Real Affordable Healthcare: Remove 'Government' Regulation

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
You don't understand, man; when a dollar passes from your hand to your government through taxes it is wrong and evil and you have no control over it. You can't choose your political representatives in a republic, but you CAN choose to not buy exploding cars and tainted food in the glorious anarchist utopia.

?? I vote, therefore I am involved in chosing my political representatives. The election system needs fixed, but government still needs to exist, people need a structure to work from. When your utopia surfaces let me know. I studied history as an undergraduate for 5 years and never once have I seen a semblance of this utopia you hint at.

If you want to see countries without political regulation go to Africa or Haiti. Tell me how their healthcare system is.

Members don't see this ad.
 
While we're at it, let's also end physician licensure, as it's also a form of government regulation, and subject the healthcare industry to real market forces.

Thanks for the thought provoking comment that only SDN can offer. But I have already addressed this issue.

Licensing would still exist. There are already private accreditation firms and like any other free market activity it's voluntary and mutually beneficial to both parties. There are also financially responsible to you for quality assurance.

Unlike the government, that allows plenty of **** doctors thru, but of course the state is never liable. :rolleyes:

Drug Companies
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thanks for the thought provoking comment that only SDN can offer. But I have already addressed this issue.

Licensing would still exist. There are already private accreditation firms and like any other free market activity it's voluntary and mutually beneficial to both parties. There are also financially responsible to you for quality assurance.

Unlike the government, that allows plenty of **** doctors thru, but of course the state is never liable. :rolleyes:

Drug Companies

Linking the subreddit again I see....

Only using medicines certified by a reputable agency as safe.

Who determines this agency is reputable? The American public? They don't have the funding or the knowledge to do so

Only using medicines recommended by your health insurance company (which has an interest in your continued health).

You've got to be kidding me. Insurance companies are well known for denying claims and pushing people into using generics. Not to mention they can go right back to denying pre-existing conditions.. terrible idea.


Creating a media ****storm and boycott towards this drug company for selling unsafe/misrepresented products. Attack adverts could be funded by consumer advocate groups or competing drug companies.

Again, no real regulatory mechanism. Drug companies already have a huge hand in the media. Consumer advocate groups already exist.

Suing the drug company for fraud and/or bodily harm and getting it to pay restitution

David v. Goliath, goliath usually wins. And who holds the court when there's no regulatory body? What laws do you go by?

The logic here is lacking in astronomic proportions.
 
?? I vote, therefore I am involved in chosing my political representatives. The election system needs fixed, but government still needs to exist, people need a structure to work from. When your utopia surfaces let me know. I studied history as an undergraduate for 5 years and never once have I seen a semblance of this utopia you hint at.

If you want to see countries without political regulation go to Africa or Haiti. Tell me how their healthcare system is.

Sarcasm.
 
In case you haven't figured it out yet, random dudes on some subreddit is not a "source".

Somewhat off topic, but I can't resist commenting on this.

The mindset that small, specific internet communities breeds is an interesting one. Without the internet, people holding extreme/unusual views would rarely be validated. But with things like subreddits, anyone can find at least a few others who share their views.
 
You don't understand, man; when a dollar passes from your hand to your government through taxes it is wrong and evil and you have no control over it. You can't choose your political representatives in a republic, but you CAN choose to not buy exploding cars and tainted food in the glorious anarchist utopia. If your entire family dies from a Bhopal-style industrial action, then by the grace of the almighty Dollar you will win your day in court. Except judges are just as arbitrary and less knowledgeable than regulating bureaucrats, so maybe we shouldn't have them, either. Your dollars can fight in a free and equal cage match and whichever party's dollars are more righteous will win. Read Rousseau, man!

sarcasm-sarcasm-demotivational-poster-1216181536.jpg
 
Yeah, not sure troll is exactly the proper description. I might actually go with creepy a*********
 
Somalia? They should be a model for those who want no government!

Funny that you bring up Somalia. According to UN and other government organizations the standard of living for Somalians has actually increased since the government collapse.

