Anarcho-Capitalists?

[metis]

It would be hard to brand that which is already red-hot.

 

[Mequa]

This reminds me of the old ad hominem fallacy....."There are no atheists in foxholes."

Some thoughts:
Because you really need something, you believe you have the right to take from others (always backed up by threat of force).
We oppose that.

Let me ask then. If you were faced with the choice between taking taxpayer-funded healthcare, or dying, which would you choose?

What would Ayn Rand do? (Hint: faced with this very choice, she signed on to Medicare.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me ask then. If you were faced with the choice between taking taxpayer-funded healthcare, or dying, which would you choose?

As one who has paid hundreds of thousands in taxes, I'd of course take it.
It would be nice to get some tax money back for a change.
But your question seeks to continue the ad hominem argument.
The real issue is about which system we'd want in place.
I prefer one with more self-reliance.

Individually, we have no choice about which system our country has.
We must cope with what is there.
This is why I don't criticize you for receiving the benefit.
I'm only addressing philosophy & advocacy.

What would Ayn Rand do? (Hint: faced with this very choice, she signed on to Medicare.)

She is a different person...one who doesn't govern my choices.
Btw, not all atheists make foxhole conversions.

 

[Slide]

Free healthcare does not need to be funded by taxpayers. I support free healthcare (or bartered healthcare). In our current system, we have to work with what we are given (which is why I am on Medicare). I would prefer to receive medical care from a doctor and work for them, or offer them a good they need. In the world I'd like to live in (and will work toward), people will benefit from helping one another, not from paying money to a corrupt government that mishandles the money it demands. In the United States, we are facing the same problem of the Revolutionaries: we are taxed without proper representation. I don't support taxes when my money is going to be used for things I do not support. Of course, going to prison worries me, so I pay my taxes, but I work within legal means to change the way we do things.

 

[metis]

Based on comparative studies with more recent hunting & gathering bands, undoubtedly most human societies for millions of years took care of each other. The idea of each man for himself would be antithetical and inhumane for them, no doubt. Maybe we should try and be as civilized as they.

 

[Revoltingest]

Based on comparative studies with more recent hunting & gathering bands, undoubtedly most human societies for millions of years took care of each other. The idea of each man for himself would be antithetical and inhumane for them, no doubt. Maybe we should try and be as civilized as they.

We prefer voluntarily caring for others in preference to government taking our money to dole out for care.

 

[metis]

We prefer voluntarily caring for others in preference to government taking our money to dole out for care.

Don't work, and it never has.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't work, and it never has.

It does work....just not as much as you want it to.

 

[metis]

It does work....just not as much as you want it to.

Name one modern country that relies on charity alone for their medical care.

And here's an experiment for you: go to Royal Oak Beaumont and announce to all the patients there that they will no longer have medical insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, and see what their response will be. And then maybe go and talk to the doctors and tell them that your charity approach will definitely work. Make sure you bring ear-muffs so the laughter doesn't make you go deaf.

And while at Beaumont, ask yourself it those hundreds of patients there are going to just be able to rely on charity?

It simply won't work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Name one modern country that relies on charity alone for their medical care.

This challenge doesn't reflect the discussion at hand.
I never claimed that your premise was the case.
But private charity does nonetheless play a role in health care, eg, Planned Parenthood.
In this role, it works.

And here's an experiment for you: go to Royal Oak Beaumont and announce to all the patients there that they will no longer have medical insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, and see what their response will be. And then maybe go and talk to the doctors and tell them that your charity approach will definitely work. Make sure you bring ear-muffs so the laughter doesn't make you go deaf.
And while at Beaumont, ask yourself it those hundreds of patients there are going to just be able to rely on charity?
It simply won't work.

To interview people who live on the dole about the necessity of the dole will of course bring a chorus of jeers.
But hypothetically, if we were to implement libertarian values across the board, the reduction in taxes & health care costs could very well provide a better result than the Frankenstein system we now have. This is moot though, since it would never happen. The most we can hope for is that public policy might head in the direction of more consumer autonomy & ability to pay.

 

[metis]

This challenge doesn't reflect the discussion at hand.
I never claimed that your premise was the case.
But private charity does nonetheless play a role in health care, eg, Planned Parenthood.
In this role, it works.

To interview people who live on the dole about the necessity of the dole will of course bring a chorus of jeers.
But hypothetically, if we were to implement libertarian values across the board, the reduction in taxes & health care costs could very well provide a better result than the Frankenstein system we now have. This is moot though, since it would never happen. The most we can hope for is that public policy might head in the direction of more consumer autonomy & ability to pay.

I never said or implied that charity doesn't play a factor, but it's a relatively minor one in terms of overall funding in industrialized countries.

The costs are high in large part because of both the training and the equipment and the overall facilities needed to run a good system that works, and charity alone would never be able to handle that. For example, how is a doctor to pay for medical school if (s)he can't recover the costs somehow? Are the medical schools going to run on charity as well? Are those who build the m.r.i. machines going to make them by accepting charity as well to make them affordable under your system?

It simply doesn't and won't work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep, and of the purist kind.

Can one be both a "socialist" & a "capitalist"?
(I notice that you post in both restricted forums.)
They'd seem to be at odds, but I also observe that RF's definition of "capitalist" includes the Soviet style economy (ie, "state capitalism").

