Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

When nationality, race and bloodline cease to matter all we have is citizenship!

58 replies [Last post]
User offline. Last seen 11 years 27 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-02-09
[qoute]One may want to live
Quote:

One may want to live close to ones family, which may have different political points of view. One may want to speak ones own language most of the time, because usually ones first language is best for expressing ones emotions.

That's the personal responsibility effect there. When you have to make a choice, their are outcomes for it. Let's say, for a moment, that this system WAS in place and your family moved to some thoecratic state while you lived in a pure democracy. You'd miss you family and argue they should be near you and that you have a "right" to live near your family. You could move near them, and have a government you dislike. They could move to YOU and have a government THYE dislike. What you seem to be opposed to, however, is the free market of government where one can CHOOSE their own style. With that it mind, it appears that your solution is to have everyone under the same government where you can move freely - nevermind that fact that neither you NOR your family get a government in that case that works the way you want.

I believe it is possible to have a government that you like AND that respects the rights of ALL it's citizens but by it's very virtue it needs to be small, impotent or non-existant.

User offline. Last seen 11 years 27 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-02-09
Quote:If you grow up to
Quote:

If you grow up to hold different views to your family and friends, in such a segmented world you then must choose between being close to your family and friends you grew up with or being in a society that lets you be yourself. Segfault blues.

You're assuming that you started in a "society that lets you be yourself" in the first place. Believe it not there are people who leave their families for government that they support. People don't have a right to "stay where they are unchanged". I've ALWAYS found that arguement to be faicious with the global warming debate. There is NOT question that (assuming for a moment you agree with the predictions) global warming would increase temps in some places but it would also elevate temps in currently "too cold" regions into the range of arable land. The American mid-west - toast. The Canadian south, however, would expand it's amount of fertile land. Russia too would gain a LOT of potential food-crop growing land. People argue about the pollution of cities but forget they're not forced to live in the city (pollution is an issue, but pollution isn't bad everywhere just yet).

Every decision a human being makes is a heirarchy - if being near your family is crucial to you (it is NOT crucial to eveyone) then do so and accept what that means. Today, the same stratifications exist in the housing market, cost of living, crime rates, climate, et cetera.

Quote:

In the USA there are these communes where men take multiple wives and can marry girls as young as 14, and the government seems to do nothing about it though it's illegal.

Firstly, when making points it's best to use facts rather than hysteria you see in the mass media. In the United States marriage is officially recognized as ONLY one man and one woman. The same laws that make homosexual marriage invalid in the US make polygamy illegal. If a man is claiming to have multiple wives, it's being done so illegally or not really being done. Do you want a government that would stop a man from living with 10 female roommates who all agree to live there? I for one do NOT.

As far as the 14 year old girl thing, that gets tricky. Most states consider 18 the legal age to marry, but not all states. 13 is the lowest legal age, as far as I know in the US for marriage. In the US we can charge a [url="http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/abraham/101999_ctv.html"]13 year old with murder[/url] under the premise that a 13 year old is competant enough to premeditate and kill so why should they be legally barred from marriage? This isn't a legal issue at all, it's a social issue. You see a 14 year old as a child, incapable to intelligent thought and rational decision. On the flip side, at 13 years old I was legally emancipated by the courts and granted full adult rights over myself. I have no doubt that SOME 14 year olds are capable of making the marriage decisions on their own. That said, there's no shortage of adults who make stupid marriage decisions every day.

In a society that respects your rights, the government wouldn't dictate whom you can marry assuming that marriage was voluntary. Period.

Quote:

The law of the land that works for me is "whatever floats your boat so long as it doesn't sink anyone elses". That much I like about the free state project, but I also believe in universal healthcare, education, and a survival safety net for those who fall on hard times, so the FSP would never be for me.

