• Free health care
    449 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36393447]There is no excuse for opposition to universal healthcare beyond a sociopathic desire for ultimate isolation from any obligations to interact with other human-beings. [/QUOTE] Or that while I feel comfortable interacting with other human-beings, I don't feel that their financial irresponsibility should mean that I should be legally obliged to sacrifice my hard earned assets to pay for their care.
[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;36393551]Or that while I feel comfortable interacting with other human-beings, I don't feel that their financial irresponsibility should mean that I should be legally obliged to sacrifice my hard earned assets to pay for their care.[/QUOTE] One and the same edit: In fact that is even worse because you imply people are wholly put in situations of not being able to afford the medical treatment they require because they were financially irresponsible.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36393447]You know what angers me, the preservation and worship of money over humanity. There is no excuse for opposition to universal healthcare beyond a sociopathic desire for ultimate isolation from any obligations to interact with other human-beings.[/quote] Sure there is, putting aside the whole ethical issues with taxation, I would argue that a free market health care system would work more efficiently. The US system is not free market, not even close.
An anarcho-capitalist system requires that no person is obligated to the next, therefore I am correct is saying that it is a sociopathic desire to not be obligated. The free market is Communism 2.0, utterly nonviable and damaging to humanity yet founded in good intentions. Pragmatically speaking there is nothing which would be easier and more beneficial than introducing a universal healthcare system
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36393804]An anarcho-capitalist system requires that no person is obligated to the next, therefore I am correct is saying that it is a sociopathic desire to not be obligated. The free market is Communism 2.0, utterly nonviable and damaging to humanity yet founded in good intentions. Pragmatically speaking there is nothing which would be easier and more beneficial than introducing a universal healthcare system[/QUOTE] Yes because materializing a universal healthcare system is easy work right.
OP should elaborate on what degree of socialized healthcare. I'm not for a complete government takeover, but I am for a government option. A government option adds the perks of nonprofit without taking away the perks of profit. A government run health research program would invest in ways to cure a problem, rather than creating a product that would repress a problem until its use stopped. It would also allow people who are at the bottom of the economic ladder survival if they had a lethal condition, which is something that everyone deserves. It would also keep more people at work by treating things like back issues. It would also prevent companies from keeping nasty monopolies on the public. However, I still want the companies to exist so that they could work on things that aren't essential, such as libido problems, congestion and things that aren't necessary, but improve an individual's quality of life. They also would be more efficient for those who have the money and can't wait. Bottom line is: there should be a government option because if companies really are better than the government, then people will go to the companies rather than the government. It will also destroy nasty monopolies.
So basically you are saying, as with the whole universal care system, that you are entitled to [I]my [/I]labour and money to improve [I]your[/I] health. Ethically/morally I don't agree with that notion and the fact that you seem to get angry over your entitlement really gets under my skin [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Automerge, not replying to you Ragnar
See, it's the exact same argument, idolising money and labour over life. If you don't see the moral implications of that I don't know what to say. Its not like the burden placed upon you in assisting a UHC system to work is that great either, which further solidifies the sociopathic part to my argument, its because you don't [b]want[/b] to have to help someone else, because thats the big bad gubberment etc. etc.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;36393198]I guess it is just an argument of personal opinions. In my opinion theft is never "justified" like you are talking about. Just even reading what you say sounds spooky to me. "Forceful reallocations are justified" sounds almost Orwellian; what's justified is generally subjective in the first place so that can easily mean different things to different people. [/QUOTE] "Forceful reallocations are justified" sounds almost Orwellian" - we also call this taxation. It's widely administered in virtually every democratic state. It isn't administered in the North Korea, though. And this is why I believe there should be voting priorities. Far too much emotional bias, far too little knowledge. I believe I'm not outstanding in either knowledge or rationality at all, but I also believe that a voting priority model would prevent such arguments having the same weight as that of a knowledgeable person on the topic (ex: Mainstream economists and econometrics, who can see all the implications of taxation, and the benefits it brings, due to the reason they know these models very well). [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Aman VII;36394126]So basically you are saying, as with the whole universal care system, that you are entitled to [I]my [/I]labour and money to improve [I]your[/I] health. Ethically/morally I don't agree with that notion and the fact that you seem to get angry over your entitlement really gets under my skin [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Automerge, not replying to you Ragnar[/QUOTE] It's not your money. You owe it to the community. The community allowed you to have this money.