Menu Icon Search
Close Search

About the ads

Real Affordable Healthcare: Remove 'Government' Regulation

Discussion in 'Pre-Medical Allopathic [ MD ]' started by futurepremed, 10.29.12.

  1. annonymous819

    annonymous819

    Joined:
    08.13.12
    Messages:
    135
    Status:
    Pre-Medical

    SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)
    Bruce Willis.

    /thread
  2. wpierce118

    wpierce118

    Joined:
    10.26.12
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    hSDN Member
    If I were running a business, assassinating key competitors would be relatively cheap, easy to conceal, and would help business.

    Without law enforcement, it would fall upon my competitors to protect themselves, and myself to protect me and my business. Would you agree with this system?
  3. RomanTaylor

    RomanTaylor Happy New GoAway!

    Joined:
    05.19.12
    Messages:
    396
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    Violence would lead to non-competitiveness?

    What about the drug trade!?
  4. Frank Nutter

    Frank Nutter

    Joined:
    08.04.10
    Messages:
    100
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    It's great to see this discussion going on. Gives me some hope because not too long ago I was in a lot of anti-Liberterian's shoes too, and threads like this one were what directed me toward looking things up and thinking about them on my own.

    So to you "reasonable" moderates and intelligent Liberals/Conservatives...all I can say is don't rush to judgment about Anarchocapitalists. They're not just pulling these ideas out of their asses. They're not crazy. There is actually a sound and logical rationale behind it, you just have to do some self-directed research to appreciate it.
  5. coyotelime

    coyotelime

    Joined:
    03.29.11
    Messages:
    653
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    I would love to hear what an interviewer has to say about your views. Certainly a breath of fresh air compared to other typical responses regarding healthcare.

    PS This is neither for nor against you.
  6. 487806

    487806 Life of the Party!

    Joined:
    08.09.12
    Messages:
    15,303
    Location:
    Inside a black hole
    Rocket Scientist
    :confused::confused::confused:

    They could use the same tactics against you. Are you trying to form a mafia?
  7. wpierce118

    wpierce118

    Joined:
    10.26.12
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    hSDN Member
    That's my point, that without an independent policing system, mafias will form and I see no reason why this type of violence would not be widespread.
  8. 487806

    487806 Life of the Party!

    Joined:
    08.09.12
    Messages:
    15,303
    Location:
    Inside a black hole
    Rocket Scientist
    That's the main reason why anarchism is flawed (except probably anarcho-veganism). Government is necessary to establish and maintain social order. Rule of majority is always evil.
  9. wpierce118

    wpierce118

    Joined:
    10.26.12
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    hSDN Member
    Glad to see that we agree :thumbup:
  10. futurepremed

    futurepremed

    Joined:
    10.29.12
    Messages:
    63
    Status:
    Pre-Medical


    Because the government would protect the earth? If all else fails, we'll always have batman.

    [​IMG]
  11. futurepremed

    futurepremed

    Joined:
    10.29.12
    Messages:
    63
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    You're forgetting the key factor here: The drug trade is violent because of government prohibition.

    SHORT VIDEOS -- Black Markets, Prohibition and Crime


    Learn Liberty:What You Should Know About Drug Prohibition

    Robert Murphy: Black Markets/Mafia vs. Government

    Stefan Molyneux: Organized Crime vs. Government

    Drug wars are a result of.. well, the War on Some Drugs. Competitors in the drug market cannot resort to any kind of legal means to solve disputes over property, so they must resort to secret violence and fraud. People only tolerate the violence of drug gangs because the State makes it impossible for a peaceful free market alternative to exist.


    Drug wars exist now because of the immense profits to be made in drug trafficking. Those profits are ONLY possible because drugs are illegal and the large legitimate producers of pharmaceuticals aren't allowed to come up with incredibly cheap versions of those drugs and market them. The supply is artificially reduced, and the supply that is available is far more dangerous to produce. It creates a situation where only criminals are producing and are making very large % profits.



    Those large profits make it valuable for them to use force to eliminate competition, etc. Alcohol is a perfect example of this principle. During prohibition, large criminal organizations formed around the supply and distribution of alcohol. It was perfect.



    Alcohol is quite addictive, the market for it is huge, and when it was made illegal its supply was artificially contracted to drive up the price and profits of those still willing to sell it, ie the criminals. Now look at today, there are no criminal gangs involved in the sale of alcohol. Why?



