Real Affordable Healthcare: Remove 'Government' Regulation

[PKAguy2202]

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.



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.



Non sequitur.



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.

I'll respond to each. yes by allotting certain funds for a program you are in essence capping each state thereby regulating the programs. You can go ahead and disagree but that is fact, I said regulated, that is what they are doing regulating.
Second, ok you just said it it "could be addressed" however it has not been addressed and we are still on path to run out of funds so my point exactly you thought of an idea right there that apparently our federal government cannot.

Non-sequitir I will admit I had to look that word up, however, if wikipedia is correct, that is not a valid response, and I believe it is just a failing to come up with a valid counter-argument.
Lastly I never EVER said it was failing to accomplish it's purpose. I said it fails to accomplish it's purpose in an economically efficient manner and could be RUN BETTER. to quote me exactly, "I am simply making the argument they are poorly run, which from a financial standpoint is a fact."
I have already pointed out shortcomings though, the fact that there is no income based restraints. You in a way have that I guess with Medicare Advantage, which allows you to pay more for expanded coverage, however with the PPACA it is basically becoming null and void.
Now let's call attention to more shortcomings of our new law, for instance the fact that the "new" Medicare setup is calling for cuts to doctors, which leads to one of two options. A. roughly 60% of doctors, most specialists, will refuse to accept medicare. Or B. They will vote down the pay out cuts as they have since 2001, and with that addition this program is estimated to cost us 100 billion a year in debt.That's helpful when you are 16 trillion deep. the new CLASS act combined with the 16 million new Medicaid "customers" will essentially put nursing homes out of business, considering they already are struggling to make profits in many places. Also, I won't even begin to approach the Independent advisory board, because a team full of non-medical professionals making medical decisions for us all makes sense.
So let me again be plain and clear for you. I never said these programs or other government run programs were "trash", "worthless" or failed to do any good. I said, "They could be run more efficiently" By that I mean more economically efficient, and more personalized. Just like the point made earlier about roads, bridges, schools etc. Just because the government "built" them or put them in place doesn't mean we wouldn't have done the same thing, and perhaps more efficiently without them.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Gut Shot]

I'll respond to each. yes by allotting certain funds for a program you are in essence capping each state thereby regulating the programs. You can go ahead and disagree but that is fact, I said regulated, that is what they are doing regulating.

Here is what you said: "...it also poorly manages numerous other programs. welfare..."

Notice the word "manages", not "regulates." You are off to a rough start, especially if you do not understand the difference between regulation and management.

Non-sequitir I will admit I had to look that word up, however, if wikipedia is correct, that is not a valid response, and I believe it is just a failing to come up with a valid counter-argument.

I called non sequitur because your rambling about how many seniors can afford private insurance was, at best, tangential.

Lastly I never EVER said it was failing to accomplish it's purpose. I said it fails to accomplish it's purpose in an economically efficient manner and could be RUN BETTER.

Really? How?

I have already pointed out shortcomings though, the fact that there is no income based restraints. You in a way have that I guess with Medicare Advantage, which allows you to pay more for expanded coverage, however with the PPACA it is basically becoming null and void.

Means testing for entitlement programs is a hot issue, and one which may come up in the future. After all, one could argue that even a billionaire has contributed his/her payroll taxes over the years, and therefore deserves to reap the benefit just like every other eligible citizen.

Incidentally, you can pay for expanded coverage, like gap policies, without being part of Medicare Advantage.

Now let's call attention to more shortcomings of our new law, for instance the fact that the "new" Medicare setup is calling for cuts to doctors,

Not quite. The biggest Medicare savings ($132 billion over 10 years) will come from Medicare Advantage. Those funds were essentially being wasted on private insurance overhead, which was more costly than straight Medicare without any apparent gain in outcomes.

Also, I won't even begin to approach the Independent advisory board, because a team full of non-medical professionals making medical decisions for us all makes sense.

The IPAB actually will contain medical professionals, although a majority of the committee cannot be accepting payment from Medicare for practice services.

So let me again be plain and clear for you. I never said these programs or other government run programs were "trash", "worthless" or failed to do any good. I said, "They could be run more efficiently"

That description could fit virtually any process in the known universe.

 

[487806]

Ouch.. the attending just owned the premed.

Also, if OP is an anarcho-capitalist, can we be anarcho-socialists? or anarcho-veganists? or anarcho-anarchists?

 

[wpierce118]

That description could fit virtually any process in the known universe.

I am simply making the argument they are poorly run, which from a financial standpoint is a fact.

Of course these programs could be more efficient. Even I agree with you on that. But that is hardly an argument for why things should be privatized.

I have seen very little evidence to suggest that the private sector would run things more efficiently, and much evidence to the contrary.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

BTW regarding slavery being unacceptable to anarcho-capitalists: this is not always the case. Some see indentured servitude and "voluntary" slavery as perfectly fine. Some even think you should be able to sell your children or leave them to starve to death if they don't agree to abide by your rules; you may not own them, but you don't owe them, either. I'm not trying to make an ad-hominem or straw-man argument here, but the fact is that once you decide that the guarantor of people's rights and lives should be a marketplace, at the very least you are leaving these options as possibilities.

 

[wpierce118]

Some even think you should be able to sell your children or leave them to starve to death if they don't agree to abide by your rules

This is absolutely true, in fact this belief is expressed to me daily by my anarcho-capitalist calculus teacher. He honestly believes that parents should have the right to do anything they want with their children, including force them to work.

Needless to say, it's an interesting class.

 

[PKAguy2202]

Here is what you said: "...it also poorly manages numerous other programs. welfare..."

Notice the word "manages", not "regulates." You are off to a rough start, especially if you do not understand the difference between regulation and management.



I called non sequitur because your rambling about how many seniors can afford private insurance was, at best, tangential.



Really? How?



Means testing for entitlement programs is a hot issue, and one which may come up in the future. After all, one could argue that even a billionaire has contributed his/her payroll taxes over the years, and therefore deserves to reap the benefit just like every other eligible citizen.

Incidentally, you can pay for expanded coverage, like gap policies, without being part of Medicare Advantage.



Not quite. The biggest Medicare savings ($132 billion over 10 years) will come from Medicare Advantage. Those funds were essentially being wasted on private insurance overhead, which was more costly than straight Medicare without any apparent gain in outcomes.



The IPAB actually will contain medical professionals, although a majority of the committee cannot be accepting payment from Medicare for practice services.



That description could fit virtually any process in the known universe.

At least you have reasoning for your arguments and I respect that, we can agree to disagree.

On the manages topic that was a personal fault. By manages I meant more overseeing, which I would define as what it is they do. Oversee=manage but I understand your point I will be more careful with word choice.
Second my rambling was not rambling haha. It made complete sense, means testing should be implemented. On top of that I believe medicare should take on the voucher system similar to suggested in Ryan plan. Let different insurers compete for the business of our seniors. What this will do is lower costs for seniors hopefully, and worse case scenario they keep the plan they have. Also if we can take some seniors out of the government system it should reduce financial burden on tax payers. Competition has been proven to work time and again. there is a perfect example of how it could run more financially efficiently.
Also I will not quite your not quite. While it is true Medicare Advantage cutting will theoretically save money, the overall PPACA is estimated to run in the RED overall. Which means more national debt. So I could care less if one portion saves money, if the whole thing loses money that is what matters.
In regards to the IPAB it is an appointed board meaning they do not need to have any medical experience. Also the fact that they are appointed and unelected is a area of concern. They are appointed by the president with input from the Speaker, and the Senate leader. Also, they MAY NOT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL Business, Vocation, or employment during their term. Therefore none of the members on the board are ACTIVELY involved in medicine while they serve. So they are not currently medical professionals.
More to come later...