They are, according to other governments, more economically productive and peaceful than when they were waring over which group gets to control the state:
__________________________________________
For the warlord objection to work, the statist would need to argue that a given community would remain lawful under a government, but that the same community would break down into continuous warfare if all legal and military services were privatized. The popular case of Somalia, therefore, helps neither side.http://mises.org/daily/1855#_edn1 It is true that Rothbardians should be somewhat disturbed that the respect for non-aggression is apparently too rare in Somalia to foster the spontaneous emergence of a totally free market community. But by the same token, the respect for “the law” was also too weak to allow the original Somali government to maintain order.

Mises Article: But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? by Robert Murphy
__________________________________________

Resources on Somalia

http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/qd04o/resources_on_somalia/

They may be in anarchy, but there are not ancap. a respect for property rights and voluntary exchange would also have to be in place.
 
Funny that you bring up Somalia. According to UN and other government organizations the standard of living for Somalians has actually increased since the government collapse.

They are, according to other governments, more economically productive and peaceful than when they were waring over which group gets to control the state:

Objective source? When they were warring over control over the state they hardly had an effective government. Therefore that assertion does not really work.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
you are absolutely correct. Great post, the idea that the federal government can solve anything is a complete myth, they can only make conditions worse.
 
tumblr_ma0u0r3gyk1qm1b0jo1_500.gif


OP, you're a failing troll.

didn't read or couldn't read? either way I'm sure it makes no difference.

not a troll, but definitely discouraged about the current state of medicine and it's wannabe practitioners. yikes. :thumbdown:
 
I would also love to get some feedback from physicians on the cost of government regulation to their practice.

Do you feel like your practice would be more efficient/streamlined without it? Assuming personal liability, third-party insurance, private "consumer watch" accreditation is in place?

Yeah, running a clinical laboratory would be a snap without any sort of regulatory oversight.

Would I want my own tissue sent to a lab without any sort of regulatory oversight? **** no.

And there's the rub.
 
didn't read or couldn't read? either way I'm sure it makes no difference.

not a troll, but definitely discouraged about the current state of medicine and it's wannabe practitioners. yikes. :thumbdown:

35k7qd.jpg
 
Sometimes I wish FDR had never been the president and America had devolved into a fascist or socialist dictatorship. At least then the crazy people who complain about governments would be correct before their gulag internments.
 
The evidence for the greatness of anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism, minarchism, and all the other cool "philosophies" constantly trying to crawl their way out of the gulch of teenage angst is the pedigree of all the world's greatest nations. Just think of all the countries that became rich and powerful because of their small governments, low taxes, and lack of regulation:








Yeah.

Yeah, the evidence for democracy that don't self-destruct thru political greed/bribery, endless warmongering, trillions in debt thru fake money printing is in pretty short supply too.

Oh and I'm not a teenager.

The elements of classical liberalism(small government, private property, trade, polycentric law etc.) have been in place for over 400 yrs and they've produced the most innovation and technological development the world has ever seen. America started with the smallest government and was the most economically prosperous at that time.


The rich are the top benefactors of the state from state regulation/IP law/corporate welfare/ and trade barriers they use to control/destroy smaller companies and foreign competition:

How Cronyism is Hurting the Economy
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSgUENZ9O94)

The State Is Not Great: Legal Plunder
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIMqwJI2uI)

Is Capitalism "Pro-Business?"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjh7mXPfMKs)

Economic Freedom & Income Equality
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_btJT8kzw)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the evidence for democracy that don't self-destruct thru political greed/bribery, endless warmongering, trillions in debt thru fake money printing is in pretty short supply too.

Oh and I'm not a teenager.

The elements of classical liberalism(small government, private property, trade, polycentric law etc.) have been in place for over 400 yrs and they've produced the most innovation and technological development the world has ever seen. America started with the smallest government and was the most economically prosperous at that time.


The rich are the top benefactors of the state from state regulation/IP law/corporate welfare/ and trade barriers they use to control/destroy smaller companies and foreign competition:

How Cronyism is Hurting the Economy
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSgUENZ9O94)

The State Is Not Great: Legal Plunder
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIMqwJI2uI)

Is Capitalism "Pro-Business?"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjh7mXPfMKs)

Economic Freedom & Income Equality
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_btJT8kzw)

If you think the United States was rich at any point in its history, from colonization to present day, because its government was small, then you have absolutely NO understanding whatsoever of its history. And yes, the rich benefit from the state. Did you think I hated people for being rich and that this would somehow appeal to me? Guess who also benefits from the government: everyone.
 
