[QUOTE=Zeke129;29103984]Well as soon as you start paying employees and offering affordable services the barrier for entry gets a lot higher. Even in a completely free market not just anyone could start up a health insurance company. [/quote]
That hasn't stopped competing companies from starting before, in fact i'd say the primary reasons companies are unable to start are (in this order): Intellectual property (should be gone), Needless regulation (companies starting costs are much higher and perpetuate monopolies since those very regulations hurt the potential for competition greatly) and taxes.
People often have the capital to start businesses, the rich have the money it just depends upon how lucritive any business might be when competing in the marketplace. It should be the only factor, since people can often just not buy services from companies who are utilizing their resources incorrectly at the cost of the consumer.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29103984]
This would only work if there are multiple options available, in many rural areas there may only be one insurance company that people can choose from. And since a lot of money is required to start an insurance company (and you have to admit - it would be immensely expensive), there may not be anyone available to step up and offer some competition.
I always hear that monopolies would be impossible in a libertarian society but I don't see how.
[/quote]
Monopolies throughout history, time and time again, are perpetuated by the government. Either the barrier to entry in that market is not cost effective and the risk is too great for potential reward, or destruction of competition against the monopoly is guaranteed. Other times they make it outright illegal to compete, or grant the corporate monopoly special privileges which make it impossible to compete. (Intellectual property or usage of government property or subsidy)
You will have to present me some evidence of a monopoly you found dangerous and I'll explain to you why it's the government's fault it ever existed in the first place. Airlines are a great example, take a peek at how airlines operated between 1930 and 1970 in the United States.
Anyway, back to the original question. [b]The very reason[/b] regional monopolies work [i]initially[/i] are the very reason [b]can't[/b] work, it sounds silly but look, If you see a company charging greatly or giving unfair deals to consumers in a region, it only makes sense to compete against that company. You'd have to be a fool to pass it up, in the united states it is illegal to sell insurance across state lines, obviously, this has damaged the competition greatly in any given region and has allowed regional monopolies to prosper.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29103984]
The cost to that person would still be much higher than to other people regardless of income, and it's simply unfair (and stupid) to punish someone for a condition they were born with. I'd say it flies in the face of what a free society stands for, as well.
[/quote]
The cost might be higher in terms of paying back the debt, with interest, however, i was talking more about contracted illnesses, such as a person choosing to not pay for insurance and then being stricken with a disease.
In your instance i would refer to "co-op" option, people of good will creating non-profit entities (that isn't to say workers wouldn't get paid, of course they would, but the company itself wouldn't make a profit)
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29103984]
Do you think any healthy people would actually pay into a healthcare co-op? Not likely. Not enough to fund its continued operation, anyway.[/QUOTE]
If the company didn't pay taxes as a non-profit and it operated, basically, like a for-profit company for a lower cost? Absolutely. I would pay for that service right now given the option.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29103875]Yea but in your world it would be almost impossible to become rich out of being poor. Think about it like the early 19th century. Without regulation people got payed very little, there were monopolies everywhere and life sucked for the worker. I would like government to help pay for school because without it there would be no way at all for a poor person to at least have children to grow up and be success. Even today almost everyone stays in the class they are born in and in your world it will definitely stay that way. With no food stamps there will be a lot of starving people. If you want to raise everyone to there highest potential then you want to aloow them to all get as fair a head start as possible. This is why we need public things. Also you might not have the same view but I believe everyone is should have some form of health care because everyone deserves to live as much as everyone else.
And again studies show that division of wealth is the main cause of many problems through out all wealth groups.
[/quote]
From an article:
[quote]No one denies that economic conditions were bad for many people in 1880. No question about it. No dispute there.
But in focusing on those bad conditions, Sumner makes a common mistake. He is comparing those conditions to conditions in which we live today or at least to some sort of ideal economic utopia. In doing that, he misses the important point, which is this: What were conditions for ordinary people prior to the Industrial Revolution? Answer: As Hobbes put it, life was nasty, brutish, and short — that is, much, much worse than it was in 1880 America.
As bad as things were in 1880 America, it was a golden era compared to the pre-industrial age. This point was made as long ago as 1954 in a book entitled Capitalism and the Historians, which was edited by libertarian Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek. As Austrian economist Murray Rothbard stated, “Hayek contributed to and edited a series of essays that showed conclusively that the Industrial Revolution in England, spurred by a roughly free-market economy, enormously improved rather than crippled the standard of living of the average consumer and worker in England. In this way, Hayek led the way in shattering one of the most widespread socialist myths about the Industrial Revolution.”[/quote]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29103875]
I like how you worded it. Theres no reason to help people if you cant make money in your world. Sorry but no ones going to want to help the homeless especially when they fallow rands its there fault ideas.[/quote]
That's just blatantly not true. First, there is absolutely a reason to help people in "my world".
First: Economic productivity is the surest method of improving working conditions for the common man. hands down.
Second: Genuine, non-forced, non-coerced charity. provided the government allows these people to be charitable without oversight or taxation or regulation there would be no issue and there would be far more helpful, genuinely charitable organisations out there.
Third: Removing barriers to [worker] entry into the market place would allow even the poorest of poor to obtain a job through actively training for it, for a smaller amount of pay. Though they would be poor in the short term, in the long term, they would open up the possibility for future increased wages.
The schooling system works sort of like this, however, it is flawed in many ways around the world. Mostly due to government assuming debts for loan programs.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxtMUHvEr-k[/media]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29103875]
Heres another thing you guys dont get about vote with your wallets. FIrst rich people get more votes and 2nd you vote to make sure you save the most money. This is why walmart is still making money because poor people have to buy stuff from them even if it destroys small businesses.[/QUOTE]
Ah, right you are, richer people often have more money to put into initial investments: However, there's a problem in the first step of your logic.
1. Rich people won't maintain their business in the same way if they're losing money and they sure as hell won't put more of their own earned money into a business actively losing money to it's competitors.