 

[wpierce118]

worse case scenario they keep the plan they have

True. But they also would have to pay extra for their old Medicare plan if it was outcompeted by a private insurance company. That may sound good, but because private insurance companies would once again be able to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, among other repeals, of course the private plans will be cheaper.

Private plans will have no where near the coverage of the current Medicare plan, and the seniors will be left with the rest of the bill.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

True. But they also would have to pay extra for their old Medicare plan if it was outcompeted by a private insurance company. That may sound good, but because private insurance companies would once again be able to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, among other repeals, of course the private plans will be cheaper.

Private plans will have no where near the coverage of the current Medicare plan, and the seniors will be left with the rest of the bill.

The other side of this coin is that cherry-picking the rich and healthy will leave medicare with the most expensive patients. Afterwards, its "failure to control costs" will just prove to republicans how bad and inefficient it is and it will be phased out just as has been dreamed in think tanks since the moment LBJ signed it into law.

Edit: See also No Child Left Behind, teacher pay tied to student outcomes, and school vouchers.

 

[Gut Shot]

In regards to the IPAB it is an appointed board meaning they do not need to have any medical experience.

Here is the text from the PPACA (emphasis added):

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The appointed membership of the Board shall include individuals with national recognition for their expertise in health finance and economics, actuarial science, health facility management, health plans and integrated delivery systems, reimbursement of health facilities, allopathic and osteopathic physicians, and other providers of health services, and other related fields, who provide a mix of different professionals, broad geographic representation, and a balance between urban and rural representatives.
‘‘(ii) INCLUSION.—The appointed membership of the Board shall include (but not be limited to) physicians and other health professionals, experts in the area of pharmaco-economics or prescription drug benefit pro- grams, employers, third-party payers, individuals skilled in the conduct and interpretation of biomedical, health services, and health economics research and expertise in outcomes and effectiveness research and technology assessment. Such membership shall also include representatives of consumers and the elderly.
‘‘(iii) MAJORITY NONPROVIDERS.—Individuals who are directly involved in the provision or management of the delivery of items and services covered under this title shall not constitute a majority of the appointed membership of the Board.

 

[futurepremed]

BTW regarding slavery being unacceptable to anarcho-capitalists: this is not always the case. Some see indentured servitude and "voluntary" slavery as perfectly fine. Some even think you should be able to sell your children or leave them to starve to death if they don't agree to abide by your rules; you may not own them, but you don't owe them, either. I'm not trying to make an ad-hominem or straw-man argument here, but the fact is that once you decide that the guarantor of people's rights and lives should be a marketplace, at the very least you are leaving these options as possibilities.

Not true. All humans have self-ownership:


At what point is something human enough to have rights?

All people, by virtue of being human, have self-ownership. There are degrees to which a person can/or knows how to express that self-ownership.

Children and the mentally ill are limited with their express of self-ownership, because of their ability. Children officially grow into full expressions of self-ownership, when they become adults. Children are positive obligations chosen by the parents who have them and they are legally liable for their care.

The mentally ill and disabled do not have fully expression of their self-ownership. In this case a caretaker or guardian assumes the parent role permanently and takes care of the essentials. A person gets as much "rights"(what is a right? usually interpreted as "positive" obligation put on someone else involuntarily) as they can rationally exercise.

And any third parties can step in and protect the innocent who need assistance. There are plenty of non-profit watchdog organizations, in existence today, that focus on the human rights agenda

________________________________________________
Slavery can't be "voluntary". It's voluntary servitude until you take away your compliance. Not to mention, this is technical academic fodder and has no real world bearing. There is no existing precedent for people voluntarily enslaving themselves:

VOLUNTARY SLAVERY? CAN YOU SELL YOUR SELF-OWNERSHIP?

The distinction between a man's alienable labor service and his inalienable will may be further explained: a man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced — for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance.
...
The concept of "voluntary slavery" is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master's will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary. But more of coercion later on.

-Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Cap..._got_the_full_set_of_intro_to_liberty/c6h9lz6

 

[NickNaylor]

Of course these programs <i>could</i> be more efficient. Even I agree with you on that. But that is hardly an argument for why things should be privatized.

I have seen very little evidence to suggest that the private sector would run things more efficiently, and much evidence to the contrary.

Lol, what an awesome argument. I wish we could apply it to all of those calling for single payer healthcare.

What's your evidence by the way? I'm curious.

(sent from my phone)

 

[futurepremed]

This is absolutely true, in fact this belief is expressed to me daily by my anarcho-capitalist calculus teacher. He honestly believes that parents should have the right to do anything they want with their children, including force them to work.

Needless to say, it's an interesting class.

LOL, silly goose. A common statist tactic when they loose an argument is to lie, intentionally misinform, name-call and shame their opponents all without offering a real rebuttal or responding to the initial objection(OP). And it's funny how you pop in now to troll. Smart doggy.

All humans have self-ownership, even if they can't fully express it. Third-parties are allowed to intervene on their behalf and advocate for them:

What about orphans? Abusive/Dysfunctional families?

Child Protection and DROs

Stefan talks about this and he basically says DROs(dispute resolution agencies) will cover this. The same insurance companies that pay health insurance and school for children would be responsible for making sure they are not abused. If they are abused then the objective cost of covering them goes up. Abused children have problems in school, they are more likely to be obese, they are way more likely to be violent with peers etc....
They are also more likely to be delinquents who will go out and destroy private property(That matters a lot in an ancap society). This is a big financial incentive for companies and communities in an Ancap society to make sure children are reared properly.

Child Protection and Education in a free society:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dwW0D_o1Ww#t=01h47m40s)
_____________________________________________________
THREADS

Child abuse in an AnCap society

How would you deal with this in Ancapistan (Child Neglect/Endangerment)

 

[PKAguy2202]

Here is the text from the PPACA (emphasis added):

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The appointed membership of the Board shall include individuals with national recognition for their expertise in health finance and economics, actuarial science, health facility management, health plans and integrated delivery systems, reimbursement of health facilities, allopathic and osteopathic physicians, and other providers of health services, and other related fields, who provide a mix of different professionals, broad geographic representation, and a balance between urban and rural representatives.
‘‘(ii) INCLUSION.—The appointed membership of the Board shall include (but not be limited to) physicians and other health professionals, experts in the area of pharmaco-economics or prescription drug benefit pro- grams, employers, third-party payers, individuals skilled in the conduct and interpretation of biomedical, health services, and health economics research and expertise in outcomes and effectiveness research and technology assessment. Such membership shall also include representatives of consumers and the elderly.
‘‘(iii) MAJORITY NONPROVIDERS.—Individuals who are directly involved in the provision or management of the delivery of items and services covered under this title shall not constitute a majority of the appointed membership of the Board.

That quote was supposed to say "have to have" medical experience. I recognize they "might" but there is no requirement. Also as I said non would be CURRENTLY PRACTICING look it up.

 

[wpierce118]

Lol, what an awesome argument. I wish we could apply it to all of those calling for single payer healthcare.

What's your evidence by the way? I'm curious.