If you think the United States was rich at any point in its history, from colonization to present day, because its government was small, then you have absolutely NO understanding whatsoever of its history. And yes, the rich benefit from the state. Did you think I hated people for being rich and that this would somehow appeal to me? Guess who also benefits from the government: everyone.

no, not everyone, not the people who are oppressed by government.
 
no, not everyone, not the people who are oppressed by government.

People have been oppressed in every nation at every point in the history of humanity. If you think oppression arises from democratic governments rather than being minimized by them then by all means provide for me the evidence that this is so.
 
I will concede that there is a large contingent of corruption within the government and lobbyists largely influence politics in the favor of big business. Hence why I think campaign finance reform needs to happen. That does not however negate the need for a regulatory mechanism looking out for the needs of the American people. If you magically think that if you do away with government oppression and corruption will go away you have absolutely no understanding of history. I come from a state with a small, underfunded government and we got exactly that. Underfunded schools, little or no protection of small businesses, underfunded social programs, and control of the private sector by a large corporation. Now I live in a state with a bigger, more effective government and its nearly the opposite.
 
I can't get over the word "Anarcho-Capitalism." Anarchy is about, well anarchy. And capitalism is about private ownership and a market.

Anarchy mean "without rulers"(as in coercive, involuntary authority), not without rules.

What do you mean by 'anarchism'?
Anarcho-capitalists use the word 'anarchism' meaning a stateless society, as the term 'anarchism' is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful.


What do you mean by 'capitalism'?
Capitalism is defined in various ways, and there is no consensus on the definition or how the word should be used. In 'anarcho-capitalism' the 'capitalism' part refers to an economic system characterized by private ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. What we mean by 'capitalism' is not what we have today, because we don't have a free market, what we have today could be called 'corporatism' or 'crony capitalism', as there exists a close relationship between corporations and the government. One should not treat the evils of existing corporatism as though they constituted an objection to a free market.


http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/sgs5x/faqresources_i_compiled_so_far/
 
Oops, I deleted my original post. I was trying to reword, but I'll undelete.

Anarchy mean "without rulers"(as in coercive, involuntary authority), not without rules.

What do you mean by 'anarchism'?
Anarcho-capitalists use the word 'anarchism' meaning a stateless society, as the term 'anarchism' is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful.


What do you mean by 'capitalism'?
Capitalism is defined in various ways, and there is no consensus on the definition or how the word should be used. In 'anarcho-capitalism' the 'capitalism' part refers to an economic system characterized by private ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. What we mean by 'capitalism' is not what we have today, because we don't have a free market, what we have today could be called 'corporatism' or 'crony capitalism', as there exists a close relationship between corporations and the government. One should not treat the evils of existing corporatism as though they constituted an objection to a free market.


http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/sgs5x/faqresources_i_compiled_so_far/

And 2 + 2 = 5

That is the biggest problem with political debates. "Capitalism can mean anything! So can socialism, or communism!"

Please read: "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell, and you'll understand how propaganda and doublethink work.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
 
:thumbup:

Fun fact: In the years when the United States was the most powerful, prosperous, and the economy grew the fastest (the few decades after WWII) the highest tax bracket was 90%.
Not a fact more like a myth:

Video: Tom Woods on the myth of WWII helping the economy

In a war the government uses tax money to buy bombs and drops them on the enemy. From a GDP perspective that counts as economic activity, however from a sane perspective it clearly does not. Same with the draft - of course it will force down unemployment, but that doesn't mean that economic activity has gone up.

Question: shouldn't you support the Iraq war if its so good for the economy?
 
Not a fact more like a myth:

Video: Tom Woods on the myth of WWII helping the economy

In a war the government uses tax money to buy bombs and drops them on the enemy. From a GDP perspective that counts as economic activity, however from a sane perspective it clearly does not. Same with the draft - of course it will force down unemployment, but that doesn't mean that economic activity has gone up.

Question: shouldn't you support the Iraq war if its so good for the economy?

He was saying the years AFTER the war were prosperous due to taxes. I might add that WWII was the start of the military industrial complex. But, at the same time soldiers were returning with the GI bill and many first generation college students were able to get an education. The depression was largely ended by the war, that is supported by the majority of historians. I find it problematic myself. We had to enter WWII. We don't have to get involved in the Middle East.
 
