[QUOTE=Noble;37144373]The social contract is bullshit. It doesn't exist. No one signed it, no one agreed to the "terms and conditions", which are just made up as you go along. It's not real.
My social security would be my own personal savings I've accumulated through life (if I wanted to, since this should be an individual decision, not a decision made for me by the government), like people did before that system was implemented
and more efficient things like email, and private delivery services would take its place.
Except with rent, it's contractual, and voluntary. You personally signed a contract which you are bound to, and even in that case, the landowner isn't using coercive force against you by asking you to leave his private property after you've violated the contract. In the case of government, there is no contract and it is not voluntary. If you don't pay your taxes, people acting on behalf of the government will soon be pointing guns at you, and you'll be locked in a cage. There is a distinct difference, one is contractual (rent) and the other is not, it's just extortion (tax). The government can't claim any rights over you or anything you own, and it has no justification for imposing a "social contract" on you as the price of participating in a society, interacting with other individuals. Neither the government nor society even exists in any real sense, and therefore have no justified claim to ownership of anything (individuals do, however).[/QUOTE]
hope you like toll roads and firemen/EMS saving rich families instead of you then
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;37144428]Guys, I'm saying this before anyone starts, don't argue with noble. You won't accomplish anything, he's denser than a block of plutonium.[/QUOTE]
I could say everyone who disagrees with me is dumb too, but it doesn't really accomplish anything.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37144437]hope you like toll roads and firemen/EMS saving rich families instead of you then[/QUOTE]
That's not how it would work but aight
[QUOTE=Noble;37144494]I could say everyone who disagrees with me is dumb too, but it doesn't really accomplish anything.
That's not how it would work but aight[/QUOTE]
how would it not work that way
[quote]I could say everyone who disagrees with me is dumb too, but it doesn't really accomplish anything.[/quote]
I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is dumb, but you certainly are.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;37144522]I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is dumb, but you certainly are.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I get that from socialists all the time, its all good
[editline]8th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37144519]how would it not work that way[/QUOTE]
Competition. They'd want to offer services that appeal to people with lower incomes. There is money to be made off of low-income people. Consider Wal-Mart as an example of the concept.
Wherever there is a demand for something, the market will attempt to meet it.
[QUOTE=Noble;37144532]Yeah, I get that from socialists all the time, its all good
[editline]8th August 2012[/editline]
Competition. They'd want to offer services that appeal to people with lower incomes. There is money to be made off of low-income people. Consider Wal-Mart as an example.[/QUOTE]
two residences are burning, a project and a mansion
golly i wonder who they'll want to rescue
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37144578]two residences are burning, a project and a mansion
golly i wonder who they'll want to rescue[/QUOTE]
The landlord of the project would have included police, fire, etc protection of his property as part of the monthly rent.
so make basic emergency services even more expensive for the poor
and pay for toll roads everywhere you go
and have your service prioritized on how much money you have (what if the mansion pays more and you have to save one building)
and deal with corporations trying their best to nickel and dime you in emergency situations all so that you can avoid paying taxes, because it's your country and everyone else is on their own
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37144633]and deal with corporations trying their best to nickel and dime you in emergency situations all so that you can avoid paying taxes, because it's your country and everyone else is on their own[/QUOTE]
It's not like there was anyone who couldn't afford healthcare insurance before, so I'm sure that there won't be any problems if we delegate emergency services to the private sector.
Right? :v:
Why would they be more expensive? Let competition do it's work, and bring costs down through people competing for greater efficiency. Many smaller roads are already privately owned but you have a right to use them (easement), it would work the same way in the absence of the government. The big roads may have tolls, just like many public roads do now. I don't see this being a major issue.
Your service wouldn't be prioritized based on how much money you have. You'd pay, and you'd sign a contract to receive a service. The amount of money you have isn't really relevant.
Firms wouldn't nickel and dime their consumers...more like they'd try to save every nickel and dime on production costs so they can bring down costs for consumers. They'd attract more consumers and subsequently raise profits. That would trigger more competitors trying to do the same thing, with everyone reaping the benefits.
[QUOTE=Rather Not;37144699]It's not like there was anyone who couldn't afford healthcare insurance before, so I'm sure that there won't be any problems if we delegate emergency services to the private sector.
Right? :v:[/QUOTE]
Guess who drove the costs of health insurance through the roof? It wasn't the private sector
[QUOTE=Noble;37144725]Why would they be more expensive? Let competition do it's work, and bring costs down through people competing for greater efficiency. Many smaller roads are already privately owned but you have a right to use them (easement), it would work the same way in the absence of the government. The big roads may have tolls, just like many public roads do now. I don't see this being a major issue.
Your service wouldn't be prioritized based on how much money you have. You'd pay, and you'd sign a contract to receive a service. The amount of money you have isn't really relevant.