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36394205]See, it's the exact same argument, idolising money and labour over life. If you don't see the moral implications of that I don't know what to say. Its not like the burden placed upon you in assisting a UHC system to work is that great either, which further solidifies the sociopathic part to my argument, its because you don't [b]want[/b] to have to help someone else, because thats the big bad gubberment etc. etc.[/QUOTE] Anti-statism doesn't stem from a vain sort of self-love, or love for money or labour. It stems from a desire for autonomy. We believe people might be happier, more fulfilled, more cooperative, more involved in the social lives of others in a positive way, if there isn't the constant threat of physical violence. It's not difficult to recognise that an act done voluntarily is more valuable than an act done at gunpoint, so the only bit missing is the belief that acts [I]will[/I] be done voluntarily. I've arrived at this belief with game theory. In a system where everyone recognises each individual's genuine value, in terms of their labour/actions (not money, property writs, law), I think almost everyone has reason to act peacefully, cooperatively socially and productively. Maybe there are sociopathic elements in some anarchist thinkers; certainly people Ayn Rand felt very sociopathic (I'm not sure I totally agree but I can see why it feels like it [not that she was strictly speaking an anarchist either, but eh]), but with me it's merely a case that I think humans possess more virtuous traits if they're left alone and allowed to appreciate the real value of humans, rather than merely forced to conform to the perceived value of humans, according to anyone else. As for this 'giving coercion infinitely negative moral value' stuff, it's really not the case. The assumption that coercion is a bad thing doesn't derive from some absolute appeal to the non-aggression principle. I'm merely saying that coercion - purely in nature of what it represents, which is the supplementing of one's will on another - is undesirable at least to the agent being coerced (NOT using morally weighted terminology here, I'm being very careful). The question that then has to be answered is whether or not certain uses of coercion produce an overall more desirable standard of living. I've seen quite a large body of work by biologists, political theorists, game theorists, and they seem to suggest that agents require relatively few traits before peaceful cooperation is the dominant strategy, in most cases. I'm not being circular, I'm probably just haven't articulated myself fully in previous posts. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GenPol;36395947]It's not your money. You owe it to the community. The community allowed you to have this money.[/QUOTE] If I kidnapped someone, fed them, treated their wounds, let them get a job at the computer and earn some money, would they owe me some of it? After all, I let them have it. I gave them the standard of life they have. I'm just saying that to the degree we're being forced to do things, is the degree it feels like we're basically being kidnapped and made to labour for our kidnappers. It doesn't matter if the money is ultimately given back to us through the form of social services, since it wasn't a voluntary transaction. We don't "owe" them anything. It's like a shopkeeper breaking into someone's house and filling it with food, and then insisting you owe them money.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36395996] If I kidnapped someone, fed them, treated their wounds, let them get a job at the computer and earn some money, would they owe me some of it? After all, I let them have it. I gave them the standard of life they have. I'm just saying that to the degree we're being forced to do things, is the degree it feels like we're basically being kidnapped and made to labour for our kidnappers. It doesn't matter if the money is ultimately given back to us through the form of social services, since it wasn't a voluntary transaction. We don't "owe" them anything. It's like a shopkeeper breaking into someone's house and filling it with food, and then insisting you owe them money.[/QUOTE] No, this is a retard comparison. You live in the community, and owe to everyone in the necessity if your situation is far better than theirs. A very rich person should be forced to give his money to saving the life of a poor person who can't afford health care. Anarchy is fucking stupid. Anarchists should be ashamed of themselves.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36395996]Anti-statism doesn't stem from a vain sort of self-love, or love for money or labour. It stems from a desire for autonomy. We believe people might be happier, more fulfilled, more cooperative, more involved in the social lives of others in a positive way, if there isn't the constant threat of physical violence. [/QUOTE] I'd feel more secure in a state with a nationalised police, healthcare and many other critical services (That should always be a basic right) rather than live in some libertarian wonderland where people the lack of regulation of anything is bound to lead to problems.