2. Rich people eat other rich people for breakfast, you don't think some other person with enough capital won't come along and compete against another rich person on what basis exactly?
3. Walmart is still making money because they provide a better service for a cheaper price, in the eyes of consumers. I'm not saying we have to treat our workers like the Chinese to compete, that simply isn't true, we must simply allow our own local businesses the means to compete with Walmart. Not through government regulation or subsidy, but through opening the flood gates and allowing our own businesses at home to operate at full capacity. Sadly, we've been doing the opposite of that for the better part of a century.
[quote="s0beit"]That's just blatantly not true. First, there is absolutely a reason to help people in "my world".
First: Economic productivity is the surest method of improving working conditions for the common man. hands down.
Second: Genuine, non-forced, non-coerced charity. provided the government allows these people to be charitable without oversight or taxation or regulation there would be no issue and there would be far more helpful, genuinely charitable organisations out there.
Third: Removing barriers to [worker] entry into the market place would allow even the poorest of poor to obtain a job through actively training for it, for a smaller amount of pay. Though they would be poor in the short term, in the long term, they would open up the possibility for future increased wages.[/quote]
So, you're saying that the sick, invalids and helpless would be completely left to charity? I think you may have even a greater faith in mankind that communists.
[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;28983096] best of liberalism (gay rights, no censorship, [b]no school uniforms[/b], locally run school boards, more personal freedoms, etc.)[/QUOTE]
Voting for a party because they're against school uniform is stupid.
One of the problems of free healthcare is often people use it too much. There are people who go to the doctors for all such easily treatable aliments such as spots or a cold for example.
I have not been to the doctors for years (Despite such a service being free) and I have not suffered as my illnesses cure themselves in the end anyways. The problem is that since it is free people think they can go there for anything, rather than in the past where you only went if your problem was actually serious.
You sir are talking 100% bullshit.
Never I have seen or heard anyone act like that.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29104401]3. Walmart is still making money because they provide a better service for a cheaper price, in the eyes of consumers. I'm not saying we have to treat our workers like the Chinese to compete, that simply isn't true, we must simply allow our own local businesses the means to compete with Walmart. Not through government regulation or subsidy, but through opening the flood gates and allowing our own businesses at home to operate at full capacity. Sadly, we've been doing the opposite of that for the better part of a century.[/QUOTE]
excellent point, and i should direct attention to penn & teller's episode on walmart:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-o1fj1rX7A[/media]
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;29105368]One of the problems of free healthcare is often people use it too much. There are people who go to the doctors for all such easily treatable aliments such as spots or a cold for example.
I have not been to the doctors for years (Despite such a service being free) and I have not suffered as my illnesses cure themselves in the end anyways. The problem is that since it is free people think they can go there for anything, rather than in the past where you only went if your problem was actually serious.[/QUOTE]
that relates to one of the problems with the USA's current system of healthcare. too many doctors would get sued for the reason of malpractice; that is, in their eyes, denying care for frivolous and negligible ailments that cure themselves. this forces doctors to use excessive treatment procedures that, in turn, contribute to the ever-rising cost of healthcare. this attitude on the responsibility of doctors, or on civil lawsuits themselves, is more of a societal problem that has to be changed through evolution rather than through legislation in order for it to effectively wither away.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=torero;29105188]So, you're saying that the sick, invalids and helpless would be completely left to charity? I think you may have even a greater faith in mankind that communists.[/QUOTE]
isnt there a for-profit motive into creating a service for helping those who cannot help themselves? there are private homes for those with mental disabilities, homes for the elderly, and so on. why not apply that concept to the situation you just described?
you should read some of adam smith's work, specifically on the explanation on the concept of the "invisible hand".
he wrote The Wealth of Nations at a time where mercantilism was dominant, a system of government regulation and control that could be considered fairly similar to our own.
I learned something today!
Most of FP fundamentally misunderstands Libertarianism!
[QUOTE=zzzZZZZ;29106875]I learned something today!
Most of FP fundamentally misunderstands Libertarianism![/QUOTE]
thank you very much for this post.
it was very needed to point out the horrible strawman arguments that occur in this thread.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ramone;29083378]It sure sucks when I don't have to pay for it![/QUOTE]
thats a painfully common misconception about nationalized healthcare. you [i]are[/i] paying for it, through this thing called [u]taxes[/u]. its nothing new and i shouldnt have to explain it.
[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29101541]I don't blame people for their problems, but I do ask that they pay for them.[/QUOTE]
I skip forward 15 pages and you're still spouting shit, how do you do it?
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29106729]
isnt there a for-profit motive into creating a service for helping those who cannot help themselves? there are private homes for those with mental disabilities, homes for the elderly, and so on. why not apply that concept to the situation you just described?
[/QUOTE]
Not all situations. There are those without family, for example.
[QUOTE=torero;29107190]Not all situations. There are those without family, for example.[/QUOTE]
again, we're returning to the s0beit's concept of charitable organizations.
don't act like there aren't any options whatsoever in this mindset.
[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;28983096]A lot of people say that I'm throwing my vote away, but I don't feel that way. I'd rather vote for a third party that represents me and my beliefs than for politicians who don't. After reading their party platform and looking into their party and it's views, I have to say that I agree with most, if not all of their ideas. They combine all of the good things about conservativism (guns never getting banned, not socialist healthcare, weaker federal government, requiring the government to obey the Constitution, more economic freedoms, etc.) and the best of liberalism (gay rights, no censorship, no school uniforms, locally run school boards, more personal freedoms, etc.) and none of the bad of either group. Well, that's just my $0.02, if you want read up on them yourself: [url]http://www.lp.org/platform[/url][/QUOTE]
I actually agree with most if not all of that too. I didn't even know what Libertarianism was until reading this post. And I think I'd be very much satisfied with that. Why don't people like this more?!