    Because like every other commodity the price and profits seek a level where violence is too expensive to employ, both in the resources used and in the reputation hit such a company would take. No one would buy more expensive stuff from the criminals when there's a legitimate dealer right around the corner.
    Last edited: 11.05.12
  12. syoung

    syoung MS-1

    Joined:
    01.02.11
    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    CA
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    you're alcohol example doesn't imply that the state is evil. the state made it illegal and then made it legal again (price dropped...)

    also when was alcohol quite addictive? addictive like cocaine? heroin? phenobarbital?
  13. freshbagels

    freshbagels MS1

    Joined:
    02.27.12
    Messages:
    1,118
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member

    The question, while hypothetical, is serious. How does your anarcho-capitalist society protect itself from an external threat like an asteroid impact?
  14. NickNaylor

    NickNaylor Daisy the Dog

    Joined:
    05.22.08
    Messages:
    14,161
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN Published Author SDN 5+ Year Member
    Is your position that people would rather die than pool their efforts to prevent their deaths?

    (sent from my phone)
  15. NickNaylor

    NickNaylor Daisy the Dog

    Joined:
    05.22.08
    Messages:
    14,161
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN Published Author SDN 5+ Year Member
    And the current system... isn't based on majority rule? At the federal level I would agree with you to some extent. However that certainly doesn't apply at smaller scales where all members of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches are elected. You are at the mercy of a benevolent majority that will hopefully act in good faith and apply the law equally as well as respect the protected rights of all people.

    (sent from my phone)
  16. freshbagels

    freshbagels MS1

    Joined:
    02.27.12
    Messages:
    1,118
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    A strictly anarcho-capitalist society would not be able to muster the national (does such a concept exist within global anarchism?) or international mobilization of labor and resources required to prevent their destruction; the pure natural rights libertarian would be forced to condemn such coercive measures as an immoral violation of private property rights.

    The case I believe you are implying is one of people 'freely pooling' their resources without external motivation. This, however, is an evasion of the issue of implications of a natural rights philosophy (i.e. there is no situation where it is justifiable to infringe upon a person's natural right to private property, even if the alternative is literal destruction of the species). That argument also begs the question: to whom to people freely give their money? What research has been conducted in the free market? Who builds the shield or missile or whatever defense system is required?
  17. NickNaylor

    NickNaylor Daisy the Dog

    Joined:
    05.22.08
    Messages:
    14,161
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN Published Author SDN 5+ Year Member
    So did we lose rational self-interest along the way or something? Compulsion is not required. The guy who knows how to build the rocket motor for a missile would likely contribute is knowledge because he understands that NOT doing so would result in his death, even if that means doing the work for free. Repeat for everyone.

    (sent from my phone)
  18. freshbagels

    freshbagels MS1

    Joined:
    02.27.12
    Messages:
    1,118
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    Again, voluntary participation is an evasion of the issue at hand, which is a hypothetical test of natural rights theory in the face of an an incontrovertible threat.

    But to continue the rebuttal otherwise: a donation-funded asteroid defense is, in this society, inherently decentralized, and therefore insufficient to mobilize the proper resources in time for the impending impact. A centralized authority is a pre-requisite for the co-ordianted global response that is required
  19. wpierce118

    wpierce118

    Joined:
    10.26.12
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    hSDN Member
    I agree that this is a serious flaw with decentralized government (or lack of any government at all). Another possibly more realistic scenario is what would happen in the event of a nuclear war? I cannot imagine the free market coordinating an immediate counterattack, especially if the attack on us was unexpected.

    Edit: Also, how can we have mutually assured destruction with multiple competing means for retaliation. The very idea almost necessitates an elected official with their finger on the button.
  20. futurepremed

    futurepremed

    Joined:
    10.29.12
    Messages:
    63
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    Nope. Third-party arbitration and private security already exists(and are much faster and cheaper to deal with than the state court system) and would be more common in a free society.

    Trade and negotiation are always cheaper than violence. 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. NAP equals don't initiate force. If you were killing people, you would be susceptible to people acting in self-defense and protection agencies who are defending their clients.

