14 Sep 12
Originally posted by normbenignAre you seriously asserting that physicians in the US are "slaves"? Have you really gone that mad?
What is the investment required? Time and money? Enslavement if based on force, not the comparative living conditions of the slave. The palace eunuchs lived well but were still slaves.
The house slave was as much a slave as the field hand in a sugar plantation, despite his better living conditions. The key ingredient is forced labor.
14 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignBaloney. You have repeatedly stressed you are not an anarchist. You want the government to enforce contracts and to do that they must occasionally use force. You are fine with that.
No, I am advocating government get out of the way, and leave people to make voluntary agreement with one another, one of if not the very basis of libertarian philosophy.
A doesn't pay B the rent he owes B because he lost his job. B petitions the government to throw A out on the street using force if necessary. Should the government tell B that it can't because it must "get out of the way"?
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderThe one thing you got right is that the system is broken. The free market in health care was shattered many decades ago, and so you prescribe more of the same poison that made it dysfunctional in the first place.
Governments all over the world pay for healthcare for all their citizens. And they do it at less cost per capita and with equivalent or better results than our broken system does. Why can't the US do it?
You offer a false choice given the vast amounts of wealth this country possesses.
We have government funded health care for the elderly (Medicare) and for the poor (Medicaid). Both are bankrupt, and are facing actuarial disintegration. Most of the rest of the world which operates health care outside of free market principles is already in the same condition as those US programs or worse.
They all require force. Force against suppliers of goods and services, and eventually force against those who they promised treatment but no longer can be afforded.
We can and should return to a free choice system eliminating force in all areas of society.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderThe more voluntary agreements there are the fewer disputed areas there are, and the force required is minimized.
Baloney. You have repeatedly stressed you are not an anarchist. You want the government to enforce contracts and to do that they must occasionally use force. You are fine with that.
A doesn't pay B the rent he owes B because he lost his job. B petitions the government to throw A out on the street using force if necessary. Should the government tell B that it can't because it must "get out of the way"?
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by normbenign"The more voluntary agreements there are the fewer disputed areas there are"
The more voluntary agreements there are the fewer disputed areas there are, and the force required is minimized.
That is absurd - people fall into voluntary agreements where they are swindled all the time - should they have no recourse in the courts?
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by normbenignWhat abolish private property and go back to collective measures of ownership? Private property was imposed by force by the chieftains and other types you mention.
The one thing you got right is that the system is broken. The free market in health care was shattered many decades ago, and so you prescribe more of the same poison that made it dysfunctional in the first place.
We have government funded health care for the elderly (Medicare) and for the poor (Medicaid). Both are bankrupt, and are facing actuarial d ...[text shortened]... .
We can and should return to a free choice system eliminating force in all areas of society.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by normbenignAnd others decided that they and their cronies should own the land and deprive others of its use and enjoyment. That was private property which must always be protected by government force.
And that natural state was based on voluntary interactions, freely agreed upon by the parties involved, until some decided others needed leaders.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by normbenignHardly. If you deprive people of land and resources for the benefit of a relative few and enforce that deprivation with force, they will eventually respond in kind.
The more voluntary agreements there are the fewer disputed areas there are, and the force required is minimized.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by normbenignWhat "voluntary agreement" would you suggest two year old Zoe enter into so she doesn't die because her parents can't afford the treatments for her chronic heart condition?
The more voluntary agreements there are the fewer disputed areas there are, and the force required is minimized.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199253
14 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackThere are certain things on which we do not put a price. The life of a child is one of them. We can cut back somewhere else to pay for it. My vote is the military, which continues at cold war levels to fight tin pot dictators.
The cold hearted reality is that money is a finite resourse and if we use it here we cannot use it somewhere else like schools, mass transit etc. People cannot get unlimited medical care. I do not know how much this life saving procedure cost... Maybe this kid got a million dollars and maybe you think it is ok. What if the next generation of life sa ...[text shortened]... extraordinary and if you want it you have to pay for it yourself because the government cannot.
14 Sep 12
Originally posted by kbear1kLibertarians are not wide eyed utopians. A good system doesn't eliminate bad people and bad intentions. Yes, even in a pure market driven libertarian society, arbitration would be required. However arbiters would not be political hacks selected by one party or the other, sometimes appointed for long terms up to life.
"The more voluntary agreements there are the fewer disputed areas there are"
That is absurd - people fall into voluntary agreements where they are swindled all the time - should they have no recourse in the courts?
Ancient Irish (Celtic) society provides an example of such arbiters and a system which worked well for centuries.
15 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderNothing wrong with cooperation and collective effort if it occurs voluntarily. Recent human history that is verifiable, demonstrates that collective property rights lead to enormous amounts of brutal force being applied, and wasted resources.
What abolish private property and go back to collective measures of ownership? Private property was imposed by force by the chieftains and other types you mention.
There is nothing voluntary about Obamacare. It is several thousand pages of rules, and created bureaucracies, that will dictate who gets limited resources, and how others may be denied.