Firms wouldn't nickel and dime their consumers...more like they'd try to save every nickel and dime on production costs so they can bring down costs for consumers. They'd attract more consumers and subsequently raise profits. That would trigger more competitors trying to do the same thing, with everyone reaping the benefits.[/QUOTE]
what is the purpose of a government if not to provide a social and economic framework for the citizens to live in. i know you live in a magical land of imagination where capitalism is all about making the customer happy and providing the best service possible but in the real world we need public services for the better of society as a whole, if you want to live in anarchy, drive to the airport on free roads, get on the govt-regulated plane and fly to somalia
[editline]9th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rather Not;37144699]It's not like there was anyone who couldn't afford healthcare insurance before, so I'm sure that there won't be any problems if we delegate emergency services to the private sector.
Right? :v:[/QUOTE]
i'm a supporter of public healthcare so this doesn't really apply to me
wait honestly im not sure what you're trying to say so idk ignore my response
Shouting 'free market' as frequently as you can doesn't constitute as an argument. Insurance companies are a very good example of something that not everyone can afford, and healthcare insurance for example, can (and at the past has proven to) be a matter of life or death.
I won't go into why selective fire fighting only for houses that are paying insurance money to your contractor is retarded, or how allowing violence against or even the murder of someone who isn't paying you to police them is fucking disguisting.
[quote]Firms wouldn't nickel and dime their consumers...[/quote]
Sure, because that never happens in capitalism. They are companies, they'll try to make as money as they possibly can.
And no shit you haven't signed any 'social contract'.
The social contract is supposed to address the origin of society and its healthy function, an effort in which everyone participates in so as to avoid the collapse of society, and basically, if you don't want to abide by it, you can go live away from society.
[editline]9th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37144777]
i'm a supporter of public healthcare so this doesn't really apply to me
wait honestly im not sure what you're trying to say so idk ignore my response[/QUOTE]
I was being sarcastic to what Noble was saying.
[editline]9th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;37144725]Guess who drove the costs of health insurance through the roof? It wasn't the private sector[/QUOTE]
Well, OK if you say so. Mind actually explaining your argument, if there is one?
i'm pretty sure Noble defended austrian economics recently
not much more needs to be said
[QUOTE=Lazor;37145225]i'm pretty sure Noble defended austrian economics recently
not much more needs to be said[/QUOTE]
I think I'm missing something here, what's so bad about Austria's economy?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37144777]what is the purpose of a government if not to provide a social and economic framework for the citizens to live in. i know you live in a magical land of imagination where capitalism is all about making the customer happy and providing the best service possible but in the real world we need public services for the better of society as a whole, if you want to live in anarchy, drive to the airport on free roads, get on the govt-regulated plane and fly to somalia[/QUOTE]
Somalia comes up every time, it's not an example of a free society. More in depth reading on it here, if you're interested: [url]http://c4ss.org/content/1201[/url]
[QUOTE=Rather Not;37144844]I won't go into why selective fire fighting only for houses that are paying insurance money to your contractor is retarded, or how allowing violence against or even the murder of someone who isn't paying you to police them is fucking disguisting.[/quote]
Why is that retarded? You want a service, then you have to pay for it. You already do that now, with your tax dollars. In a system that doesn't rely on tax (theft), it would still have to be paid for by someone. It's a service that virtually everyone would want to purchase, though they wouldn't be forced to if they don't want to.
[quote]Sure, because that never happens in capitalism. They are companies, they'll try to make as money as they possibly can.[/quote]
Yeah, they do of course. But they want to keep costs for consumers low so they can attract more business and reap more profits, which encourages technological innovation in order to reduce production costs. Everyone benefits from it.
[quote]And no shit you haven't signed any 'social contract'.
The social contract is supposed to address the origin of society and its healthy function, an effort in which everyone participates in so as to avoid the collapse of society, and basically, if you don't want to abide by it, you can go live away from society.[/quote]
Who wrote the "terms and conditions" of this contract that I must abide by, and what gave them the right to do so? Who gave them the right to interfere with my natural right to freely interact with other individuals in society by imposing a debt on me for doing so?
[quote]Well, OK if you say so. Mind actually explaining your argument, if there is one?[/QUOTE]
During WW2 the US government had implemented wage and price controls. The government froze wages across the country, but allowed employers to offer benefit packages. In order to attract employees, since they couldn't offer higher wages, companies started offering health care benefits to employees. The government gave a tax break to employer-provided health insurance, so employers could count it as a deduction, and employees could also deduct it from their taxable income. It distorted the market because it made it more attractive for everyone to get coverage through their employer than to buy their own insurance (if they buy it themselves, it's not deductible). Most insured Americans today get their insurance through their employer. Under this distorted system, employees are paying for more care than they actually need (whereas normally they would tend to look for an individual/family plan with the lowest premiums and best coverage for the money). Demand for health care went artificially high, but supply of care remained the same, so prices had nowhere to go but up.
