[QUOTE=Zally13;38553983]Except that they have a strict criteria, which is the quote.[/QUOTE]
That isn't very strict at all.
Let me give a simple example: In Switzerland a baby must be 30 cm long in order to be considered living. This restriction is not made in the US. So every baby born under 30 cm in length would count under the US IMR but not under the Switzerland IMR. Switzerland doesn't consider it alive in the first place.
Got that from this btw: [url]http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html[/url]
It seems well cited.
[QUOTE=sgman91;38554119]That isn't very strict at all.
Let me give a simple example: In Switzerland a baby must be 30 cm long in order to be considered living. This restriction is not made in the US. So every baby born under 30 cm in length would count under the US IMR but not under the Switzerland IMR. Switzerland doesn't consider it alive in the first place.
Got that from this btw: [url]http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html[/url]
It seems well cited.[/QUOTE]
Hrm, that's definitely interesting. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll look into it more.
#
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38554029]You get free healthcare for yourself and your family though.
Paying a small portion of your wages in return for safe, secure and reliable health care is no different than paying a small portion of your wages in return for a fair judicial system.[/QUOTE]
I like how you [I]pay [/I]for something and then get something [I]free [/I]in return.
And the difference is that judicial system based on money wouldn't be fair. While companies under free market private healthcare would try their best to get customers, reducing their prices and increasing their standards. I'm from a country that has public healthcare and that's what private healthcare companies do here, they provide better service.
Also I have some questions.
So the government is paying for my food, healthcare and place to sleep. I don't want to work, ever. All I need now is a bottle of cheap wine (that I can get money for from begging) and someone to drink it with. Why should I look for a job?
If the government wouldn't help people like that, would you give someone like that money each month?
Say it's been scientifically proven that eating an apple each day is healthy and contributes to your quantified happiness. Would you force people to eat an apple each day?
Say fast food has been scientifically proven to be unhealthy (and unhealthy means unhappy), would you ban it?
If majority of people would think that gay sex is bad, is it okay to ban it?
[QUOTE=stev3;38554339]Why are you calling it free? Just pay the mafia and you get free protection! What is this nonsense?[/QUOTE]
The state pays for it.
[quote]I never said it wasn't, and please try not to make it sound voluntary, because we know it's not.[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. States were originally formed via voluntary association by people making contracts with each other to provide services in return for another kind of service (for example, military protection in return for X bushels of grain).
[quote]Can I ask how you justify forcing people against their will to pay into something that [I]you[/I] believe is beneficial? [/QUOTE]
Because it really is more beneficial, and secondly, it improves peoples lives.
[quote]You've actually come to the conclusion that you're okay with peaceful people being threatened with kidnap, imprisonment and violence should they resist, in order for them to pay into what you think is in their best interest...[/QUOTE]
We don't threaten people who don't pay taxes with violence though. Most people really do pay taxes without this bullshit about "the state doesn't have a right to take my money".
[quote]From your reply it seems as though you just try to ignore the thuggery and try to play it off as though it's in everyone's best interest and therefore acceptable, when in fact it's just an opinion that you're trying to force onto other people regardless of whether they consent or not.[/QUOTE]
That's because it really [b]IS[/b] better.
Universal healthcare works for the benefit of all, and it's sad to see cases where people don't have access to healthcare (which should be a fundamental human right).
[editline]22nd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;38554402]I like how you [I]pay [/I]for something and then get something [I]free [/I]in return.[/QUOTE]
Certainly its better than health insurance companies, which set out to make a profit first and foremost.
[QUOTE]And the difference is that judicial system based on money wouldn't be fair.[/QUOTE]
Why not?
[QUOTE]While companies under free market private healthcare would try their best to get customers, reducing their prices and increasing their standards. I'm from a country that has public healthcare and that's what private healthcare companies do here, they provide better service.[/QUOTE]
What's there to stop private courts being established that do the same thing?
[QUOTE]Also I have some questions.
