|
|
|
|
|
|
by liamcardenas
3749 days ago
|
|
|
How is that outcome undesirable for both of them? On the contrary, the option of collusion in the prisoner's dilemma is desirable for neither of them. The prisoner's dilemma only serves as an example to prove that there exists a situation in which collusion can yield an optimal result for a given metric (i.e. aggregate jail time). Nobody denies this. You have yet to make the case for how this applies towards any of the topics discussed. Are you saying that aggregate utility/welfare/health is optimized by having universal health care? If so, what specific metrics are optimized and by how much? What about the costs associated with doing this? Are the benefits greater than the costs? If so, how is this determined? If you want to make these claims, the burden of proof is on you. As for your hypothetical, I am not advocating that Scandinavian countries suddenly abandon universal health care. I am simply refuting the points made in this article. If you want to have a discussion about the how the less fortunate would have health care in a free market, I am happy to oblige. |
|
|
Likewise, taxes paid for selfish reasons cannot necessarily be optional, as you suggested. If the tax is optional, you cannot trust your fellow citizens to pay it, and therefore you won't pay it. But a compulsory tax removes that distrust.
My point is mainly that you can be selfishly motivated but still require consensus. The author supports Scandinavian policies not (entirely) because it helps everyone else, but because it helps themselves. Yet they still recognize that everyone must participate for it to help anyone at all.
I'm not trying to make any claims about how efficient a socialist system is. Simply arguing against the point you made about paying optional taxes.