[QUOTE=Lazor;37145225]i'm pretty sure Noble defended austrian economics recently
not much more needs to be said[/QUOTE]
You can call them "correct economics" as far as I'm concerned.
[QUOTE=Rents;37145422]I think I'm missing something here, what's so bad about Austria's economy?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't really have anything to do with austria the country, it's just some crappy economic theories by ludwig van mises who happened to be austrian and is the guy ron paul wanks off to.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School[/url]
Like I said, has litterally nothing to do with modern Austria.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37146089]It doesn't really have anything to do with austria the country, it's just some crappy economic theories by ludwig van mises who happened to be austrian and is the guy ron paul wanks off to.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School[/url]
Like I said, has litterally nothing to do with modern Austria.[/QUOTE]
Mises is not the founder of the Austrian school..
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37146089]It doesn't really have anything to do with austria the country, it's just some crappy economic theories by ludwig van mises who happened to be austrian and is the guy ron paul wanks off to.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School[/url]
Like I said, has litterally nothing to do with modern Austria.[/QUOTE]
so what's wrong with it?
[editline]8th August 2012[/editline]
I mean you've already proven that you don't know one thing about it (Carl Menger is typically considered the founder, not Mises), how much more don't you know?
I don't understand how dense some of you people are.
You all received education by the state - we all know that - and we can see that the developed countries are the ones where everybody can get an education. Why? Because a fully educated population is more likely to get work with good pay, and further improve their national economy. It's funny how the economy really took off not with the industrialization - a major rework of free market - but rather when people started getting educated, in the 50's and 60's. It wasn't because we didn't have education before that, but it was generally quite loose, and people didnt necessarily get the education they needed. Instead they did what was best for them and their family at that point - they dropped school and started working at factories and the like. The pay wasn't very good at that time, as there wasn't any government made baseline, no worker's benefits and simply because there was so many people that the factory could employ. If one was demanding more pay, they'd just fire him. That's the power of the free market - if you can do it cheaper, you should.
And then there's the next point - how would you plan to get educated without the state's help? Private schooling? Do you have any idea how expensive that is? Here in Denmark, simply having you in a classroom is $1500 a month, and that isn't including books, chairs and tables. If you were not born into a rich family, how would you plan on paying something like this? Even half of this is a big hit to a poor family's economy, and I would say that your free market wouldn't be able to do it cheaper than that. Now, if the poor people aren't getting educated, how are thay going to rise beyond their current social status? That's incredibly hard, and while you may be able to find some sunshine stories on freemarket.net or ihatetaxes.com, you wouldn't be fooling anyone but yourself.
[QUOTE=Noble;37146030]
Why is that retarded? You want a service, then you have to pay for it. You already do that now, with your tax dollars. [/quote]
Selective firefighting for just the people who pay your services, especially in very big urban environments or rural enviroments is the single most retarded idea I've ever heard. Fire spreads from woodland to woodland to rural properties, and from house to house. It doesn't fucking ask you if you've paid insurance to the same company or not.
You can't ignore a house burning down a few meters away until the fire enters your property. It's like you are trying to do the opposite of containing the fire.
Jesus Christ, what the fuck dude.
And it's good to see that you completely ignored the moral aspect of selective firefighting or law enforcement.
[quote] In a system that doesn't rely on tax (theft),[/quote]
Theft implies that you don't agree to it. You enjoy hundreds of examples of state services from the time you wake up to the time you sleep. If you don't agree to using these services, you can go live in a deserted island. There are plenty.
I'm sure that there are many other people interested in that alternative, so you will have plenty of people to interact with. As long as you abide by their own social contract.
[quote]
it would still have to be paid for by someone. It's a service that virtually everyone would want to purchase, though they wouldn't be forced to if they don't want to.[/quote]
'Wanting to' isn't by any means synonymous to 'being able to afford'.
Despite that, not only delegating everything to the private sector but also adding competitive companies to the mix is ridiculous. Will there be different water pipes bringing you water when you want to take a shower, or brush your teeth before going to work depending on the company you have selected?
Will the car that you'll drive to work be approved by specific corporate standards that do not apply to that person driving a vehicle that is about to cause a huge traffic accident, just because the state isn't financed to enforce proper regulation?
When, on your way to work, you are robbed, who will intervene? Will it be the various security company forces roaming the streets, who don't have any reason to intervene until you prove that you specifically pay their wages? Who will own the power lines required for having electricity at your office? Oh, right. There will be many different networks because there are competitive companies involved. That sounds pretty practical.
