• Republicans attempt to repeal Obama's Health Care law again.....for the 33rd time in Congress.
    116 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36741905]The opinion may not be right, but it doesn't warrant a fear or outright revulsion to certain ideas. If your argument is so right then you should be able to logically express it. If you can't show logic and evidence better than the other person, maybe you're wrong. Not saying you do it, specifically. I just think that ideas shouldn't need to be feared or hated. Altruism is selfish by design. You help other people because it makes you feel good. If there was no emotional or tangible benefit to helping others, then people wouldn't help others, they would be apathetic to the idea. So in a sense, selfishness is the reason we help each other.[/QUOTE] I absolutely believe altruism is entirely selfish, but I don't think that's why we've done well for ourselves. I think in part, it's a serious motivation for people to do well in anyway. It's a bit hard for me to explain exactly what I mean, but I think our success can be attributed to our selfishness giving way to our motivation to give a better world to our children, a feeling that is neither selfish nor entirely selfless but is motivated none the less. I could be wrong, hell, I probably am, but I think pure selfishness is the downfall of us.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36741618][B]woah dude[/B] yo uwent full retard here why are "natural rights" ontologically basic but societies and communities not? they're just as socially constructed as anything else[/QUOTE] I'd argue that you can logically deduce the existence of natural rights from observations of the state of nature (i.e. right to self-ownership, right to own property), and you must admit that societies are nothing more than a concept- an assembly of individual actors. Either way, it's at least [i]arguable[/i] that individuals (which do exist) have rights, while societies (which do not exist) cannot have rights. And HumanAbyss, Krugman never saw the housing bubble growing right under our noses or the subsequent recession that followed the burst of that bubble, and he's been wrong on virtually every prediction he's made about the economy, year after year. He is a disciple of Keynes, whose theory of how the economy works has been (in my view) eviscerated by many other well-known economists a long time ago. Krugman disagrees with my ideals because he is at the polar opposite of my views. I also never agreed to any social contract, or agreed to be put in debt for services that I never even asked for. The social contract that you are arguing in favor of simply does not exist. No one signed it, no one agreed or even looked at the "terms and conditions", it's essentially trying to argue that we have all wrote a blank check to the government and owe them anything they ask for just for being here. And if someone tells you to give them your money or you're going to be put in a cage for several years, yes, that is coercive force. And I believe that no PMC would be able to run wild in a society with actual protection of private property rights, nor would it be profitable in the long run to do so even if that were the case, since war and destruction comes at great expense and only destroys wealth, not creates it. I really don't understand what calling me a moron accomplishes, I think you have to recognize that we just happen to have completely different views about the world.
[QUOTE=Noble;36742709]I'd argue that you can logically deduce the existence of natural rights from observations of the state of nature (i.e. right to self-ownership, right to own property), and you must admit that societies are nothing more than a concept- an assembly of individual actors. Either way, it's at best [i]arguable[/i] that individuals (which do exist) have rights, while societies (which do not exist) cannot have rights. [B]A right is just a construct that we imagine we have, the same way as you're arguing societies down to nothing. It's all a construct of our own imaginations and worlds, it has nothing to do with natural rights. there's no such things as a natural right. You don't have the right to own property, no one gave that to you, at the most natural level of it, nature didn't give you that land or the ability to claim it. The very idea that it's just natural for us to say "Oh this is mine, and mine alone, get off my land" is absurdist to the extreme to me. You don't have that right. Same was as you're arguing you never signed a paper lower down, you never got those rights from anyone, you just assume those are our natural rights.[/B] And HumanAbyss, Krugman never saw the housing bubble growing right under our noses or the subsequent recession that followed the burst of that bubble, and he's been wrong on virtually every prediction he's made about the economy, year after year. He is a disciple of Keynes, whose theory of how the economy works has been (in my view) eviscerated by many other well-known economists a long time ago. Krugman disagrees with my ideals because he is at the polar opposite of my views. [B]Yes, he's the antithesis to your views, but he's still been more right about things than your view has been. Oh, then please do go on, please tell me everything about how he's wrong. [/B] I also never agreed to any social contract, or agreed to be put in debt for services that I never even asked for. The social contract that you are arguing in favor of simply does not exist. No one signed it, no one agreed or even looked at the "terms and conditions", it's essentially trying to argue that we have all wrote a blank check to the government and owe them anything they ask for just for being here. And if someone tells you to give them your money or you're going to be put in a cage for several years, yes, that is coercive force. [B]You didn't ask for them, but you used them. You don't need to sign a contract to enter an agreement, you just need to participate. Which you have. Just as much, possibly more than others. There's no terms or conditions, there's no fucking written law to this. It's not about what you owe to the government and it sure as fuck isn't a blank cheque, but it's something you owe for the use of those services and for your own existence. Surely you can't believe you popped into this world without any use of those services to secure your existence, you can't really believe that? The roads that got you to the hosptial to be born, the roads and FDA that made sure the food you ate as a kid didn't kill you, etc and etc. These are things you owe to society at large. I never used the word "government" for good reason. don't try and stick it in my mouth. It's fucking rude. [/B] And I believe that no PMC would be able to run wild in a society with actual protection of private property rights, nor would it be profitable in the long run to do so even if that were the case, since war and destruction comes at great expense and only destroys wealth, not creates it. I really don't understand what calling me a moron accomplishes, I think you have to recognize that we just happen to have completely different views about the world. [B]But actually believing and advocating for the removal of a public police force that is actually responsible to the people they protect(generally) for the replacement of guns for hire under the guise of protection is socially irresponsible and a serious danger for those who would get hurt in the process. I also disagree with the very notion they couldn't run wild. They're not going to be a morally guided force, they won't have standardized ethics and techniques, they'll be guns for hire with the idea of being protectors. Giving cops as it is, the power they have hasn't proved to be a good solution, why would just simply throwing money at the problem fix things? Competition? I don't think so. I absolutely recognize and understand your opinions. If I didn't, I'd simply stand here and call you a fuckhead like a good deal of posters here, but I've taken time to write some fairly detailed responses. If I didn't respect your opinion at all, you'd never have an argument to have. Just someone yelling at you. [/B] [/QUOTE]
Well I don't assume their existence, I believe they can be proven from observing the state of nature. Not only was Krugman unaware of the growing housing bubble under his nose, was actually calling for one in 2002 [quote]To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.[/quote] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html[/url] If there's a social contract and I have no idea what the terms of this contract are, then it pretty much is a blank check to society (excuse me for using "government" interchangeably) where the terms can be made up as we go along and I would never know the difference. I don't necessarily have to credit the FDA with saving my life as a kid, in fact I think there are plenty of good arguments why the FDA (and EPA too) shouldn't even exist. I don't think "throwing money at the problem" is an accurate description, it's more about completely changing the framework of how these things operate. And the way I see it, if you get rid of the monopoly on force, and reduce the power certain individuals have, you are also reducing the damage they can do with their power.