(sent from my phone)

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that the argument that privatized healthcare would be more efficient is invalid. Just that the point that programs are run inefficiently without providing an alternative means nothing.

As for evidence of the efficacy of single-payer systems, there has been much written on the success of countries that have adopted single-payer systems compared to the United States. I'm on my phone right now so can't provide links easily but if you look at WHO rankings and percent of GDP towards healthcare, you can see what I'm talking about.

 

[wpierce118]

LOL, silly goose. A common statist tactic when they loose an argument is to lie, intentionally misinform, name-call and shame their opponents all without offering a real rebuttal or responding to the initial objection(OP). And it's funny how you pop in now to troll. Smart doggy.

Read our posts again. All that Cornu Ammonis was saying, and all that I was supporting, was that some take your anarcho-capitalist ideas to the extreme. Surely you must have encountered this in your subeddit.

And rather than trying to demonize all and anarcho-capitalists as you say we are, I think Cornu Ammonis is bringing up a very valuable point.

Your society would replace laws with profit and the hope that people are inherently good. I don't think that those will be sufficient in protecting those who can't protect themselves.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Not true. All humans have self-ownership:


At what point is something human enough to have rights?

All people, by virtue of being human, have self-ownership. There are degrees to which a person can/or knows how to express that self-ownership.

Children and the mentally ill are limited with their express of self-ownership, because of their ability. Children officially grow into full expressions of self-ownership, when they become adults. Children are positive obligations chosen by the parents who have them and they are legally liable for their care.

The mentally ill and disabled do not have fully expression of their self-ownership. In this case a caretaker or guardian assumes the parent role permanently and takes care of the essentials. A person gets as much "rights"(what is a right? usually interpreted as "positive" obligation put on someone else involuntarily) as they can rationally exercise.

And any third parties can step in and protect the innocent who need assistance. There are plenty of non-profit watchdog organizations, in existence today, that focus on the human rights agenda

________________________________________________
Slavery can't be "voluntary". It's voluntary servitude until you take away your compliance. Not to mention, this is technical academic fodder and has no real world bearing. There is no existing precedent for people voluntarily enslaving themselves:





http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Cap..._got_the_full_set_of_intro_to_liberty/c6h9lz6

There is plenty of precendent on people voluntarily enslaving themselves. Have you ever heard of debtors prisons? Those are pretty much a hallmark ancap solution to debt since bankruptcy is theft by the state from creditors.

Also, read this: http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf

"Would it ever be possible, under libertarian law, for a baby to be abandoned by its parents, for there to be no other adult willing to care and feed it, and the baby be relegated to death? Yes."

He then goes through some mental gymnastics to prove that really you are guilty of "forestalling" if you don't inform every living adult that you're about to abandon your baby. The very fact that this paper is necessary should be setting off alarms in your head. I hope you know that this is not a settled issue and I invite you to crawl into the deep recesses of your subreddit world and ask about this. At the very least, I think you'd be surprised to find that among the founders you will find little support for the idea that children are a "positive obligation."

 

[futurepremed]

Or perhaps worker protections in the industrial era?

Sorry, I forget to comment on this bit. My response is as follows:

How about you first give specific examples as to why the Industrial Revolution was bad. Most economists agree that it was the single greatest thing in history.

I suggest you read the wiki on the industrial revolution. Average income per person and technology increased drastically and that did not happen in countries that did not undergo the Industrial revolution. As for abuses in labor, countries that are more economically free have less of those abuses. The state undoubtedly solved nothing that wasn't going to progress with increased wealth anyway. Technology always relieves menial labor and only the free market produces suitable technology:

Short Video:

Myth: The Government and Labor Unions Saved Us From Low Wages and Poverty
_______________________________________________
The Industrial Revolution might represent the period of the biggest sustained improvement in the quality of life for the average person out of any historical period. People flocked from all over the world to join in. There was still rampant poverty, though, and life was very miserable for many people, but that is mostly a function of the lack of technology and capital. Life has sucked for almost all people for almost all of history.

Don't mistake capitalism for utopia. No economic or political structure will do that. Capitalism simply enables a society to allocate resources available in the most effective, efficient and fair manner yet discovered.


The general mistake is for people to think that things got worse during the industrial revolution. In reality things got better for most people. The criticism comes from forgetting that before the industrial revolution these people were still slaving away 14 hours of the day, just out in the country.



REALITY IS SIMPLE:

In reality, men are driven by self-interest...so you can either attempt to suppress this characteristic, or you can leverage it, as is the case in libertarianism. We're often accused of being "utopian", as if we assume all men are going to be good and altruistic...but it's really quite the opposite.


That is to say, resources are scarce and rivalrous...and they must be allocated in some manner. Either someone can centrally attempt to make such decisions on everyone else's behalf (central planning, communism, etc...), or everyone can decide for themselves, and produce and trade voluntarily (anarcho-capitalism). Most nations fall somewhere in between.


On moral/ideological grounds, it's wrong to coerce people...to force them to do something against their will...to seize their voluntarily acquired or self-produced resources. On pragmatic grounds, free economies lead to more efficient allocation of resources, and improve the average quality of life for society overall.

You want misery and scarcity? The Industrial Revolution ain't got nothing on Soviet Russia or North Korea.


On child labor:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.childlabor

Most economic historians conclude that this legislation was not the primary reason for the reduction and virtual elimination of child labor between 1880 and 1940. Instead they point out that industrialization and economic growth brought rising incomes, which allowed parents the luxury of keeping their children out of the work force.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/col...abor-and-the-british-industrial-revolution-2/

Child labor was virtually eliminated when, for the first time in history, the productivity of parents in free labor markets rose to the point where it was no longer economically necessary for children to work to survive.

Short Video: Tom Woods on Child Labor

 

[as1212559]

No One Believes in My Obvious Intellectual Superiority: An Outcomes Based Study of Reddit Citations
by This Guy

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Reality is not simple, not all resources are best allocated by markets, and handwaving is not leveraging greed.

 

[NickNaylor]

As for evidence of the efficacy of single-payer systems, there has been much written on the success of countries that have adopted single-payer systems compared to the United States. I'm on my phone right now so can't provide links easily but if you look at WHO rankings and percent of GDP towards healthcare, you can see what I'm talking about.

None of that is evidence that private systems are inefficient. All of that is evidence that single payer systems have efficacy as measured by some benchmarks. Demonstrating the latter does not support the former. I've seen all the WHO rankings, per capita spending, percent GDP, etc. figures. What I haven't seen is this mysterious evidence that private systems are inherently more inefficient - other than because of ridiculous regulations (e.g., regulating insurance at the state rather than national level, creating unnecessary overhead and fragmentation).

 

[futurepremed]

Read our posts again. All that Cornu Ammonis was saying, and all that I was supporting, was that some take your anarcho-capitalist ideas to the extreme. Surely you must have encountered this in your subeddit.

And rather than trying to demonize all and anarcho-capitalists as you say we are, I think Cornu Ammonis is bringing up a very valuable point.

Your society would replace laws with profit and the hope that people are inherently good.

Wrong again. Your society operates for the profit of the political elite. The mass "public sector" looting by crooked politicians and their cronies, genocidal wars financed on the back of the unborn, thru trillions of dollars in debt, that the "government" can't even pay the interest on:

Short Video: What If The National Debt Were Your Debt?

Short Video: Does The Government Have Spending Problem?