Not a fact more like a myth:

Video: Tom Woods on the myth of WWII helping the economy

In a war the government uses tax money to buy bombs and drops them on the enemy. From a GDP perspective that counts as economic activity, however from a sane perspective it clearly does not. Same with the draft - of course it will force down unemployment, but that doesn't mean that economic activity has gone up.

Question: shouldn't you support the Iraq war if its so good for the economy?

Here's why it helped the economy: the people who made the bombs we dropped got paid money that they proceeded to spend, themselves. Have you ever heard of the money multiplier or the velocity of money? How about the very real and obvious fact that peoples' lives got really really good after WWII? Does that not count because we had to use bonds/inflation/EVIL government to do it?
 
Your point is well taken. I would argue that if we choose to pay less to doctors and biomedical researchers to cut costs then the moral culpability is ours. As it stands, the decision is not up to the consumer but to the owners and managers of healthcare capital, and there is only one direction in which they wish to move the pay of their employees. In most markets this is perfectly healthy, but in health care it is toxic, and a lot of savings can be obtained simply by removing capital owners from the equation.

Unfortunately I don't think it's EVER up to the consumer. As you said in a different post, people don't WANT treatment, they NEED treatment, and for the most part they're going to go to the most convenient place to seek it. I will agree with you that thinking that healthcare can successfully operate as a free market is a foolhardy ideal. That's just simply not going to happen. There are too many conflicts of interest in play to allow business interests to align with patient interests spontaneously.

All that said, I get frustrated when people see what the current healthcare system and say, "well, clearly the only solution here is single payer! Insurance companies clearly can't provide these services competently!" That line of thinking assumes that our current system represents the best that we can do with a private market (clearly not the case when you look at some of the Nordic countries' private healthcare systems). I think that's just as naive as thinking a free market can run everything effectively. With reformed regulation we could go a LONG way to ensuring that EVERYONE has access to at least a basic level of insurance to provide for a basic level of care using private suppliers. In many ways Obamacare is a step in the right direction in that respect, but it's not enough.
 
Not a fact more like a myth:

Video: Tom Woods on the myth of WWII helping the economy

In a war the government uses tax money to buy bombs and drops them on the enemy. From a GDP perspective that counts as economic activity, however from a sane perspective it clearly does not. Same with the draft - of course it will force down unemployment, but that doesn't mean that economic activity has gone up.

Question: shouldn't you support the Iraq war if its so good for the economy?

Read my post again, I said the decades AFTER WWII, not during the war.
 
Unfortunately I don't think it's EVER up to the consumer. As you said in a different post, people don't WANT treatment, they NEED treatment, and for the most part they're going to go to the most convenient place to seek it. I will agree with you that thinking that healthcare can successfully operate as a free market is a foolhardy ideal. That's just simply not going to happen. There are too many conflicts of interest in play to allow business interests to align with patient interests spontaneously.

One more comment and I'll let this thread die.

In an unhampered free market, a business's interests are it's customers interests. You create mutually agreed upon contracts and see them through. Your reputation is at stake, competition is nipping at the hills, and you're tied to the contract you signed with the patient. The care would be based around consumer need/preference and disputes of service can be handled thru third party arbitration spelled out in contracts ahead of time.

There are already safety and quality standards built into the contracts thru the insurance companies on both the patient and doctor-side. There are market-created consumer rating and review sites for doctors and various other professions out there. That's just one of many private quality assurance measures.


Secondly, there is nothing more benevolent about the people who populate the public sector(government). The only difference is, your relations with them are not voluntary or chosen by you, individually. And if you refuse their "services" or want another alternative they can limit your options thru mandates, laws, and use violence against you to force compliance. Yay, for majority-rule democracy. :thumbdown:

This is the problem with all government "funded" activities: it's involuntary and financed thru coercive theft (taxes, mandates, regulatory law etc....) If these ideas are so fantastic why do they have to be enforced at the barrel of a gun?

Short Video: The Reality of the State | Stefan Molyneux

To think that greed never comes in to play for the political elite, who get to steal money from the general public and write it off as a public good(taxation, money printing etc...), is more naive:

Short Video: If Government Ordered Your Lunch


Meet Neil Codell, an Illinois educator with a $26 million state pension. (Some services are better-provided without a profit motive. Like education.)