[QUOTE=Noble;36742709]I'd argue that you can logically deduce the existence of natural rights from observations of the state of nature (i.e. right to self-ownership, right to own property), and you must admit that societies are nothing more than a concept- an assembly of individual actors. Either way, it's at least [i]arguable[/i] that individuals (which do exist) have rights, while societies (which do not exist) cannot have rights.[/quote] yeah it's arguable if you're shit at arguing. it's an absolute contortion of logic to say that the "right" to property ownership is literally hardcoded into the universe but say, right to healthcare is not. I really expected more of you than this, considering you've read the sequences [quote]I also never agreed to any social contract, or agreed to be put in debt for services that I never even asked for. The social contract that you are arguing in favor of simply does not exist. No one signed it, no one agreed or even looked at the "terms and conditions", it's essentially trying to argue that we have all wrote a blank check to the government and owe them anything they ask for just for being here. And if someone tells you to give them your money or you're going to be put in a cage for several years, yes, that is coercive force.[/quote] if having a coercive leviathan produces more general happiness and wellbeing as opposed to the alternative then I'd go with the leviathan, and vice versa. utilitarianism of this kind is at least better than the deontology you're proclaiming because it lets you reduce moral questions to empirical ones rather than sitting in a haze of a priori justifications I mean yeah I agree with you about the problems of the FDA and such but it's bad when you make this kind of sweeping generalisation.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36743299]yeah it's arguable if you're shit at arguing. it's an absolute contortion of logic to say that the "right" to property ownership is literally hardcoded into the universe but say, right to healthcare is not. I really expected more of you than this, considering you've read the sequences [/QUOTE] He's saying that you can deduce these rights because you can actually observe them in nature. You're dodging his argument and then pretending you are somehow superior for it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36743323]He's saying that you can deduce these rights because you can actually observe them in nature. You're dodging his argument and then pretending you are somehow superior for it.[/QUOTE] how can I dodge an argument if he hasn't presented one?
[QUOTE=Noble;36743203]Well I don't assume their existence, I believe they can be proven from observing the state of nature. [B]Then prove it. We're one of the few creatures on earth that says "Mine", and not even all types of people do this, various different tribes have been found without different ideas that we all heavily rely on. Ownership being one of them. Being a natural right, you'd imagine this would extend to everyone. [/B] Not only was Krugman unaware of the growing housing bubble under his nose, was actually calling for one in 2002 [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html[/url] [B]Fair enough. This still doesn't show me how removing any government hand from it, removing regulation, and then just letting it go about it's own business would ever be better though. [/B] If there's a social contract and I have no idea what the terms of this contract are, then it pretty much is a blank check to society (excuse me for using "government" interchangeably) where the terms can be made up as we go along and I would never know the difference. I don't necessarily have to credit the FDA with saving my life as a kid, in fact I think there are plenty of good arguments why the FDA (and EPA too) shouldn't even exist. [B]Then that's a good argument as to why we actually need to figure out what that means. Step one, you're a citizen of a country that exists because this country has the infrastructure and superstructure to allow you to lead an educated, healthy life(to some degree, everyone's different). Step two, you have the right upon reaching "adulthood" to vote, and influence these problems, these solutions, and things you think should be happening. An individual has far more power than they realize now a days. Step three, your continued existence, contribution and personal successes and failures are not just yours. They're a shared process, the idea of a man being an island upon himself flew out the cuckoo's nest around the same time One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest(earlier but I wanted a pun here.). This means that you are to contribute as the rest of them have contributed to you. You're not alone in this world, and you didn't get here solitary-ly, you got here with lots of help from lots of unseen hands. The size of society has made people unaware of the effects we all have on each other. This in the end means that you have taken from society, and you're giving back while still trying to work for your own goals, a career if you choose one, etc. Having all of society help provide for the rest of society only helps to foster closeness in our societies, and helps take care of those that literally can't take care of themselves because they weren't lucky enough to get a life that didn't shit on them from day one. [/B] I don't think "throwing money at the problem" is an accurate description, it's more about completely changing the framework of how these things operate. And the way I see it, if you get rid of the monopoly on force, and reduce the power certain individuals have, you are also reducing the damage they can do with their power. [B]But to me, that's exactly what is happening by shutting a public force down and creating many private ones. You're dealing with the problem of consolidated power, but you're not dealing with the problem of individual infractions. The police as a whole is obedient to the people, they're not going to act as a quasi military force because they won't have the training, the reasoning, or the paychecks to do so. I believe that by having a private military firm hold power over police duties, over a short period of time, you'll find that competition ends and you'll end up with a few strong specific paramilitary groups only hiding behind the guise of police protection. I don't think that this will end for the best, I don't think the supposed officers of the PMC groups would have any respect for law, nor would they really be sworn to have a respect for the law. They would be a power in many ways above the law in my eyes[/B]. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36743333]how can I dodge an argument if he hasn't presented one?[/QUOTE] Him: You can say we have natural rights because you can observe these rights in nature. You: Why are you saying we have a right to own property but not healthcare your a moron! His argument is that we have a right to property, but not healthcare, because you can observe it in nature, therefore it is a "natural right". Healthcare is not a "natural right" because you don't see it in nature. That seems like an argument to me. Sheesh, at least HumanAbyss is actually addressing the points.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36743323]He's saying that you can deduce these rights because you can actually observe them in nature. You're dodging his argument and then pretending you are somehow superior for it.[/QUOTE] It's not an argument. An argument would be presenting a few reasons that these are observable rights of nature, just stating that they isn't an argument.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36743377]Him: You can say we have natural rights because you can observe these rights in nature. You: Why are you saying we have a right to own property but not healthcare your a moron! His argument is that we have a right to property, but not healthcare, because you can observe it in nature, therefore it is a "natural right". Healthcare is not a "natural right" because you don't see it in nature. That seems like an argument to me. Sheesh, at least HumanAbyss is actually addressing the points.[/QUOTE] how the hell do you observe a right can I buy a right-o-meter?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36743400]It's not an argument. An argument would be presenting a few reasons that these are observable rights of nature, just stating that they isn't an argument.[/QUOTE] If you want to get semantical I would consider the statement to be the focus of the argument, and providing examples and reasons to be elaboration on that argument. Either way, I'm interested to see if Noble will actually explain more in depth what he means by that.