I really REALLY ask you to re-evaluate what you consider the best law of the land. I too support the non-agrression principal (the "whatever floats your boat as long as it doesn't sink mine") and the things you say very clearly contradict that. Universal health care is a system where the government provides health care to all citizens and, through taxes (collected by force), does so at no or little per-visit cost. But don't be fooled, universal healthcare is NOT free! The college student, who barely can pay his rent and buy food, is paying for universal healthcare through taxes - even though he's statistially unlikely to need it. He is being forced by the government to pay for health coverage that he doesn't provide a decent amount of benefit to him. Likewise, by supporting universal health care you're supporting a monopoly on health care. In the UK about two years ago there was a serious public debate about hospital cleanliness - something that would not have happened if said hospitals had incentive (god forbid, beyond "patient health and comfort") to maintain a clean hospital. If, like a restaurant, you could choose a different healthcare facility because it was nasty and stank of urine.

Likewise, by supporting government controlled education you're supporting a government-defined set of values. If you are Christian, that set of values doesn't include your God. If you're gay, it does not include tolerance. If you're black it may not include signifigant black contributions to history. Education is, without a doubt, the job of the PARENT and not the government. Likewise I am a DINK (Dual income, no kids) and I plan to remain that way. The taxes being taken from me for "schools" is being taken by force to support a school system that is failing (based on children's ability to think critically, based on level of comprehension of critical subjects) because it focuses more on the ciriculum than the child and focuses more on the ciriculum because they need governmental approval to teach it.

And finally, regarding "safety net" for those in hard times - nothing is preventing people from doing charity. Where I oppose it is forcable charity - donations taken by the government, lack of "giving" done by jailtime.

When Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf, the first people "in there" were the Red Cross, a private organization. Food, clothing, temporary shelter and a shoulder to cry on - powered by the generosity of people who gave FREELY to those in need. When the government came in, days later, they brough trailers unfit to live in because they were purchased from the lowest bidder by cludgy committee.

The free market is BETTER capable of providing charitable relief than the government.

User offline. Last seen 11 years 27 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-02-09
Quote: Is it better to rely
Quote:

Is it better to rely on a government than it is to rely on non-governmental organizations?

No, it's best to provide for yourself. That said, private organization are funded by people who support them not the people who can't resist the government. This means if the government collapsed today (war, revolution, whatever) the private organizations would still exist because they're powered by people's charity or motivation for profit, NOT their fear of being jailed. I'm willing to bet on the sticking power of "self-interest" over the "charity" of the government, personally.

Quote:

If the state doesn't take care of its citizens, the second most organized groups (the churches) will be among the top ones doing it instead.

The difference, again, is that not going to church doesn't get you jail time. Freedom means supporting people who have different opinions - even if that opinion is to join a church. Do you REALLY see "church" as so evil you'd prefer government over it? Would you rather fund welfare with threat of jail every day than accept quick, compassionate care from a Christian group?

That said, just about every corporation I can think of is better organized than most of the churches actually providing charity. People think of "the church" going all the way to the Vatican, but the vast majority of charitable money from churches comes from the members of individual churches, which almost always tend to be organized by geography. In short, the people paying for church charity are the neighbors in the church doing the charity.

Quote:

If you want freedom, then all natural monopolies and basic necessities should be controlled by the government.

Can we define freedom please? My defintion indicates the exact OPPOSITE. Not being at the mercy of monopolies, not being given "basics" (as opposed to earning them) and not having my property taken by force and given to others are ALL included in my defintion of "freedom".

Quote:

Or would you rather have that they are controlled by organizations in which you have no vote?

Firstly, for a LOT of people government is exactly that. Voting is nothing more than a token gesture at BEST unless your vote actually has the possibility to change something. "Oh, you can vote" sounds nice, but if your options are "Fidel Castro" and "Fidel Castro" does it really matter which you pick?

Secondly, What libervisco put out there is free market capitalism. Even pure democracies aren't as individually empowering as free market capitalism. If everything is motivated by profit then simply stop spending would veto any organization's ability to do anything people didn't like. Don't like the church? Don't give them money. Want to help atheists after a flood, give your money to an organization that does that. Local store has crappy selection, buy elsewhere.

If government worked on this same principal it would get smaller for every person who didn't vote beause the candidates were all douchebags. In American history, that would mean a very small government since no selection has ever motivated the populace to get more than half.

