• Free health care
    449 replies, posted
[QUOTE=LF9000;36412558]Never heard of a credit card chargeback?[/QUOTE] Lol! Are you serious? They can use the proxy in accordance with the location of the credit card user. Charge back would most likely be denied in this case. And on top of that, the vast majority of people wouldn't have enough proof for a charge back to happen. Otherwise, one could charge back every time one buys something, and not paying anything, especially on the Internet. [editline]20th June 2012[/editline] And Robbobin, please answer the following: [quote] What if someone did the following in your anarchistic society?: 1. Go to the Internet (lol, I doubt there would even be Internet in your anarchistic society in the long term) 2. Buy lots of credit card information, which usually sells for around $2 3. Buy themselves lots of, say, gold with these credit cards, worth of millions of dollars, and buy even more credit card info with the money they took from these credit cards What would happen? Would they be stopped at all? [/quote]
[QUOTE=Noble;36412549]Then you could just not donate to any organization who refuses independent auditing[/QUOTE] What's to stop them from fabricating the audits?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36412646]Lol! Are you serious? They can use the proxy in accordance with the location of the credit card user. Charge back would most likely be denied in this case. And on top of that, the vast majority of people wouldn't have enough proof for a charge back to happen. Otherwise, one could charge back every time one buys something, and not paying anything, especially on the Internet. [editline]20th June 2012[/editline] And Robbobin, please answer the following:[/QUOTE] You've never really used a credit card before, have you? One can, infact, charge back everytime one buys something. (Obviously there's a limit, and soon you're under investigation, but you can keep this up if you do it sparsely) Maybe you use a different card, but AMEX favors the consumer in most dispute cases. You really don't need evidence other than calling the card company up and saying "I did not authorize this charge", "The goods I received were not what I expected", "The merchant failed to deliver", etc. And that's all they need to hear.
Yeah I don't really know about credit card fraud to even comment to be honest but it sounds like the sort of thing that wouldn't be inescapably difficult to remedy without the need for coercion.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36412667]What's to stop them from fabricating the audits?[/QUOTE] Simple, get the information directly from the independent auditor themselves (i.e. on their website). The idea of independent auditing means that it's all done by a third party whom they have no influence over. Or they could even have multiple independent audits in the case of bigger charitable organizations. I really think the whole thing about charities pocketing money is pretty far-fetched in the first place, because again, it's clear that the majority of people actually [b]want[/b] to help the poor. There's always going to be the risk of fraud in any system, but it can be kept to a minimum if people are smart about it.
[QUOTE=Noble;36412796]Simple, get the information directly from the independent auditor themselves (i.e. on their website). The idea of independent auditing means that it's all done by a third party whom they have no influence over. Or they could even have multiple independent audits in the case of bigger charitable organizations. I really think the whole thing about charities pocketing money is pretty far-fetched in the first place, because again, it's clear that the majority of people actually [b]want[/b] to help the poor. There's always going to be the risk of fraud in any system, but it can be kept to a minimum if people are smart about it.[/QUOTE] Well people won't be smart because there won't be any education system, but regardless, without a coercive force to keep these kinds of people in check, then it is very likely that people will try to fuck each other over.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36412820]Well people won't be smart because there won't be any education system, but regardless, without a coercive force to keep these kinds of people in check, then it is very likely that people will try to fuck each other over.[/QUOTE] We've said from the very start that we think education doesn't have to be funded with state violence to educate efficiently. You'll have to argue that this isn't the case before this line of attack goes anywhere.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36412854]We've said from the very start that we think education doesn't have to be funded with state violence to educate efficiently. You'll have to argue that this isn't the case before this line of attack goes anywhere.[/QUOTE] No no, you said that companies would educate people in regards to their work, however unless the person pays for private education they would never really develop any academic skills
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36412875]No no, you said that companies would educate people in regards to their work, however unless the person pays for private education they would never really develop any academic skills[/QUOTE] They wouldn't have to necessarily require vast riches. There's every reason to educate even the most poor and most uneducated people. I could make a contract saying, if I educate you and give you the skills to be valuable in society, you give me X. I don't really see how this is so inescapably hard to do on a large scale, if it makes so much sense on a small one.