I don't even believe you have rights outside of people giving them to each other. Animals(us included) don't have rights. the universe and life in general has not handed anyone "rights". We ONLY assume them.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36743424]how the hell do you observe a right can I buy a right-o-meter?[/QUOTE] Fuck if I know. I'm saying you weren't even addressing that argument. You ignored it in favor of spouting whatever it is you wanted to say.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36743445]Fuck if I know. I'm saying you weren't even addressing that argument. You ignored it in favor of spouting whatever it is you wanted to say.[/QUOTE] he didn't even give an argument. he said "I'd argue that". subjunctive.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36743438]I don't even believe you have rights outside of people giving them to each other. Animals(us included) don't have rights. the universe and life in general has not handed anyone "rights". We ONLY assume them.[/QUOTE] I think it's an interesting point, however, to say that there are certain universals in the animal world. The right of independent movement, self-determination, and property seem to be present in most, if not all mammals. You can see animals exercising these things on a regular basis. I mean, that isn't the end all be all to morality and rights in general, but there are natural ideas that are present in more animals than just humans.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36743495]I think it's an interesting point, however, to say that there are certain universals in the animal world. The right of independent movement, self-determination, and property seem to be present in most, if not all mammals. You can see animals exercising these things on a regular basis. I mean, that isn't the end all be all to morality and rights in general, but there are natural ideas that are present in more animals than just humans.[/QUOTE] well it kind of depends really. if you're looking at a tribe of apes, say, those rights you describe will be respected by the members of the group, conditional on the social standing of the individual in question. if say, one of them gets ousted from the group and left to fend for themselves, the others will happily expropriate the unlucky sod's old stuff
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36743495]I think it's an interesting point, however, to say that there are certain universals in the animal world. The right of independent movement, self-determination, and property seem to be present in most, if not all mammals. You can see animals exercising these things on a regular basis. I mean, that isn't the end all be all to morality and rights in general, but there are natural ideas that are present in more animals than just humans.[/QUOTE] The first two, I'll say, sure, in most cases that's probably true. But I don't believe that ownership of property is really something that's a natural right, nor do I believe that animals in general assume that as a right. A natural reaction, perhaps. But a right? I disagree.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36743554]The first two, I'll say, sure, in most cases that's probably true. But I don't believe that ownership of property is really something that's a natural right, nor do I believe that animals in general assume that as a right. A natural reaction, perhaps. But a right? I disagree.[/QUOTE] I'm using the term "right" very loosely here. I mean it more as an idea of something that creatures universally or majorly assume by their very nature. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36743539]well it kind of depends really. if you're looking at a tribe of apes, say, those rights you describe will be respected by the members of the group, conditional on the social standing of the individual in question. if say, one of them gets ousted from the group and left to fend for themselves, the others will happily expropriate the unlucky sod's old stuff[/QUOTE] Which is why I don't believe that viewing that natural world is necessarily a good way to extract morality. However, when you see key ideas present in nature, you can use them to understand our own nature and build better societies that conform to our nature when convenient, and ignore our nature when it would harm us.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36743646]I'm using the term "right" very loosely here. I mean it more as an idea of something that creatures universally or majorly assume by their very nature. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] Which is why I don't believe that viewing that natural world is necessarily a good way to extract morality. However, when you see key ideas present in nature, you can use them to understand our own nature and build better societies that conform to our nature when convenient, and ignore our nature when it would harm us.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, our uses and implications of the words are a bit different here.
[QUOTE=Noble;36736516]It's provably wrong? That's funny, you guys keep saying that yet I have not seen it been proven wrong in any moral or ethical sense. If you want to prove it wrong then I guess you could start by explaining logically why one individual has a right to take the property of another individual by coercive force.[/quote] Because you're doing the same thing to the other individual. It isn't "give me your stuff", it's "I gave you my stuff, now pay me back". [quote]And it's not happening- the US government is continuously drifting increasingly towards more socialism, and has it been for a very long time now, since FDR and even before him. After the PPACA wrecks the health insurance industry, people will blame "the greed of the private sector" for people dying, and there will be universal health care put in place after that (unless of course, the economy hasn't completely collapsed by then).[/quote] Oh no, [I]socialism![/I] It will ruin the economy and tons of people will die! Funny, European countries with socialism seem to be pretty well off right now... [quote]You said this same exact thing in another thread about me supposedly ignoring every point "that completely shatters my delusional fantasy world". I don't. Make some valid points and I'll be willing to have a discussion about them. I always concede points when someone can demonstrate that there is something logically defective in my arguments.[/quote] You don't ignore points, okay, that's good! so, uh, can you respond to my earlier points [QUOTE=Last or First;35291685]Electricity: yes, having multiple electricity sources that fill up much more space than having just one source, all providing roughly the same amount of energy, that you only use [I]one[/I] of, is [I]totally[/I] feasible and in no way a waste. Water: same problem. It'd be a huge waste to have several different sources of water and only use one (a waste of both water and space), when it's much more feasible to have a monopoly that is regulated down to the price level it [I]would[/I] cost if there [I]were[/I] different options. FCC: I'm not even sure how the fuck corporation controlled regulations would fucking [I]work[/I]. Weather: It's a waste of time, man-power, and satellites if we had multiple teams all collecting the same weather data from different satellites over the exact same areas. Note, [I]predicting[/I] weather isn't the same as [I]reporting current weather[/I]. Space: eh, sure, why not. FDA: Like with the FCC: how would multiple regulation companies even fucking work? "Our company's inspected food has 1.2% less asbestos than other companies!" You really want to risk people's livelihoods over fucking "competition"? Yeah, let's [I]compete[/I] to save lives, instead of, oh, you know, just fucking saving lives. Time: You'd have to be a motherfucking idiot to think multiple time-reporting companies could work instead of a global standard. "By using [I]our[/I] company's time, you [I]aren't[/I] late for work! Also, minutes last 10% longer. It's June of 1972 right now. Other companies say it's 2012! Bullshit. You'll live 30 years longer under our time! Don't think about it too much, just buy our time." Traffic & Vehicle Safety: Again, multiple regulation standards for the same thing is just stupid. What, do you have to pay the cop to use a certain speed regulation standard before they write a ticket? Roads: Having multiple roads starting and ending in the exact same places is a huge waste of space and material. And if the roads go somewhere else, [I]they're different roads[/I]. Fuel Quality: One word: explosions. Overal EPA: Again, the problem with multiple regulatory standards. Multiple types of money for the same country: Redundant as [I]fuck[/I]. Not to mention, how the fuck would the companies get paid? Mail: eh, sure. School: There is private school if you want to pay for it, but everyone deserves basic education, whether they have the money to pay for it or not. Building codes: Multiple. safety. regulatory. standards. are. fucking. stupid. and. would. lead. to. avoidable. deaths. of. countless. people. Firemen: You have to pay your fire department to put out the fire and save your family and property? You [I]cannot[/I] think this is a good idea. Privatized police forces: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I swear to god if you try to defend anything like this, I will find out where you are, and I will call a mental facility to help you. Internet: You're on fucking Facepunch, you should know how we feel about the internet.