    :luck:

    An if you really wanted to get away with killing people and little repercussions: then you could just become a state police officer. Than you can go around shooting people's dog and "accidentally" killing unarmed civilians, who've called for your help. As punishment, you'll get a taxpayer funded paid vacation, while your department "investigates", and a dozen donuts as a send off. :laugh:


    Video: State Police Sued for wrong door raid, shot dog, and beaten kids

    Video: State Police shoot 911 caller and offer her deadly advice



    Law enforcement isn't there to protect you. They're there to extort money AND property from you on behalf of the state.

    Video Except: The Police, Agents of the State

    Look at the level of police brutality and corruption present in our current police forces. It it's exist because they have a monopoly on providing that service. There's no competition or consumer choice when it comes to picking police services; You can't fire or sue them personally. The consequences of their behavior gets pushed off onto the taxpayers[THEY GET PAID LEAVE AND IF YOU SUE THE STATE, TAXPAYERS FOOT THE BILL]. They are completely unaccountable for their behavior, because people can't seek out voluntary alternatives.


    Video Except: Robert Murphy -- Police State Analogy

    :luck:

    Comment from VIDEO: Won't The Rich Take Over, Walter Block, 7min TOTAL

    It's important to remember that in a free society people get to keep the money they earn (i.e. no taxes) and this will benefit the poor and middle class the most.

    Also, 80% (4/5) of the 3 million in American prisons are there for victimless/non-violent crimes. And a lot of the people who are in prison for violent crimes have to do with the criminalization of drugs which wouldn't exist in a free society.

    Bringing me to the point, real crime is a relatively small problem that a free society would have numerous resources to deal with.

    VIDEO: Whatever the Question, Freedom Is the Answer(prison stats, drug war, real crime, insurance)


    :luck:
    A free society isn't utopia, but everyone has personal liability for their behavior. They don't get to hide behind a violent bureaucracy that sanctions exempt classes of criminals. :luck:
    Last edited: 11.05.12
  21. wpierce118

    wpierce118

    Joined:
    10.26.12
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    hSDN Member
    Quoting because I'd be interested in a response to this, and haven't seen any rebuttal yet.
  22. futurepremed

    futurepremed

    Joined:
    10.29.12
    Messages:
    63
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    Wow, I thought the question was a light-hearted joke. I should of known better.

    Seriously, lets remember that we can't hold a free society to higher imaginary standards than we would a society with government.

    So, lets ask the question: How would government deal with an asteroid attack? It hasn't happened in either society so, who knows?

    People can seek out any voluntary means that want, in order to handle the problem. Pool their resources or hand it off to an agency that specializes. Insurance/Defense companies that provide defense from exterior attach can provide defense for other worldly terrors too. If it's even an issue.

    Video Except: Military Defense Funded By Insurance Companies

    I will say this, an ancap society would be the most technologically advanced society on earth. Take away of the government monopoly privileges, handed out by the state, and let the full force of market competition, innovation, and price reduction rein free.


    "Capitalism = zero profit game" - Jeffrey A. Tucker (short)

    War and Defense package: Link
  23. jmadden

    jmadden

    Joined:
    09.05.12
    Messages:
    39
    Status:
    Medical Student
  24. futurepremed

    futurepremed

    Joined:
    10.29.12
    Messages:
    63
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    Yeah, but government rule is majority rule. That's the definition of a democracy. Add on to that a few exempt classes that are politically connected.

    Property rights, NAP, and voluntary exchange provide all the social order people need. Read "Boundaries of Order: private property of a social system" by Butler Schaffer. It is amazing.

    Mises Article: Property and Social Order - Hoppe

    Again, nothing will change overnight, but I see so much potential in the young people of the world who understand markets on a fundamental level. They understand the nature of spontaneous order, and understand that it is not something to fear. It’s in their DNA.

    Perhaps over time this generation which is just starting to come into it’s own will embrace a free economy as a more just and sustainable route to prosperity.

    If the next economic wildfire doesn’t kill them off, the world has a chance.

    ___________________________________
    Thread: "Humans want leaders. Anarcho-Capitalism is incompatible!"

    Response by Rob777:

    I've always believed that to be one of the weakest arguments against anarcho-capitalism. It's not that there will not be leaders, there will not be a rigidly centralized authority. Leaders will emerge naturally in institutions that provide value/utility in society. The difference between the two lies in the nature of their skills and abilities: the stateless leaders emerge from mastering the skills and abilities in their field as well as understanding the necessary administrative wisdom; the political leaders emerge from their skill in manipulating a largely static system to their favor and becoming popular. I think it is more "against human nature" to have this type of rigid authority, and I believe history can provide an appropriate track record.
  25. NickNaylor

    NickNaylor Daisy the Dog

    Joined:
    05.22.08
    Messages:
    14,161
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN Published Author SDN 5+ Year Member
    Given that private industry is now providing space flight to the state (lolwut), I'm not at all that convinced that the government is necessary to organize large-scale efforts.