So the government is paying for my food, healthcare and place to sleep. I don't want to work, ever. All I need now is a bottle of cheap wine (that I can get money for from begging) and someone to drink it with. Why should I look for a job?[/QUOTE]
Jobs are getting harder to find. Permanent unemployment exists and is getting considerably worse as time goes on.
[QUOTE]Say it's been scientifically proven that eating an apple each day is healthy and contributes to your quantified happiness. Would you force people to eat an apple each day?[/QUOTE]
We already do this, but with vaccines.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38554519]Certainly its better than health insurance companies, which set out to make a profit first and foremost.[/QUOTE]
If your system won't cover the expenses you'll generate national dept. But I guess that's okay.
And attracting customers is the crucial thing in making profit. You do that by being better/cheaper than others (in free market).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38554519]Why not?[/QUOTE]
Because the one who pays most wins? That's not really how the law is supposed to work is it? Might as well make bidding on who wins.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38554519]What's there to stop private courts being established that do the same thing?[/QUOTE]
See above.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38554519]Jobs are getting harder to find. Permanent unemployment exists and is getting considerably worse as time goes on.[/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with my question. And btw, high taxes (the source of money that you want to use on making things "free") is one of the reasons there are less jobs and shitter pay.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38554519]We already do this, but with vaccines.[/QUOTE]
So the answer is yes? Okay, when are you pushing for laws forcing people to exercise, wash their teeth, bathe, change underwear, eat vegetables and spend time outside?
[editline]22nd November 2012[/editline]
And you missed few questions. Too problematic?
#
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;38554726]If your system won't cover the expenses you'll generate national dept. But I guess that's okay.[/QUOTE]
This is why taxes exist.
[QUOTE]And attracting customers is the crucial thing in making profit. You do that by being better/cheaper than others (in free market).[/QUOTE]
Usually by cutting corners.
[QUOTE]Because the one who pays most wins? That's not really how the law is supposed to work is it? Might as well make bidding on who wins.[/QUOTE]
Which is what would happen in human society too under libertarian rule. The rich get higher standards of healthcare, education, nutrition. The poor get comparatively worse standards, and once these factors compound it creates greater divisions.
[QUOTE]See above.[/QUOTE]
Healthcare would be allowed to discriminate, but not in law?
[QUOTE]This has nothing to do with my question. And btw, high taxes (the source of money that you want to use on making things "free") is one of the reasons there are less jobs and shitter pay.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. The price of labour is in constant decline. People work less these days than in the past, simply because there's less demand for their services.
[QUOTE]So the answer is yes? Okay, when are you pushing for laws forcing people to exercise, wash their teeth, bathe, change underwear, eat vegetables and spend time outside?
[editline]22nd November 2012[/editline]
And you missed few questions. Too problematic?[/QUOTE]
no because your arguments are terrible "slippery slope" arguments
[editline]22nd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=stev3;38555011]After they get the money from threatening peaceful people...[/QUOTE]
no they dont, people pay into it
[QUOTE]No, taxes are not voluntary...[/QUOTE]
yes they are, states were originally formed by groups of people having a consensus on what resources they would sacrifice in return for protection
[QUOTE]I know you think so, but I disagree. Please do not support having your fellow man threatened and robbed for disagreeing with you.[/QUOTE]
It's not that I think so, it's that its empirically verified.
[QUOTE]They're forced against their will into cages for "tax evasion"... If they dare fight back they will be put in the cage for longer, if they're not killed.[/QUOTE]
this is a terrible way to look at and try to understand the modern world
[QUOTE]If a rape victim doesn't fight back, they are fine with it?[/QUOTE]
do you understand social contract
[QUOTE]It's funny how people come to these conclusions about what they're entitled to from other people... [B]You are not entitled to anything from anyone else against their will simply for being here.[/B][/QUOTE]
Are you entitled to protection from other people against their will?