LAW IS NOTHING, PRINCIPLE IS EVERYTHING

Law is an opinion with a gun; It means nothing and can be changed at the whim of a violent bureaucracy. It's an attempt by the state to restrict your behavior, while they loot and plunder the country:

Short Video: Legal Plunder

If the "law" is so great, why is the government exempt from it? They can initiate violence against peaceful people, but you can't?

They can steal from others, but you can't?(taxation, inflationary money printing, state regulation etc....)

They can kidnap people, but you can't?(imprisoning people for non-violent offenses, extraordinary rendition, "detention" centers abroad, prisoners of war)

They can steal property, but you can't?(imminent domain, property tax)

If it was a business, or any other non-government organization, going around doing all these things, they would be in jail or dead. What happen to all the egalitarian talk of fairness and justice?

All I'm asking for is accountability and for everyone to be under the same rules.

The non-agression principle(don't initiate force), private property, and voluntary exchange protects everyone(man, women, and child) and creates a level playing field by getting rid of those "exempt" classes that exploit "the people":

-politicians-literally the bottom feeder of all bottom feeders. this applies to all politicos: right, left, and center. Obama-nites don't be offended, LISTEN CLOSELY.

Robamey are one in the same:

99 Problems -- Political Remix


Video: Why Politicians Never Cut Spending


-and their eternal fangirls: corporate welfare-******-that benefit from state regulation, because they use lobbyists to bribe the government at the expense of small business and individual entrepreneurs:

Video: How Cronyism is Hurting the Economy

-public sector workers/unions-that are a drain on economic efficiency, because they take way more than they contribute to the system. they also deliver low quality services, because of their "extensive" job protections from tax-funded public sector unions:

Meet Neil Codell, an Illinois educator with a $26 million state pension. (Some services are better-provided without a profit motive. Like education.)
_____________________________________________________
[THE ONLY INNOCENT PARTY IN ALL OF THIS. THEY DESERVE THE MOST ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT IN REALITY, ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT STATISTICS, THEY GET NOTHING]:

Mother Jones Report 2012: How Much Do We Spend on the Nonworking Poor?

Forbes Article: Dramatic Increase in Poverty Rate: One Small Step for Obama, One Giant Step for the So-Called War on Poverty



-the entrenched dependent underclass of poor-that are better served with private charity, mutual-aid societies, or some other non-monetary assistance funded by voluntary associations:

Article: Welfare before the Welfare State

Short Video: How Government "Solved" the Health Care Crisis!

Video: Government Lip Service to the Poor

_______________________________________________________

HOPING THAT PEOPLE ARE INHERENTLY GOOD???

Yeah, because the people in government are "inherently good"? The coercive centralized power of a government attracts psychopaths. Government attracts evil like flies to ****.

What more could a evil man want? You control stockpiled "detention" centers filled with prisons of war, that you can torture to death. You get to steal from the elderly thru inflation that destroys the purchasing power of their savings.

You get to send mercenaries abroad to rape and kill WOMEN, in your honor, while their "ladies", back home, picket and boycott for unisex bathrooms and more women's studies course to promote "equality". (Does N.O.W. even know that non-white women exist?)

And finally, you have your own personal parade of corporate crony welfare-******, who will suck you **** and stroke your ego, for more loop-hole tax breaks, on those lonely nights when you don't get to kill "foreigners".

And make the world safe for MOB-RUL--I mean democracy.


The state attracts psychotics, who else would want that kind of control over "free" people?


VIDEO EXCERPT: Stefan really drives home this argument

This is even called out, recognized, and praised by our mainstream media:

The most successful presidents could be the ones who exhibit psychopath-like traits (Lifehacker.com)

EDIT: That link died for some reason, anyway:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/health/psychopathic-presidents-traits-time/index.html

I'm continuously annoyed by our human factors. Greed, selfishness, impulsive behavior, countless biases; yet these plague us in any system we chose

All these problems are good enough reasons to not have a government. An argument that people are selfish/impulsive/bias should lead to the conclusion that government should not exist. Otherwise who do you think will be attracted to those positions of power. Government corrupts which is why there should be no government at all.

*"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -.Robert LeFevre



AND THAT WAS MY SEND OF FOLKS. ENJOY YOUR DINNER.


I'll probably be pulled back in tomorrow.



-

 

[wpierce118]

None of that is evidence that private systems are inefficient. All of that is evidence that single payer systems have efficacy as measured by some benchmarks. Demonstrating the latter does not support the former. I've seen all the WHO rankings, per capita spending, percent GDP, etc. figures. What I haven't seen is this mysterious evidence that private systems are inherently more inefficient - other than because of ridiculous regulations (e.g., regulating insurance at the state rather than national level, creating unnecessary overhead and fragmentation).

I absolutely agree. I apologize if I inferred that private systems were inherently less efficient. All I was trying to point out was that the argument that government was inefficient did not imply that private insurers would necessarily be more efficient.

You're right, the information I presented does not show that private insurers are inefficient, or that they would be more inefficient compared to public programs. This is the million dollar question. Unfortunately, like many economic arguments, there are much too many variables to say for sure one way or the other.

But that said, the WHO rankings still suggest that single-payer systems can be very efficient, and that the current US system is very inefficient. As for why, I think we have to agree to disagree, as there isn't enough evidence to prove things in either direction.

 

[wpierce118]

Wrong again. Your society operates for the profit of the political elite. The mass "public sector" looting by crooked politicians and their cronies, genocidal wars financed on the back of the unborn, thru trillions of dollars in debt, that the "government" can't even pay the interest on:

Short Video: What If The National Debt Were Your Debt?

Short Video: Does The Government Have Spending Problem?


LAW IS NOTHING, PRINCIPLE IS EVERYTHING

Law is an opinion with a gun; It means nothing and can be changed at the whim of a violent bureaucracy. It's an attempt by the state to restrict your behavior, while they loot and plunder the country:

Short Video: Legal Plunder

If the "law" is so great, why is the government exempt from it? They can initiate violence against peaceful people, but you can't?

They can steal from others, but you can't?(taxation, inflationary money printing, state regulation etc....)

They can kidnap people, but you can't?(imprisoning people for non-violent offenses, extraordinary rendition, "detention" centers abroad, prisoners of war)

They can steal property, but you can't?(imminent domain, property tax)

If it was a business, or any other non-government organization, going around doing all these things, they would be in jail or dead. What happen to all the egalitarian talk of fairness and justice?

All I'm asking for is accountability and for everyone to be under the same rules.

The non-agression principle(don't initiate force), private property, and voluntary exchange protects everyone(man, women, and child) and creates a level playing field by getting rid of those "exempt" classes that exploit them:

-politicians-literally the bottom feeder of all bottom feeders. this applies to all politicos: right, left, and center. Obama-nites don't be offended, LISTEN CLOSELY.

Robamey are one in the same:

99 Problems -- Political Remix


Video: Why Politicians Never Cut Spending


-and their eternal fangirls: corporate welfare-******-that benefit from state regulation, because they use lobbyists to bribe the government at the expense of small business and individual entrepreneurs:

Video: How Cronyism is Hurting the Economy

-public sector workers/unions-that are a drain on economic efficiency, because they take way more than they contribute to the system. they also deliver low quality services, because of their "extensive" job protections from tax-funded public sector unions:

Meet Neil Codell, an Illinois educator with a $26 million state pension. (Some services are better-provided without a profit motive. Like education.)
_____________________________________________________
[THE ONLY INNOCENT PARTY IN ALL OF THIS. THEY DESERVE THE MOST ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT IN REALITY, ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT STATISTICS, THEY GET NOTHING]:

Mother Jones Report 2012: How Much Do We Spend on the Nonworking Poor?