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36395947]"Forceful reallocations are justified" sounds almost Orwellian" - we also call this taxation. It's widely administered in virtually every democratic state. It isn't administered in the North Korea, though. And this is why I believe there should be voting priorities. Far too much emotional bias, far too little knowledge. I believe I'm not outstanding in either knowledge or rationality at all, but I also believe that a voting priority model would prevent such arguments having the same weight as that of a knowledgeable person on the topic (ex: Mainstream economists and econometrics, who can see all the implications of taxation, and the benefits it brings, due to the reason they know these models very well). [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] It's not your money. You owe it to the community. The community allowed you to have this money.[/QUOTE] Why do I owe it? So all the money I made was all because of my shitty community? I got where I am because of hard work, not because of the criminals in my neighborhood.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36396225]Why do I owe it? So all the money I made was all because of my shitty community? I got where I am because of hard work, not because of the criminals in my neighborhood.[/QUOTE] You got where you are because of police forces that ensured you weren't murdered in the night, healthcare services that ensured you didn't die on your path to wealth, food regulations that made sure that mercury, lead or a needle was in your food, law courts that give you a standardised and fair trial, sanitation works that are made to do their job properly, the list goes on. Even in Medieval Britain, the local Feudal lord somehow was beneficial. (Like giving food to you in times in hunger if you were his villein, and providing military protection)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36396280]You got where you are because of police forces that ensured you weren't murdered in the night, healthcare services that ensured you didn't die on your path to wealth, food regulations that made sure that mercury, lead or a needle was in your food, law courts that give you a standardised and fair trial, sanitation works that are made to do their job properly, the list goes on. Even in Medieval Britain, the local Feudal lord somehow was beneficial. (Like giving food to you in times in hunger if you were his villein, and providing military protection)[/QUOTE] I did not say I am against taxes and civil services, I am against UHC. And his claim that I owe it to my community is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36396180]No, this is a retard comparison. You live in the community, and owe to everyone in the necessity if your situation is far better than theirs. A very rich person should be forced to give his money to saving the life of a poor person who can't afford health care. Anarchy is fucking stupid. Anarchists should be ashamed of themselves.[/QUOTE] We're being given stuff and then forced to pay for it. How is this any different to either of the comparisons I made? You really need to provide a clear account of why you 'owe' anyone your labour if they're worse off. Even if it leads to a better set of circumstances if you are forced to do something, it doesn't mean you [I]owe it to them.[/I] Obligation to people that stems from our own values and compassion for other human beings is more valuable, leads to a much preferable state of affairs, than obligation that stems from threats of physical violence. Not really sure why you've decided to give up arguing with any integrity anymore; admittedly I started off arguing like a douchebag but I worked at it and started to realise you have a more respectable view. But now you're at risk of losing all that integrity with bullshit like 'Anarchy is fucking stupid. Anarchists should be ashamed of themselves.' If you think this is debate, you should be ashamed of yourself.
[QUOTE=Kentz;36389332]doesnt matter where the taxes goes, forcing people to pay taxes is theft, and theft is morally wrong. doesnt matter if you steal my money and then buy me a nice car with it, its still wrong.[/QUOTE] Never heard of social contract? You live in a society regulated in every possible way by the government, which is also made by people like you, that are also ELECTED by you and CHOSEN by you. What you actually do is making a contract with a "contract" with your government: "I pay taxes, I get services I wouldn't be able to get on my own". So, you can build streets on your own? I guess you can regulate imports and exports, enforce laws, learn to read and write, produce the energy to power your house and the servers which enables you to connect to the Internet on your own too. You can also protect everyone all by yourself without an army or espionage. And you can also advance the quality of life through state-funded research by yourself. You know, go in the woods and live off nature, and no one will charge you a dollar. Get into a civilized society though: to use his services (healthcare, education, power in your house, the fact that every single thing on the shelf of a grocery store might not kill you because there are not government-imposed standars) you have to pay. edit: And really, are you really saying being born in a civilized society is the same as kidnapping? You probably wouldn't even be here without the comforts that a developed country can offer. Go to a place where government is not present, like subsaharian Africa, then come back to your comfy chair, your computer, your console and your clean, drinkable water, provided by the government. Or they are actually shoving water down your throat against your will?
