One of the many justifiable criticisms of various brutal dictatorships such as Iran, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, is that a small number of people (mullahs, gangsters, or royals respectively) control most of the wealth, and that it’s a crying shame that the people of [insert country here] are dying of simple diseases
Yet many of the same people making these criticisms appear to be opposed to the concept of socialized medicine*.
So my question is: now the US is in charge, how will it redistribute the concentrated oil wealth to the people, while avoiding “socialistic” tendencies, to which the US administration is clearly opposed domestically.
How’s the Iraqi governement oil-bought penicillin going to get to impoverished Iraqi babies?
*This may be a presumption - warn me if I’ve strayed into straw here.
I hope we allow the Iraqis themselves to choose whatever system they prefer. I’m as anti-socialist as you get, but if they want to set up a socialized system, I say “go for it”. It’s their country.
Well, probably through government and NGO (Red Cross, Red Crescent, what have you) distribution. Which is normal during an emergency or when the infrastructure has been cut down. The US government does it all the time after a big earthquake or something. Clearly this is the same situation in Iraq.
However, if the US government had it’s dithers, once the infrastructure has been rebuilt and things start going a bit more smoothly it would try to set up a private system similar to the US. However, I’m praying that the US will not still be in control of Iraq at that time so it will be a moot issue.
Socialized medicine doesn’t necessarily equal central distribution in times of emergency as the latter isn’t a permanent situation.
Not the same thing. Dictatorships can, and often do, deny citizens the ability to obtain health care, or anything else for that matter. “Not providing X” is not equivalent to “preventing someone from obtaining X”.
Hmm, I guess I should have researched the previous Iraqi health policy, such as it was, before posting. Haven’t got time to do that at the mo.
Maybe I should widen the question to a larger hypothetical - if the current US admin were given the chance to draw up, say, a new Saudi constitution, how would it make sure that the current fiscal status quo is not maintained? Would there be a desire to redistribute the oil wealth for the benefit of the majority, and by what mechanism could this be obtained?
I like your revised OP. It’s a very interesting question.
My recommendation would be to model the development of the new economy after what seemed to work best in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism. One good way is to issue an equal number of share to all citizens in profits from the oil reserves. Those can be traded, kept, or whatever. That allows free enterpirse to work it’s magic, and ensures all citizens are vested in the success of that industry. It should also give the citizens a vested interest in preventing domestic opposition attacks on the oil infrastructure.
I don’t think so. I’d call it democratic. If you were doling out shares, I can’t think of any fair way to give some inidividuals more than others. I’d call it “socialist” if the gov’t held the shares, and agreed to pay out some dividends to all the citizens (thus not allowing them to trade their shares).
Well, I think copying Alaska’s plan by which it distributes wealth from the mineral rights in the state, would work pretty well in the case of Saudi Arabia. Or Iraq for that matter.
I don’t oppose any and all “socialized” medicine. Healthy proles are productive proles. They make fatcats richer. Too bad fatcats haven’t figured that out, yet.
The problem with “socialized” anything is that it presumes a supply and that someone has a “right” to the labor of another. Other than that, nobody is against health care.
Capitalism needs some socialism to distribute the results out fairly, maybe. Socialism depends on capitalism to create wealth and innovation. If it doesn’t, socialism has proven it isn’t self-sustaining. That’s the problem with an ideology based on the theft of labor.
As it stands in the US: you have a right to emergency care. There are free health clinics. There are programs for those that cannot afford health care. Bottom line: you can get so sick that NOBODY can afford your health care. We HAVE the technology.
Therefore, we must immediately disband all armies, police forces, and fire departments, since they socialize things that should be paid for directly. You want police protection? Hire them directly! You want military protection? Raise yer own damn army! Abolish socialism! Abolish the police! Abolish socialism! Abolish the military! Abolish socialism! Abolish fire departments! Abolish socialism! Abolish all public services!
Well, considering the revelations discussed in this thread, I’m not sure if the free market will get any sort of legitimate chance in Iraq. Should this be a factor?