Consumers deserve accountability and variety, market competition thru voluntary exchange and a respect for the non-aggression principle accomplishes that.


"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -Robert LeFevre.
 
Last edited:
Deregulation for primary care would probably result in a more efficient free market exchange, but that all goes out the window for emergency care and hospitalizations. At that point, there's less free will on the consumer side because of necessity. Imagine the conversation for that..."Linda! I think I'm having a heart attack! Quick, check the online prices for all of the hospitals nearby. I think we might get a good deal."
 
Thank God. It pretty much defines specious.

wow. thanks for that useful, informative reply. it was definitely worth the ping to my inbox.

on second thought, i'll be back for more later. :) the intellectual savvyness of the average SDN poster is too good to pass up.
 
wow. thanks for that useful, informative reply. it was definitely worth the ping to my inbox.

on second thought, i'll be back for more later. :) the intellectual savvyness of the average SDN poster is too good to pass up.

OP, let it die. In the history of the internet, no one has ever changed their political stance because some saviour OP removed the wool with their brilliant thread and life altering blog sources.
 
wow. thanks for that useful, informative reply. it was definitely worth the ping to my inbox.

on second thought, i'll be back for more later. :) the intellectual savvyness of the average SDN poster is too good to pass up.

okay and while you're at it, try to avoid using the roads maintained by the government to get to the grocery store where the government ensures that the food you purchase won't kill you and don't brush your teeth using water that the government provides without gouging you while maintaining its cleanliness. but yeah your ancap thing is cool too
 
okay and while you're at it, try to avoid using the roads maintained by the government to get to the grocery store where the government ensures that the food you purchase won't kill you and don't brush your teeth using water that the government provides without gouging you while maintaining its cleanliness. but yeah your ancap thing is cool too
While I agree there are many things the government does provide us with it also poorly manages numerous other programs. welfare, social security, medicare, the list goes on of programs that run us further into debt each year. Now obviously the federal government has it's place but there are numerous aspects of our life that are run far more efficiently either at a state or county level with little to no support from the federal government. So his "ancap" thing may be a little bit extreme however, I feel our country could be run far more efficiently, and we could have more freedom with a less involved federal government.
 
So his "ancap" thing may be a little bit extreme however, I feel our country could be run far more efficiently, and we could have more freedom with a less involved federal government.

I'm a girl btw. Thanks for the thoughtful real comments in this thread. There definitely are some good future doctors here. Unfortunately, they'll be devoured by the bureaucratic US healthcare system.

However, I hate to be labeled "extreme". Maybe a minority opinion, but not extreme. My beliefs centers around non-aggression(don't initiate force), a respect for property, and voluntary exchange. Not harming and not stealing from people should never be considered "extreme".

I think the public sector looting, endless inflationary genocidal wars, forced debt on future generations who never consented is a bit more extreme.

But I do understand the sentiment. New ideas have to start somewhere. :luck:
 
I'm a girl btw. Thanks for the thoughtful real comments in this thread. There definitely are some good future doctors here. Unfortunately, they'll be devoured by the bureaucratic US healthcare system.

However, I hate to be labeled "extreme". Maybe a minority opinion, but not extreme. My beliefs centers around non-aggression(don't initiate force), a respect for property, and voluntary exchange. Not harming and not stealing from people should never be considered "extreme".

I think the public sector looting, endless inflationary genocidal wars, forced debt on future generations who never consented is a bit more extreme.

But I do understand the sentiment. New ideas have to start somewhere. :luck:
OOps. I apologize for making a gender assumption that in no way was appropriate. Also was not meaning for the word extreme to come off as negative. I actually agree with many things you have said. However, I believe you are kind of like Ron Paul in that your ideas are great, and in theory could have worked wonderfully at one point in time. However, we have passed that stage.
As for your healthcare argument couldn't agree more. We are at another tipping point in our countries existence, and if Obama is re-elected it will once again be too late to go back. We will then have government run health care from here on, and I believe there are few things that could be more detrimental to our economy and way of life.
 
okay and while you're at it, try to avoid using the roads maintained by the government to get to the grocery store where the government ensures that the food you purchase won't kill you and don't brush your teeth using water that the government provides without gouging you while maintaining its cleanliness. but yeah your ancap thing is cool too

Lol, this is such a tried and true statist argument that it's almost cute. :love:

Just because the government "provides" something(at the barrel of a gun) doesn't mean that only government can provide it. Roads and food existed before the before the government, fyi.