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;36396350']Never heard of social contract? You live in a society regulated in every possible way by the government, which is also made by people like you, that are also ELECTED by you and CHOSEN by you. What you actually do is making a contract with a "contract" with your government: "I pay taxes, I get services I wouldn't be able to get on my own". So, you can build streets on your own? I guess you can regulate imports and exports, enforce laws, learn to read and write, produce the energy to power your house and the servers which enables you to connect to the Internet on your own too. You can also protect everyone all by yourself without an army or espionage. And you can also advance the quality of life through state-funded research by yourself. You know, go in the woods and live off nature, and no one will charge you a dollar. Get into a civilized society though: to use his services (healthcare, education, power in your house, the fact that every single thing on the shelf of a grocery store might not kill you because there are not government-imposed standars) you have to pay.[/QUOTE] I fucking love the idea of social contracts. I honestly think social contracts are one of the ways forward. But it's not a social contract unless you consent. I never made a contract with my government. Neither did [I]​anyone.[/I] I'm not really sure why it's so inescapably hard for some people to comprehend that things like healthcare, production of energy, research, etc, can be done voluntarily. If they're so valuable, people will invest in it.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36396340]We're being given stuff and then forced to pay for it. How is this any different to either of the comparisons I made? You really need to provide a clear account of why you 'owe' anyone your labour if they're worse off. Even if it leads to a better set of circumstances if you are forced to do something, it doesn't mean you [I]owe it to them.[/I] Obligation to people that stems from our own values and compassion for other human beings is more valuable, leads to a much preferable state of affairs, than obligation that stems from threats of physical violence. Not really sure why you've decided to give up arguing with any integrity anymore; admittedly I started off arguing like a douchebag but I worked at it and started to realise you have a more respectable view. But now you're at risk of losing all that integrity with bullshit like 'Anarchy is fucking stupid. Anarchists should be ashamed of themselves.' If you think this is debate, you should be ashamed of yourself.[/QUOTE] No, it's just that I don't see any point in arguing with you. It leads to simple circular reasoning. It's like arguing with a very devote creationist. " admittedly I started off arguing like a douchebag but I worked at it and started to realise you have a more respectable view. But now you're at risk of losing all that integrity with bullshit like 'Anarchy is fucking stupid. Anarchists should be ashamed of themselves.'" One's insults don't influence the logical integrity of one's arguments. "Obligation to people that stems from our own values and compassion for other human beings is more valuable," Exactly. That's why I believe it's beneficial to make you pay taxes, and if you don't, throw you in prison for tax evasion. I don't care if it's theft - the ends always justify the means.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36396383]I fucking love the idea of social contracts. I honestly think social contracts are one of the ways forward. But it's not a social contract unless you consent. I never made a contract with my government. Neither did [I]​anyone.[/I] I'm not really sure why it's so inescapably hard for some people to comprehend that things like healthcare, production of energy, research, etc, can be done voluntarily.[/QUOTE] Of course you are consenting. You can choose NOT to use the services provided by the state and go in a forest or something. Build a hut and live in the wild.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36395996]Anti-statism doesn't stem from a vain sort of self-love, or love for money or labour. It stems from a desire for autonomy. [/quote] I'd argue that love for money or labour can be a driving factor in a desire for autonomy, and seeing as the U.S. is not a free-market the opposition for UHC stems directly from a greater value being placed on income than the lives of individuals. [quote]We believe people might be happier, more fulfilled, more cooperative, more involved in the social lives of others in a positive way, if there isn't the constant threat of physical violence. It's not difficult to recognise that an act done voluntarily is more valuable than an act done at gunpoint, so the only bit missing is the belief that acts [I]will[/I] be done voluntarily. I've arrived at this belief with game theory. In a system where everyone recognises each individual's genuine value, in terms of their labour/actions (not money, property writs, law), I think almost everyone has reason to act peacefully, cooperatively socially and productively. Maybe there are sociopathic elements in some anarchist thinkers; certainly people Ayn Rand felt very sociopathic (I'm not sure I totally agree but I can see why it feels like it [not that she was strictly speaking an anarchist either, but eh]), but with me it's merely a case that I think humans possess more virtuous traits if they're left alone and allowed to appreciate the real value of humans, rather than merely forced to conform to the perceived value of humans, according to anyone else. As for this 'giving coercion infinitely negative moral value' stuff, it's really not the case. The assumption that coercion is a bad thing doesn't derive from some absolute appeal to the non-aggression principle. I'm merely saying that coercion - purely in nature of what it represents, which is the supplementing of one's will on another - is undesirable at least to the agent being coerced (NOT using morally weighted terminology here, I'm being very careful). The question that then has to be answered is whether or not certain uses of coercion produce an overall more desirable standard of living. I've seen quite a large body of work by biologists, political theorists, game theorists, and they seem to suggest that agents require relatively few traits before peaceful cooperation is the dominant strategy, in most cases. I'm not being circular, I'm probably just haven't articulated myself fully in previous posts.[/QUOTE] As I have stated earlier, Anarcho-capitalism is the communism of the 21st century and I'm not saying that ironically. It's taking the enlightenment ideas of liberalisation to their logical extreme, making the required variables entirely impossible to fulfill due in part to the nature of human beings. I don't for a second doubt that its intention of a greater society are in earnest. Furthermore, it is seemingly propogated mainly by the people it's failings would benefit the most.