Forbes Article: Dramatic Increase in Poverty Rate: One Small Step for Obama, One Giant Step for the So-Called War on Poverty



-the entrenched dependent underclass of poor-that are better served with private charity, mutual-aid societies, or some other non-monetary assistance funded by voluntary associations:

Article: Welfare before the Welfare State

Short Video: How Government "Solved" the Health Care Crisis!

Video: Government Lip Service to the Poor

_______________________________________________________

HOPING THAT PEOPLE ARE INHERENTLY GOOD???

Yeah, because the people in government are "inherently good"? The coercive centralized power of a government attracts psychopaths. Government attracts evil like flies to ****.

What more could a evil man want? You control stockpiled "detention" centers filled with prisons of war, that you can torture to death. You get to steal from the elderly thru inflation that destroys the purchasing power of their savings.

You get to send mercenaries abroad to rape and kill WOMEN, in your honor, while their "ladies", back home, picket and boycott for unisex bathrooms and more women's studies course to promote "equality". (Does N.O.W. even know that non-white women exist?)

And finally, you have your own personal parade of corporate crony welfare-******, who will suck you **** and stroke your ego, for more loop-hole tax breaks, on those lonely nights when you don't get to kill "foreigners".

And make the world safe for MOB-RUL--I mean democracy.


The state attracts psychotics, who else would want that kind of control over "free" people?


VIDEO EXCERPT: Stefan really drives home this argument

This is even called out, recognized, and praised by our mainstream media:

The most successful presidents could be the ones who exhibit psychopath-like traits (Lifehacker.com)

EDIT: That link died for some reason, anyway:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/health/psychopathic-presidents-traits-time/index.html


All these problems are good enough reasons to not have a government. An argument that people are selfish/impulsive/bias should lead to the conclusion that government should not exist. Otherwise who do you think will be attracted to those positions of power. Government corrupts which is why there should be no government at all.

*"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -.Robert LeFevre



AND THAT WAS MY SEND OF FOLKS. ENJOY YOUR DINNER.


I'll probably be pulled back in tomorrow.



-

It's all well and good to say how bad the current system is, but you don't address my statement other than saying that I am wrong.

How is it untrue that anarcho-capitalism is based on the ideas of profit motives and the belief in people being inherently good. To me that looks like exactly what it's all about; letting the free market decide things and hoping that the poor and those who cannot protect themselves will be taken care of by charity.

 

[Gut Shot]

That quote was supposed to say "have to have" medical experience. I recognize they "might" but there is no requirement.

There is a requirement that individuals on the board have medical experience. It's right there in black and white.

Also as I said non would be CURRENTLY PRACTICING look it up.

Who cares? Say in 2030 I take leave from my practice and sit on the IPAB. Am I suddenly no longer a physician?

 

[Gut Shot]

On top of that I believe medicare should take on the voucher system similar to suggested in Ryan plan. Let different insurers compete for the business of our seniors. What this will do is lower costs for seniors hopefully, and worse case scenario they keep the plan they have. Also if we can take some seniors out of the government system it should reduce financial burden on tax payers. Competition has been proven to work time and again. there is a perfect example of how it could run more financially efficiently.

Unfortunately you don't seem to understand what Ryan proposed. His plan would not run private insurance options alongside Medicare, it would replace Medicare entirely with vouchers. Say you turn 65 and the government decides you can buy a policy for 20K, so you get a voucher worth 20K. By the time you turn 75, however, the same policy costs 30K but your inflation-indexed voucher is only worth 24K. You can either eat the 6K difference yourself or go uninsured.

So no, the worst case scenario is not keeping your existing plan, because that plan no longer exists. It is more along the lines of having to eat cat food in order to afford your prescriptions.

Also I will not quite your not quite. While it is true Medicare Advantage cutting will theoretically save money, the overall PPACA is estimated to run in the RED overall.

No, the CBO has scored the PPACA as reducing the deficit by $210 billion in the 2012-2021 time frame.

 

[futurepremed]

It's all well and good to say how bad the current system is, but you don't address my statement other than saying that I am wrong.

How is it untrue that anarcho-capitalism is based on the ideas of profit motives and the belief in people being inherently good.

How did I not address your statement? The resources I've provided cover everything, if you choose to check them out.

What is a profit motive? Profit is not just money, it's anything that adds value to your life.

As Adam Smith knew,&#65279; self interest can include the desire to fulfill moral virtue, such as altruism. I can want to make money (create value for both parties) so that I can give it away. Capitalism is not inherently driven by desire for your own gain, but it can also be for the gain for others.

What about a father who works to provide for his family? What about the artist who creates to benefit the world? What about goodwill, which donates its earnings to charity? All self interest.
_______________________________

Anarcho-capitalism is based on, i'll say it again, voluntary exchange(trade, negotiation, any voluntary associations people choose to start), private property, and the non-aggression principle.

There are millions of non-profit organizations out their that help the poor, voluntarily. In fact, those institutions are crowded out by government welfare. Taxation and inflation decrease the resources they have, at their disposal, to help people:

Essay: THE COSTS OF PUBLIC INCOME REDISTRIBUTION AND PRIVATE CHARITY
________________________________
Again:

REALITY IS SIMPLE:

In reality, men are driven by self-interest...so you can either attempt to suppress this characteristic, or you can leverage it, as is the case in libertarianism. We're often accused of being "utopian", as if we assume all men are going to be good and altruistic...but it's really quite the opposite.


That is to say, resources are scarce and rivalrous...and they must be allocated in some manner. Either someone can centrally attempt to make such decisions on everyone else's behalf (central planning, communism, etc...), or everyone can decide for themselves, and produce and trade voluntarily (anarcho-capitalism). Most nations fall somewhere in between.


On moral/ideological grounds, it's wrong to coerce people...to force them to do something against their will...to seize their voluntarily acquired or self-produced resources. On pragmatic grounds, free economies lead to more efficient allocation of resources, and improve the average quality of life for society overall.

To me that looks like exactly what it's all about; letting the free market decide things and hoping that the poor and those who cannot protect themselves will be taken care of by charity.

First, lets get rid of the phrase "the free market". It has a convoluted meaning, evoking visions of cronyism. That might be clouding your judgement here.

All I'm talking about is voluntary exchange. That's what the "free market" is. People acting of their own volition, without compulsion. Making choices voluntarily, for the betterment of their lives:

Video Excerpt: Intro to Agorism by Tom Woods
_____________________________________

I also covered the poverty question in my last reply and the OP:

WHAT KEEPS POOR PEOPLE OUT OF WORK?



The links, I provided you in my previous comment, detail government stats showing the "War on Poverty" has only increased the number of poor people:

What's really striking, if we look at the chart, is that the poverty rate in America was steadily declining. But then, once President Lyndon Johnson started a "War on Poverty," that progress came to a halt.


As I've explained before, the so-called War on Poverty has undermined economic progress by trapping people in lives of dependency. And this certainly is consistent with the data in the chart, which show that the poverty rate no longer is falling and instead bumps around between 12 percent and 15 percent.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...-giant-step-for-the-so-called-war-on-poverty/

Poverty was declining 1% a year, until the government welfare state was instituted, then it stagnated.