And when finally, an earthquake or any other natural disaster strikes the city you live in and leaves several homeless and injured, who will come in to rescue you? I'm pretty sure that all these companies can't exactly profit from homeless people. Who will also be shelterless, by the way. Since the state can't set up some kind of shelter. Because you thought that taxes meant theft.
[quote]Who wrote the "terms and conditions" of this contract that I must abide by, and what gave them the right to do so? Who gave them the right to interfere with my natural right to freely interact with other individuals in society by imposing a debt on me for doing so?[/quote]
For something called 'social contract' I think that it is rather straightforward that society is supposed to be the one who wrote it.
A society without a contract is a lawless one, anarchistic or ochlocratistic in their worst form, in which murder and rape are common. Your 'social interaction' or any relationship with another group of human beings is already bound by a social contract, as you are already giving away some of your freedoms by respecting the rights of others. If you start stealing from people, you have broken the social contract, and the result will be that either you will be stopped and society will continue under a social contract or society will collapse, because everyone will follow your example and end up killing and stealing from one another.
The social contract is just an intellectual construct used to pronounce the importance of normative ethics in the normal functon of society.
I just re-read the paragraph I'm quoting. You used the phrase [B]'natural right'[/B] whilst bashing the existance of a 'social contract'. :v: The two terms are kind of related you know.
[quote]During WW2 the US government had implemented wage and price controls. The government froze wages across the country, but allowed employers to offer benefit packages. In order to attract employees, since they couldn't offer higher wages, companies started offering health care benefits to employees. The government gave a tax break to employer-provided health insurance, so employers could count it as a deduction, and employees could also deduct it from their taxable income. It distorted the market because it made it more attractive for everyone to get coverage through their employer than to buy their own insurance (if they buy it themselves, it's not deductible). Most insured Americans today get their insurance through their employer. Under this distorted system, employees are paying for more care than they actually need (whereas normally they would tend to look for an individual/family plan with the lowest premiums and best coverage for the money). Demand for health care went artificially high, but supply of care remained the same, so prices had nowhere to go but up.[/quote]
Except for the fact that not only does everyone not receive proper healthcare from their employer, but a good 8% of Americans are unemployed. Well, gee, that sure sounds like a lot. One would think that they'd try to lower their prices or make offers that could attract people without proper access to healthcare. After all, it was you that said:
[quote]Yeah, they do of course. But they want to keep costs for consumers low so they can attract more business and reap more profits, which encourages technological innovation in order to reduce production costs. Everyone benefits from it.[/quote]
And yet, seeing as how difficult it is for some people to get healthcare insurance, 26+ millions of Americans don't seem like that much of an interesting consumer base to these companies. Yeah, I'd say that they aren't all that interested into providing affordable services for everyone.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37132541]I don't understand how stealing less from the rich is stealing more from the poor. Taxes as a whole are theft, at least Romney is moving in the right direction by lowering someone's taxes. Obama wants both the rich and the poor to start paying more.
[editline]7th August 2012[/editline]
And on that note why does Obama acknowledge that taxing the poor is theft but thinks that taxing the rich is totally 100% ok and justified?[/QUOTE][video=youtube;QZ8p-K7X99I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ8p-K7X99I[/video]
those poor rich people
is romney trying to lose
[QUOTE=Rather Not;37147918]Selective firefighting for just the people who pay your services, especially in very big urban environments or rural enviroments is the single most retarded idea I've ever heard. Fire spreads from woodland to woodland to rural properties, and from house to house. It doesn't fucking ask you if you've paid insurance to the same company or not.
You can't ignore a house burning down a few meters away until the fire enters your property. It's like you are trying to do the opposite of containing the fire.[/quote]
Someone would pay to put the fire out. The fire is a threat to many other people and if firefighters get together and voluntarily put it out, it can help their reputation.
[quote]Jesus Christ, what the fuck dude.
And it's good to see that you completely ignored the moral aspect of selective firefighting or law enforcement.[/quote]
No I didn't - I said those things cost money and you have to pay for them one way or another. You currently pay for it through tax. Under this system you'd pay for it [i]voluntarily[/i] and the superior efficiency of the private sector would bring operational costs down below the government's inefficient costs. These savings could then be passed onto the consumers.
[quote]Theft implies that you don't agree to it. You enjoy hundreds of examples of state services from the time you wake up to the time you sleep. If you don't agree to using these services, you can go live in a deserted island. There are plenty.[/quote]
They're only state services because the state used coercive force in order to set them up. Without the existence of the state (which I believe is immoral), the private sector would have to fill these demands. And since virtually everything the government does is more inefficient than when the private sector does it, I would argue that the world would be better off with services run privately, and funded voluntarily.
[quote]'Wanting to' isn't by any means synonymous to 'being able to afford'.