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;36396350']edit: And really, are you really saying being born in a civilized society is the same as kidnapping? You probably wouldn't even be here without the comforts that a developed country can offer. Go to a place where government is not present, like subsaharian Africa, then come back to your comfy chair, your computer, your console and your clean, drinkable water, provided by the government. Or they are actually shoving water down your throat against your will?[/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong, I've got shitloads of really nice things as a direct result of statism. My quality of life is really owed to it. But that doesn't mean it can't be better, whatsoever. If you want to argue against my point of view, attack my premises, like 'it can be better if done voluntarily', stop trying to find ways to make what I'm saying sound silly because I know it sounds absurd to say it's like kidnapping. My point is, you're being given all of these services by the state and in the case of my kidnapper thought experiment. How come the state is allowed to take your money but the kidnapper isn't? Cultural hegemony at its strongest. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GenPol;36396411]No, it's just that I don't see any point in arguing with you. It leads to simple circular reasoning. It's like arguing with a very devote creationist. " admittedly I started off arguing like a douchebag but I worked at it and started to realise you have a more respectable view. But now you're at risk of losing all that integrity with bullshit like 'Anarchy is fucking stupid. Anarchists should be ashamed of themselves.'" One's insults don't influence the logical integrity of one's arguments.[/QUOTE] I made a post explaining how it wasn't circular. Point out a flaw in the argument by all means, but I got rid of the apparent circularity you saw. Then why point out my ad-hom attack earlier on? That wasn't integral to my argument either, it was basically just a thinly veiled insult, too. While they don't influence the [I]logical [/I]integrity, they do influence your integrity over all. But anyway, point out to me the flaw in the post [I]above[/I] the one about the kidnapper, where I tried to show I wasn't arguing circularly.
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;36396350']Never heard of social contract? You live in a society regulated in every possible way by the government, which is also made by people like you, that are also ELECTED by you and CHOSEN by you. What you actually do is making a contract with a "contract" with your government: "I pay taxes, I get services I wouldn't be able to get on my own". So, you can build streets on your own? I guess you can regulate imports and exports, enforce laws, learn to read and write, produce the energy to power your house and the servers which enables you to connect to the Internet on your own too. You can also protect everyone all by yourself without an army or espionage. And you can also advance the quality of life through state-funded research by yourself. You know, go in the woods and live off nature, and no one will charge you a dollar. Get into a civilized society though: to use his services (healthcare, education, power in your house, the fact that every single thing on the shelf of a grocery store might not kill you because there are not government-imposed standars) you have to pay.[/QUOTE] You're ridiculous. I'm not an anarchist, but I can even see the flaws in this argument. The way that the current system is set up makes it so that I cannot choose a different provider of those services if I wanted to. Of course going into the woods and living off nature would be horrid compared to modern society, that's why we [I]have[/I] modern society. As for the streets, yes that can be handled in an free market environment. Nobody is going to go to your new mall if there's no road, after all. Laying down a bunch of concrete isn't the hardest thing to do, you know. A business would be required to create roads in order to attain business. Regulating imports and exports is essentially a null point, because anarchist societies don't want any regulation, believing that it stifles competition and such. Enforcing laws could be done by private security on private plots of land. A mall is going to want security in order to ensure that nobody is stealing something. They're not going to just kill off people either, because who would want to go to a mall where you can be killed for a possible misunderstanding? Another possible alternative to this would be similar to the way that casinos work in Las Vegas. If they see somebody is cheating, they have agreed to share information with the other casinos to essentially black list people. If somebody is caught doing something that is considered unlawful, they won't be allowed services. Producing power to the house would be pretty damn easy to privatize, not sure where you put that, alongside with education. Your tax dollars that are going towards public education can be put into private education which can oftentimes provide better services. Parents, believe it or not, usually want their children to have a good future, hence why they send them to public school. (Although I will admit, this is part of the reason that I believe there should be a government, although I'm