    Also, I'm not sure how providing a reasonable answer to your hypothetical is avoiding the problem? Perhaps you should come up with a better hypothetical.

    (sent from my phone)
  26. freshbagels

    freshbagels MS1

    Joined:
    02.27.12
    Messages:
    1,118
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    The hypothetical is sound, but you're missing the point. Further, that reasonable answer you purport to have given is anything but: you failed to address (or perhaps didn't consider?) the 'free-loader' problem in this situation. Given that the asteroid striking means human extinction, what would stop someone from not contributing? They know that they will be defended by whatever hypothetical agency or agencies that you can imagine that will somehow be able to do something regardless of their contribution. So, given that any particular private company has no guarantee on return for their investment (i.e. repatriation by the people they have saved), how can you incentivize companies to bankroll a project that will end up making them insolvent?

    Finally, citing the current nascent private space industry as support that the free market can establish a credible, international consortium capable of preventing an asteroid strike is laughable. The private industry's accomplishments include putting an unmanned vehicle in low earth orbit and a single rendezvous with the ISS, all of which using technology developed almost entirely by public dollars.

    A government (or, in actuality, an international conglomerate effort) would at least be able to effectively, rapidly, and without regard to profits be able to mobilize any relevant industry, agency, or organization. A decentralized free-market paradise would not be able to do any of those things.

    Your anarcho-capitalist utopia has... insurance companies? And a supposed technological ace-in-the-hole. I've never seen such gymnastics to defend private property rights as unassailable before, I give you that.
  27. NickNaylor

    NickNaylor Daisy the Dog

    Joined:
    05.22.08
    Messages:
    14,161
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN Published Author SDN 5+ Year Member
    And who cares about free loaders? No one said that EVERYONE had to contribute - and that would be ridiculous to think that 6-7 billion people would have to work on this problem. If the problem gets solved, all is good, right? I didn't realize that everyone contributing was a necessary part of the game.

    And by no means was I trying to imply that putting a spacecraft into LEO = preventing an asteroid strike. However, you seemed to imply that private enterprise is entirely incapable of doing any sort of "large scale" project without a "centralized authority." That's a pretty silly and unrealistic assertion. I gave you a perfectly valid example of a private enterprise undertaking a pretty large scale project. Building and manufacturing from scratch a space-worthy vessel and testing it successfully multiple times seems like a pretty huge endeavor to my book. I don't see what public dollars had anything to do with it. Yes, government agencies enabled many technological advancements in the past - what's your point? Does DARPA get all the credit for the internet as it exists today because it pioneered the technology?

    By the way, I should say that OP is beyond making any coherent points and I'm not trying to support his argument in any way. However you were making a ridiculous argument (paraphrasing: "people are incapable of organizing themselves voluntarily in a way that enables them to be productive") and felt the need to challenge you on it. I still don't understand what the point of your hypothetical is. I'm also not going to respond to further posts because this is a pretty silly line of discussion.
  28. freshbagels

    freshbagels MS1

    Joined:
    02.27.12
    Messages:
    1,118
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    You have incorrectly grasped what my point was.

    I'll quote myself because the logical conclusion of unassailable private property rights is as follows:

    The problem with a the 'volunteer asteroid defense' in this situation is that it is a ludicrous proposal to consider. There is no feasible way to, in a de-centralized society, engender a global union towards the common, momentous goal, regardless of whether you recognize that. It is not that 'co-operation is impossible': it's that co-operation on the scale required for this sort of crisis event is not possible without an overseeing agency.

    As an aside, no one is saying that, e.g., SpaceX's ISS rendezvous is not impressive. However, it certainly doesn't indicate the intellectual or physical capital required for feasible asteroid defense. I am not speculating exactly what form that particular defense will take, only proceeding with the assumption that a) it will be tremendously expensive and b) will require multilateral efforts, both scientifically and logistically, to complete.