Despite that, not only delegating everything to the private sector but also adding competitive companies to the mix is ridiculous. Will there be different water pipes bringing you water when you want to take a shower, or brush your teeth before going to work depending on the company you have selected?
Will the car that you'll drive to work be approved by specific corporate standards that do not apply to that person driving a vehicle that is about to cause a huge traffic accident, just because the state isn't financed to enforce proper regulation?
When, on your way to work, you are robbed, who will intervene? Will it be the various security company forces roaming the streets, who don't have any reason to intervene until you prove that you specifically pay their wages? Who will own the power lines required for having electricity at your office? Oh, right. There will be many different networks because there are competitive companies involved. That sounds pretty practical.
And when finally, an earthquake or any other natural disaster strikes the city you live in and leaves several homeless and injured, who will come in to rescue you? I'm pretty sure that all these companies can't exactly profit from homeless people. Who will also be shelterless, by the way. Since the state can't set up some kind of shelter. Because you thought that taxes meant theft.[/quote]
This is a gish-gallop. Asking all these questions is analogous to asking an economist to predict, in detail, the next 50 years of economic activity. I could lay out possible solutions but they would only be speculation and I find doing this to be a waste of time because even when I answer them all, rarely does anyone walk away from the discussion having changed their mind. While I could take the time to lay out possible solutions to these problems, and there is much anarcho-capitalist literature out there already that does this, I would prefer to just go with the moral argument. I simply don't care about the exact methods the private sector would use to solve every problem. I'll try to use an analogy. Imagine if it was the 1700s and I was advocating the abolition of slavery. People would argue that we need slave labor because: "our economy relies on slave labor. What is your plan to replace this form of labor while keeping economic growth intact? Who will work the cotton fields like they do?". Rather than trying to predict all the machines and technological advances that would be coming into existence over the next century or two that reduced the economic need for slave labor on the plantations, I'd simply argue that I don't care what the solution is, just get rid of slavery/the immoral part and we can figure out more detailed solutions later.
[quote]For something called 'social contract' I think that it is rather straightforward that society is supposed to be the one who wrote it. [/quote]
"Society" didn't actually write anything. Society does not exist, it's just a concept, a phenomenon that arises out of individuals interacting with each other. The fact that several individuals within society may have agreed upon a particular contract doesn't give them the right to impose it on everyone
[quote]A society without a contract is a lawless one, anarchistic or ochlocratistic in their worst form, in which murder and rape are common. Your 'social interaction' or any relationship with another group of human beings is already bound by a social contract, as you are already giving away some of your freedoms by respecting the rights of others. If you start stealing from people, you have broken the social contract, and the result will be that either you will be stopped and society will continue under a social contract or society will collapse, because everyone will follow your example and end up killing and stealing from one another.
The social contract is just an intellectual construct used to pronounce the importance of normative ethics in the normal functon of society.[/quote]
You don't have any justification to the "freedom" to use force against another individual, so you aren't "giving up freedoms" by abstaining from doing so/respecting others rights.
I'm fine with the idea of a contract, [i]as long as it's voluntary[/i]. This one we're talking about is not voluntary. If a contract is not voluntarily agreed upon, I simply don't accept it's validity.
[quote]I just re-read the paragraph I'm quoting. You used the phrase [B]'natural right'[/B] whilst bashing the existance of a 'social contract'. :v: The two terms are kind of related you know.[/quote]
Individuals have natural rights. "Society" doesn't. I'm only bashing the existence of a [i]non-voluntarily[/i] social contract. I'm bashing the idea that one group of individuals has the right to force other individuals to abide by a non-voluntary contract.
[quote]Except for the fact that not only does everyone not receive proper healthcare from their employer, but a good 8% of Americans are unemployed. Well, gee, that sure sounds like a lot. One would think that they'd try to lower their prices or make offers that could attract people without proper access to healthcare. After all, it was you that said:[/quote]
Actually the real number of unemployed is astronomically higher than that. I'm sure they would love to lower their prices, but they have to follow all sorts of state and federal regulations that prevent them from doing business as they usually would. Often times they're being forced to cover an unhealthy person at the same premiums as a healthy person... that means they have to raise the cost for everyone to cover their expenses. Get the government regulations out and you'll start seeing the market offering packages that are suitable for people at different income levels. Wherever there is a demand for something, the free market will always attempt to meet it.
[quote]And yet, seeing as how difficult it is for some people to get healthcare insurance, 26+ millions of Americans don't seem like that much of an interesting consumer base to these companies. Yeah, I'd say that they aren't all that interested into providing affordable services for everyone.[/QUOTE]
Because they simply can't, the cost imposed by government regulations is too high to make it possible.
Notice how the health care industry is one of the most regulated industries in the country, and prices have soared over time, in real terms.
