Celtic, Roman, Scandinavian, German, French, Irish, Scottish, and Spanish background. None of the original populations was ever asked if it was a good idea to have an influx of new people. Unfavourable random mutations are sorted out by nature already. Either in the uterus, since embryos with defects will be killed by the mother's immune system, or later when the defect is so grave as to prevent procreation. What does it mean being degenerate? The Nazis killed all the Jews they could find, but in addition they conducted a proper Eugenics. They rated people on their ability to go to war or to war. Those who could do some work, but were not very productive were rated T4, and sterilized. This included people with disabilities such as deaf or blind people. People who could not work at all were killed instantly. What kind of approach do you prefer?

It is important to keep in mind that genotype (aka DNA) and phenotype (how you look) are different. You can have the same features like your neighbour, but your DNA may be totally different from him. The term race itself is of no use in biology. You have species, and when certain animals of these species cannot produce children, they are separeted into subspecies.

All quiet in Chile. Though the elections are likely to cost me 5% of my income for 'free' college education.

As much as I would like to, but no.