[QUOTE=LF9000;36412733]You've never really used a credit card before, have you? One can, infact, charge back everytime one buys something. (Obviously there's a limit, and soon you're under investigation, but you can keep this up if you do it sparsely) Maybe you use a different card, but AMEX favors the consumer in most dispute cases. You really don't need evidence other than calling the card company up and saying "I did not authorize this charge", "The goods I received were not what I expected", "The merchant failed to deliver", etc. And that's all they need to hear.[/QUOTE] Are you fucking serious? It's very hard to get a charge back, and on top of that, you need to provide a lot of evidence. In about 1/2 of the cases, there won't be a charge back. Go ahead, buy something several times and then ask to charge back, and see what happens. Requesting a charge back is not the same as it being processed. Because yes - you can request a charge back any time you want. But not receive it.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36412926]They wouldn't have to necessarily require vast riches. There's every reason to educate even the most poor and most uneducated people. I could make a contract saying, if I educate you and give you the skills to be valuable in society, you give me X. I don't really see how this is so inescapably hard to do on a large scale, if it makes so much sense on a small one.[/QUOTE] Companies won't negotiate unless it will be profitable to them, chances are if you don't take their first offer, someone else will. Quite frankly I don't want my life hanging in the balance of the will of corporations and the "good will" of the people, I want it to be done by an elected government that can be controlled more directly.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36412761]Yeah I don't really know about credit card fraud to even comment to be honest but it sounds like the sort of thing that wouldn't be inescapably difficult to remedy without the need for coercion.[/QUOTE] 'but it sounds like the sort of thing that wouldn't be inescapably difficult to remedy without the need for coercion' Really? How? Charging back every time a consumer asks for it? But then, one could simply do reverse fraud - buy lots of shit and then charge back.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36412940]Are you fucking serious? It's very hard to get a charge back, and on top of that, you need to provide a lot of evidence. In about 1/2 of the cases, there won't be a charge back. Go ahead, buy something several times and then ask to charge back, and see what happens. Requesting a charge back is not the same as it being processed. Because yes - you can request a charge back any time you want. But not receive it.[/QUOTE] So all the times I've charged back watches bought using a computer in my own home has just been a fluke? Ok. You learn something new everyday I guess. [editline]20th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GenPol;36412974]'but it sounds like the sort of thing that wouldn't be inescapably difficult to remedy without the need for coercion' Really? How? Charging back every time a consumer asks for it? But then, one could simply do reverse fraud - buy lots of shit and then charge back.[/QUOTE] Reverse fraud. Funny. Implying that only business can commit fraud.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36408542]While socio-economic status does affect general well-being (through diet among other things) that is unrelated to the availability and affordability of healthcare, which is what is being discussed. Also, it's not like social mobility doesn't exist in America. Also you have the symbol of Italian Fascism as your avatar which isn't a good sign[/QUOTE] He has a fascist flag as an avatar, therefor he is a fascist. Just the type of thinking one should expect from someone arguing for universal healthcare.
[QUOTE=LF9000;36414212]So all the times I've charged back watches bought using a computer in my own home has just been a fluke? Ok. You learn something new everyday I guess. [editline]20th June 2012[/editline] Reverse fraud. Funny. Implying that only business can commit fraud.[/QUOTE] I can't believe someone can come in a thread and use such an arrogant tone while stating completely irrelevant and logically fallacious claims. "So all the times I've charged back watches bought using a computer in my own home has just been a fluke?" Did you charge back to scam the seller? Or did you genuinely charge back? Except for rather small, and first, charged back amounts, one has to provide proper evidence to charge back, as well as the proper evidence of the item in question being damaged. Of course, the first times, and for rather small amounts, one can charge back without much verification processes. However, as this number increases, one would have to provide substantial evidence of the items being damaged. And in case of the card being compromised, one would have to provide substantial evidence of not using the card, except for the first charge backs.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36414664]I can't believe someone can come in a thread and use such an arrogant tone while stating completely irrelevant and logically fallacious claims. "So all the times I've charged back watches bought using a computer in my own home has just been a fluke?" Did you charge back to scam the seller? Or did you genuinely charge back? Except for rather small, and first, charged back amounts, one has to provide proper evidence to charge back, as well as the proper evidence of the item in question being damaged. Of course, the first times, and for rather small amounts, one can charge back without much verification processes. However, as this number increases, one would have to provide substantial evidence of the items being damaged. And in case of the card being compromised, one would have to provide substantial evidence of not using the card, except for the first charge backs.