[/QUOTE] And other people have already commented on the privatized police force issue: They're [I]way[/I] too likely to be corrupt. The police are corrupt enough already. Try dealing with [I]five[/I] police forces, who are [I]competing[/I] to arrest people. If a police force isn't paid by taxes, but rather by competition, they're not going to focus on protecting people, they're going to focus on [I]arresting[/I] people. They're not going to focus on [I]helping the community[/i], they're going to focus on [I]profits[/I]. If they're paid by taxes, they don't have to focus on how much they're getting paid; at least, not as much as if their payment is from competition. And if two police forces are trying to arrest the same people, and meet up, who gets paid, and who gets the criminal? How do they decide it? You really expect them to be nice and gentlemanly about it? [quote]They do? In what way does anyone suffer as a result of my views. You have to prove that there is any moral justification for taking someones wealth by force and giving it to someone else, as government does. Or that in this specific case, there is a moral justification for government mandating that one group (the healthy) must buy a commodity that essentially amounts to nothing more than a subsidy for another group (the sick). [/quote] You... [I]do[/I] know that [I]everyone[/I] benefits from socialized health care, right? It's not like the sick don't pay taxes. When a person [I]gets[/I] sick, [I]then[/I] they get help. It's not like people will be permanently sick, and others permanently healthy. And you can't know if you're going to be permanently healthy. And with people who [I]are[/I] permanently sick? Well, do you really just want to let them die? With private companies, that happens: the permanently ill get shafted, because they're not [I]profitable[/I]. [quote]On the other hand with private industry, the transactions are voluntary, as they should be. Why is something entirely voluntary supposed to be feared, but government mandates and force are to be embraced?[/quote] Because without this "force", people will be selfish dickweeds until they themselves need help, and then there won't be any money to help them, so they're going to have to spend out their ass just to get their lives back. [quote]I would assume you're talking about the law forcing hospitals to treat anyone who comes into the ER, which is a policy that hasn't been around forever, it didn't start until the 80's (EMTALA). The taxpayer doesn't eat the cost of unpaid care under this law, the hospital does. Many hospitals have decided to just close their emergency rooms or raise costs on the people who actually do pay since, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of emergency medical care in the U.S. now goes uncompensated. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act#Cost_pressures_on_hospitals[/url][/QUOTE] And do you know how we can help this? That's right: by [I]giving them money to compensate them![/I] As in, [I]socialized health care.[/I] [QUOTE=Noble;36736586]Outdated logic? What the hell lmao. You guys have no problem with the same system of logic when I use it to tell you why god doesn't exist. But if I have to disagree with you on politics, economics, etc I suddenly am I dumbass?[/quote]"If I make different arguments for different topics, people react to them differently? How does [I]that[/I] work!?" [quote]My arguments aren't based in disregard. They're based in regard for natural rights! Societies and communities don't even exist, they're just concepts. Individuals exist and individuals have rights, those are what I'm concerned about.[/QUOTE] Including, apparently, a right to money. But guess what: [h2]MONEY IS PART OF SOCIETY. YOU CANNOT SAY THAT PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO MONEY AND THEN GO AROUND AND SAY THAT SOCIETY DOESN'T EXIST. SOCIETY DICTATES THE WORTH OF MONEY, HELL, SOCIETY PROVIDES MONEY.[/h2] You think [I]individuals[/I] say what money is worth? No. [B]Society[/B] does. Society is just [I]groups of individuals living and working together.[/I] To disregard society but cling to money is absolutely contradictory. Not to mention the fact that rights are given to individuals [I][B]by society[/B][/I]. [QUOTE=Noble;36737004]I never made that second assumption in fact I would argue the complete opposite, that human irrationality can and does effect decision making and can be unpredictable.[/quote] This quote will be important for later. Let's hold on to it for a bit, shall we? [quote]The first assumption I never stated explicitly but it is arguably true. Profit will urge businesses to compete to lower their prices, and bring technological improvements in doing so (better technology usually means they can do more with less and lower their prices).[/quote] Profit will [I]also[/I] urge businesses to screw people over. Hell, what's [I]most[/I] profitable for those with the most money / those in control of businesses is to [I]give themselves more money[/I]. The easiest way to do this is to pay their workers less and pay themselves more. This isn't best for everyone, this is best for [I]them.[/I] Let's shift this to the topic at hand: what's best for the [I]individual[/I] (or at least what they think is best) is to not give money to other people to help them. This results in, *gasp*, less help for those other people! That's not better for everyone at all. That's better for [I]one[/I] person and worse for others. [quote]1. I did reply to this. There is a lot of money to be made off of low income people, walmart is one example, so I would argue that there is incentive to pay for these roads.[/quote] Except that providing cheap soda is different from providing and maintaining a road. Since there's less money to be made from poor people for the same service (providing a road), the road will be of lesser quality. [quote]2. They could represent themselves in court, receive charitable donations, etc. They only have to prove that the company used force against them.[/quote] Yes, and they can manage to represent themselves and win against a team of professional lawyers. [quote]3. They wouldn't, but why would anyone be entitled to service they haven't paid for? Since many poor people live on rented land, their landlord will pay for police protection and include this price in the rent. If someone doesn't want to pay for police protection and can afford it, that's fine. Maybe they don't want anything to do with the police and would rather protect themselves.[/quote] Did you [I]really[/I] just say that poor people don't deserve to be protected from crime if they can't pay for it? What about those poor people who [I]don't[/I] live on land where the landlord pays for protection? Moving costs a lot of money, and you can't just do it in an instant. So people would often be stuck in a situation where their landlord is saying "You don't like that I'm not paying for police protection for you guys? Deal with it or move out." But they [I]can't[/I] move out, because [I][B]THESE THINGS COST MONEY.[/B][/I] Again, what if they [I]do[/I] want police protection and [I]can't[/I] afford it? Is that 'fine' too? [quote]4. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Minimum wages indisputably cause unemployment to some degree. Yeah, one guy makes minimum wage. The man unemployed as a result of a company not wanting to pay minimum wage makes less than the minimum wage though - he makes nothing at all![/quote] Yes, because 5 people making 50 cents an hour and barely being able to afford to buy anything is much better than 1 person making 7 dollars an hour and the others getting help to be able to live. Not to mention that the unemployment rate wouldn't be affected that wildly. Hell, even if it is, that's the price to pay for people to [I]be able to live[/I]. [quote]First off they can't keep that up forever, [B]nor is it profitable in the long run to do so[/B]. The workers would also be able to just simply work at a competing firm that offers higher wages (this is another thing, wage competition would drive wages up). [/quote] [QUOTE=Noble;36737004]I never made that second assumption in fact I would argue the complete opposite, that human irrationality can and does effect decision making and can be unpredictable.[/quote] This quote came up again already? This is gonna be fun. Also, what if the other owners of competing firms are doing the same thing? [QUOTE=Noble;36742709]I'd argue that you can logically deduce the existence of natural rights from observations of the state of nature (i.e. right to self-ownership, right to own property), and you must admit that societies are nothing more than a concept- an assembly of individual actors. Either way, it's at least [i]arguable[/i] that individuals (which do exist) have rights, while societies (which do not exist) cannot have rights.[/quote] 1) Again, [I]money is nothing more than a concept either, if you're going down that road.[/I] Money is [I]society's[/I] arbitrary value of work and goods. Hell, that value is changing all the time, too, how the hell does that mean it exists any more than society (read: [I]the existence of multiple people[/I]) existing? 