Video: Government Lip Service to the Poor



Private charity and mutual-aide societies are better and more efficient than a state welfare system.
Family and friends are the first line of support. Charity would be better at judging who needs help because they don't run on arbitrary rules like government welfare. They can discriminate at the individual level. That makes private charity more efficient and less likely to be abused. Charity is not treated as a shortcut to an easy life, and since it is voluntary, recipients of charity aren't viewed as parasites to begin with.



Again, sorry if I missed anything. If you're talking about the specifics of "law and order" in a free society, it's covered in the OP.links.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Adam Smith believed it was the government's duty to provide services that markets would otherwise fail to properly manage.

 

[futurepremed]

Adam Smith believed it was the government's duty to provide services that markets would otherwise fail to properly manage.

Is that really all you gleamed from what I'm saying?

The libertarian tradition is broad. It includes people who believe in minarchy(small government/minimal government), not just ancaps.

So yes he did, I'm not a devotee of his. I was just pointing out one thing he said that was right.

edit:

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).

 

[487806]

Is that really all you gleamed from what I'm saying?

The libertarian tradition is broad. It includes people who believe in minarchy(small government/minimal government), not just ancaps.

So yes he did, I'm not a devotee of his. I was just pointing out one thing he said that was right.

nice facts, but why are you specifically anarcho-capitalist? there are other useful anarchist divisions

 

[futurepremed]

nice facts, but why are you specifically anarcho-capitalist? there are other useful anarchist divisions

Great question. Basically, I'm a fan of capitalism. I'm also a fan of economics. Capitalism enables a society to allocate resources available in the most effective, efficient and fair manner yet discovered.

Private property and trade are two of the most important features of capitalism. Other anarchist groups, except for market anarchists, are not fans of private property. They also don't focus on economic arguments, like I prefer.

And because resources are scarce and rivalrous, clearly defined ownership is important to reducing conflict. Private property provides clear definitions of ownership.

That's pretty much it. I've always been a [Ron Paul] libertarian and I made the jump to ancap a couple of years ago.

 

[487806]

Great question. Basically, I'm a fan of capitalism. I'm also a fan of economics. Capitalism enables a society to allocate resources available in the most effective, efficient and fair manner yet discovered.

Private property and trade are two of the most important features of capitalism. Other anarchist groups, except for market anarchists, are not fans of private property. They also don't focus on economic arguments, like I prefer.

And because resources are scarce and rivalrous, clearly defined ownership is important to reducing conflict. Private property provides clear definitions of ownership.

That's pretty much it. I've always been a libertarian and I made the jump to ancap a couple of years ago.

Right, your argument indicates that you're more libertarian, which is what I support. It's just that anarchist philosophy seems to be a bit more extreme than libertarianism.

 

[futurepremed]

Right, your argument indicates that you're more libertarian, which is what I support. It's just that anarchist philosophy seems to be a bit more extreme than libertarianism.

sorry, what I meant to say: i use to be RON PAUL libertarian. as in small gov, end the FED etc.....

and yeah, It is a bit "extreme"; as in radical or new. but i don't think these basic principles are that hard to except.

if you were moving into a new apartment building and the super explained the rules as:

--non-aggression(don't hit, steal or use violence against any of the other tenants),

--voluntary interaction(you can trade items or provide services to fellow tenants, of your own volition, but you won't be forced to by "mandates" from super),

--and your private property won't be touched or destroyed by any of the other tenants(in other words, you can conserve the things you own for future use without fear of it being stolen from you)

vs.

the super comes to you and gives you a list of rules;

rules that are subject to change at any given time, depending on his whim. but you should be ok with this, because he's guided by the wisdom of the other tenants; he won't abuse his power. he's also in charge of your income; how much you can keep, who you can see, where you can go etc....

which would you prefer? to me the choice is easy.

 

[487806]

sorry, what I meant to say: i use to be RON PAUL libertarian. as in small gov, end the FED etc.....

and yeah, It is a bit "extreme"; as in radical or new. but i don't think these basic principles are that hard to except.

if you were moving into a new apartment building and the super explained the rules as:

--non-aggression(don't hit, steal or use violence against any of the other tenants),

--voluntary interaction(you can trade items or provide services to fellow tenants, of your own volition, but you won't be forced to by "mandates" from super),

--and your private property won't be touched or destroyed by any of the other tenants(in other words, you can conserve the things you own for future use without fear of it being stolen from you)

vs.

the super comes to you and gives you a list of rules;

rules that are subject to change at any given time, depending on his whim. but you should be ok with this, because he's guided by the wisdom of the other tenants; he won't abuse his power. he's also in charge of your income; how much you can keep, who you can see, where you can go etc....

which would you prefer? to me the choice is easy.

I would choose the first option mainly because the second seems to be a bit controlling. Your philosophy is interesting and useful, but it shouldn't be implemented in a country (as in abolishing the government and let the people decide, because the majority rule isn't trustworthy). A small government with limited set of rules is the best option, but clearly things change. However, your ideas, along with other libertarian ideas, can actually provide very useful solutions to so many problems right now.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Is that really all you gleamed from what I'm saying?

The libertarian tradition is broad. It includes people who believe in minarchy(small government/minimal government), not just ancaps.

So yes he did, I'm not a devotee of his. I was just pointing out one thing he said that was right.

edit:

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).

The market is not better at providing all services. If you were a real "fan of economics" and not a blind ideologue you would know this. Economics is a social science, and as such its theories must be forged in empirical evidence. Writers like Von Mises are not economists, they are sophists, and their theories are utterly unsupported by reality and common sense. I dare anyone here to read the papers they self-publish in their think tank enclaves; if you don't immediately recognize that they are engaging in a kind of argument from first principles, then enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling you'll get from knowing with absolute certainty that all we need to do to manage society is nothing at all.

I am glad to say that almost every human who exists or ever has existed agrees that as violent and abhorrent as governments can be, they are still preferable to nothing. My argument here is purely for your own benefit; I hope that at some point in your future you will actually read a wider selection of philosophy, history, and economics than your milieu of youtube and reddit links, and that when you do you will remember what I've said.

Edit: perhaps you would be interested to know that once, long ago, I believed many of the same things as you, including the primacy of the non-aggression axiom and a devotion to markets. These are highly appealing ideas because they claim to solve all our problems and we need take no responsibility. We all want the best for everyone - well maybe not objectivists - but I changed my mind about these things when I examined them with greater scrutiny. Every day since then I've spent trying to reconcile my conflicting ideals: christian and temporal dominion, platonism, hegelianism, and liberalism. It is painful, but it is better to live in reality. Economics has no place in this fight; there really are right and wrong answers, but you can't find them through introspection.

 

[theWhat]

The market is not better at providing all services. If you were a real "fan of economics" and not a blind ideologue you would know this. Economics is a social science, and as such its theories must be forged in empirical evidence. Writers like Von Mises are not economists, they are sophists, and their theories are utterly unsupported by reality and common sense. I dare anyone here to read the papers they self-publish in their think tank enclaves; if you don't immediately recognize that they are engaging in a kind of argument from first principles, then enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling you'll get from knowing with absolute certainty that all we need to do to manage society is nothing at all.

I am glad to say that almost every human who exists or ever has existed agrees that as violent and abhorrent as governments can be, they are still preferable to nothing. My argument here is purely for your own benefit; I hope that at some point in your future you will actually read a wider selection of philosophy, history, and economics than your milieu of youtube and reddit links, and that when you do you will remember what I've said.

x1000

 

[syoung]

i'm currently reading health care meltdown. it's by robert lebow and he's presenting some good facts and arguments for reforming the health care system. anyone else read it?