mixed on it. Public education has proven itself to be ineffective, yet forcing people to use private education can essentially result in the same thing that governments have problems with.) I'm pretty sure the servers that enable you to connect to the internet are privatized anyways, so... Not sure where you're going with that. Protecting yourself with a military is a very interesting topic that people should look into. One idea is that private contractors could be sponsored by businesses, or other possible ideas (this is one thing I advocate for the state for, but it's fun to think about). Many anarchists advocate that if something isn't able to be put onto a free market, then it isn't worth investing into anyways. Especially when that means taking money from people forcefully and "investing it for them". So the state-funded research is somewhat of a null point to anarchists, although I love to hear arguments for it. Just because our current society is set up a certain way, doesn't mean that any other form of governance wouldn't work. That's just silly. You could say the same thing about capitalism in Soviet Russia. "How would you get food without the state?" "How would you get housing without the state?" "If you don't like the state, go live out in the woods." Thing is, there are alternative forms of society to the one you currently live in. This argument is full of holes.
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;36396416']Of course you are consenting. You can choose NOT to use the services provided by the state and go in a forest or something. Build a hut and live in the wild.[/QUOTE] Leaving everyone I value, family, friends, people who labour to produce something I want and trade with me, this doesn't seem like a very rational thing to do. But then, neither does settling for theft just because it's a better standard of life than living in the wild. What I do think is rational, is trying to make society accommodate for reality, which is that by default we have no obligations to anyone, outside of those we bring upon our selves based on our values (compassion, namely), and the reality that the only thing a man can truly own is himself and his labour. I actually think that this is even the case now, and even the case in a full on socialist state, but the reality is hidden underneath all of these cultural hegemonic influences that build the irrational belief in the state possessing the monopoly of legitimate physical violence. Basically I just think that power lies in where it's believed to lie, when by default it lies in your perceived worth as a human being. If people recognised this, I believe society would be full of a lot more fulfilled, flourishing people. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Statism is quite funny in a way, since statists seem committed to this belief that society can only be compassionate in any meaningful way if its [I]forced[/I]to be compassionate. I'm not saying that this means statism is false at all, I just think it's an interesting belief, and one I think people should at least have a good argument supporting it, which I think only some statists have. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Also I think someone called me an anarcho-capitalist. I just wanna say that I am totally [I]not[/I] an anarcho-capitalist. It's a very silly strain of anarchism which supports lots of incredibly silly concepts I detest, like homesteading. Fuck no to that.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36396512]You're ridiculous. I'm not an anarchist, but I can even see the flaws in this argument. The way that the current system is set up makes it so that I cannot choose a different provider of those services if I wanted to. Of course going into the woods and living off nature would be horrid compared to modern society, that's why we [I]have[/I] modern society. As for the streets, yes that can be handled in an free market environment. Nobody is going to go to your new mall if there's no road, after all. Laying down a bunch of concrete isn't the hardest thing to do, you know. A business would be required to create roads in order to attain business. Regulating imports and exports is essentially a null point, because anarchist societies don't want any regulation, believing that it stifles competition and such. Enforcing laws could be done by private security on private plots of land. A mall is going to want security in order to ensure that nobody is stealing something. They're not going to just kill off people either, because who would want to go to a mall where you can be killed for a possible misunderstanding? Another possible alternative to this would be similar to the way that casinos work in Las Vegas. If they see somebody is cheating, they have agreed to share information with the other casinos to essentially black list people. If somebody is caught doing something that is considered unlawful, they won't be allowed services. Producing power to the house would be pretty damn easy to privatize, not sure where you put that, alongside with education. Your tax dollars that are going towards public education can be put into private education which can oftentimes provide better services. Parents, believe it or not, usually want their children to have a good future, hence why they send them to public school. (Although I will admit, this is part of the reason