[QUOTE]If you don't give me your money you're denying people their fundamental human right for services to be provided to them for free, and I will put you in a cage! Laughable...[/QUOTE]
shit analogy
#
You signed the social contract by deciding to live in this territory. Nobody's preventing you from moving to a tax free place such as Somalia or the middle of the woods.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38553467]That's irrelevant as those are not democratically elected officials. We live in a constitutionally bounded democratic republic which allows the people to elect their leaders, yet also protects minorities. Nobody here is arguing for dictators. This idea that 49% of Americans are trampled over is ridiculous, because we're not that democratic. We have representatives, not a direct democracy. If 49% of people disliked a law, they should practice civil disobedience. That would be the quickest way to change it.[/quote]
So why can those representatives be trusted with their power? That's what the original argument was about. If the free market allegedly can't work because of irrational actors, then you need to be able to explain why you trust irrational actors to represent entire groups of people.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38553467]There are also some people who wouldn't mind murder being legal. Just because somebody wants it, doesn't mean it's just as valid as another argument. Time and time again has proven that Universal Healthcare leads to higher life expectancies, and is overall cheaper. Any negative attributes are negligible.[/quote]
That's a poor comparison because murder is coercive force. How can you even make a comparison like that?
[QUOTE=Zally13;38553467]If your answer to getting rid of death and disease is that, I doubt your reasoning. What would stop a large criminal organization from instigating a protection racket against a town? Nothing. In places where police funding has been low, criminal organizations have popped up to do so. Coercion is built into humanity, and you can't get rid of it. The only difference is who's wielding the sword. I'm sure you're sick of hearing about Somalia, but that's what's happening. Large gangs and rulers are taking over territories against people's will. They're too weak to fight back. The reason we don't have it here is because we have a national guard ready to take down anybody attempting to do so.[/quote]
Somalia is a land where quasi-governmental entities are fighting for control, where there is no respect or enforcement of private property rights. That isn't representative of free market capitalism. It's a strawman argument that keeps being endlessly repeated.
[quote]When you retaliation, defensive force, and lawsuits, that's a form of coercion. How do you define retaliation? Defensive force?[/quote]
Coercion is the initiation of force (physical or threatened). Retaliation/defensive force in this context means fighting back as you're being assaulted. That is not coercion.
[quote]How the hell would you get somebody without a central justice system to even appear in a court?[/quote]
With a court summons.
[quote]How about instead of saying "elimination of coercion" you tell us how to do so, and then I can respond appropriately.[/quote]
I never said that coercion could actually be eliminated, but I would argue that it can be reduced greatly without a government that has a monopoly on the use of coercive force.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38553467]I'm not going to back this up, as according to the United Nations as well, Cuba's ranked barely worse than the United States.
The problem with choosing Cuba, however, is you're cherry picking your statistics. On your same chart, there's other countries ranked much better in terms of infant mortality. All of the top ones, Monaco, Macau, Japan, Singapore, San Marino, and so on all have Universal Healthcare. That being said about Cuba, their health care improved rapidly after they adopted a Universal Healthcare system in the 1960s, and their medical care suffered after Soviet subsidies ended. If you want to wonder what also causes this bad medical care, how about we look at the US embargo? There's lots of sources on how that harms their healthcare.[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380757/][1][/url][url=http://www.paho.org/english/sha/prflcub.htm][2][/url][url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/review/review_summer_02/txt677cuba.html][3][/url][url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8942780][4][/url][/quote]
I'm not cherry picking, I was responding to the claim that Cuba had a higher life expectancy than the US. The data here says otherwise.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38553659]Is it fair to let the majority have a very important right (right to life) removed, in favour of the right not to pay taxes?[/quote]
No one's right to life is being removed, though.
[quote]Yes, but they (and Ronald Reagan) employed policies that are anywhere close to Libertarianism feasible in their respective countries.[/quote]
Which policies? The war on drugs and the massive buildup of the military under Reagan?
[quote]So what this implies is that coercive force will exist for the rest of time, thus meaning a true libertarian society will never come to fruition.[/quote]
That's not what it means though. The fact that coercive force will always exist doesn't mean that the solution has to be that we all hand over monopoly control on the use of coercive force to the state.