 

[theWhat]

Haven't read that one, here's a good documentary if you're curious. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/

 

[futurepremed]

I would choose the first option mainly because the second seems to be a bit controlling. Your philosophy is interesting and useful, but it shouldn't be implemented in a country (as in abolishing the government and let the people decide, because the majority rule isn't trustworthy). A small government with limited set of rules is the best option, but clearly things change. However, your ideas, along with other libertarian ideas, can actually provide very useful solutions to so many problems right now.

Thanks. Things definitely won't change overnight. The move towards more liberty takes generations. Ancaps are not the "dismantle the establishment" types.

Still, playing with the concept of "small government" is trying to tame the beast. Stefan makes a wonderful argument(in under 6 min) about the inevitable growth of the state. Small government never stays small for long:

ReasonTv: Stefan on the Inevitable Growth of the State

But the state won't just disappear. You get rid of the government overnight and it'll just pop back up again. People have to understand the basic principles, of a free society, and grow up in an environment where it's the social norm.

The non-aggression principle starts at home. It is important to raise rational, cooperative, children thru peaceful parenting. They'll grow up understanding the nature of state violence and reject it, realizing you can't solve complex social problems with violence.


Corporal Punishment, the Non-agression Principle

The Facts About Spanking (Lower IQ, Substance Abuse, Aggression issues etc...)

Anyway, you're welcome on r/anarcho_capitalism(subreddit) anytime. I'm pretty much done posting here, after these last few responses.

The information is out there and hopefully a few more people awaken.

 

[futurepremed]

i'm currently reading health care meltdown. it's by robert lebow and he's presenting some good facts and arguments for reforming the health care system. anyone else read it?

Is it a good read? I'm about some order some books off amazon, as we speak. Reform as in: more government or less government in healthcare?

 

[futurepremed]

BLAH BLAH, BLERG BLERG

I'm not gonna circle jerk with you. The facts speak for themselves. The moral argument against the state is all that matters. You can get tied up in semantics, pragmatics, and any other diversion you want.

On moral/ideological grounds, it's wrong to coerce people...to force them to do something against their will...to seize their voluntarily acquired or self-produced resources: This is the definition of government.

They can initiate violence against peaceful people, but you can't?

They can steal from others, but you can't?(taxation, inflationary money printing, state regulation etc....)

They can kidnap people, but you can't?(imprisoning people for non-violent offenses, extraordinary rendition, "detention" centers abroad, prisoners of war)

They can steal property, but you can't?(imminent domain, property tax)


The moral argument against the state is what will change society. People are moved by ideals. Once people understood that slavery was a moral wrong, nothing else mattered. "Who will pick the cotton?" It doesn't matter. What you now know is, slavery is wrong. Then, you move on to alternatives.


Video: How To Advance Society

Goodbye and good luck!!

 

[syoung]

I think you make far too many assumptions on what the government does. It's ability to tax is tied into the fact that we choose to live here and abide by the government.

As for the book, it definitely calls for more government regulation into the healthcare reform. Medicare has about a 9% overhead in administrative costs, while the private insurance industry and health care has about 20-25% average, depending on which HMO, insurance you look at. Now it's not to say that we have to have 100% medicare, but it gives a stark contrast to the statement that privatization will lead to efficient and better healthcare, which clearly isn't the case. We DO have a lot of private health care and insurance, and it is NOT more efficient. There is MORE waste. You claim other nations are going into debt because of their socialized health care. So are we. In fact, it's more to do with the 16% of GDP we spend nationally, expected to grow... If other nations are not spending nearly as much (while perhaps in some debt), and they are having healthier people, why can't we do the same? We are probably the only nation in the world without an expanded form of nationalized health care or system in place that insures everyone. It does not mean all nations have a single payer system, or that all nations have socialized medicine, BUT it does mean all of them are insured.
If we could have everyone insured, a LOT of our spending would go down (in the wrong places) and more would be spent in the right places. People wouldn't come into the ER because they could afford to see their primary care doc. The ER would be used for serious acute conditions and accidents, and the money that WAS spent in the ER on uninsured patients would be reduced significantly.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

How exactly is it democratic? That's a pretty silly assertion unless there's some perspective I'm not aware of.

I will agree with you that it has the potential to be the cheapest. That attribute is generally derived from the ability of the government to unilaterally determine the prices of everything (one of the great advantages of being the only one with the money). Prescriptions eating up too much of the budget? Just pay less for them, and all those affected figure out a way to deal with it. Using the authority of the majority to dictate how the resources of a minority are used is democratic in the strict sense of the word, but I'm not sure that's the kind of democracy our government was intended to support.

Unfortunately that is one of the things we give up in the US (at least for now). I'm not sure that not giving the government the power to organize a healthcare system is all that terrible of a thing when perfectly feasible private options exist, though.

(sent from my phone)

Americans are one of the most envious and jealous people in the world. Whenever they see something they think it better, they will go at no cost to get it.

 

[wpierce118]

I'm not gonna circle jerk with you. The facts speak for themselves. The moral argument against the state is all that matters. You can get tied up in semantics, pragmatics, and any other diversion you want.

From my perspective it seemed like Cornu Ammonis was presenting realistic arguments and being quite civil. Rather it is you that seems to have resorted to discounting his arguments.

And as for your above point on the moral implications of government, I would liken that argument to the current debate about abortion. Both revolve around definitions; the abortion debate about the definition of a person, and this debate about the definition of a citizen(?).

Either side could be morally right depending on those definitions. I'm sure you can see why there are two sides to the abortion issue, just as there are two sides to this issue of the role of government.

If you want to make the moral argument, fine. But be aware that your set of morals don't represent those of everyone.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

When I read the title of this thread I think of the Brett Favre Wrangler commercials. "Real. Comfortable. Jeans."

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

I'm not gonna circle jerk with you. The facts speak for themselves. The moral argument against the state is all that matters. You can get tied up in semantics, pragmatics, and any other diversion you want.

On moral/ideological grounds, it's wrong to coerce people...to force them to do something against their will...to seize their voluntarily acquired or self-produced resources: This is the definition of government.

They can initiate violence against peaceful people, but you can't?

They can steal from others, but you can't?(taxation, inflationary money printing, state regulation etc....)

They can kidnap people, but you can't?(imprisoning people for non-violent offenses, extraordinary rendition, "detention" centers abroad, prisoners of war)

They can steal property, but you can't?(imminent domain, property tax)


The moral argument against the state is what will change society. People are moved by ideals. Once people understood that slavery was a moral wrong, nothing else mattered. "Who will pick the cotton?" It doesn't matter. What you now know is, slavery is wrong. Then, you move on to alternatives.


Video: How To Advance Society

Goodbye and good luck!!

"It is morally wrong to allow others to suffer and die when the cost to prevent this might be borne by another. Therefore it is acceptable to take from others against their will to prevent this tragedy, so long as the majority in society agrees and the means of redistribution are subject to formal requirements." There's another moral argument. Don't like the conclusion? Tough luck; it follows from the premise, so fall in line because I'm right and you're wrong.