that I believe there should be a government, although I'm mixed on it. Public education has proven itself to be ineffective, yet forcing people to use private education can essentially result in the same thing that governments have problems with.) I'm pretty sure the servers that enable you to connect to the internet are privatized anyways, so... Not sure where you're going with that. Protecting yourself with a military is a very interesting topic that people should look into. One idea is that private contractors could be sponsored by businesses, or other possible ideas (this is one thing I advocate for the state for, but it's fun to think about). Many anarchists advocate that if something isn't able to be put onto a free market, then it isn't worth investing into anyways. Especially when that means taking money from people forcefully and "investing it for them". So the state-funded research is somewhat of a null point to anarchists, although I love to hear arguments for it. Just because our current society is set up a certain way, doesn't mean that any other form of governance wouldn't work. That's just silly. You could say the same thing about capitalism in Soviet Russia. "How would you get food without the state?" "How would you get housing without the state?" "If you don't like the state, go live out in the woods." Thing is, there are alternative forms of society to the one you currently live in. This argument is full of holes.[/QUOTE] Roads : Who actually think that making roads is profitable? Just one hundred meters of pavimented road is insanely costly. There is also maintenance, and the problem of viability, the need of a nation-wide net of transports. "Nobody's going to your mall?" What if I want to go somewhere that's not a mall? What if I wanted or needed a road that's not beneficial to any store, economic activity or whatever? They think they'll just build roads out of good will? And why should they care about quality over quantity? They're not elected anyway, they don't need consent from the people. There's not a government building the roads for us, so we're just bound to use theirs anyway, so how could we complain, they're the only one who can make them! Import/export regulations : That's a great idea, not regulating anything. I remember a time when nothing regarding industry and capitalism was regulated or controlled in any way. I believe it was called Industrial revolution: great period, except for the monumental over production crises that happened every ten years or so, the rampant disoccupation that left milions of people with no jobs... I also think there was another time when unsufficient control caused an unpleasant event. I think it was something regarding a bank, Lehman Brothers or something. Law Enforcement : That's also pure genius. Unfortunately, I don't live in a mall. What if someone mugs me on the street? The private company that built it is gonna arrest him? What about domestic crimes? Who's gonna enforce the law there? (Please don't say "Use your gun" because we will need to stop the debate right here) And of course, I'm sure private companies who only protect you for the money will be a lot less corruptible than the already corrupted government police. Also, Iraq has proven that private military companies are extraordinary in both being professional and not abusing their power because there is no one controlling them. Producing power: Of course, privatizing power, that always turns out well. Have you ever been in a country where water, power and gas are all privatized? Do you really believed to the blatant lie "competition makes prices go down?" They always, always go up. And who's gonna check up on the quality of water? Or the steadiness of the power flow? Who stops the companies from making a deal to cut the power at certain hours so that they can cut profit losses? There's no one to complain to, since you can get the power only from them. PC: Of course, trust your security to people that are only in for the money. They'll do so much better that actually motivated soldiers who want to protect their countries. I suppose you were late to class when we discovered in the 18th century that 100.000 soldiers from France who actually wanted to protect it fared better then all the conscripted and mercenary armies in Europe. Products: You probably don't know or weren't directly involved with anything like what I'm about to say, mainly because your government does thing the right way. So, you're lucky. In Italy, circa 20 years ago, a lot of people became blind for no reason. They later found out that they drank wine corrected with antifreeze. Why would someone put antifreeze in wine? Simple: it makes it drinkable far faster than normal, so you don't have to wait months or years for it to actually be ready. The unfortunate side effects? Sudden blindness, fetal malformations, various diseases, poisoning. What do you think would have happened if the Italian government didn't find out and made the regulations for wine production a lot more strict? The companies that made the wine could have just lied. Who could prove them wrong? The private companies who enforce laws just because they are payed to do so? Never heard of corruption? We had a century to prove that capitalism with no rules (and same goes for socialism) brings a great deal of troubles. Let's not fall into the same mistake twice.