[QUOTE=s0beit;29104401]That hasn't stopped competing companies from starting before, in fact i'd say the primary reasons companies are unable to start are (in this order): Intellectual property (should be gone), Needless regulation (companies starting costs are much higher and perpetuate monopolies since those very regulations hurt the potential for competition greatly) and taxes.[/quote]
What regulation exists in regards to health insurance companies, other than the inability to sell across state lines? (Which even I'll agree is kind of silly, I don't see the point)
[QUOTE=s0beit;29104401]You will have to present me some evidence of a monopoly you found dangerous and I'll explain to you why it's the government's fault it ever existed in the first place. Airlines are a great example, take a peek at how airlines operated between 1930 and 1970 in the United States.[/quote]
Didn't airlines during the 30s-70s have horrible safety records?
The one monopoly I can think of off the top of my head is Microsoft, I don't see how that one is the government's fault. (Other than the fact the government uses Windows, but I doubt a libertarian government would suddenly switch to Linux)
[QUOTE=s0beit;29104401]The cost might be higher in terms of paying back the debt, with interest, however, i was talking more about contracted illnesses, such as a person choosing to not pay for insurance and then being stricken with a disease.
In your instance i would refer to "co-op" option, people of good will creating non-profit entities (that isn't to say workers wouldn't get paid, of course they would, but the company itself wouldn't make a profit)
If the company didn't pay taxes as a non-profit and it operated, basically, like a for-profit company for a lower cost? Absolutely. I would pay for that service right now given the option.[/quote]
I won't say much more about a healthcare co-op since I don't know whether or not it would work since as far as I know it has never been tried, but I can't see why it wouldn't have the same problems other insurance companies, namely the rejection of people with pre-existing conditions. I know you say that they are an untapped market resource but there's really no way to make those people profitable without absolutely gouging them and that doesn't sit well with me.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29104401]That's just blatantly not true. First, there is absolutely a reason to help people in "my world".[/quote]
I know this part wasn't directed at me but the exact same argument can be used to support a social democracy. Call it forced altruism if you like but it seems to produce all-around better countries than just hoping people will be altruistic on their own.
[QUOTE=Chubbles;29108129]I actually agree with most if not all of that too. I didn't even know what Libertarianism was until reading this post. And I think I'd be very much satisfied with that. Why don't people like this more?![/QUOTE]
if youre actually serious about adopting the libertarian ideology then facepunch wouldnt be a good place to learn about it.
OP is an idiot who knows nothing about libertarianism and has further slandered its reputation.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29104401]Monopolies throughout history, time and time again, are perpetuated by the government. Either the barrier to entry in that market is not cost effective and the risk is too great for potential reward, or destruction of competition against the monopoly is guaranteed..[/QUOTE]
really? Are you saying home how without government I would be able to compete with walmart or any other big company that has not just more advertising then me but able to give a better price with there products? Can you explain how the fuck the poor would be able to go. Also rich businesses can afford to lose money for a while by lowing the cost of there goods even more to make sure that there competition dies.Also if im correct you would like privater schools. This would mean the rich people schools would be much much better causing even more class division. And you will admit way less people will give to charity then they would taxes so yes the poor would get far less help then they do now.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29106729]eisnt there a for-profit motive into creating a service for helping those who cannot help themselves? there are private homes for those with mental disabilities, homes for the elderly, and so on. why not apply that concept to the situation you just described?[/QUOTE]
Yea unless your to poor to go into any of those then your fucked.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29107364]again, we're returning to the s0beit's concept of charitable organizations.
don't act like there aren't any options whatsoever in this mindset.[/QUOTE]
So are you saying people will give to charity at the same rate they gave taxes? Im sorry but you know that wont happen.
The problem with libertarianism is that it assumes a free market is fair, even if it's totally free. It's not fair one way or the other. It assumes people start off even. It forgets economic conditions and just leaves you be, I understand some people want total liberty, but does a social democracy really encroach your supposed freedoms? Not really, not in a good one at least. If you're able to hold your idea of libertarianism to only be what it is in it's ideal form, then I get to say the same for social democracies. But a libertarian government, really, one way or the other, doesn't help solve the inherit inequalities of being born in a bad community, it kind of punishes you for that, seeing as hard work isn't actually enough to succeed.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29107364]again, we're returning to the s0beit's concept of charitable organizations.
don't act like there aren't any options whatsoever in this mindset.[/QUOTE]
are you going to sit there and tell us charity is a better alternative than a real plan? Charity really isn't enough, real world experience will tell you that.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29109438]What regulation exists in regards to health insurance companies, other than the inability to sell across state lines? (Which even I'll agree is kind of silly, I don't see the point)[/quote]
It depends which state you're from, some require you signing up for a host of services you have no need for or would never buy (no demand), some impose regulations on who you can cover, there's also a federal incentive to sway employers to pay for health insurance for their employees, while this may seem beneficial at face value, it increases the prices for people who work at a company that does not provide health insurance, or the uninsured by creating false demand in the marketplace and covering people who either would never have gotten health insurance in the first place, or could otherwise afford it on their own.
Because the company is now paying for the insurance over the individual, individuals no longer care what the price of insurance is by and large, that is, people who aren't already covered by their working environment definitely care but they're victims of the same system that makes workers indifferent to pricing when their company pays for it.
[quote]
Didn't airlines during the 30s-70s have horrible safety records?
The one monopoly I can think of off the top of my head is Microsoft, I don't see how that one is the government's fault. (Other than the fact the government uses Windows, but I doubt a libertarian government would suddenly switch to Linux)[/quote]
I'm not all to sure of the horrible safety records of the early airlines but I must ask, in contrast to what? Were European or Canadian airlines known for their tremendous safety records in those days?
Even if they were, certain airlines were granted a monopoly on flight. It isn't generally disputed that monopolies degrade quality and overcharge for their services often times, I'd say that exact thing happened. Of course you could always blame the technology of the day as well, provided all airlines sucked back then to some degree in terms of safety.