User offline. Last seen 11 years 27 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-02-09
Quote: I'm inclined to
Quote:

I'm inclined to agree with tbuitenh on this, and it stems from viewing the government as *our* organisation, not some seperate self-interested entity. True governments can and do get away from serving the people first, but the answer I come back to each time is to get them working as they ought to.

Using the same terminology can be useful. For me, I define government as "an agreement among people on how to act as a group". What this means for me is that as soon as a government has the capability to "get away from serving the people first" is has already become it's own entity. It also means that unless people are in a hive-mind, socialism and democracy don't work, since nobody willingly votes themselves into restriction (how many voters for universal healthcare would stop paying taxes given the chance?) and implimenting things "anyway" oppresses others - often times under the guise of "the greater good".

'C.S. Lewis' wrote:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Quote:

it usually falls to the government to solve the long term underlying problems, eg a hit and miss education system.

Prior to the creation of the Department of Education in the US local communities, and not the government, were responsible for education. Classes weren't so rigidly seperated by "level". Not only did students learn from the text, but older students we're given a communcal sense of responcibility and a culture of sharing education and helping others. Today, with the emphasis on test scores ratehr than functional use of knowledge, children are competitive with each other in the areas they're told "matter" rather than understanding as the world is, nobody is good at everything and we need each other's strengths to balance that out.

Judging by the works of the times, I'd say the populace has gotten dumber as the government controlled more and more of the education system and I see it as no accident. This also goes into your next point...

Quote:

I share the concern about making it too easy for some to abdicate personal responsibility

I have a bumpersticker on order (twice, actually) that states "Your life is not my fault, my life is not your business". Personal responcibility means that I am accountable to my actions. The inverse is true, it means all responcibility for my actions is entirely mine. If I get drunk and crash my car, I can't blame the bartender for giving me alcohol. I can't blame the car manufacturer for not making the car crash-proof and I can't blame the distiller for producing alcohol. That's common sense, right?

The harser side of that is that without outside assistance a woman who has a child she's can't provide for will starve. That is personal responsibility, you can't take the good without the bad.

There is one aspect which is seldom overlooked though. As an American growing up in the 90's there was a "Anarchy" fad, usually pushed by the people that today are called "emo" I think... Anyway, they managed to mix anarchy with satan-worship and violence, so mentioning the word "anarchy" brings to mind burning post-apocolyptic worlds rather than lack of tyranny from government.

That said, people seem to believe anarchy = bad simply because it's anarchy. Those worldviews make the assumption that, left to their own devices, people would be "bad". Minanarchists, libertarians, anarchists all beleive the opposite, that left up to our own devices we'd be fair, equitable and kind. This means I support a system where the woman with a kid she can't support would starve, but it means I'm also compassionate enough to help her prevent that, or contribute to an organization that will.

Quote:

if you see a neighbour slacking off on state welfare while the rest of us carry the load, would you vote to keep supporting that behaviour or to give him a boot in the behind to get out there and do some work?

People can usually suss whether they're giving to a deserving cause or being taken for a sucker.

People are, but the government is not. Furthermore, the government doesn't have the ability or manpower to provide aid where it MATTERS. 20 years ago food was the primary assistance needed by someone on welfare so those systems were put in place. Today, energy (heat or electric, to power a refrigerator) is the single biggest issue most people have and systems to help with that are just NOW being put into legislative words. On the flip side, the power companies have (for the past several years) been starting up non-profit organizations and contributing to them to help people in their local areas provide heat for themselves. This benefits MANY people, including those doing the donations! Statistically, people only remain "low-income" for about three years or less and then exist that classification. At this point, they're now capable of purchasing their own energy. Those in need get help, companies improve their image and the make a loyal customer. Free market at it's best.

User offline. Last seen 11 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
Oh dear, taxes are theft,

Oh dear, taxes are theft, yada yada yada.