[/QUOTE] They were damaged. I still don't see the problem of people buying credit card info to buy gold being a problem. First, the scammers would have to get the gold in someway shape or form, under their ownership. Meaning they would have to have the gold delivered to a warehouse or a doorstep or something. So if they did buy your info off the web, they would have a trail leading right back to them. Also if they were to use a proxy, the credit card company would have information that a proxy's ip address was used, and not your own. Third, why would anyone sell credit card information for $2 if, according to you, one can make infinite money by buying info and selling gold. As a supplier of credit card info, you would stand to make more money by raising prices on the info significantly, or buy utilizing the card/gold loop. Fourth, it is in the credit card's company's best interest to protect consumers against identity theft. Canceled credit cards mean no money from either credit card fees, interest, or any potential future merchant fees aswell.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369514]Do you believe free health care (or at least virtually free health care) should be a basic human right? I personally do.[/QUOTE] A right is something that doesn't require taking from others in order to provide it, in my opinion Why should someone, who has never used and has no desire to use, a state healthcare system, pay for it? Realistically I'd say that doctors and nurses and other medical personal should work for the mutual benefit (i.e. through a mutualist market) of humanity along with other essential services but in capitalism that doesn't work because they need to make a wage to survive.
[QUOTE=LF9000;36415266]They were damaged. I still don't see the problem of people buying credit card info to buy gold being a problem. First, the scammers would have to get the gold in someway shape or form, under their ownership. Meaning they would have to have the gold delivered to a warehouse or a doorstep or something. So if they did buy your info off the web, they would have a trail leading right back to them. Also if they were to use a proxy, the credit card company would have information that a proxy's ip address was used, and not your own. Third, why would anyone sell credit card information for $2 if, according to you, one can make infinite money by buying info and selling gold. As a supplier of credit card info, you would stand to make more money by raising prices on the info significantly, or buy utilizing the card/gold loop. Fourth, it is in the credit card's company's best interest to protect consumers against identity theft. Canceled credit cards mean no money from either credit card fees, interest, or any potential future merchant fees aswell.[/QUOTE] 'Third, why would anyone sell credit card information for $2 if, according to you, one can make infinite money by buying info and selling gold.' Supply and demand. There's an enormous supply. If you would charge $10, almost no one would buy from you, and they would go find another seller who sells for $2-5. 'First, the scammers would have to get the gold in someway shape or form, under their ownership. Meaning they would have to have the gold delivered to a warehouse or a doorstep or something.' 'Fourth, it is in the credit card's company's best interest to protect consumers against identity theft. Canceled credit cards mean no money from either credit card fees, interest, or any potential future merchant fees aswell.' You have no idea what the argument was about, do you? Rob said that in anarchy, no physical coercion would ever be used, except against other physical coercion, as self-defense. This is exactly why I brought this example up. And the scammers can easily use different proxies each time and deliver their gold to different abandoned houses, which would make tracking them very very hard. This is just to respond to your argument. I could've just stopped after explaining you what the discussion was about.
Isn't the stealing of something physical coercion?
[QUOTE=sgman91;36416064]Isn't the stealing of something physical coercion?[/QUOTE] No. Physical coercion can be used in theft, but doesn't have to be.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36416138]No. Physical coercion can be used in theft, but doesn't have to be.[/QUOTE] If I own something and you take it without permission you have physically forced your will on to me. It seems fairly arbitrary to say that it's considered physical coercion if you break into my home, push me aside, and steal my computer, but it's not if you secretly break in and steal it without me knowing.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36416246]If I own something and you take it without permission you have physically forced your will on to me. It seems fairly arbitrary to say that it's considered physical coercion if you break into my home, push me aside, and steal my computer, but it's not if you secretly break in and steal it without me knowing.[/QUOTE] Yeah but the money you earn isn't physical, it's a load of numbers in a computer system
Free health care sounds great except maybe in the US. All of the US government services at this point are absolute shit. Postal service, water services, and everything else are all horrible. If the government controlled the healthcare and it was just as bad, I would seriously fear for my life.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36416246]If I own something and you take it without permission you have physically forced your will on to me. It seems fairly arbitrary to say that it's considered physical coercion if you break into my home, push me aside, and steal my computer, but it's not if you secretly break in and steal it without me knowing.[/QUOTE] No, because your physical body isn't being physically coerced.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36416771]No, because your physical body isn't being physically coerced.[/QUOTE] So who decided that "physical" only applies to your own body?