[quote]Microsoft has always lived on a particular kind of Government-granted privilege called ``Intellectual Property´´. Consider in the early history of Microsoft the article that first made Bill Gates famous, An Open Letter to Hobbyists, published in February 1976 to threaten with prosecution people who were freely exchanging copies of Microsoft BASIC. Since the beginning, Microsoft claims a right to revenue not just from services it actually renders, but from those it prevents competitors from rendering. According to their argument, people should not copy, use, modify, enhance, adapt or redistribute software upon which Microsoft lays a claim of ``Intellectual Property´´, without acquiring a ``license´´ by paying a tribute to Microsoft at Microsoft's conditions.
I have discussed in my article on patents [B6] the evils of ``Intellectual Property´´, which I prefer to call by its true name of Information Protectionism. Though the article itself is more oriented toward the patent system, which is indeed considerably worse than the copyright system upon which resides Microsoft's most valuable privileges, the general arguments mostly apply to Information Protectionism in general, and the bibliography contains many publications that tackle the case of copyrights as well as the case of patents [12]. To the contrary of the original trademark system (now also turned into a mess of government privileges), copyrights and patents were never born in either contract law or common law. Historically, philosophically, and from all that serve as their justifications, they are government privileges. Though licenses themselves may look like ``agreements´´, their force resides in the prohibitions issued by governments that confer some monopoly to ``Intellectual Property´´ hoarders; and such monopoly granted by governments is itself a usurpation, that binds unwilling parties that never agreed to them. What is in question is not the ``agreements´´ but the context of monopoly in which they are being proposed [13]. This monopoly is not born in a contract, it lacks the essential liberties that define contract law: the right to denounce the contract and exit it (though it may cost you), the right to enter or not enter the contact (to begin with), and the right to enter instead any competing contract from a different provider that you'd prefer. Just because monopolies are now issued by a parliament instead of a king doesn't make these privileges any less of the usurpations they are. Consenting adults are prevented from helping each other so as to confer a monopoly to the privilege title holder. To libertarians, any such forceful intervention into the life of any non-consenting third party is illegitimate. It is notable that ``Intellectual Property´´ never succeeded in any public debate or open economic debate; rather it was imposed upon the world through the art of public choice policy-making through lobbying: buying privileges by funding friendly politicians.
Legitimate Property consists in securing the right of a creator to exchange his goods and services, with customers for money or with other partners for other services, at a mutually agreed upon price or conditions. But ``Intellectual property´´ is not this kind of legitimate Property. Just like the alleged ``Property´´ title claimed by the Company of Indies on the trade of Tea with America, it is a Government-granted privilege, that consists in preventing willing third parties from exchanging services with each other. To add insult to injury, Microsoft and other ``Intellectual Property´´ claimants require the public to bear the costs of enforcing their claims upon the public itself. ``Intellectual Property´´ is thus artificial ``property´´ the enforcement costs of which are born by those being excluded. On the other hand, natural Property is precisely born out of people having a right not to what they claim, but to what they actually create [14] and protect [15]. Allowing some people to shift to other people the burden of protecting their property only results in political lobbies ever extending the cost borne by the general public for the protection of a privileged few, and excluding the same public from more and more claimed ``property´´ that ought never to exist to begin with. In other words, the principle of Protectionism is at work, through which the general public has to pay to be itself the victim of exclusions that benefit a privileged few [16].[/quote]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29109438]
I won't say much more about a healthcare co-op since I don't know whether or not it would work since as far as I know it has never been tried, but I can't see why it wouldn't have the same problems other insurance companies, namely the rejection of people with pre-existing conditions. I know you say that they are an untapped market resource but there's really no way to make those people profitable without absolutely gouging them and that doesn't sit well with me. [/quote]
It depends what you would call gouging them, while it's true they would probably pay more than the average consumer of insurance they would live to see another day. You also have to take into account that under that system the "loan" company gives our and the debt they incur is an enormous amount of risk since it's banking on you getting better. If you die, no debts are collected and they're out that money they loaned to you.
It might not be their fault they got sick in the first place, a majority of the time that's true. However, how is it any more of a person's fault when somebody else gets sick? How do they incur that debt? There is no transference of responsibility in my eyes.
You might feel a sense of responsibility and you might feel happy when you pay your taxes that it is going to be used to make other people get better, some other people might dispute the system's effectiveness (and they'd be right, governments often pay more then the free market because of the economic calculation problem i mentioned earlier), some people might not like that they've incurred the responsibility of the entire nation's well-being at the expense of their own property and even if you consider that greedy and you might be right, it is my position that your only legitimate means of getting that person to pay for another person's medical service would be to persuade them and give them a choice in the matter. (You can still form something like this around a tax system, though it is preferable you do not, to me, since i consider single-payer healthcare economically inefficient)
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29109438]
I know this part wasn't directed at me but the exact same argument can be used to support a social democracy. Call it forced altruism if you like but it seems to produce all-around better countries than just hoping people will be altruistic on their own.[/QUOTE]
It really depends how you look at this in this aspect, first, the issue is indeed moral, forcing people to do something against their will in an otherwise peaceful environment to me, is wrong. It's introducing force into an area that prior to government intervention involved no force. There's something beautiful in that, to me, about free market capitalism.
I don't think altruism has to be forced, i just think genuinely good people need to be given the money to donate, those same good people need to be given the chance to succeed and provide for their fellow man.
I suppose you could argue that the crimes against humanity in the free market, in your perception, are incidental and occur because of inaction rather then action itself.
Even if i grant this may very well be true (which i don't), I would rather live in a society where too much freedom is a problem than one in which too little is a problem.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29110822]
It really depends how you look at this in this aspect, first, the issue is indeed moral, forcing people to do something against their will in an otherwise peaceful environment to me, is wrong. It's introducing force into an area that prior to government intervention involved no force. There's something beautiful in that, to me, about free market capitalism.
I don't think altruism has to be forced, i just think genuinely good people need to be given the money to donate, those same good people need to be given the chance to succeed and provide for their fellow man.