The market is better at providing all services, because it's voluntary(no guns to your head for compliance), there's variety of choice thru competition, there's accountability because you vote with your dollars(consumer action).

Stefan of Government "Services" and Voluntary Alternatives


Excerpt from Robert Murphy on Voluntary Associations vs. Coercive Government Institutions
 
Last edited:
Lol, this is such a tried and true statist argument that it's almost cute. :love:

Just because the government "provides" something(at the barrel of a gun) doesn't mean that only government can provide it. Roads and food existed before the before the government, fyi.

The market is better at providing all services, because it's voluntary(no guns to your head for compliance), there's variety of choice thru competition, there's accountability because you vote with your dollars(consumer action).

Stefan of Government "Services" and Voluntary Alternatives


Excerpt from Robert Murphy on Voluntary Associations vs. Coercive Government Institutions

Can you explain the voluntary and benevolent nature of private plantation owners in the South in the 18th and 19th century? Or perhaps worker protections in the industrial era? Or the lassiez faire approach to addressing the Great Depression by Hoover?
 
Lol, this is such a tried and true statist argument that it's almost cute. :love:

Just because the government "provides" something(at the barrel of a gun) doesn't mean that only government can provide it. Roads and food existed before the before the government, fyi.

The market is better at providing all services, because it's voluntary(no guns to your head for compliance), there's variety of choice thru competition, there's accountability because you vote with your dollars(consumer action).

Stefan of Government "Services" and Voluntary Alternatives


Excerpt from Robert Murphy on Voluntary Associations vs. Coercive Government Institutions

Because we all know how good the market is at taking negative externalities into account. Companies have such a great track record when it comes to social welfare and public safety. It's not as if factory owners would pump toxic waste into potable water or allow pollutants from fossil fuels to go into the atmosphere. And given the chance, no one would dare try to control a market, oh certainly not! Everyone truly believes in the free market and would certainly allow others to enter and exit to allow for perfect competition. And consumers have perfect knowledge, so when they go to buy a car, they know that they will be getting a quality product rather than a lemon because companies that are pursuing their own interests love to keep the consumer as their main priority and would never dream of trying to screw them over for a quick dollar. Man, life sure would be better without that pesky government putting up their inefficient regulations willy-nilly using the barrel of a gun and messing up this Eden.

Wait a second...
 
The market is better at providing all services, because it's voluntary(no guns to your head for compliance)

Define "better". You simply saying that the free market is better does not make it so. And some radio host saying it doesn't either.

If by better you mean more efficient, do you really think the free market would be more efficient at providing roads and utilities without powers such as eminent domain?
 
Can you explain the voluntary and benevolent nature of private plantation owners in the South in the 18th and 19th century? Or perhaps worker protections in the industrial era?

Lol, are you kidding me? Self-Ownership and individualism are the foundation of Anarcho-Capitalism(libertarian philosophy). Property rights are an extension of self-ownership; you own the fruits of your labor. So no, slavery isn't ok with me.

The historical fact that should be more recognized is that the state sanctioned slavery.

The state would catch and return "escaped" slaves back to their "owners". If you got rid of that state, then the catching of slaves would become a cost of those private individuals owning slaves, rather than a socialized cost on all the people.

But why is being a slave to the state ok with you?

Having your money stolen from you (thru taxation and inflation) is the same as working for free. Can the government draft you into a war you don't believe in? Yes. Can they tax your home and other property you own? Yes. Both of those violate the self-ownership principle. The government does, in fact, claims ownership of you.

We can't say slavery has ended when you are forced to pay taxes upon acquiring an income beyond a rather low threshold.
________________________________________
Also, what about historical government discrimination like jim crow laws and race-based immigrations laws:


GOVERNMENT, DISCRIMINATION, TRADE AND IMMIGRATION

Free markets help facilitate cultural exchange and learning. Trade is win-win and mutually beneficial for both parties; It also deters conflict since both parties become interdependent and will more likely rely on negotiation to solve conflict, instead of violence. Think about the silk road. Or look into the real history real history of the wild west; many different people from various countries interacting without a state monopoly present and doing so in a peaceful manner.

