03 Dec 08
Originally posted by mrstabbySCHIP for kids & Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) if it is that much of an emergency. Anything inbetween, go earn a living that will support medical insurance. That is the freedom afforded you in America, baby! Want something? You can earn it if you want!!
How can someone access healthcare if they're being discriminated against on economic grounds?
03 Dec 08
Originally posted by Dace AceHow would you define "freedom" if you believe this is the case?
SCHIP for kids & Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) if it is that much of an emergency. Anything inbetween, go earn a living that will support medical insurance. That is the freedom afforded you in America, baby! Want something? You can earn it if you want!!
03 Dec 08
Originally posted by Dace AceLet me rephrase: How can someone access healthcare adequate for remaining fit for work if they're being discriminated against on economic grounds?
SCHIP for kids & Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) if it is that much of an emergency. Anything inbetween, go earn a living that will support medical insurance. That is the freedom afforded you in America, baby! Want something? You can earn it if you want!!
03 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraA short intro to the philosophy of liberty, which will save me from ansewring the same questions over and over.
This is contradictory. The former implies anarchism, the latter implies government involvement.
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
enjoy
03 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaI understand libertarism, probably better than you. I know what it stands for, and the ideology also fails to address my criticism of it. Some key concepts not addressed in libetarism: game theory, positional goods and the natural exploitation of consumers in an unregulated free market.
A short intro to the philosophy of liberty, which will save me from ansewring the same questions over and over.
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
enjoy
03 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYour comments about libertarianism and libertarians indicate the contrary.
I understand libertarism, probably better than you. I know what it stands for, and the ideology also fails to address my criticism of it.
KN says: "This is contradictory. The former implies anarchism, the latter implies government."
This from only two posts before says, KN knows squat about Libertarianism, how you can get it so wrong in so few words is really something to see though.
03 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat libertarians are anarchists is truly the sign of a noob.
I understand libertarism, probably better than you. I know what it stands for, and the ideology also fails to address my criticism of it. Some key concepts not addressed in libetarism: game theory, positional goods and the natural exploitation of consumers in an unregulated free market.
Just saying "game theory" "game theory" "game theory" over and over then posting a wiki link to the prisoners dillema over and over, actually means KN doesn't know what it is or how it is relative.
Consumers are exploited - yes, that's good.
Those that provide consumables are exploited - yes, that's good.
My employer exploits my need for a job, I exploit my employers need for an employee.
Yet another KN sound bite dies a death.
03 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaI never claimed libertarians are anarchists. I do claim consistent application of libertarian ideals boils down to anarchism since their choice of what the government should provide is completely arbitrary, ergo libertarians are inconsistent.
That libertarians are anarchists is truly the sign of a noob.
Just saying "game theory" "game theory" "game theory" over and over then posting a wiki link to the prisoners dillema over and over, actually means KN doesn't know what it is or how it is relative.
Consumers are exploited - yes, that's good.
Those that provide consumables are exploited - y ...[text shortened]... I exploit my consumers need for an employee.
Yet another KN sound bite dies a death.
It's a pity you don't understand the relevance of game theory to economics, but it's really too much to put in a single post and you're likely to ignore it anyway, so I will just repeat my advice of reading about it. I can recommend "The Origin of Wealth" by Eric Beinhocker, which covers it briefly and is not too hard to digest (no, it's not socialist literature).
Why is it a good thing if consumers are exploited?
03 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou have rights, it is the role of guvamint to protect those rights - nothing anarchist there, nothing contradictory which is your prefered MO, nothing arbitrary. Just another statement by KN indicating his ignorance of the subject he has chosen to debate.
I never claimed libertarians are anarchists. I do claim consistent application of libertarian ideals boils down to anarchism since their choice of what the government should provide is completely arbitrary, ergo libertarians are inconsistent.
It's a pity you don't understand the relevance of game theory to economics, but it's really too much to put i ...[text shortened]... no, it's not socialist literature).
Why is it a good thing if consumers are exploited?
The old "go read a book" side step, why don't you go read Mises "Human Action", get back to us when you're finished.
Because it is a mutual exploitation, the consumer exploits the producers need to sell his goods.
03 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaRights aren't arbitrary? Of course they are. I'd say health care is a right, for example, and you disagree.
You have rights, it is the role of guvamint to protect those rights - nothing anarchist there, nothing contradictory which is your prefered MO, nothing arbitrary. Just another statement by KN indicating his ignorance of the subject he has chosen to debate.
The old "go read a book" side step, why don't you go read Mises "Human Action", get back to us when ...[text shortened]... e it is a mutual exploitation, the consumer exploits the producers need to sell his goods.
Because it is a mutual exploitation, the consumer exploits the producers need to sell his goods.
How does this protect the consumer from, say, cartels or misinformation? Forming cartels and misleading the consumer is OK, because the consumer can always decide not to consume any goods...?
03 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraA right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
Rights aren't arbitrary? Of course they are. I'd say health care is a right, for example, and you disagree.
[b]Because it is a mutual exploitation, the consumer exploits the producers need to sell his goods.
How does this protect the consumer from, say, cartels or misinformation? Forming cartels and misleading the consumer is OK, because the consumer can always decide not to consume any goods...?[/b]
Health can never be a "right".
I thought you made claims as to your knowledge on this subject, why do I have to go over the basics with you?
You have a right to live free from force, threats of force and fraud, If the misinformation falls under "fraud" then the defrauder needs the stick that the guvamint currently reserves for a man going to work to support his family.
03 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaHow can you live free from force if the government needs to force you to pay for protecting citizens from each other?
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
Health can never be a "right".
I thought you made claims as to your knowledge on this subject, why do I have to go over the basics with you?
You have a right to live free from force, threats of force and fraud, If the misinformation falls under "fraud" then the defrauder needs the stick that the guvamint currently reserves for a man going to work to support his family.
And of course health care can be a right if you define it as such. This is semantics, really.