I suppose you could argue that the crimes against humanity in the free market, in your perception, are incidental and occur because of inaction rather then action itself.
Even if i grant this may very well be true (which i don't), I would rather live in a society where too much freedom is a problem than one in which too little is a problem.[/QUOTE]
But why does libertarianism give those people any more chance than a social democracy? Good people come from all backgrounds, and seeing as in a libertarian system, as you've said, you're left to fend for yourself. We both know there are people, and a lot of them in disparate conditions worse than either of our own who aren't given a fair chance in this system, and wouldn't see much improvements in your world either, they still have to deal with living in disparate conditions and growing up actually not equal.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29110417]really? Are you saying home how without government I would be able to compete with walmart or any other big company that has not just more advertising then me but able to give a better price with there products?[/quote]
Better advertising has never stopped companies from succeeding. If they're able to give a better price and better service then entering that market would be foolish to you, the investor. However, if you have technology that would give you an advantage (economic progress) or can offer better services for cheaper prices, you absolutely can compete. You'd win too, or the company you're competing with would have to reform policies to compete with you.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29110417]Can you explain how the fuck the poor would be able to go.[/quote]
I'm sorry but I don't understand this. Go to what? School? Doctor?
I already explained schools and medical care, if there's anything else please clairfy.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29110417]Also rich businesses can afford to lose money for a while by lowing the cost of there goods even more to make sure that there competition dies.[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO8ZU7TeKPw[/media]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29110417]Also if im correct you would like privater schools. This would mean the rich people schools would be much much better causing even more class division. [/quote]
First, private schooling only being a means for the rich to be educated is true, today. However, you'll find if you do some research that government intervention is the very reason [i]why[/i] it's so expensive in the first place.
Public schooling, forgiving loan debts and a lack of the market in these areas has caused prices to skyrocket in any area where schools are private. It might be true that [i]even then[/i] people might not be able to afford schooling, they might just be far, far too poor to afford schooling. That is where job training comes along. Today, job training is only used generally for labor based jobs and not any job where any advanced skills are needed, but it is my perception that government regulations are the means to which this system is propagated.
By training on the job, at a cheaper price, for the potential for future increased revenue you complete two objectives
1) You're now educated in the field of your choosing, because the employer was able to pay you very little, or not at all, to teach you a new skill you can now use this new skill to earn more money even without schooling.
2) The employer couldn't just fire you because he has invested very real time and money into your education. The employer would want to give you benefits at a level which would keep you happy and would prevent him from having to train more individuals on the job at a loss to him.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29110417]And you will admit way less people will give to charity then they would taxes so yes the poor would get far less help then they do now.[/quote]
I admit it, sure, but because the market is efficient and because the barrier to entry for businesses and workers would be lower, [i]less people would be poor in general[/i] and i mean far less. This would mean far less resources would need to be allocated to give to the disadvantaged.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29110417]Yea unless your to poor to go into any of those then your fucked.[/quote]
I don't think you understood what he was saying..
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29110417]So are you saying people will give to charity at the same rate they gave taxes? Im sorry but you know that wont happen.[/QUOTE]
No, but under the system i advocate gigantic amount of resources wouldn't need to be allocated to balance a system so totally broken like it is today. The social programs of today are band-aids for band-aids for band-aids and one system on top of another, caused by one failure on top of another. You'd have to dig deep and see where the root of all this disparity comes from. You can't just take social services at face value, "they help people therefore they are good", it isn't nearly that simplistic.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29110719]The problem with libertarianism is that it assumes a free market is fair, even if it's totally free. It's not fair one way or the other. It assumes people start off even. It forgets economic conditions and just leaves you be, I understand some people want total liberty, but does a social democracy really encroach your supposed freedoms? Not really, not in a good one at least. If you're able to hold your idea of libertarianism to only be what it is in it's ideal form, then I get to say the same for social democracies. But a libertarian government, really, one way or the other, doesn't help solve the inherit inequalities of being born in a bad community, it kind of punishes you for that, seeing as hard work isn't actually enough to succeed. [/quote]
The free market sure isn't fair right now. That's irrelevant to your critique of libertarianism, however. People do start off even, as people, we're all born blank and we all learn things from our external world.
What I'm advocating is a system in which minimal force is used (except in the extreme case of somebody violating your civil rights), maximum efficiency is gained and maximum economic prosperity is possible.
When you say "hard work isn't actually enough to succeed", right now that's absolutely true. The system is rigged and fixed. That doesn't take into account the job training that would surely happen (as it did before, just with a much lower demand for workers since it was pre-industrial revolution) and it also assumes those people, without government intervention, would live in squalor forever given the opportunity to succeed. I don't think that's true and a system where they aren't forced, taxed and have the environment to succeed is all I'm advocating.
The difference between social liberalism (or social democracy, what have you) and libertarianism is the market. It's a question of economics but it's also a question of morality. It's an issue of efficiency and the prosperity it would produce and a philosophical position in terms of government force and monopoly on power in certain areas.
I'm not going to say there is no problems with libertarianism. That just isn't true and i don't think you'd hear this from the average libertarian. However i recognize that throughout the course of history that a government built up to be large by the people, is often used against those very people to destroy the freedom it once represented.
It is a universal truth that a government constantly fights for more power. Politicians crave it because to the general public a man of action is better than a man of inaction, i recognize this very system to be dangerous to our freedom at large. "The road to hell was paved with good intentions" is a very true statement in reference to governments.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29110719]are you going to sit there and tell us charity is a better alternative than a real plan? Charity really isn't enough, real world experience will tell you that.[/QUOTE]
You have to throw our all assumptions about the world as it exists today and build your own assumptions. Today, sure, charity is few and far between but are still formidable. People every day even in these market conditions spend some of their days donating to charity or actively helping, physically to further charity around the United States. I'm not just talking about churches (although they do help sometimes).
