other than material motivation?

I dont think lack of monetary motivation makes something socialist. Value judgements extend beyond fiat currency

The subtitle community had a government that took control of the means of production?

even if we use Marx's endpoint as our metric for socialism

which is to say, even if we're attempting to be the most charitable, and setting the goalpost closest to the situation being described

I was referencing the mentality of from each according to their ability to each according to their need. In hacker spaces it's a social contract that you help those who don't know.

And that the help be freely exchanged.

That's just called being a nice person and working together

You're being pedantic again.

Socialism and communism are whole political, economic, and philosophical ideologies

That is not pedantry

They do not have a monopoly on community

These systems are very clearly defined

Yes they are, and parts of them can be adapt, and don't have to be taken in their entirety.

And most of those parts existed before the systems were created

No one said they did, no one said that Marx was the first one to think up this shit either.

It just doesn't make sense though.

It's like saying that it's feudal to want to have land that others work on

Systems of government don't come into existence out of nothing.

No it's not.

What's the difference?

Drug cartels are Feudal.

Sorry I give up

They own property and you're allowed to work and live on that property, the cartel is responsible for your transport and safety. That's a feudal system.

The govt owns property as well and give out leases to people to work on it and is responsible for policing and transportation. Does that make it feaudalism as well?

Or is it just some socialist/capitalist policies in moderation?

What i meant subtitle ppl didnt care for any rights and were closely linked with warez

They were willing to spend hours on translating without any reward

Oh this about people who make cracks or fan translations of games?

I'm a bit behind, watching Tim's 4th of July followup video Is "Healthcare is a Human Right?", and I don't care to deal with Facebook just to mention it, so here's the thing that bugs me about the whole thing- people keep saying "just semantics" as if semantics is a form of splitting hairs, but semantics and definitions are how we know two people are saying the same thing when they utter the same words- if "human right" just means some people in some societies can reasonably expect to receive a benefit, then that blows the hell out of international human rights laws protecting people from various government abuses.

The same as "racism" and "misogynist" are/used to be meaningful to throw around precisely because they were relatively extreme, the term "human right" means something you are entitled to purely on the basis of being human. Not a human in a society that can afford it, not a human with certain prerequisites, just a human. Which is why pretty much all of the human rights are freedom *from* rather than freedom *to*.

I think what the more reasonable people Tim is speaking to are referring to is actually a societal amenity and free access to it, with a side of considering a functional healthcare system a public work somewhat analogous to a good transportation system or wastewater treatment system. Which is a *very* different thing, in both cases, from a human right.

In a related but not precisely the same point- a lot of the issues people have with the US health care system are related to how health insurance works, and Tim's comment about how his insurance is $300 a month and covers basically nothing is an example. As is the various ire about exclusions of pre-existing conditions and the like. Which I find somewhat odd, because basically, this is people getting angry because insurance companies are acting the way insurance companies have acted in every other field for as long as there have been insurance companies.

Insurance is basically a very respectable form of gambling, and you actually want to lose. You pay your premiums in the hope that you will never need the big payout of a claim, because there are other negative effects of the events that merit a claim. You don't want a tornado to wreck your house, you don't want to wrap your car around a tree because you dodged a deer, and so on. Insurance companies are the House. They set the premiums based on the odds of payouts so that they make money while still being able to pay out claims. (How much money and how honorable they are is outside the point of this argument.)

With health care, though, we have put the burden for our routine healthcare on these same casino-like entities. We want them to cover events that have a more than 100% payout rate- services that everyone should be getting on a regular basis, like annual checkups. And originally, this made sense from their point of view, because it reduced payouts. But now they are expected to be the clearinghouse for all healthcare services for those they cover, and people are angry because they are sucking out loud at doing so in a compassionate and cost-efficient manner.

This confuses me. I am not sure how we ended up here, instead of with health co-ops (think entities that are to health insurance as credit unions are to banks) or widespread health care savings accounts and insurance relegated to the "prepare for the worst, hope for the best" type of events that insurance is at least somewhat suited to handling.

You, @Firefairy , I believe you're absolutely on the money with that assessment.

I've had people try to debate with me that 'Health insurance' is different.

Furthermore, the push towards health insurance, I believe actually does more harm than good on the price and quality of care as well.

Any given market is set up in such a way that the prices are set according to what a customer can/will pay.

The medical industry as a whole might not particularly care about you, or your sickness. They will care about your money, though. And if given the option to be paid or not be paid, they will opt to be paid. Therefore, prices would be set according to what they can get.