The computer industry is one of the most deregulated industries, and look how successful that's been. Prices have fallen, competition has brought all sorts of new technological innovations to the market. The computer that cost $1000 a few years ago now might only cost $500 or less. The computer industry is a good example of letting the market do its work, and everyone benefits from it.
My view is again, get the regulations out, let the market bring prices down and all those people will be able to afford coverage.
Firms re-hire workers using taxed profits. When firms calculate whether hiring more workers in within their budget, the amount of money they have to work with is decreased because they have to take taxes into account. Seeing as how government is a huge money waster that cannot know what people want and how to provide it, there are two ways it can effectively stimulate the economy that you often hear about. Lowering taxes and printing more money.
[QUOTE=Noble;37150689]My view is again, get the regulations out, let the market bring prices down and all those people will be able to afford coverage.[/QUOTE]What kind of coverage, though? The aim of government regulation is to protect citizens, because without that a company could simply refuse to pay when they know someone doesn't have the money for legal fees. Plus the fact that the government runs the justice system, which is paid by taxes, an anarchocapitalist system would make legal fees [I]much [/I]higher for people making small claims and would probably end up with a less than impartial system taking over. All of these leaves poorer people at the mercy of the richest.
[QUOTE=Noble;37150689]
My view is again, get the regulations out, let the market bring prices down and all those people will be able to afford coverage.[/QUOTE]
You know, half a year ago or so we started this test, here in the netherlands. We opened up the dentist market, removed fixed prices etc, let dentists figure out their prices by themselves. Now according to your ideas the prices should have gone down right? Because of competition and such? Well guess what, prices went up, and are still going up. They are going up so rapidly that there are calls to revert the decision only half a year after starting the test. They have gone up so much that insurance companies don't fully pay for dentist costs anymore depending on which dentist you go to. They're now charging more than insurance companies deem the service worthy/want to cover the costs for.
[QUOTE=Rents;37151716]What kind of coverage, though? The aim of government regulation is to protect citizens, because without that a company could simply refuse to pay when they know someone doesn't have the money for legal fees. Plus the fact that the government runs the justice system, which is paid by taxes, an anarchocapitalist system would make legal fees [I]much [/I]higher for people making small claims and would probably end up with a less than impartial system taking over. All of these leaves poorer people at the mercy of the richest.[/QUOTE]
The aim of government regulations might be good intentions. Good intentions don't count for anything though, especially considering the end result violates individual liberties and is less efficient than what the private sector would have done. I don't think there's any reason to believe legal fees would go up at all. Courts would want to lower their prices so that as many people as possible use them. The market will set the prices where they need to be. People without the money can represent themselves in court, or charity can help as well. There are many different answers but again, this is all speculation, and not really what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned with the immoral part (tax), get that out of the equation first, and then find ways to implement [i]voluntary[/i] solutions to these problems.
The state provides a much bigger threat of the rich taking advantage of everyone else. Rich people aren't idiots, they'll just use the power of the state for their own gains, you already see this happening today. They'll lobby politicians for laws that benefit them and harm competitors. They'll use the state to gain an advantage that they'd never get in the free market. Get the state out of the equation, and you remove their ability to manipulate it in order to gain an unfair advantage over everyone else.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37151896]You know, half a year ago or so we started this test, here in the netherlands. We opened up the dentist market, removed fixed prices etc, let dentists figure out their prices by themselves. Now according to your ideas the prices should have gone down right? Because of competition and such? Well guess what, prices went up, and are still going up. They are going up so rapidly that there are calls to revert the decision only half a year after starting the test. They have gone up so much that insurance companies don't fully pay for dentist costs anymore depending on which dentist you go to. They're now charging more than insurance companies deem the service worthy/want to cover the costs for.[/QUOTE]
I don't know much about the dental care system in the Netherlands so I can't comment much on it. I wouldn't have argued that costs would come down since I didn't know about the factors involved there. I'm only talking about the American system and why it's costs are so high as a result of government pushing demand artificially high while supply of care remained the same. Perhaps the fact that costs went up in that instance is that the government had prices fixed artificially low while operational costs were going up. I'm speculating of course, I really don't know much about that situation in the Netherlands.
The market is going to naturally tend towards equilibrium. If the prices are fixed artificially low and then the restriction is removed, prices will tend to rise. If they're artificially high (as I would argue is America's case with artificially high demand), they will tend to fall when the restriction is removed. The long term trend is going to be for companies to attempt to innovate, bring down their production costs, and then pass those savings onto consumers to beat the competition. That's all I can really say on that case.