    Free-loaders do not just mean individual people: you run in to serious problems with your voluntary opt-in program if you cannot convince any particular corporation (i.e. the ones responsible for the defense) that they will be repatriated, particularly if the essential functions will be done regardless of their participation.
  29. futurepremed

    futurepremed

    Joined:
    10.29.12
    Messages:
    63
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    In a free society defense is not a problem.

    VIDEO EXCERPT: Stef goes over defensive methods for an anarchist society(WATCH FROM 30min in, until 38min)


    VIDEO EXCERPTS


    Stef on Social Ostracism of Free Riders and Defense

    Military Defense Funded By Insurance Companies
    ________________
    ARTICLES AND COMMENTS

    ReasonThusLiberty on Insurance, Business and Defense

    Ancapcfreethinker article: Defense is not a problem

    Jlbraun on the primary objective of war
  30. futurepremed

    futurepremed

    Joined:
    10.29.12
    Messages:
    63
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    You know how I know you're not listening, because my resources cover this objection.

    Video Except: Stefan on Social Ostracism of Free Riders and Defense


    ReasonThusLiberty on Insurance, Business and Defense
    Last edited: 11.05.12
  31. freshbagels

    freshbagels MS1

    Joined:
    02.27.12
    Messages:
    1,118
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    I am not speaking about 'defense' in an abstract manner. I refer to the specific hypothetical of an impending asteroid strike that will eradicate the human race. Given the nature of the crisis (i.e. totality), if something can be done, it will be, regardless of whether an individual or corporation pays in voluntarily or not. They know that, even if they don't contribute, the magnitude of the problem ensures that action will be taken by others.

    This presents a problem for our theoretical volunteer defense force: how do they maintain competitiveness in the market (and, therefore, justification for their actions) pre-, peri-, and post-incident when they will not necessarily be compensated or funded for their enormous expenditures? It becomes a standoff.

    The free-loader paradox is one of the reasons that, in the absence of a centralized response, an opt-in program will not be sufficient for defense in the face of an asteroid-like (or any other species-threatening) event.
  32. NickNaylor

    NickNaylor Daisy the Dog

    Joined:
    05.22.08
    Messages:
    14,161
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN Published Author SDN 5+ Year Member
    And you know all of this... how? I mean, really, that's why this whole discussion is pretty stupid. Your crystal ball is no better than mine. You say such a thing won't happen, I say that it will. Now what?
  33. freshbagels

    freshbagels MS1

    Joined:
    02.27.12
    Messages:
    1,118
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    That is, again, evading the issue at hand: are there any circumstances in which it is justifiable to violate private property rights, in the eyes of a natural rights libertarian? Even if the alternative to coercion means extinction, the answer is apparently 'no'; the 'voluntary' sidestep is not only insufficient to actually solve the hypothetical presented, but proves the point of the question in the first place - that private property rights take precedence over even the continued existence of the species. This asteroid strike is a clear means to a reductio ad absurdum of the premise that private property rights are incontrovertable..
  34. Cornu Ammonis

    Cornu Ammonis

    Joined:
    02.27.11
    Messages:
    184
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    This isn't the only issue where this is a problem. I pointed out child-rearing earlier, but the big problems are issues of externalities. How do you deal with bad debt and people riding companies into the dirt? How do you deal with environmental damage? How about management of finite resources like rare earth metals? In every case, the answer is some sort of Amish-style shunning or "solved" by the perfect knowledge and foresight of every agent on the planet in defense of their own interests.

    In this world, there is no prisoner's dilemma or tragedy of the commons. In this world we are all oracles. In this world there are no inelastic goods, no stickiness in any markets, no irreplaceable resources, no rents or rent-seeking behavior, no physical or geographical impairments to competition in any market, no conflicts of interest, and no need to worry about liability as either a creditor or a debtor. It Just Works (TM [Not Really There Are No Trademarks But Don't Copy This!!!]).
  35. futurepremed

    futurepremed

    Joined:
    10.29.12
    Messages:
    63
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
  36. Cornu Ammonis

    Cornu Ammonis

    Joined:
    02.27.11
    Messages:
    184
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    SDN 2+ Year Member
  37. Cornu Ammonis

    Cornu Ammonis

    Joined:
    02.27.11
    Messages:
    184
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    Uh, her stick figure said more words. She won.
  38. syoung

    syoung MS-1

    Joined:
    01.02.11
    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    CA
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    Was that really a cartoon? Or was it a masterpiece?

// Share //

Style: SDN Universal