Maybe if this kind of fraud is as prevalent as you think it would be, there'd be investment opportunities in creating a system where threats of this sort are minimized. Unfortunately I don't really understand what the fraud is even supposed to consist in so I couldn't say for sure. I think the example GenPol is using is silly though, since the way he's describing it, as so undetectable and everything, there's no clear way the state would be able to prevent it, either. In a voluntaryist society, your incentive to cooperate with the rest of society is so they cooperate with you. If you're discovered, you'd be incredibly untrustworthy and you'd find it difficult to have a good standard of living. It's not like there's absolutely nothing for this fraudster to lose. If it's that big a problem, the only credit firms that would be viable businesses would be those with preventative measures for this sort of thing. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GenPol;36416138]No. Physical coercion can be used in theft, but doesn't have to be.[/QUOTE] Coercion is just forcing someone to behave in a certain way involuntarily. Maybe it's not physical in some cases of theft, but it's still coercion, and that's the foul play we should care about. That's why I don't consider self-defence coercion, since it's not in any meaningful sense forcing someone to behave involuntarily, it's just appreciating your own autonomy and self-ownership.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36417125]So who decided that "physical" only applies to your own body?[/QUOTE] No. The question was about physically coercing 'you'. What defines a person is their physical body. If someone steal something without physically coercing the person, that's not physical coercion - that's theft. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbobin;36417165]Maybe if this kind of fraud is as prevalent as you think it would be, there'd be investment opportunities in creating a system where threats of this sort are minimized. Unfortunately I don't really understand what the fraud is even supposed to consist in so I couldn't say for sure. I think the example GenPol is using is silly though, since the way he's describing it, as so undetectable and everything, there's no clear way the state would be able to prevent it, either. In a voluntaryist society, your incentive to cooperate with the rest of society is so they cooperate with you. If you're discovered, you'd be incredibly untrustworthy and you'd find it difficult to have a good standard of living. It's not like there's absolutely nothing for this fraudster to lose. If it's that big a problem, the only credit firms that would be viable businesses would be those with preventative measures for this sort of thing. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] Coercion is just forcing someone to behave in a certain way involuntarily. Maybe it's not physical in some cases of theft, but it's still coercion, and that's the foul play we should care about. That's why I don't consider self-defence coercion, since it's not in any meaningful sense forcing someone to behave involuntarily, it's just appreciating your own autonomy and self-ownership.[/QUOTE] ' If you're discovered, you'd be incredibly untrustworthy and you'd find it difficult to have a good standard of living. It's not like there's absolutely nothing for this fraudster to lose.' Lol. So credit card fraudsters wouldn't go to jail? And they have far more to gain from it than lose. 'Coercion is just forcing someone to behave in a certain way involuntarily. Maybe it's not physical in some cases of theft, but it's still coercion, and that's the foul play we should care about.' This is all I wanted to hear from you. When someone dies due to a lack of health care, that's coercion. The reason why is because it was induced by other people who didn't give up money to save this person's life.
So someone who doesn't stop a murder should be held responsible for the murder? There's a HUGE difference between causing something and allowing something.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36417878]So someone who doesn't stop a murder should be held responsible for the murder? There's a HUGE difference between causing something and allowing something.[/QUOTE] No. Someone who didn't report [b]an unreported[/b] murder should be sanctioned. A fine of around $500-1000 would do. This would hypothetically increase the number of murders reported, and therefore reduce murders by isolating the murders from the society to prevent them from murdering more people.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36417970]No. Someone who didn't report [b]an unreported[/b] murder should be sanctioned. A fine of around $500-1000 would do. This would hypothetically increase the number of murders reported, and therefore reduce murders by isolating the murders from the society to prevent them from murdering more people.[/QUOTE] We aren't talking about reporting, but actually helping to stop the murder at a detriment to yourself.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.