2) Not all animals have property rights. Some do, however. So, yes, the right to property exists in nature. Hey, guess what? 3) [h2]SO DOES THE RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE![/h2] That's right, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism]socialized healthcare exists in nature![/url] 3, again) How the fuck can you even argue that the right to health doesn't exist in the first place? Health is much more important than property. [quote]I also never agreed to any social contract, or agreed to be put in debt for services that I never even asked for. The social contract that you are arguing in favor of simply does not exist. No one signed it, no one agreed or even looked at the "terms and conditions", it's essentially trying to argue that we have all wrote a blank check to the government and owe them anything they ask for just for being here. And if someone tells you to give them your money or you're going to be put in a cage for several years, yes, that is coercive force.[/quote] "People helping each other doesn't exist! Me, privileged to live in a society, only experiencing my current fortune because of other people? No way!!!!" Listen, again, it's not "give me your money", it's "I gave you my money, now pay me back." If you don't want to pay to help others, then fine. Just go live in the middle of nowhere, with no laws, no roads, no houses, no money, no anything that isn't done [B]completely[/B] by yourself. [sub][sub][sub]actually please do this, the internet will be just a tiny bit nicer then without you posting this crap in it[/sub][/sub][/sub] [quote]And I believe that no PMC would be able to run wild in a society with actual protection of private property rights, nor would it be profitable in the long run -[/quote] [QUOTE=Noble;36737004]I never made that second assumption in fact I would argue the complete opposite, that human irrationality can and does effect decision making and can be unpredictable.[/quote] [quote]- to do so even if that were the case, since war and destruction comes at great expense and only destroys wealth, not creates it.[/QUOTE] War only destroys, doesn't create? And people all realize this, and respect the long run? [h2]THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL WARS!?[/h2] [QUOTE=Noble;36743203]Well I don't assume their existence, I believe they can be proven from observing the state of nature.[/quote] The existence of the right to life (not the abortion "right to life", you know full well what I'm talking about) is just as observable in nature as the right to property is, if not more so. Before you say "but animals eat each other!": they also take each other's stuff without caring. We're talking about rights within one species, not interspecies. But the right to health is observable within interspecies communities, too, just look at cleaner fish, tick birds, etc. [quote]If there's a social contract and I have no idea what the terms of this contract are, then it pretty much is a blank check to society (excuse me for using "government" interchangeably) where the terms can be made up as we go along and I would never know the difference.[/quote] Well, the thing is, people also help [I]you[/I] without knowing the terms. It's not a one way thing. Money is flowing away from you, yes, but it's also flowing [I]towards[/I] you. [I]You aren't the only person to exist. Stop acting like it.[/I] [quote]I don't necessarily have to credit the FDA with saving my life as a kid, in fact I think there are plenty of good arguments why the FDA (and EPA too) shouldn't even exist.[/quote] "Well, it ended up that I didn't need them, so we should get rid of them. But let's not get rid of this other thing yet, not until I'm done with it." [I]Everyone[/I] needs healthy food and environments. Do you really think it's better to wait until you're hurt and then sue compared to never being hurt in the first place in exchange for a small amount of money? [quote]I don't think "throwing money at the problem" is an accurate description, it's more about completely changing the framework of how these things operate. And the way I see it, if you get rid of the monopoly on force, and reduce the power certain individuals have, you are also reducing the damage they can do with their power.[/QUOTE] But you're [I]not[/I] just reducing their power, you're [I]spreading it among multiple people.[/I] Hell, you actually end up with more overall power when it's spread out compared to when just one force has it. Plus, easier to corrupt, fighting between the companies, focusing on profit rather than actually helping people, etc. [QUOTE=yawmwen;36743377]His argument is that we have a right to property, but not healthcare, because you can observe it in nature, therefore it is a "natural right". Healthcare is not a "natural right" because you don't see it in nature. That seems like an argument to me.[/QUOTE] Well, if that's his argument (I think that's his argument, too), then it's [I]demonstrably [B]wrong[/B][/I]. Again, vampire bats, cleaner fish, tick birds, etc.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36743299]yeah it's arguable if you're shit at arguing. it's an absolute contortion of logic to say that the "right" to property ownership is literally hardcoded into the universe but say, right to healthcare is not. I really expected more of you than this, considering you've read the sequences[/quote] Nah, when I say natural rights, I mean something that applies universally and is naturally best for man - that turns it into an empirical question rather than a subjective one. [quote]if having a coercive leviathan produces more general happiness and wellbeing as opposed to the alternative then I'd go with the leviathan, and vice versa. utilitarianism of this kind is at least better than the deontology you're proclaiming because it lets you reduce moral questions to empirical ones rather than sitting in a haze of a priori justifications I mean yeah I agree with you about the problems of the FDA and such but it's bad when you make this kind of sweeping generalisation.[/QUOTE] I feel that the way I'm arguing allows me to remain on a more consistent moral base, and you don't have to deal with the issues of utilitarian ethics. But yeah I see where you're coming from though [quote]Then that's a good argument as to why we actually need to figure out what that means. Step one, you're a citizen of a country that exists because this country has the infrastructure and superstructure to allow you to lead an educated, healthy life(to some degree, everyone's different). Step two, you have the right upon reaching "adulthood" to vote, and influence these problems, these solutions, and things you think should be happening. An individual has far more power than they realize now a days. Step three, your continued existence, contribution and personal successes and failures are not just yours. They're a shared process, the idea of a man being an island upon himself flew out the cuckoo's nest around the same time One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest(earlier but I wanted a pun here.). This means that you are to contribute as the rest of them have contributed to you. You're not alone in this world, and you didn't get here solitary-ly, you got here with lots of help from lots of unseen hands. The size of society has made people unaware of the effects we all have on each other. This in the end means that you have taken from society, and you're giving back while still trying to work for your own goals, a career if you choose one, etc. Having all of society help provide for the rest of society only helps to foster closeness in our societies, and helps take care of those that literally can't take care of themselves because they weren't lucky enough to get a life that didn't shit on them from day one. [/quote] I see what you're saying and I'm fine with society providing for other individuals, all I'm arguing is that it [i]must[/i] be done through voluntary means, not force. [quote]But to me, that's exactly what is happening by shutting a public force down and creating many private ones. You're dealing with the problem of consolidated power, but you're not dealing with the problem of individual infractions. The police as a whole is obedient to the people, they're not going to act as a quasi military force because they won't have the training, the reasoning, or the paychecks to do so. I believe that by having a private military firm hold power over police duties, over a short period of time, you'll find that competition ends and you'll end up with a few strong specific paramilitary groups only hiding behind the guise of police protection. I don't think that this will end for the best, I don't think the supposed officers of the PMC groups would have any respect for law, nor would they really be sworn to have a respect for the law. They would be a power in many ways above the law in my eyes.[/quote] There would no doubt be people who put personal goals above justice, but that can and does happen now as it is, even with people being sworn to protect the law. The only difference is they would not have a central, legalized "channel" with which to exert coercive force against other individuals as they do now. Under anarchy there is no central state apparatus which has a monopoly of force over everyone in the way that say, the US gov does. So an outlaw group would find it quite difficult or even impossible to take over everything without a state apparatus as a means to obtain control. Rival PMCs or private police would want to organize to put down outlaw groups that are an active threat against them and their customers (profits).