Yes, the huge majority of people will act more or less positively, as they do now. But if you remove the restrictions created by "government", that doesn't mean you got rid of all restrictive systems in society - quite the contrary. What are the most powerful organizations, after the government, and apart from lobby groups, which would be powerless without a government to lobby? That is, what organizations will fill up the power vacuum? Churches and large corporations. Let's not focus on the churches for a moment. How are large corporations organized internally? Typically they resemble USSR-style communist governments. Yes, it would be truly wonderful for freedom to remove the restrictions created by the government!

As for religion-inspired charities... When I need help, I'd like to receive just help, without getting a belief system shoved down my throat along with it, thank you very much. Also, I would like such organizations to provide honest information. For example, if someone dies of cancer, that doesn't mean they didn't pray enough, and condoms do reduce the risk of HIV infection a lot.

Kevin Dean wrote:

For me, I define government as "an agreement among people on how to act as a group".

So, what exactly is wrong with the agreement being "no matter how big an ***hat you are, we won't let you rot and die", plus some other agreements to spend money on things that are adjusted all the time by elected representatives? You don't want your money spent on a particular thing? Well, guess what, someone else doesn't want their money spent on something the representative you elected wants. You can both pretend it is the money of the other being spent, not yours, and because the people making the decisions are elected the math all works out.

Okay, so you live in a country with only one or two nearly identical political parties (gee, isn't the USA a LOT like Cuba that way?), and so you can't vote for anyone you truly agree with. Actually it can be a bit like that with the Dutch umpteen-party system too, representative democracy always means you have to settle with voting for a suboptimal candidate. Well, no system is perfect, it works well enough for me, a few more parties would be even better. Anyway, saying a democratic government with many responsibilities is bad because a fake democracy with too few parties goes ugly is a mistake.

Are taxes theft? Without democracy, yes. Is the USA a democracy? Nope! How many democracies are there in the whole world anyway? Not too many, and the one I live in is slowly degenerating, apparently because many people here still believe the USA is a great example for just about anything.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-American. Being anti- any country doesn't make sense. It's not on my list of places I'd like to go, though, and that's because I'm really, very, very, very pro-democracy. I believe everyone should in principle have equal influence on decisions that affect all. Letting the market take care of that is as flawed as it gets, because some are born rich, some make a lucky guess in trading, etc etc.

Oh, another reason why taxes would be theft: "they don't necessarily benefit those who are paying". That is nonsense. If I pay for the support of someone who gets disabled because of an accident or illness or whatever, I will receive the same benefit when the same kind of disaster strikes me. It's a mandatory insurance, and it is good it is mandatory because otherwise we'd end up paying for those who didn't care to get insurance anyway, which would be an unfair benefit for them.

Funny you should mention a poor student. Over here students get a little funding. People complain about it because "the poor are paying for the studies of those who will get very rich because of those studies". They forget those "very rich" will later pay more taxes, and generate lots of income for the country as a whole just by being so damn smart and knowledgeable. Without this funding, our economy would definitely be doing worse, and those "poor" would be more poor.

User offline. Last seen 11 years 27 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-02-09
Quote: Oh dear, taxes are
Quote:

Oh dear, taxes are theft, yada yada yada.

Taking my property without permission? That's theft. I consider theft to be unethical.

Quote:

How are large corporations organized internally? Typically they resemble USSR-style communist governments. Yes, it would be truly wonderful for freedom to remove the restrictions created by the government!

If by "resemble USSR-style communist government" you mean "has a logo and a slogan" then yes, they are. Then again, Barak Obama and every political candidate in history has has one too. Other than the slogan and logo thing, though, I don't see what in the hell you're talking about. USSR-style communism (AKA Dictatorship) was started and maintained by force, corporations are maintained by people giving them money voluntarily. One couldn't stop "buying" communism but once CAN stop buying Windows or greesy burgers or whatever "evil" you associate with corporations. That is the key difference.

Now, today corporations use the government to stiffle free market choice and PREVENT people from avoiding monopolies but since unfair advantages end up affecting the citizens in the form of law (for instance, you MUST have car insurance in 49 of 50 US states to get license plates) it is the government that is the issue. Stop blaming corporations for wanting unfair playing fields and start blaming governments for passing corporate desires into law.