[QUOTE=Kentz;36389208]id say there are far more important stuff than healthcare, like food. do you think food should also be supplied by the government for "free"? you know, because it went so well in soviet russia & china...[/QUOTE] Except universal healthcare works and is adopted by most developed countries. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=QuikKill;36396225]Why do I owe it? So all the money I made was all because of my shitty community? I got where I am because of hard work, not because of the criminals in my neighborhood.[/QUOTE] Who prints your money? Oh yeah it's the fucking state, so it's only realistic that they'll demand some in return for the various services they provide you. Just because you don't make use of all those services doesn't mean you have the right not to pay money to the state.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397055]Except universal healthcare works and is adopted by most developed countries.[/QUOTE] not to mention the terribly obvious flaw in Kentz' argument that to survive off of the cheapest, most basic food is extremely cheap in the first world in comparison to the average wage, but cancer treatment (or any long term treatment for a life threatening illness) in countries where it is 100% privatized, without health insurance, can rack up millions in debts, while the victim fails to control his ability to work during that time, or provide for his own food.
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;36396350']Never heard of social contract? ... [/QUOTE] There is no social contract, no one ever agreed to it. Like I was saying in an earlier posts, society is a group of people interacting. It's made up of individuals, and it has no more rights than the individuals. Society does not "own" you merely for interacting with it. Not to mention no one was at any time informed of the "terms and conditions" of this supposed social contract, so this idea could be taken to give the state justification to do just about anything. [QUOTE=GenPol;36395947]It's not your money. You owe it to the community. The community allowed you to have this money.[/QUOTE] That's false. My personal, labor, investment, risk taking, created the wealth. The wealth would not be able to come into existence without me. Other people want what I have, and have what I want (money for example) and we enter a mutually beneficial, voluntary transaction. It was acquired through voluntarily exchanges, individual to individual. Another individual has no justification to interfere with my right to interact with someone else (i.e by coercing a debt out of me as the "price" or "social contract" of interacting with others who wish to voluntarily interact with me), and neither does it become right when any number of people do it as it's an inalienable right. [QUOTE=GenPol;36396180]No, this is a retard comparison. You live in the community, and owe to everyone in the necessity if your situation is far better than theirs.[/QUOTE] The social contract again? I don't remember signing anything of the sort or even seeing the "terms and conditions" of this contract I never signed. [quote]A very rich person should be forced to give his money to saving the life of a poor person who can't afford health care.[/QUOTE] This is just a baseless assertion. I get that this is what you believe but you've offered no convincing proof that actually justifies redistribution of wealth (theft) and no justification that health care is actually a human right. Is healthy food another human right that we're all entitled to as well? What about houses and apartments for everyone? Is that another supposed human right that you'd have no problem paying out the ass in taxes for? [quote]Anarchy is fucking stupid. Anarchists should be ashamed of themselves.[/QUOTE] So much for a civilized debate. Why are you so mad? [QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;36396843']We had a century to prove that capitalism with no rules (and same goes for socialism) brings a great deal of troubles.[/QUOTE] There never was any capitalism with no rules, especially not within the last century. There has been constant government intervention in the market [QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397055]Who prints your money? Oh yeah it's the fucking state, so it's only realistic that they'll demand some in return for the various services they provide you. Just because you don't make use of all those services doesn't mean you have the right not to pay money to the state.[/QUOTE] There's plenty of alternatives to that system (gold is one) but that's a whole other debate
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397055]Who prints your money? Oh yeah it's the fucking state, so it's only realistic that they'll demand some in return for the various services they provide you. Just because you don't make use of all those services doesn't mean you have the right not to pay money to the state.[/QUOTE] I don't think the fact the state prints money has any relevance to the argument whatsoever... The state creating artificial inflation by printing more money is one of the most destructive things it does. Nobody argues that we shouldn't pay taxes because we don't use all the services. We argue it because we're being forced into this deal that we didn't consent to.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36397315]I don't think the fact the state prints money has any relevance to the argument whatsoever... The state creating artificial inflation by printing more money is one of the most destructive things it does. Nobody argues that we shouldn't pay taxes because we don't use all the services. We argue it because we're being forced into this deal that we didn't consent to.[/QUOTE] "The state creating artificial inflation by printing more money is one of the most destructive things it does." Yeah, because smothering the business cycle by increasing the aggregate demand is so fucking destructive.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.