It is my argument that given the right circumstances those existing people could be even more charitable and that people who were previously unable to be charitable because of economic conditions because they couldn't afford it, now could.
[editline]e[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29111046]But why does libertarianism give those people any more chance than a social democracy? Good people come from all backgrounds, and seeing as in a libertarian system, as you've said, you're left to fend for yourself. We both know there are people, and a lot of them in disparate conditions worse than either of our own who aren't given a fair chance in this system, and wouldn't see much improvements in your world either, they still have to deal with living in disparate conditions and growing up actually not equal.[/QUOTE]
Even in a social democracy you're left to "fend for yourself", it really depends what your definition of "fend for yourself" is. If people don't want to even try in a social democracy they will fail, they might not wither and die (and under the system i advocate they wouldn't either), but they sure as hell wouldn't be prosperous for doing nothing.
The issue is psychological in nature, if you're going to bring up the conditions of their upbringing. Even a social democracy can't change the motivation of a person, however, both systems we advocate would give "fair chance" to the individuals with the motivation.
The key difference is economic efficiency and morality.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29111401]Better advertising has never stopped companies from succeeding. If they're able to give a better price and better service then entering that market would be foolish to you,[/QUOTE]
Sorry but there is a reason why coke spends most of its money on advertising because it works. Its all about memetics. Its what allows bad movies to sell so well.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;28983644]My only problem with socialized healthcare was simple at first...
Your in a country where they want to legalize spear hunting. Is it really bright idea too socialize something regarding healthcare?
Then I thought about it in the perspective that all you would need to do is take some of the budget provided by the defense budget, and put it into the medical budget, and you would be fine. If people still want to pay for their own things let them. Thats my few outlooks on socialized healthcare.[/QUOTE]
Does anyone even understand what this guy is saying?
[QUOTE=s0beit;29111401]No, but under the system i advocate gigantic amount of resources wouldn't need to be allocated to balance a system so totally broken like it is today.[/QUOTE]
Well then propose a way it can work. I mean we don't even have to deregulate because if you know how to do it right then your taxes should go down by a lot.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29111401]First, private schooling only being a means for the rich to be educated is true, today. However, you'll find if you do some research that government intervention is the very reason [i]why[/i] it's so expensive in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Again its still going to cost more then many poor people can afford especially since they wont be getting any tax dollars. Think about it. how will a single mother be able to afford school for 3 children? And even if they can afford it education for the rich will be a lot better. Now explain how charity will work so great that every poor person will be able to live a happy life.
Want to hear something funny?
"In the middle of the heated health care debate in 2010, the anchors at Fox News got a memo from the bosses telling them to start referring to the Democrats' plan as "government-run health insurance" rather than use the term "public option," which everyone else was using.
Why? Because [url=http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2009/09/contradictory-poll-results-thats-great.html]CBS and NBC both ran polls[/url] showing that when you call it the "public" plan, up to 75 percent of the people are in favor -- after all, everybody likes public parks and public libraries, etc. It's a friendly word. But when polls inserted the word "government," support plummeted to 43 percent. The Exact. Same. Plan. You know, the same way that a lot more people bought canola oil after they changed the name from "rape seed oil."
[url]http://www.cracked.com/article_19086_5-reasons-humanity-terrible-at-democracy.html#ixzz1JFKCjjOO[/url]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29111442]Sorry but there is a reason why coke spends most of its money on advertising because it works. Its all about memetics. Its what allows bad movies to sell so well.[/QUOTE]
First, Coke has a competitor, many actually and so it's not really a great example when talking about monopolies or barriers to entry since coke competes with upward of 200 or more companies in any given state.
I don't know where you live and i also don't know how it works there, however, i buy generic sodas. (There is also times i buy no soda at all, irrelevant) and i actually hate both of the primary soda brands.
I see no problem for competition right now, there's hundreds of generic brands with cheaper prices and there's plenty of "mainstream" competitors. Even if there was no competing soda companies (there are plenty) they also have to compete with other beverage companies which are not soda, or some other company that has nothing to do with soda if people find their money would be better spent in those areas, such as a jacket company, gasoline, lighting and heating and so on.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29111536]Well then propose a way it can work. I mean we don't even have to deregulate because if you know how to do it right then your taxes should go down by a lot.[/quote]
I don't know how to interpret the second part of your statement but i already proposed several ways it could work.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29111536]
Again its still going to cost more then many poor people can afford especially since they wont be getting any tax dollars. Think about it. how will a single mother be able to afford school for 3 children? And even if they can afford it education for the rich will be a lot better. Now explain how charity will work so great that every poor person will be able to live a happy life.[/QUOTE]
Which is why i explained there is an alternative to schooling. Also, a single mother got pregnant somehow. Debts (such as in your situation) are incurred by the father.
I don't know about you but i didn't even learn my basic math skills or reading comprehension in school exclusively, my mother taught me how to read and write before i ever stepped foot in a classroom (i have a brother and sister, so it fits quite accurately into your example, we were also quite poor).