SHORT VIDEO: Myth--The Wild West | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The state is usually the one that mandates segregation(Jim Crow laws etc...) between people based on imaginary boarders, inflationary wars, or fictitious concepts like "patriotism". In a free society people would move freely and trade frequently.

In a free society you bear the cost of your behavior. If you discriminate you loose business and your reputation is lost with customers who don't agree.


The cost of your behavior is privatized directly to you, instead of socializing the cost by using the state to enforce discriminatory laws onto everyone.

Or the lassiez faire approach to addressing the Great Depression by Hoover?

Lassiez-faire is a meaningless term as long as government intervention in the market exists:

The most comprehensive discussion on the subject can be found here by Murray Rothbard. To summarize quickly, Rothbard painfully details the acts taken by the Federal Reserve during the 1920s that pushed an expansionary monetary policy. Rothbard also documents politicians' continual push for price supports and interventions in the economy. Most importantly, Rothbard shows year by year how incredibly interventionist the Hoover Administration was and how important they felt intervention was in saving the economy, all while restricting the market from liquidating the bad credit from the bubble, thus widening and deepening the depression.
And if you'd like to know more about the corporatist New Deal Policies, which were chillingly parallel to contemporaneous fascist policies, you can read about that here and here. Also, these blog posts add some more info.



Resources:

Austrian School: Reasons for the Depression.
I wonder what r/libertarian thinks.
 
Last edited:
While I agree there are many things the government does provide us with it also poorly manages numerous other programs. welfare, social security, medicare, the list goes on of programs that run us further into debt each year.

"Welfare" is actually run at the state level. Social security is one of the most efficiently run bureaucracies in history. Medicare covers individuals who are uninsurable in the private market, and it does so with less overhead. And the latter two do a lot of their work through private contractors.
 
wow. thanks for that useful, informative reply. it was definitely worth the ping to my inbox.

You get what you pay for.

I could give you something more serious, if you like, but it would be equally dismissive.
 
"Welfare" is actually run at the state level. Social security is one of the most efficiently run bureaucracies in history. Medicare covers individuals who are uninsurable in the private market, and it does so with less overhead. And the latter two do a lot of their work through private contractors.
Welfare is partially run at state level consdiering the grants they utilize are afforded them by our FEDERAL government.
Social Security is currently on pace to be bankrupt by 2030, how is this one of the "most efficient run bureaucracies", unless you are admitting that all gov run bureaucracies are inefficient in which case I would agree and put SS at the lower end of the list of poor management. Lastly, Medicare covers numerous seniors who COULD VERY WELL INSURE THEMSELVES IN THE PRIVATE SYSTEM. You realize all senior over 65 are in medicare right REGARDLESS of their financial means, millionaires, billionaires, they do not need medicare, and many of them would agree they do not need it.
I am in no way arguing that these programs should be scrapped, they are very much necessary. I am simply making the argument they are poorly run, which from a financial standpoint is a fact.
 
Welfare is partially run at state level consdiering the grants they utilize are afforded them by our FEDERAL government.

Giving block grants and actually running the programs are two entirely different things. I am sorry, but you were incorrect when you stated that welfare is a federally managed program. It is 50 state-run programs.

PKAguy2202 said:
Social Security is currently on pace to be bankrupt by 2030, how is this one of the "most efficient run bureaucracies", unless you are admitting that all gov run bureaucracies are inefficient in which case I would agree and put SS at the lower end of the list of poor management.

Again, separate funding from running. The SSA is deadly efficient, and its projected insolvency could be addressed by simply raising the income limit on the SS payroll tax.

PKAguy2202 said:
Lastly, Medicare covers numerous seniors who COULD VERY WELL INSURE THEMSELVES IN THE PRIVATE SYSTEM. You realize all senior over 65 are in medicare right REGARDLESS of their financial means, millionaires, billionaires, they do not need medicare, and many of them would agree they do not need it.

Non sequitur.

PKAguy2202 said:
I am in no way arguing that these programs should be scrapped, they are very much necessary. I am simply making the argument they are poorly run, which from a financial standpoint is a fact.

And you have very little to substantiate this argument. If you are willing, please list all major objectives for Medicare, identify which ones the program has failed at, and demonstrate how poor management has caused those failures.
 
Top