Of course socialized healthcare will be paid for in the form of taxes, that's the way it is done in Canada. Also, I may be wrong but, wouldn't the government regulate the costs and all of those things? The healthcare field would just turn into a government jobs just like the US Postal Service, they would regulate how much tax is paid according to how much it would cost them to provide supplies, equipment, and employee salaries.
But what if I don't want money from *my* paycheck being used to fund anyone else's healthcare but my own? And then where do I go to get the care I want? Government sanctioned health practitioners? What if the guy is a quack? What if I prefer a more holistic/natural approach to healthcare? What do I do if my government appointed health practitioner has no idea about holistic/natural remedies? If healthcare is regulated, so is who the government is appointing to practice it. There would be no freedom of choice in medicine, only what the government gives you. You want free healthcare, go to a socialist nation. You want the best, go to the nation with a free market.
I seriously think that when it comes to scientists and engineers most would be willing to go the distance even in a socialistic society. Those types of jobs are those in which people get into out of self interest and the desire to move technology forward.
Who's gonna give them the finances to go the distance? You think science labs and research centers grow on trees? What if the government favors one set of researchers, but not another? Who is deciding what research team gets the funding (and how much of it) and which one gets shafted? And where is this money coming from? Taxes, presumably, and what if I don't want my hard earned money going to a research team that I don't care about? When you have private investors donating their money to research they care about, or a research team is able to raise their own money for it, the best and most productive results happen.
Besides, even in a communistic society they would still make nice money, it is not like they will be living in poverty or anything. They just won't be filthy rich, as hopefully nobody would be.
Lets apply this logic of curtailing one's earnings to areas that aren't monetary. By your reason (or lack thereof), no one should be allowed to excel at anything. There should be no outstanding artists, athletes, scholars, thinkers, workers, etc. Everyone should be average. The same. No one greater or less than another. But wait, these aren't the same as being incredibly wealthy? Yes they most certainly are, because they are all the product of someone who has put in work, and effort, and has earned their rewards, be it the acquisition of a vast amount knowledge or of money. You can't apply a different set of values depending on what the person is earning. Unless you want, of course, to look like a raging hypocrite.
On the idea of alienation. I feel that most people in our capitalistic society are alienated now. I don't feel that there will be very much alienation at all in a communistic society. As a matter of fact, the main point of Marx's argument is that alienation is created through capitalism, so it is funny that you brought it up. Marx says that innately all humans like to create things with their hands. This brings them the feeling of satisfaction as they can create something that others desire enough to trade with them for. But in our industrialized society most work is repititious and requires no personal creativity, you just do things in the step by step way you are told to do them. This is the very reason why some people, like me, want to go to school in order to get a job they know they will enjoy doing.
Tell me how this would change under communism as opposed to a free market. If someone doesn't like their job in a free market, they can leave and pursue another line of work that is more fulfilling. If an employer is at all interested in keeping his employees happy (read: productive and doing their job well) he will stimulate them. Under communism, you wouldn't have this freedom.
Also, don't forget about what I said earlier about how there is plenty of middle ground between the extremeties of capitalism and communism. Communism doesn't necessarily mean that there has to be absolutely NO free enterprise, it could just be more regulated. This would allow companies to make some extra money for doing good; however, it would regulate them enough to where they cannot monopolize or do any "dirty" business in which they all do today. The extra money they would gain could be nice and at the same time not be so much that it hurts everybody else in society.
The entire reason monopolies even exist is BECAUSE OF REGULATIONS. In an entirely free market economy it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have a monopoly on anything, because with enough competition no one could corner the market on anything. You wanna start regulating trade and business? Say hi to monopolization. Remember, the US is not an entirely free market, we fucked it up by imposing regulations and now you have monopolies and lobbyists, and such. If you want to understand more about the workings of this, go on youtube and search for Milton Friedman.
best response ever.