[QUOTE=Noble;37150689]Someone would pay to put the fire out. The fire is a threat to many other people and if firefighters get together and voluntarily put it out, it can help their reputation.[/quote]
I'm not sure where you got the idea that fire is a hazard that can wait for the case that John Doe (who is completely untrained to assess the threat properly) thinks that the fire is enough of a concern for his own property so as to take the time to pay some random company to come and extinguish it. Because it isn't. Fire can travel from house to house within minutes, if not seconds.
You have a group of people who know that if they make the call, they'll be charged for the fire, instead of the victim, and instead of someone else who could potentially make the call and get charged instead. Man, that's brilliant. It's like taking the bystander effect and making it extremelly worse by adding the cost of a company essentially profiteering off the lives of people in it.
EMS response[I] has[/I] to be immediate and to not charge the caller immediately, so as to combat the bystander effect, which is terrible as it is, and it has to be unified and properly co-ordinated. Several [I]competitive[/I] companies who may be called by different callers are more likely to get in one another's way. They'll be competitive. They won't exactly share dispatch centers.
That's not even the worst part.
No one has any motive to intervene on forest fires, natural preserves or generally natural disasters that are far away from people with the money to start a proper response.
[quote]No I didn't - I said those things cost money and you have to pay for them one way or another. You currently pay for it through tax. Under this system you'd pay for it [i]voluntarily[/i] and the superior efficiency of the private sector would bring operational costs down below the government's inefficient costs. These savings could then be passed onto the consumers.[/quote]
Yes, you did, and you are further doing so by deflecting my argument.
If someone witnesses the rape or the break-in that concerns an entirely different person, per your system, they'll lose money if they get involved. That's fucking disgusting.
Not only did you not address that, but you repeated the 'taxes are theft' slogan, while insisting about how efficient the private sector is. First off, if you don't like the taxes where you live, you can live in a country with lower taxes or go start a micronation in the middle of nowhere. Your alternative is to start peacetime profiteering. Because the people without insurance will certainly not be terrorized.
Secondly, are you joking? [I]Competitive[/I] EMSs? And you think that's efficient? Sure. If lack of co-ordination is efficient, I'm sure that they are as efficient as they can be.
[quote]They're only state services because the state used coercive force in order to set them up. Without the existence of the state (which I believe is immoral), the private sector would have to fill these demands. [B]And since virtually everything the government does is more inefficient than when the private sector does it, I would argue that the world would be better off with services run privately, and funded voluntarily.[/B][/quote]
Other than the private sector being your personal deity and corporatocracy being your obvious utopia, where exactly did you pull that from?
[quote]This is a gish-gallop. Asking all these questions is analogous to asking an economist to predict, in detail, the next 50 years of economic activity.[/quote]
It's more akin to asking an economist who wants to completely change the economic system how he or she would address some of the most visible flaws of their idea. If you think that I'm nitpicking, you can't imagine how wrong you are.
These are just some of the most visible flaws I can think of. If I were to nitpick, I would have written a 50-page paper on how quickly society would collapse because of the holes in your idea.
[quote] I could lay out possible solutions but they would only be speculation and I find doing this to be a waste of time because even when I answer them all, rarely does anyone walk away from the discussion having changed their mind. While I could take the time to lay out possible solutions to these problems, and there is much anarcho-capitalist literature out there already that does this, I would prefer to just go with the moral argument.[/quote]
There's a lot of communist literature out there, too. And communism also brings up some very interesting moral arguments. And yet communism has still plenty of problems with its system. By your logic, if I were to accept your system, I might as well start pushing for total conversion to communism.
[quote]
I simply don't care about the exact methods the private sector would use to solve every problem. I'll try to use an analogy. Imagine if it was the 1700s and I was advocating the abolition of slavery. People would argue that we need slave labor because: "our economy relies on slave labor. What is your plan to replace this form of labor while keeping economic growth intact? Who will work the cotton fields like they do?". Rather than trying to predict all the machines and technological advances that would be coming into existence over the next century or two that reduced the economic need for slave labor on the plantations, I'd simply argue that I don't care what the solution is, just get rid of slavery/the immoral part and we can figure out more detailed solutions later.[/quote]
Nice. You just compared paying taxes to slavery. Well, unlike you, the slaves didn't exactly have much of a chance of 'moving elsewhere'.
And who are you exactly to say that the South would have starved without an as efficient production of cotton? They could have gathered cotton by themselves. Maybe they wouldn't have as much production without slavery, but you have yet to prove that they'd starve due to a somewhat lower production of it.
[quote]"Society" didn't actually write anything. Society does not exist, it's just a concept, a phenomenon that arises out of individuals interacting with each other. The fact that several individuals within society may have agreed upon a particular contract doesn't give them the right to impose it on everyone [/quote]
It's not a phenomenon. Society is a group of people that are related in a (in the case of the social contract, geographic) manner and the types of relationships that develop among these people.