For special skills one only needs to turn to job training, if there is little demand for schooling under my system because people can't pay, there would also be a shortage of workers to power the workforce which in turn, would force employers to train people for that special skill. You can't possibly run a company with the minority of people called the "rich", you couldn't possibly have an economy based solely around them without destroying it completely.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29112080]First, Coke has a competitor, many actually and so it's not really a great example when talking about monopolies or barriers to entry since coke competes with upward of 200 or more companies in any given state..[/QUOTE]
I was using it as an example of advertising.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29112080]Which is why i explained there is an alternative to schooling. Also, a single mother got pregnant somehow. Debts (such as in your situation) are incurred by the father.[/QUOTE]
Then it would suck if they had a poor father or could not find theres.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29112080]I don't know about you but i didn't even learn my basic math skills or reading comprehension in school exclusively, my mother taught me how to read and write before i ever stepped foot in a classroom (i have a brother and sister, so it fits quite accurately into your example, we were also quite poor).[/QUOTE] So your saying a mother can acompete with a school and that a business will higher you even if you dont have a high school degree? also it especially sucks if that mother doesnt know how to read or write very well if she didnt have the ability to go to school either.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
Again you want us all to go through this just because you dont like taxes. Sorry but a person making a billion a year wont really have his life changed that much if he had a few million less.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
Think about it he makes his money off of the poor directly or indirectly so lets just think of it as helping the think that made you rich.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
Oh and here is a good question. Whats going to stop pollution and a running out of are resources? With only a monetary interest no ones going to want to help the environment.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29112342]I was using it as an example of advertising.[/quote]
You were using an example of advertising on the topic of unfair trade. Give me an example where advertising has granted a company monopoly share of the market. Doesn't happen.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29112342]Then it would suck if they had a poor father or could not find theres.[/quote]
It isn't the only way to monetary reprieve.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29112342]So your saying a mother can acompete with a school and that a business will higher you even if you dont have a high school degree? also it especially sucks if that mother doesnt know how to read or write very well if she didnt have the ability to go to school either.[/quote]
First, anybody with the will to learn can read or write, especially in our age of information. It isn't hard, it isn't expensive and it wouldn't be a widespread problem just like it isn't a widespread problem today.
Second, high school can and should be totally meaningless.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29112342]Again you want us all to go through this just because you dont like taxes. Sorry but a person making a billion a year wont really have his life changed that much if he had a few million less.[/quote]
It has nothing to do with me not "liking" taxes, there may very well be cases where my tax money taken from me directly goes to benefit things i like, but it's irrelevant to the issue. It's a moral stance, meaning, if i were to rob somebody on the street and use their money to buy myself a new xbox, i might enjoy the fact that i have a new xbox but it's totally irrelevant to the issue. I am still morally wrong.
It has nothing to do at all with the impact of the problem (though i'd argue the impacts are far reaching and matter much more than you say they do).
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29112342]
Think about it he makes his money off of the poor directly or indirectly so lets just think of it as helping the think that made you rich.[/QUOTE]
No, absolutely false and just sickening. Poor people (or rather all people who bought his products) bought his products willingly. There is no force involved in the process.
When you buy a copy of windows it's because you want an operating system for your computer that is popular, easy to use, has plenty support and so on (not a critique of other operating systems out there, just an example), in exchange for this service you pay for their goods. You could easily not buy these things and there'd be nothing stopping you.
He may make his money off of other people but thats because [i]other people are willing to pay him[/i], if the transaction was not mutually beneficial the transaction would not have happened in the first place.
[editline]e[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29112342]Oh and here is a good question. Whats going to stop pollution and a running out of are resources? With only a monetary interest no ones going to want to help the environment.[/QUOTE]
False claim, this is from an article
[quote]As a free-market environmentalist, I think the legitimate answers to pollution that libertarianism puts forth are too little discussed, even among libertarian circles.
Technically, pollution is the transfer of harmful matter or energy to the person or property of another without his consent and as such, a violation of rights, properly to be proscribed by law.
Contrary to the view of most environmentalists, the best antidote to pollution is the extension of private property rights, not the destruction of them. People care about what they own and will not themselves pollute it or allow someone else to pollute it. Property rights set up mirrors which reflect back our own behavior--we do not readily soil that which is our own. Individuals and companies who pollute can more easily be sued when it is clear that someone else’s property has been defiled. On the other hand, government agencies and departments which pollute are difficult to sue, and in a mixed economy are often in cahoots with private polluters. We now know that state-run industries in the former communist countries were just about the worst polluters of all.
The way to go is not to nationalize land, but to privatize, or at least define property rights in respect of land, rivers, sea and air to the maximum extent possible, and then to rely on the protection of common law, which has a 700-year record of sophistication and success in dealing with issues of pollution and property rights.[/quote]
Furthermore, technological enhancements in the area of energy are numerous and gaining ground quickly, once we have an energy resource that is more efficient than gasoline and less polluting than gasoline we will have no choice but to use that. Nothing else would make more sense economically.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29112657]First, anybody with the will to learn can read or write, especially in our age of information. It isn't hard, it isn't expensive and it wouldn't be a widespread problem just like it isn't a widespread problem today.[/QUOTE]
Yea if you have a computer and knew how to use it. Also you have to admit a computer is nothing to schooling especially since you need a degree to go anywhere.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29112657]It has nothing to do with me not "liking" taxes, there may very well be cases where my tax money taken from me directly goes to benefit things i like, but it's irrelevant to the issue. It's a moral stance, meaning, if i were to rob somebody on the street and use their money to buy myself a new xbox, i might enjoy the fact that i have a new xbox but it's totally irrelevant to the issue. I am still morally wrong.[/QUOTE]
Yea if you call taxing stealing. Which it isnt. Now I would say robban hood was a cool guy But the real point is that your willing to allow people to starve or have shitty lives because you think its morally wrong to take from rich people. Really thats shitty morals if you ask me and I think its way more morally wrong to want that. Really look at denmark a country with where almost everyone is happy, smart and healthy but you think its bad just because theres taxes. Really your morality isnt practical when it comes to making a good world.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29112657]Furthermore, technological enhancements in the area of energy are numerous and gaining ground quickly, once we have an energy resource that is more efficient than gasoline and less polluting than gasoline we will have no choice but to use that. Nothing else would make more sense economically.[/QUOTE]
Yea but they get killed by the gas companies and because they are not as profitable as gas currently is. This is why you see very little transition away from fossil fuels. Also a lot of people dont have the money to get a gas independent car. You say once we have find a less polluting energy source then oil but we already did and yet everyone still uses oil.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29112657]No, absolutely false and just sickening. Poor people (or rather all people who bought his products) bought his products willingly. There is no force involved in the process.[/QUOTE]
I never said they didn't have a choice to buy it off of them. Unless its gas or something that people need or cant get anywhere else.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29112768]Yea if you have a computer and knew how to use it. Also you have to admit a computer is nothing to schooling especially since you need a degree to go anywhere.[/quote]
You needing a degree to go anywhere is another government problem. Certifications and government recognized education are exactly why you "need a degree to go anywhere".