[QUOTE=Noble;36745901]Nah, when I say natural rights, I mean something that applies universally and is naturally best for man - that turns it into an empirical question rather than a subjective one. I feel that the way I'm arguing allows me to remain on a more consistent moral base, and you don't have to deal with the issues of utilitarian ethics. But yeah I see where you're coming from though I see what you're saying and I'm fine with society providing for other individuals, all I'm arguing is that it [i]must[/i] be done through voluntary means, not force. There would no doubt be people who put personal goals above justice, but that can and does happen now as it is, even with people being sworn to protect the law. The only difference is they would not have a central, legalized "channel" with which to exert coercive force against other individuals as they do now. Under anarchy there is no central state apparatus which has a monopoly of force over everyone in the way that say, the US gov does. So an outlaw group would find it quite difficult or even impossible to take over everything without a state apparatus as a means to obtain control. Rival PMCs or private police would want to organize to put down outlaw groups that are an active threat against them and their customers (profits).[/QUOTE] Also, society will literally fall and die if you leave it up to volunteering and people's "charity". That's well and dandy, but you're ignoring how many more arguments aimed at that exact point you just put down? I think you're out of your water here friend. Now I see why people shit on you so much. You don't argue. You don't respond to points. You just drop the ones you can't deal with and say what you can. You've avoided SEVERAL serious points for arguments used against you, and I have no belief you'll ever address them.
[quote]You think individuals say what money is worth? No. Society does. Society is just groups of individuals living and working together. To disregard society but cling to money is absolutely contradictory. Not to mention the fact that rights are given to individuals by society.[/quote] Yes I do think that actually. I feel that the value of money comes from the value that individuals perceive it to be. I'm also arguing in favor of natural rights, the natural state that is best for man. Rights wouldn't be given by society according to your definition, since society doesn't actually exist, they would be given by "groups of other individuals" (your words) - which essentially boils down to.. individuals giving rights to other individuals. It becomes a mess, so I prefer to just stick to natural rights, rights that can be logically deduced from the state of nature. [quote]THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL WARS!?[/quote] I blame governments, of course. It's not their money being spent, and it's not their lives on the battlefield. It creates moral hazard. A private company (i.e. PMC) on the other hand has their employees lives and their own profits at risk. I'm also not arguing that the "right to health" doesn't exist, but health-care is different (not sure if this is a typo but there is a big difference, not simply semantics). I'm just asking why someone has the right to be provided with a commodity (health care) at someone else's forced expense. I fail to see the connection between the article you posted and a "natural right to health care" for human beings also. I'm all for helping other people with health care needs.. I just believe that it must be voluntary. As far as the list I'm a little short on time so I'll just run through some of them quick.. the free market could provide for literally every single one of those concerns. Private companies are already working on providing trips to the moon, private mail could easily work (and we may even see them taking over, considering the USPS financial issues). I believe building regulatory standards just impose unnecessary costs that hurt small business owners and really provide nothing useful other than a false comfort of security because the government has put their stamp of approval on it. Private schools already exist and work much better than public schools, private firemen - no problem for the free market. Fuel quality? There is profit to be made in doing it right.. and losses to be made from doing it wrong. The FDA and EPA simply don't need to exist and there's plenty of arguments to be made that these organizations may actually be doing more harm than good. The free market could provide solutions for utilities like electricity, water, sewage, etc too. [quote]Yes, because 5 people making 50 cents an hour and barely being able to afford to buy anything is much better than 1 person making 7 dollars an hour and the others getting help to be able to live. Not to mention that the unemployment rate wouldn't be affected that wildly. Hell, even if it is, that's the price to pay for people to be able to live.[/quote] The free market will set wages where they need to be, through wage competition and labor unions driving them up. The people unemployed aren't providing much to the economy, and where is the funding for their unemployment coming from? [quote]But you're not just reducing their power, you're spreading it among multiple people. Hell, you actually end up with more overall power when it's spread out compared to when just one force has it. Plus, easier to corrupt, fighting between the companies, focusing on profit rather than actually helping people, etc.[/quote] One agency goes corrupt, you have a little problem. The government goes corrupt, you have a big problem. A monopoly on force is a much bigger threat to liberty than a handful of individual outlaw groups. Fighting between the companies is expensive and would cause a loss to profits. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to fight with another firm, rather than negotiate with them. [quote]Profit will also urge businesses to screw people over. Hell, what's most profitable for those with the most money / those in control of businesses is to give themselves more money. The easiest way to do this is to pay their workers less and pay themselves more. This isn't best for everyone, this is best for them. Let's shift this to the topic at hand: what's best for the individual (or at least what they think is best) is to not give money to other people to help them. This results in, *gasp*, less help for those other people! That's not better for everyone at all. That's better for one person and worse for others.[/quote] Yes people do want to make profits. But don't forget that they also want to minimize losses too and they need to act accordingly- set your wages too low and you'll start losing talented workers to competitors paying them more (this is big for small businesses). They can only set their wages according to what people are willing to work for them. The wage-labor transaction is voluntary, the worker only does it because he gains a subjective benefit from the transaction (wages), just as the employer gains a subjective benefit (labor). It's also not true that lowering wages is the [i]best[/i] way to gain more money, it's actually a pretty bad way to try to gain more money. Expanding your business and raising the value of the firm is superior way of becoming richer. Thanks for bothering to write a long post, I'll have to respond to whatever I missed later. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36746160]Also, society will literally fall and die if you leave it up to volunteering and people's "charity".[/quote] It will? Don't we live in a democracy? Didn't the majority of people elect leaders in to set up welfare/charity programs? If it is the will of majority for these welfare/charity programs to exist, then the will of the majority would still be for charity to exist even without the existence of government. I haven't seen any convincing argument why everyone's charitable intentions would suddenly fade away if there were no government. I also believe it's false that coercive force is needed to sustain a society.. if that is what you are actually implying. [quote]That's well and dandy, but you're ignoring how many more arguments aimed at that exact point you just put down? I think you're out of your water here friend. Now I see why people shit on you so much. You don't argue. You don't respond to points. You just drop the ones you can't deal with and say what you can. You've avoided SEVERAL serious points for arguments used against you, and I have no belief you'll ever address them.[/QUOTE] I'm trying to argue against a lot of (what I believe are) misconceptions about the free market, and maybe I'm not doing a perfect job, but hey, at least I'm trying. I don't believe I'm the #1 Mass Debater or anything, lmao.