Ugh.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

None of that is evidence that private systems are inefficient. All of that is evidence that single payer systems have efficacy as measured by some benchmarks. Demonstrating the latter does not support the former. I've seen all the WHO rankings, per capita spending, percent GDP, etc. figures. What I haven't seen is this mysterious evidence that private systems are inherently more inefficient - other than because of ridiculous regulations (e.g., regulating insurance at the state rather than national level, creating unnecessary overhead and fragmentation).

Again, The WHO study took the countries own data and did not do the research themselves. The chief researcher herself was biased towards a public healthcare system. I would link the article, but then everyone will call me biased. Why did not Sweden, Denmark or Finland win? There are FAR MORE generous and welfare state like? Why is france number 1? I would have put Switzerland as number 1. I think america can pull off a almost fully private system. And We should.

 

[Yoseph101]

--non-aggression(don't hit, steal or use violence against any of the other tenants),

--voluntary interaction(you can trade items or provide services to fellow tenants, of your own volition, but you won't be forced to by "mandates" from super),

--and your private property won't be touched or destroyed by any of the other tenants(in other words, you can conserve the things you own for future use without fear of it being stolen from you)

The question I have about ancap is how these 'rules' can actually be maintained. What's to stop a conglomerate, with a preponderance of resources and capital, from hiring a mercenary army and carving out their own fiefdom. Or else, simply taking desirable property without engaging in voluntary exchange. How would any individual or ancap community ever be able to martial the resources to maintain the system?

 

[futurepremed]

The question I have about ancap is how these 'rules' can actually be maintained. What's to stop a conglomerate, with a preponderance of resources and capital, from hiring a mercenary army and carving out their own fiefdom. Or else, simply taking desirable property without engaging in voluntary exchange. How would any individual or ancap community ever be able to martial the resources to maintain the system?

Oh boy, I just keep getting pulled back in. Oh well, this place ain't so bad.

Full Law and Order package: Link 1, Link 2
_______________________________
WHAT WOULD PREVENT PRIVATE WAR?

Simple answer: violence is expensive; those expenses are gonna show up in customer prices, increased debts and liabilities, lowered share prices etc... Companies that use violence immediately become noncompetitive in the market.


Remember that there is no unlimited revenue source i.e. taxation or corporate welfare. The only way they get money is to have people willingly pay for their services. Your reputation in the market is very important and competition is always nipping at the heels.

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

This video discusses how government is "perceived" to have legitimate authority, which allows them to get away with things that wouldn't be tolerated in a free market where everyone is on the same footing. Basically, violence/acts of aggression won't be legitimized like they are under the state(Legal Plunder). People see evil for what it is and react accordingly.

This means if your protection agency(or any business) commits aggression against you(or anyone), without a reason, this effects their reputation. Customers would abandon them for better agencies. They would be sued and people would actually defend themselves against these agencies(consumer action).

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



Who would maintain the NAP(non-aggression principle)? To answer that question you have to remember that: there's nothing magical about a costume, whether it's a batman or policeman uniform. The people in them are human.

Everyone in a free society has a part to play. You don't need permission to defend yourself or other innocent parties, no appeal to authority.

Instead of seeking false protection under a violent bureaucracy, we create a network of protection thru contracts and voluntary associations. Private security firms and insurance agencies that protect persons and property.

(KEEP IN MIND, in a free society, there are no victimless/non-violent crimes i.e., no drug war, culture war--gay marriage issue, no punishing people for moving etc....)




A free society would be focused on alleviating REAL CRIME(crimes against a person or their property) and nothing else. It's economical, efficient and fits withing the the moral paradigm of NAP.

Video Except: Mark Thornton on the Police and the Prevention of Real Crime in a Free Society

Just imagine how compact our legal system would be, if taxpayers could opt out of paying for laws they didn't believe in. In short, this is what an ANCAP legal system would look like: no bloat, just laws that pertain to protecting you and your property. In other words, you pay for what you use.

Video Except: Stefan on Market Security vs. Government "Protection"

Video Except: Stefan on Insurance and Crime Prevention

DROs AND SOCIAL COOPERATION

The market for courts, in a free society, are reputation-based and would be agreed upon ahead of time during contract negotiations with DROs (dispute resolution organizations) and insurance companies you sign with. The customers are also paying for an impartial, quality service and would abandon corrupt courts.

This all comes down to voluntary exchange and picking the best service out of many competing agencies. The consequences for breaking agreed upon contracts would be economic social ostracism. Like not being able to do business with other companies and people because they know your reputation.


Short videos
______________
Social Cooperation: Why Thieves Hate Free Markets

Law without Government: The Bargaining Mechanism
______________
Reciprocity between DROs(dispute resolution organizations) is the only mechanism that gives them legitimacy in the free market.


Stef talks about it in detail here(1HR 55MIN in):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dwW0D_o1Ww#t=01h55m00s
______________

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


Thread: Real crime, social ostracism and restitution in an Ancap society

________________________________
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR??

Again, why are the poor out of work:

LINK


Poverty is exacerbated by many distortions of market forces:

State Regulation -- leads to favoritism, bribery and destroys jobs for the lower classes.
_______________

How Cronyism is Hurting the Economy(short)


Is Capitalism "Pro-Business?"(short)


Economic Freedom & Income Equality(short)



Minimum Wage Laws -- destroys job opportunities for the least skilled workers in society.
________________

Edgar the Exploiter (short)


Does the Minimum Wage Hurt Workers? (short)

The minimum wage doesn't actually raise wages - it's a price floor. It just makes it illegal for people to work for less than that arbitrary amount. People who are worth that much to the company are already making within a few cents of it, and people who aren't worth that much, while they may get a pay raise for a few weeks while the company adjusts, will end up unemployed as the company figures out more efficient ways to do things. This is why we no longer have gas station or elevator attendants - those industries got a short-term pay raise (as they were traditionally starter jobs for those with no experience or of less-employable status, such as felons or minorities), but it became cheaper for the companies to automate their jobs rather than keep paying them the artificially-inflated wage.


Like I said, this disproportionately hurts minorities and those with little education.

Unions actually lobby for minimum wage increases, not out of some solidarity with the common worker, but out of self-interest. Say a skilled worker (the types that unionize) costs $15 and provides 2 units of labor. Two unskilled (minimum wage workers cost $7/each and each provide 1 unit. The natural choice for a company is the unskilled workers. Cue a minimum wage increase to $9. The union worker is now the logical choice, and then he goes on strike to increase his wages to $17.50. Labor now costs $3.50 more per hour with no increase in production, causing prices to the consumer to rise, and some businesses to fail (as demand may fall significantly when the price rises).

This causes more unemployment.



IP law -- monopoly privileges granted by government over the use of ideas and information.
_________________
Against Intellectual Monopoly

"It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is not like ordinary property at all, but constitutes a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty."


free ebook:http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm



WHAT ELSE KEEPS PEOPLE ENTRENCHED IN POVERTY??

• The drug war leaves many families without bread-earners, leaving many single mothers and fathers to cope by themselves. This destroys much of the stability associated with the family structure and removes role models from the household.

• Federal Reserve policies shift wealth from the bottom to the top - 1) savings are devalued with time 2) when credit is introduced in big corporations, they can use the money before it becomes "neutral" (ie, before it actually begins being devalued) - this means that the corporations draw more resources in society towards them and away from others.

 

[freshbagels]

What if an asteroid is seen hurtling for the Earth? Assume that there is a non-trivial way to prevent it from causing apocalypse. Upon whose shoulders does the burden to protect the planet fall, in your hypothetical state-less utopia?

Sent from my PG86100 using SDN Mobile