Quote:

When I need help, I'd like to receive just help, without getting a belief system shoved down my throat along with it, thank you very much.

I agree there totally - the socialist ideas of welfare are ALSO belief systems that are MORE offensive to me (since I've actually worked for things) than Christianity is. I can ignore a bible thumper but if I "ignore" your "make everyone give money to poor people" I go to jail.

Quote:

Also, I would like such organizations to provide honest information. For example, if someone dies of cancer, that doesn't mean they didn't pray enough, and condoms do reduce the risk of HIV infection a lot.

Nobody writes statistics unless they're proving a point. I laugh at the notion of a cancer patient dying for "not praying enough" but really you can't prove the opposite. Anyway, that's neither here nor there - free speech, freedom of religion and freedom to ignore other people are all directly tied. If you don't like the message, stop chatting up the messenger. In the case of aid from Christian groups - don't take their blankets if you're not willing to accept their prayers.

Quote:

That is, what organizations will fill up the power vacuum? Churches and large corporations.

Libertarians, anarchists and minanarchists recognize that the state of the world is messed up right now, and to revert immediately to the state of personal government would be a nightmare. It's a process. The goal isn't to instantly abolish the government, but to transition the power OF GOVERNMENT back into people. The "void" wouldn't exist. At that point, the people would then choose with whom to associate. Churches and corporations certainly would still exist but why is that a bad thing if people are fueling them? Do you really beleive people need to be protected from their own decisions? Do you REALLY beleive you should be the one with that authority?

Quote:

So, what exactly is wrong with the agreement being "no matter how big an ***hat you are, we won't let you rot and die", plus some other agreements to spend money on things that are adjusted all the time by elected representatives?

Nothing at ALL with that UNLESS you are forcibly binding people to that agreement who don't agree. Do I support the right of people to tax themselves? Sure. Do I support their right to tax others? No.

Quote:

You don't want your money spent on a particular thing? Well, guess what, someone else doesn't want their money spent on something the representative you elected wants.

So... The government taking your money and using it on something you don't want is okay because they're taking MY money and using it on something I don't want either? The old adage "Two wrongs don't make a right" is an understatement here. I support NO taxes - period. I don't support no taxes on schools, or no taxes on roads - no taxes. Period. Parents want schools? Cough up dough? I want stem-cell research? Cough up dough. That's the ONLY system in which I can't resent you or the government for squandering my money. Put simply, only YOU are suited to decide the best way to spend YOUR money.

Quote:

Actually it can be a bit like that with the Dutch umpteen-party system too, representative democracy always means you have to settle with voting for a suboptimal candidate. Well, no system is perfect, it works well enough for me, a few more parties would be even better. Anyway, saying a democratic government with many responsibilities is bad because a fake democracy with too few parties goes ugly is a mistake.

I'm opposed to democracy in the same sense that the founders were - it is mob rule. Like the Founders, I'm also against a government with enough power to really matter. The US government wasn't given the power to tax citizens. It wasn't given the power to raise a standing army or to invade other nations, or outlaw abortions or fund stem cell research of give vouchers for private education (the US government has no authorized role IN education).

A government big enough to give you what you want is powerful enough to take it away. I want a government that the founders fought for, a government where we could elect a chimpanzee and it wouldn't matter because that chimpanzee wouldn't have any reasonable authority to affect the lives of the citizens. The same goal that prevents governments from marching in armies to silence those demanding legislative change ALSO means they're too small to solve the problems of homelessness and such.

Quote:

Are taxes theft?

Yes. You quantify it, I do not. Theft, plain and simple. The only difference between "tax" and "dontation" is the willingness of the person to relinquish their money. Works the same way in communism and anarchy.

Quote:

Is the USA a democracy? Nope! Not too many, and the one I live in is slowly degenerating, apparently because many people here still believe the USA is a great example for just about anything.

I see two problems. Problem 1 - too many Americans think the US is a democracy. Problem 2 - democracy sucks.