Also if somebody can't read i don't think a computer would help them, at least not immediately. That wasn't really what i was implying.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29112768]Yea if you call taxing stealing. Which it isnt. Now I would say robban hood was a cool guy But the real point is that your willing to allow people to starve or have shitty lives because you think its morally wrong to take from rich people. Really thats shitty morals if you ask me and I think its way more morally wrong to want that. Really look at denmark a country with where almost everyone is happy, smart and healthy but you think its bad just because theres taxes. Really your morality isnt practical when it comes to making a good world.[/quote]
No, wrong, your logic starts off incorrectly again. First of all, taxation is indeed stealing. You'd need to give me an example as to why you think it isn't and I'll discuss that with you further, however, "the real point is that your willing to allow people to starve or have shitty lives because you think its morally wrong to take from rich people"
Second, no, i think it's morally wrong to tax many people in many circumstances, this includes and [i]especially[/i] refers to the poor. Since taxing them means a whole lot to them. Second, you're still assuming that in my society with jobs as easy as they would be to obtain, with schooling being almost totally irrelevant and with barriers to entry being almost non-existent that the disparity you see today, would be the same or multiply under that system. You'll have to tackle that issue to make this house of cards fall down.
You're taking my one statement and ignoring all my other statements in regard to this very same issue. I have already explained that there just wouldn't be as many poor people as there are now, less resources would need to be allocated to the very poorest people out there.
You might say my morality "isn't practical when it comes to making a good world" but you've skated around the issue entirely, if it's just about results and you think force is the only means to those same results then we can discuss that further or if you refuse to listen or refute my points we have nothing more to talk about.
However, i think results are irrelevant and not only are results irrelevant, but i think the results would be greater under the society i advocate anyway.
You're ignoring the results to the person you're stealing from, the results of the distorted economy and most importantly of all you're ignoring the basic fundamental problem of why it happened in the first place.
Results are not the most important thing in the world, anyway. There is many examples of cruelty that i could impose upon the people of the world to generate more favorable results. I don't like to think that way, i don't like to think i can control people however i want just to achieve the results i desire.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29112768]Yea but they get killed by the gas companies and because they are not as profitable as gas currently is. This is why you see very little transition away from fossil fuels. Also a lot of people dont have the money to get a gas independent car.[/quote]
You'll have to link me to non-blogs for a genuine example of a competitor of gasoline being snuffed out in a fashion not related to government regulations. If somebody can provide a service which is cheaper than gasoline, which produces more energy than gasoline. People won't use gasoline, plain and simple. The energy market is one of the most lucrative and a market people are constantly trying to break into. The fact is despite its pollutant properties gasoline is extremely beneficial to society as a whole because of the amount of energy it's able to output. Currently, nothing exists that i know of that's cheaper to produce and also produces more energy output or else people would be buying that to curb expenses when running their company.
(There is of course nuclear power, which i think is great, but once again government regulations prevent such companies from existing since they're afraid of the hazard of nuclear energy)
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29112768]
I never said they didn't have a choice to buy it off of them. Unless its gas or something that people need or cant get anywhere else.[/QUOTE]
Even then it's a choice (in regards to gasoline), you seem to think that when somebody pays for something they're entitled to a share of the money they just gave the producer simply because they paid for it in the first place.
This reasoning is just silly.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29113210]No, wrong, your logic starts off incorrectly again. First of all, taxation is indeed stealing.[/QUOTE]
No I looked up the definition and its not. You just like to label it as stealing. Now even if it was it doesnt matter because its needed.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
Now explain exactly how jobs would be easy or why a business would not care if the person went to school or not. You have not explained how you will stop monopolies and hwo you some how will make a better eaiser world for the poor.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
Really again taxes barely hurt anyone. But to take them away would hurt a lot of people and you just say your system will be better without expliang how.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29113413]No I looked up the definition and its not. You just like to label it as stealing. Now even if it was it doesnt matter because its needed.[/quote]
There's just so many things wrong with this i don't know where to begin. You admitted earlier in the topic that it's a necessary evil, and fine, if that's how you feel we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You can't dispute however that under the current system it is indeed theft, there is no choice in the matter unless you desire to live in prison.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29113413]
Now explain exactly how jobs would be easy or why a business would not care if the person went to school or not.[/QUOTE]
Think about it for a moment, schools would only be needed for super complex specialized skills like becoming a scientist and things of that nature.
Let me throw you an example, let's say that schools are too expensive for most people to afford schooling, let's say a person trained to be a nurse in a hospital under those conditions.
The hospital has a genuine need for doctors, there is a demand but only a limited supply because schooling is very expensive. The hospital could then train the nurse to become a doctor, the nurse while in training could work for a nurses pay but could perform routines otherwise done by a doctor because she was trained by other doctors.
The business (hospital) fulfills it's demand at a cheap price, the nurse is now a doctor and better off than before and everyone in the situation is better off because of it.
There are so many fields that don't require a college education it's silly, I'm a programmer and i didn't go to school for that either, I learned it on my own and i could have been trained to learn it (and i would have preferred it, actually, because hands-on experience is just a great learning tool for me), certifications have helped in this area but they were never really needed in the first place, in my opinion.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29113413]
Really again taxes barely hurt anyone. But to take them away would hurt a lot of people and you just say your system will be better without expliang how.[/QUOTE]
Taxes hurt a lot of people, the poor especially (especially when they're the ones paying into taxes and not benefiting from it, which is true of at least a majority of the poor). The real problem is the barrier to entry in the workplace, you can give the poor all the resources you want but unless you improve their real conditions and their real prospects to earn more money it's all quite useless.
You can do this through social programs too but to me, they're not as beneficial to society as people coordinating their interests willingly, would be.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