Normative ethics is a very real thing and the social contract is the manifestation of their use in society.
[quote]
You don't have any justification to the "freedom" to use force against another individual, so you aren't "giving up freedoms" by abstaining from doing so/respecting others rights.[/quote]
No, it's quite simple. Freedom is per definition the agency over ones actions, no matter what their result is. It's called positive liberty, and it's essentially the lack of inhibition from external factors, societal (normative) ethics being one of them.
Positive liberty comes in good and bad forms, and this is one of the extreme and bad one of them.
[quote]I'm fine with the idea of a contract, [i]as long as it's voluntary[/i]. This one we're talking about is not voluntary. If a contract is not voluntarily agreed upon, I simply don't accept it's validity.[/quote]
You do realize that it's an [I]intellectual construct?[/I]
It's not an EULA. You voluntarily agree with it once you choose to abide by the rules of the society you live in.
[quote]Individuals have natural rights.[/quote]
Source? I wasn't born with neither a right, nor a price tag telling me I'm worth as a human being.
I acquired one once others respected my liberties, and made the moral choice to do the same when I accepted the liberties of others. That is, I accepted that everyone has the liberty to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't inflict with my liberties.
[quote] "Society" doesn't. I'm only bashing the existence of a non-voluntarily social contract. I'm bashing the idea that one group of individuals has the right to force other individuals to abide by a non-voluntary contract.[/quote]
If individuals have natural rights, then so does a group of them.
[quote]Actually the real number of unemployed is astronomically higher than that.[/quote]
[I][citation needed][/I]
[quote]I'm sure they would love to lower their prices, but they have to follow all sorts of [B]state and federal [U]regulations[/U][/B] that prevent them from doing business as they usually would. Often times they're being forced to cover an unhealthy person at the same premiums as a healthy person... that means they have to raise the cost for everyone to cover their expenses. Get the [B]government regulations[/B] out and you'll start seeing the market offering packages that are suitable for people at different income levels. Wherever there is a demand for something, the [B]free market[/B] will always attempt to meet it.
Because they simply can't, the cost imposed by [B]government regulations[/B] is too high to make it possible.[/quote]
You are just shouting out buzz words right now, aren't you? The bad government is trying to regulate the poor rich folk. I mean, the rick poor folk. I mean-- ah, fuck it.
The one example that you actually used makes no sense. You are talking about people who are already customers of insurance companies, whilst trying to prove that they'd love to lower prices for the unemployed but can't.
[quote]Notice how the health care industry is one of the most regulated industries in the country, and prices have soared over time, in real terms.[/quote]
Notice how some of the most tightly regulated industries are related to the health or well being of citizens. Gee, I wonder why.
You have yet to explain how regulation keeps the prices high.
[quote]The computer industry is one of the most deregulated industries, and look how successful that's been. Prices have fallen, competition has brought all sorts of new technological innovations to the market. The computer that cost $1000 a few years ago now might only cost $500 or less. The computer industry is a good example of letting the market do its work, and everyone benefits from it.[/quote]
Look at the nutrition indusrtry. It's one of the most regulated industries, and yet look at how successful that's been. Prices have fallen, competition (big restaurant chains is a relatively modern marvel) has brought all sorts of new technological innovations to nutrition, lengthening the average lifespan of a person. The food materials that were so hard to develop some time ago have become easily accessible during the last decades, making food products easier to produce and cheaper. The nutrition industry is a good example of letting the market do its work, whilst making sure that no one gets poisoned, and everyone benefits from it.
[quote]My view is again, get the regulations out, let the market bring prices down and all those people will be able to afford coverage.[/QUOTE]
You have yet to explain why regulations are [I]bad.[/I]
As I said in my example, what would happen without the FDA?
[QUOTE=Rather Not;37153517]Other than the private sector being your personal deity and corporatocracy being your obvious utopia, where exactly did you pull that from? [/QUOTE]
According to economic theory competition lowers the cost of goods. Everything that isn't a public good is done better by free enterprisers. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good[/url] The best example of a public good is national defense.
Now, you couldn't have a charge per call fire department, but you could have a privately owned fire department that is paid by the state. This fire department might have fire engines that get 1mpg whereas the other place bidding for the same contract had fire engines that got 0.25mpg. Or you could just pay citizens by the gallon to dump water on flames.
Here in Canada, the telecom companies had their networks largely financed by the Canadian Government and they were pretty much given carte blanche at that point.
This has evolved into a network of tv, internet, and phone (cellular and otherwise) that is among the most expensive of all developed countries, while continuing to offer very poor value. The lack of regulation forced out competitors and costs Canadians millions of dollars every year in high cost, low functionality service (even in the big cities).
Regulation isn't always a bad thing, especially when the government paid the bills in the first place.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