[quote]Americans should be living significantly longer if their society is significantly more free than Cuba going by the Libertarian argument (considering the state owns almost everything in Cuba).[/quote]
What argument are you referring to?
[quote]You need to provide evidence that is legitimately is representative of a state run hospital in Cuba.[/QUOTE]
The site has pictures and stories from Cuban dissidents and foreigners who have come to visit. You made the claim that what was pictured was a volunteer hospital, so where is the source to back that claim up? On top of that, why would there even need to be volunteer hospitals if health care is so excellent and is available to everyone?
what if i don't care about your freedoms
#
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38555577]what if i don't care about your freedoms[/QUOTE]
Then you'd be no different than any other criminal.
[QUOTE=stev3;38555612]Come on, you obviously see the massive flaws in this nonsense...
You people remind me of this woman: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykwaXsQY6Eg[/url]
Forever in denial to serve your own agendas...[/QUOTE]
you can't just automatically assume "the state is an inherently oppressive force in society", and then follow some bullshit ideology that goes "i'm smart and you're dumb, get off my property"
[editline]22nd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;38555646]Then you'd be no different than any other criminal.[/QUOTE]
au contraire, a criminal is somebody who breaks the law
[QUOTE=Noble;38555646]Then you'd be no different than any other criminal.[/QUOTE]
and you wonder why noone takes you seriously
#
[QUOTE=stev3;38555759]Does the state initiate force against peaceful people?[/QUOTE]
Yes, but so do individuals and groups of people formed via free association.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38555727]and you wonder why noone takes you seriously[/QUOTE]
Well it was a pretty odd argument to make, so what response were you expecting?
#
[QUOTE=stev3;38555011]
It's funny how people come to these conclusions about what they're entitled to from other people... [B]You are not entitled to anything from anyone else against their will simply for being here.[/B]
\[/QUOTE]
amen
[editline]22nd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zally13;38555491]You signed the social contract by deciding to live in this territory. Nobody's preventing you from moving to a tax free place such as Somalia or the middle of the woods.[/QUOTE]
Why does the coincidence of me being born in a certain place suddenly mean I am now owned by this society?
[QUOTE=stev3;38555829]That's hilarious...
What if I don't care about your freedom from rape? Well, then you don't care about my freedom from rape...
What kind of reply were you actually expecting?[/QUOTE]
i don't need to invoke freedom to argue against rape
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38555727]and you wonder why noone takes you seriously[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha what?
You try to discredit him after flat out saying "I don't care about your freedoms"
Ok there bud.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38555917]Why does the coincidence of me being born in a certain place suddenly mean I am now owned by this society?[/QUOTE]
because the state owns the land you live on
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38556006]because the state owns the land you live on[/QUOTE]
So by simply coming into existence, in your view I somehow now owe something to the state and am forced to participate in it.
Nice. I'm not saying the state is evil from the get go or anything silly, I'm not even one of those "free men" type of guys I can just sympathize with them and can see their path of thought.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38555917]Why does the coincidence of me being born in a certain place suddenly mean I am now owned by this society?[/QUOTE]
Society already gave you stuff before you were even born.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38556057]Society already gave you stuff before you were even born.[/QUOTE]
But no one agreed to it. A contract that both sides don't agree to is no contract at all. It's just forcing people to pay for things they didn't agree to buy.
#
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38555577]what if i don't care about your freedoms[/QUOTE]
Well then you probably shouldn't be attempting to come up with any sort of political system, because authoritarian systems historically suck.
[QUOTE=Noble;38556146]But no one agreed to it. A contract that both sides don't agree to is no contract at all. It's just forcing people to pay for things they didn't agree to buy.[/QUOTE]
Except if you cannot consent to having something forced upon you, then you will never be able to learn the concept in the first place.
[editline]22nd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=stev3;38556164]You mean the state forced certain things onto certain people through extracting money from those same people through coercion, which are now there for you to use, as long as you keep allowing them to extract money from you?[/QUOTE]
If you wish to use such negative terminology then yes.
It's much more akin to a symbiotic relationship.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