[QUOTE=Noble;36746450]Yes I do think that actually. I feel that the value of money comes from the value that individuals perceive it to be. I'm also arguing in favor of natural rights, the natural state that is best for man. [B]Then what you think is very confusing. And natural state for man? The one that's best? I find it literally impossible to determine a "best" way, a "right" way. One meant most for our success? That's one that's most definitely going to have many people to die, it's generally called survival of the fittest. It is not what any society or sane person these days would strive for. [/B] Rights wouldn't be given by society according to your definition, since society doesn't actually exist, they would be given by "groups of other individuals" (your words) - which essentially boils down to.. individuals giving rights to other individuals. It becomes a mess, so I prefer to just stick to natural rights, rights that can be logically deduced from the state of nature. [B]I don't think you understand the idea of groups or society. An idividual in a group is an individual but when decisions aren't made individually, I really find it hard to say those are individual decisions and nothing else.[/B] I blame governments, of course. It's not their money being spent, and it's not their lives on the battlefield. It creates moral hazard. A private company (i.e. PMC) on the other hand has their employees lives and their own profits at risk. [B]I don't see how the government doesn't have these risks. I don't see paramilitary companies NOT having those risks.[/B] I'm also not arguing that the "right to health" doesn't exist, but health-care is different (not sure if this is a typo but there is a big difference, not simply semantics). I'm just asking why someone has the right to be provided with a commodity (health care) at someone else's forced expense. I fail to see the connection between the article you posted and a "natural right to health care" for human beings also. I'm all for helping other people with health care needs.. I just believe that it must be voluntary. [B]The right to health and the right to healthcare differ how exactly? You don't have a right to be born into a healthy life, in fact, that's a dumb thing to assume at all. So what does the right to health mean? The right to life? What CAN they mean when you're not guarnteed a good run? Nothing, that's what. You either say you have the right to healthcare, which is the chance to survive and a chance to continue, or you say you have the right to life and health and you make that mean absolutely nothing because it has no value. [/B] As far as the list I'm a little short on time so I'll just run through some of them quick.. the free market could provide for literally every single one of those concerns. Private companies are already working on providing trips to the moon, private mail could easily work (and we may even see them taking over, considering the USPS financial issues). I believe building regulatory standards just impose unnecessary costs that hurt small business owners and really provide nothing useful other than a false comfort of security because the government has put their stamp of approval on it. Private schools already exist and work much better than public schools, private firemen - no problem for the free market. Fuel quality? There is profit to be made in doing it right.. and losses to be made from doing it wrong. The FDA and EPA simply don't need to exist and there's plenty of arguments to be made that these organizations may actually be doing more harm than good. The free market could provide solutions for utilities like electricity, water, sewage, etc too. [B]But you're wrong. There's many things here you're just glazing over and being stupid about. Do you really think the free market WOULD provide all those things? It hasn't before, why would it now? The poor who can't afford private schools, they will literally live the same life of a 1800's factory slave. They won't have the chance for betterment because private school will always have a significant cost associated with it. It's not a fix for more than 10% of the problem. It's really naive to believe otherwise and to even fucking think that just going "Oh, it's got a fix for it, trust me" is fucking annoying and IMPOSSIBLE to argue with. You have no detail, you have no "Misconceptions of the free market" to dispel here. You have to prove why it would be anything like that, there's no evidence of that. You're just saying it, and assuming it. [/B] The free market will set wages where they need to be, through wage competition and labor unions driving them up. The people unemployed aren't providing much to the economy, and where is the funding for their unemployment coming from? [B]What evidence of this do we have? Competition? Competition fails when there's an easier way to win than compete. You'll tell me there's no reason not compete, but there is. You'll say "only government intervention" and i'll say any situation which is cheaper than competition. This DOES happen. Your imagination that it doesn't, even in a picture perfect capitalist setting is factually and historically wrong. Perfect capitalism will never exist, and without it, there's no reason to imagine that there will ever be a scenario without greed or without a reason to find an easier way. Yes, everything has this problem, it's a fatalist world. [/B] One agency goes corrupt, you have a little problem. The government goes corrupt, you have a big problem. A monopoly on force is a much bigger threat to liberty than a handful of individual outlaw groups. Fighting between the companies is expensive and would cause a loss to profits. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to fight with another firm, rather than negotiate with them. [B]But again, you're wrong. Government isn't just one big piece, it's literally broken down into chunks that operate very much on their own and report back. They take orders, but unless the TOP of government is corrupted, then not everything is corrupt and it's a bad parallel to draw. Corporations as a whole are run from the top down entirely, if they are corrupt, it stands to reason a whole large body is corrupt then. [/B] Yes people do want to make profits. But don't forget that they also want to minimize losses too and they need to act accordingly- set your wages too low and you'll start losing talented workers to competitors paying them more (this is big for small businesses). They can only set their wages according to what people are willing to work for them. The wage-labor transaction is voluntary, the worker only does it because he gains a subjective benefit from the transaction (wages), just as the employer gains a subjective benefit (labor). It's also not true that lowering wages is the [i]best[/i] way to gain more money, it's actually a pretty bad way to try to gain more money. Expanding your business and raising the value of the firm is superior way of becoming richer. Thanks for bothering to write a long post, I'll have to respond to whatever I missed later. [B]Okay, then clearly as you have a great deal of experience with running a truly massive business, tell me, why is it that this is the NUMBER ONE WAY for almost every company in a problem to save money? What would be a better way? Raising your value requires you to have capital to put into the firm that will then begin to improve it, simply assuming this can happen free of massive job loss and free of massive profit loss is insanity to me. It's also strange to me that you assume a company struggling to even survive will have the capital to just do so. [/B] [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] It will? Don't we live in a democracy? Didn't the majority of people elect leaders in to set up welfare/charity programs? If it is the will of majority for these welfare/charity programs to exist, then the will of the majority would still be for charity to exist even without the existence of government. I haven't seen any convincing argument why everyone's charitable intentions would suddenly fade away if there were no government. I also believe it's false that coercive force is needed to sustain a society.. if that is what you are actually implying. [B]And aren't most people claiming they never want to pay taxes or unaware of what taxes really do for them in the end of the day? All they see is that they're losing money, the average person is not going to be generous, and is not going to help under tight times at all. Maybe during the best of times, but certainly not when things are difficult. Giving away money isn't easier for people than taxation I'm willing to bet. Taxation under difficult times sure makes people feel like shit, but it helps other people. The problem with charity I think is that you're just not going to get enough money to actually do anything with, to make any problems go away or even ease them. I sincerely believe that people are not going to take care of other people unless they're family, or they have to. No one feels they have to do it, so they certainly won't. [/B] I'm trying to argue against a lot of (what I believe are) misconceptions about the free market, and maybe I'm not doing a perfect job, but hey, at least I'm trying. I don't believe I'm the #1 Mass Debater or anything, lmao. And I'm arguing against your misconceptions of things, but you ignore my points and other points and glaze over them, skirt around them, or give half assed answers to points we've made with a lot more concise answers hoped for. Many of our points have gone unanswered and yes, you do have a lot to reply to, but until last or first joined this, it was pretty much just us and you were STILL doing it. I'm not writing a whole lot more than you, i'm just making sure I cover every point you bring up. [/QUOTE]