US citizens today seem to beleive that democracy is a good goal to work towards when our entire system is based on the opposite - individual liberty. Too many Americans say "it's a democracy, so majority rules". They use this statement to justify steping all over the rights of the dissenting 49% minority.

The US was not designed as a democracy. It was designed to prevent tyranny at the hands of the majority. That's why it was SPECIFICALLY designed to be small - so that even a MOB who seized control of the government wouldn't have the capacity to oppress the rest of the populace.

'A Classic Democracy Quote wrote:

in a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what’s for supper, while in a constitutional republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what’s for supper and the sheep are well armed.

Quote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-American.

You're pro-American, in the sense I see. You recognize that it is not a democracy. I WISH the pro-American who LIVED in America recognized that. Patriotic Americans supporting democracy rub me wrong in the same way as seen a pro-free speech pamphlet from the People's Republic of China. Like geeze, you're views are a bit.. slanted. Sticking out tongue

Quote:

I believe everyone should in principle have equal influence on decisions that affect all.

I beleive that to a certain extent as well (on the basis of the non-aggressiona principal and the core of libertarianism, equality). I go a step further, however, and beleive that nobody should have the power to override the equal opinion of disenters. In democracy, the 51% have the power to act in opposition to the other 49% and I can't see that as anything but evil.

Quote:

Letting the market take care of that is as flawed as it gets, because some are born rich, some make a lucky guess in trading, etc etc.

There are people born blind, deaf and with the mental capacity of a deflated football. Is it only "fair" that we all strike out our eyes, ears and brains to make everything "fair"? Life isn't fair - Darwin taught us this while discussing natural (and artificial) selection. Where human rise above that is in our compassionate natures. There are people born poor, and people born rich. It is possible in a free market to voluntarily transfer that wealth as investment or donation. Being born rich doesn't mean you'll remain rich and being born poor doesn't mean you'll remain that way. There ARE, however, incentives in a welfare state to NOT attempt to move up.

Quote:

Oh, another reason why taxes would be theft: "they don't necessarily benefit those who are paying". That is nonsense. If I pay for the support of someone who gets disabled because of an accident or illness or whatever, I will receive the same benefit when the same kind of disaster strikes me.

I get those same kind of benefits from private insurance (that I choose, based on my needs, not what is allowed to me by the government's plan) and my company also provides a certain amount. I see no benefit is stealing from me to pay for yours. I do see, however, benefit in you having your tax money back, and buying your own insurance if you're so inclined. The idea of insurance is to protect things against a loss. With competitng companies they have an advantage with preventing that loss - health insurance companies (for instance) make more money long-term if they spend money to PREVENT you from getting ill. The government pays if you're ill or healthy so there's no incentive at ALL to ensure that you remain healthy, except for the compassion of the underpaid, over worked people at governmental health facilities (ask Canada) who are under orders to do everything "efficiently".

Quote:

Funny you should mention a poor student. Over here students get a little funding. People complain about it because "the poor are paying for the studies of those who will get very rich because of those studies".

In the US, students and families pay their own way. Now, this usually means loans or grants (issued by private organizations) that are eventually repaid. Education is, in every sense of the word, an investment. What do those investors have to look forward to in the future? Paying more taxes because they're smart. In the US, we have resources, skilled labor and trade goods that we sell for profit. Income is "above" the capital one started with, and when you're being taxed it's not actually income, it's just a capital transfer. It proves a point very clearly when citizens of one place consider the stolen tax money of others to be their "income".

If the funding is there why don't those other people get educations too? Why don't they go to school, get better paying jobs? It's not about taxes but about creating value. An educated populace creates value, and value is directly translated into wealth. Those willing to go to school create more value than those unwilling, and should fairly gain more for their time. With the exception of claiming taxes as "income" you just supported, rather than belittled, the free market as valuable.

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
Kevin Dean wrote: Universal
Kevin Dean wrote:

Universal health care is a system where the government provides health care to all citizens and, through taxes (collected by force), does so at no or little per-visit cost. But don't be fooled, universal healthcare is NOT free!