[quote]Then what you think is very confusing. And natural state for man? The one that's best? I find it literally impossible to determine a "best" way, a "right" way. One meant most for our success? That's one that's most definitely going to have many people to die, it's generally called survival of the fittest. It is not what any society or sane person these days would strive for. [/quote] The right to self-ownership (which private property rights stem from) is the only defensible ethical position. It is best in the sense that it maximizes individual liberties and the potential for individual success. Why are people going to die? [quote]I don't think you understand the idea of groups or society. An idividual in a group is an individual but when decisions aren't made individually, I really find it hard to say those are individual decisions and nothing else. [/quote] Sure they are. It's a decision of each individual to compromise with others for a subjective benefit that they could not have gained otherwise. [quote]I don't see how the government doesn't have these risks. I don't see paramilitary companies NOT having those risks.[/quote] The government doesn't create a single dollar that it spends. All it does is direct money and resources from one place to another. People make different decisions when their own well-being is at risk then they do when the risk is shared (moral hazard). A PMC will be spending it's own money and risking it's own profits. It will be much more adverse to losses of it's own rather than the government's socialized losses of war. [quote]The right to health and the right to healthcare differ how exactly? You don't have a right to be born into a healthy life, in fact, that's a dumb thing to assume at all. So what does the right to health mean? The right to life? What CAN they mean when you're not guarnteed a good run? Nothing, that's what. You either say you have the right to healthcare, which is the chance to survive and a chance to continue, or you say you have the right to life and health and you make that mean absolutely nothing because it has no value. [/quote] Guaranteed a good run at whose expense? Who is paying for the hospitals and for the doctors time? Where is this money going to come from? Is it voluntary? You didn't answer any of that. I would define the right to health as the ability to live your life without someone else creating conditions that cause you to be unhealthy. If you think this is meaningless, then fair enough. The right to healthcare on the other hand, implies that one individual has the right to be provided with goods and services at the involuntary expense of someone else, and I think it is something that's hard to justify. [quote]But you're wrong. There's many things here you're just glazing over and being stupid about. Do you really think the free market WOULD provide all those things? It hasn't before, why would it now? The poor who can't afford private schools, they will literally live the same life of a 1800's factory slave. They won't have the chance for betterment because private school will always have a significant cost associated with it. It's not a fix for more than 10% of the problem. It's really naive to believe otherwise and to even fucking think that just going "Oh, it's got a fix for it, trust me" is fucking annoying and IMPOSSIBLE to argue with. You have no detail, you have no "Misconceptions of the free market" to dispel here. You have to prove why it would be anything like that, there's no evidence of that. You're just saying it, and assuming it. [/quote] Because there never was a free market, and they simply can't compete with the government in these areas. It's false that the poor wouldn't get education, low-cost alternatives that don't have to comply with expensive, inefficient government standards could come into the market, and charity would still exist to fill the gaps. Education could start offering knowledge that the market is demanding, rather than pushing kids into college, with loans they'll be paying back eternally, if they ever do, with a completely false "you can be whatever you wanna be" message. [quote]What evidence of this do we have? Competition? Competition fails when there's an easier way to win than compete. You'll tell me there's no reason not compete, but there is. You'll say "only government intervention" and i'll say any situation which is cheaper than competition. This DOES happen. Your imagination that it doesn't, even in a picture perfect capitalist setting is factually and historically wrong. Perfect capitalism will never exist, and without it, there's no reason to imagine that there will ever be a scenario without greed or without a reason to find an easier way. Yes, everything has this problem, it's a fatalist world. [/quote] My evidence is simply supply and demand. Where there is higher demand for labor, wages (the price of labor) will have to rise accordingly. Higher demand = prices go up.. labor is no exception. You lower wages, your employees will start looking for places where they can make more money. My view of "perfect capitalism" would have to be 100% laissez faire, and it would have to revolve entirely around what you might call "greed", but don't forget the other side of the equation: fear. Your greed can only take you so far, fear is the other half that keeps greed in check (i.e. fear of losing profits by doing something risky). The problem with government intervention though is that it either adds fear unneccesarily, or it completely takes the fear out of the equation and allows greed to run unchecked. The bailouts of the 2008 financial crisis was a good example of the latter. [quote]But again, you're wrong. Government isn't just one big piece, it's literally broken down into chunks that operate very much on their own and report back. They take orders, but unless the TOP of government is corrupted, then not everything is corrupt and it's a bad parallel to draw. Corporations as a whole are run from the top down entirely, if they are corrupt, it stands to reason a whole large body is corrupt then. [/quote] Shareholders are the ones who own the corporations. They hire and fire the board of directors, among their other abilities, so I disagree that they are run from the top down in the sense that you seem to be implying. You could argue that we elect politicians, but you don't have as much control over who gets elected as shareholders of a corporation do with their board of directors. Either way, a corporation isn't going to have nearly the same influence as the government. Under market anarchy conditions, a firm will have to deal with competitors too. The government on the other hand, competes with no one. They have a monopoly on force, they declare something, and it will be done. [quote]Okay, then clearly as you have a great deal of experience with running a truly massive business, tell me, why is it that this is the NUMBER ONE WAY for almost every company in a problem to save money? What would be a better way? Raising your value requires you to have capital to put into the firm that will then begin to improve it, simply assuming this can happen free of massive job loss and free of massive profit loss is insanity to me. It's also strange to me that you assume a company struggling to even survive will have the capital to just do so. [/quote] Why would putting capital into the business result in massive job losses? That doesn't make any sense to me. You can get loans for capital investment from banks. It's also not the number one way to save money, laying off workers is something most business owners are only going to do as a last resort. You're losing skilled, reliable, and dedicated people working for your organization. No business owner wants to do that unless they absolutely have to. [quote]And aren't most people claiming they never want to pay taxes or unaware of what taxes really do for them in the end of the day? All they see is that they're losing money, the average person is not going to be generous, and is not going to help under tight times at all. Maybe during the best of times, but certainly not when things are difficult. Giving away money isn't easier for people than taxation I'm willing to bet. Taxation under difficult times sure makes people feel like shit, but it helps other people. The problem with charity I think is that you're just not going to get enough money to actually do anything with, to make any problems go away or even ease them. I sincerely believe that people are not going to take care of other people unless they're family, or they have to. No one feels they have to do it, so they certainly won't. [/quote] Well taxation forces you to buy things that you don't want. What if I don't want to spend my money on the military to blow up someone's house in Pakistan? When everything is completely voluntary, you don't run into these kinds of issues. No one feels they have to do it, so they won't? Especially under tough times? Then why did Americans donate 347 billion dollars to charity in 2011 in the midst of a global financial crisis? [url]http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/24/10228112-report-americans-more-generous-in-giving-to-charity-in-2011?lite[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.