So true. I'm experiencing a problem of that exact same kind. Forced to pay an obligatory fee for health insurance whether I want it or not, and that is supposedly for my own good. I'll likely end up giving away many times more money to the government for this "service" of theirs than I would ever actually need to spend on keeping myself healthy. What if I chose to pay private firms (which exist here) for all my health needs? Would government let me not pay for health insurance? No way! Do I feel oppressed by this? You bet!

And the same goes for the obligatory pension funds. Who are they to dictate whether I should invest in my pension right now or some time later, when I would be better financially equipped for it? Again, a mandate against my will and with no choice. I don't feel like a free citizen under a government which essentially robs me in the name of providing "taking care for me for free".

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
You make some good points,

You make some good points, but I nevertheless have some doubts. The issue just doesn't seem so clear cut. If the free market healthcare can't work, why are there private healthcare institutions even in systems in which government provides universal healthcare, like in Croatia? If there is a shortage of doctors why do these private institutions actually have a reputation of having greater quality care, because you pay for what you get. Note that you pay the government too, for the illusion that it is "free", and hence expect much less in terms of quality.

As said, I just don't feel things are all that clear cut and wouldn't just yet dismiss the possibility of free market healthcare being workable. Sure there would be some issues to work out, but the question is, comparing one with the other, isn't it at least remotely possible that the free market healthcare would, all things considered, prevail as more reliable and fair - just all around, at least slightly better?

tbuitenh wrote:

And all this is assuming some kind of market - ANY kind of market - is possible at all in healthcare. Which in the real world it is not.

I don't like such statements. But since you said it, can you point to any examples where it has actually been tried, and where it was done in a proper way of the free market and failed miserably - based on which you could base that statement? I'm usually hard pressed believing in "it is not possible" statements, especially with lack of obvious compelling proof.

tbuitenh wrote:

Yes, let's end bureaucracy by introducing more bureaucracy!

Well that's just a completely wrong characterization. Eye What I meant is lessening the amount of bureaucracy, but leaving just enough (but LESS) behind to regulate what absolutely has to be regulated. We're talking about minimizing the government, not eradicating its existence.

tbuitenh wrote:

Indeed!

What I meant by that US constitution has been numerous times broken in recent history is corruption, not fixing of what is supposedly sub-optimal in it. I tend to agree with Kevin about part of the problem in US is exactly that it isn't following its own constitution anymore.

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
"I am beginning to feel like

"I am beginning to feel like a personal full circle on these issues is closing for me. Not only have I, through my self improvement research and reading of the book "1984" come to believe that the greatest asset one can have is oneself, that the best way to ensure you are not being manipulated, that your freedom is 100% preserved and that your life is one of success is to be the most of yourself that you can be, least dependent and totally nonconforming (unless, of course, YOU have a perfectly good reason for yourself to conform to a particular rule.

In other words, nobody but yourself should have the right to dictate what you are, what you feel, what you should do, what you should think etc. You are god to yourself.

This fits perfectly with the kind of libertarianism Kevin is describing. The government which makes me conform to things I don't believe I should conform to, which takes away from me without my being willing to give it to that cause and this way; it is not the government I can morally support.

I did say it feels like a full circle closing. It really does! We're just going through an ugly situation in family in which it is exactly a private, not governmental, institution which proved most useful to us. We did pay money for the service, but considering how much money we have to give to the state EACH MONTH, this is NOTHING! So much for "free healthcare". As far as this case in our family goes Free market won, government lost!. So sorry if I am losing my faith in "universal healthcare" and government who can sufficiently take care of everyone.

The guy employed by the government proved to be a "cheap workforce" so to speak, non-consistent and showing little of professionalism. Why am I not surprised?

That said, speaking of who would fill the power void, why do they have to be huge organizations and corporations? As Kevin said, if done gradually they could be, basically, us, the people. It is often government who helps give power to huge corporations in the first place by falling to lobbying and to corruption.. If you make government too small to be able to provide such leverage, corporations would have nothing but free market to rely on to get up their ladder. You seem to see government as a solution here, I see it as the addition to the problem.

As for who would help the poor, very ill and unlucky? Well, do you really think it is only the government that these people can and have to count on? A lot of the times, even while the universal healthcare system exists, they get helped from the people around them, including non-governmental non-profit or even for profit organizations. This kind of behaviour would be even further encouraged in a system in which people don't look up to the government to solve all problems.

Just as there is no God we should look up to solve our problems, there is no government that can solve everything. It's time we start taking care of ourselves and each other by our own motivations and incentives, not because "it is the law".

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 11 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
To Kevin Dean: It is now

To Kevin Dean: It is now clear to me we have completely opposite notions of what is fair. Your utopia is my dystopia, and vice versa. We could continue the debate, but we'd be doing this.

Some clarifications, though:

- corporations and USSR style government: corporations are like that internally, not externally. OTOH such governments are like corporations externally, they can participate in international trade. Have you read Animal Farm?

- being rich by luck: Joe owns $10000. Sue inherited $15000000. Joe doesn't want a sewage pipe ending in his back yard, while Sue plans to put hers exactly there. Should they have equal votes in this, or should money speak?

Kevin Dean wrote:

In the case of aid from Christian groups - don't take their blankets if you're not willing to accept their prayers.

What if they're the only ones handing out blankets, and you're freezing?

Quote:

Do you really beleive people need to be protected from their own decisions? Do you REALLY beleive you should be the one with that authority?

No, I believe people are too busy and not informed enough to make the complicated decisions that will affect the whole population. So they should choose who they trust to make the decisions for them. I guess you would call that mob rule, but I don't see any alternatives that would lead to less tyranny, so give me mob rule.

Quote:

So... The government taking your money and using it on something you don't want is okay because they're taking MY money and using it on something I don't want either? The old adage "Two wrongs don't make a right" is an understatement here. I support NO taxes - period.

Joe wants to spend $2 on A, but $0 on B. Sue wants to spend $0 on A, but $2 on B. They vote in the elections, and their representatives decide to spend $2 on A and $2 on B. Now Joe whines that one of his $ got spent on B, which is silly because one might as well say the 2$ spent on B both came from Sue.

Okay, now what if Joe wants to spend $1 on C, while Sue wants to spend $5, and this is paid directly rather than through taxes, and their benefit of C is equal? In that case Joe is a parasite.

Now to libervisco...

libervisco wrote:

I'm experiencing a problem of that exact same kind. Forced to pay an obligatory fee for health insurance whether I want it or not, and that is supposedly for my own good. I'll likely end up giving away many times more money to the government for this "service" of theirs than I would ever actually need to spend on keeping myself healthy.

Let's ask you about that again when you're 80.

libervisco wrote:

why do these private institutions actually have a reputation of having greater quality care, because you pay for what you get.

These are providing something extra on top of the public healthcare. If I'm not mistaken they actually get paid from the public healthcare system for their versions of treatments that are also in the public system. You only pay for the extras. And of course a "little" more still.

libervisco wrote:
tbuitenh wrote:

And all this is assuming some kind of market - ANY kind of market - is possible at all in healthcare. Which in the real world it is not.

I don't like such statements. But since you said it, can you point to any examples where it has actually been tried, and where it was done in a proper way of the free market and failed miserably - based on which you could base that statement? I'm usually hard pressed believing in "it is not possible" statements, especially with lack of obvious compelling proof.

Just look at the sorry state healthcare (for the poor to average person, not for the rich) is in in ANY country that isn't some form of social democracy.

Quote:

As for who would help the poor, very ill and unlucky? Well, do you really think it is only the government that these people can and have to count on? A lot of the times, even while the universal healthcare system exists, they get helped from the people around them, including non-governmental non-profit or even for profit organizations. This kind of behaviour would be even further encouraged in a system in which people don't look up to the government to solve all problems.

Not everyone has people around them to depend on. These lonely cases would have to depend on either the state or on non-governmental organizations.
If the constitution and laws are right, I trust the state an infinity more than any organization of which the leaders are not elected by the whole population.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.