 

[Revoltingest]

I never said or implied that charity doesn't play a factor, but it's a relatively minor one in terms of overall funding in industrialized countries.

The size of the welfare state tends to reduce private assistance.

The costs are high in large part because of both the training and the equipment and the overall facilities needed to run a good system that works, and charity alone would never be able to handle that. For example, how is a doctor to pay for medical school if (s)he can't recover the costs somehow? Are the medical schools going to run on charity as well? Are those who build the m.r.i. machines going to make them by accepting charity as well to make them affordable under your system?
It simply doesn't and won't work.

Training, facility & equipment costs are just part of the picture though. There is much overhead due to bureaucracy, defensive medicine, malpractice insurance, collection inabilities, & barriers to entry. Costs can be lowered (per a Thomson Reuters internal study), but it would require a complete overhaul....not by politicians (who'd make things worse), but by those knowledgeable about the industry.

 

[metis]

The size of the welfare state tends to reduce private assistance.

Training, facility & equipment costs are just part of the picture though. There is much overhead due to bureaucracy, defensive medicine, malpractice insurance, collection inabilities, & barriers to entry. Costs can be lowered (per a Thomson Reuters internal study), but it would require a complete overhaul....not by politicians (who'd make things worse), but by those knowledgeable about the industry.

No matter how you try to approach it, the results are the same-- it won't work. All systems we have are interrelated, and one simply cannot have the medical system based on charity without pretty much changing everything that may relate to it in any way directly and even indirectly.

Secondly, it defies human nature in the large society. Roughly 10 years ago, I suffered a serious neck injury that has left my left hand partially paralyzed, and I was in the hospital for two days because I was in quite bad shape. That 2-day stint cost my insurance company and I $20,000, and this does not include all the therapy I needed afterwords. Who's going to pay for that if I didn't have insurance and wasn't wealthy? You? Why would you do that? If not you, who? If they don't know me well or don't have the money, why would they do that?

No matter how you song-and-dance this, it don't work in today's day and age, and the fact that no country does it is proof enough.

 

[metis]

Can one be both a "socialist" & a "capitalist"?
(I notice that you post in both restricted forums.)
They'd seem to be at odds, but I also observe that RF's definition of "capitalist" includes the Soviet style economy (ie, "state capitalism").

Nope, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Try again.

[actually I gave you enough information several weeks ago to figure it out, so let's see how good your memory is ]

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Try again.
[actually I gave you enough information several weeks ago to figure it out, so let's see how good your memory is ]

Knowing that I'm a slow learner, & not very observant, you're evading the issue. But it's not important anyway.

 

[metis]

Knowing that I'm a slow learner, & not very observant, you're evading the issue. But it's not important anyway.

I'm not evading the issue-- just trying to drive you nuts like you try and drive every person here nuts. Can't take your own poison, eh?

So, while I'm having some fun here at your expense, let me give you a hint on what you asked: when you mentioned "Soviet socialism", you went on the wrong direction because that was a bastardization of what Marx actually taught to a certain, but extremely important, extent.

OK, being that it's near the Sabbath and I'll be getting out of here fairly soon, let me give you another clue: even though the Chinese also at first bastardized what Marx taught, they eventually got it right in an important economic area, and went from starving their own people to actually exporting food in a few decades.

BTW, do not think for one minute I'm supporting what the Chinese have done as "bastardizing" is the nice word for what they've done overall. Even economically they are very much violating what Marx taught in a very crucial area.

OK, two big clues, so it should be a slam-dunk for you now.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not evading the issue-- just trying to drive you nuts like you try and drive every person here nuts. Can't take your own poison, eh?

Poison? I'm just wondering about whether it's possible to be both a capitalist & a socialist. I say they're mutually incompatible. I wondered how you manage it, but you needn't answer if you don't want to. (I'm not big on kicking people out of forums. I'm more about getting myself kicked out.)

So, while I'm having some fun here at your expense, let me give you a hint on what you asked: when you mentioned "Soviet socialism", you went on the wrong direction because that was a bastardization of what Marx actually taught to a certain, but extremely important, extent.

I never used the term "Soviet socialism". What I called attention to was that the Soviet economy is oft cited as an example of "state capitalism" (eg, Wikipedia), & thus, even a fan of Soviet style economics is a capitalist. You gotta read what I post carefully.

OK, being that it's near the Sabbath and I'll be getting out of here fairly soon, let me give you another clue: even though the Chinese also at first bastardized what Marx taught, they eventually got it right in an important economic area, and went from starving their own people to actually exporting food in a few decades.
BTW, do not think for one minute I'm supporting what the Chinese have done as "bastardizing" is the nice word for what they've done overall. Even economically they are very much violating what Marx taught in a very crucial area.
OK, two big clues, so it should be a slam-dunk for you now.

I don't see how this even begins to address my questions.
But again, you needn't answer. I'm not pressing the issue.

 

[metis]

Poison? I'm just wondering about whether it's possible to be both a capitalist & a socialist. I say they're mutually incompatible. I wondered how you manage it, but you needn't answer if you don't want to. (I'm not big on kicking people out of forums. I'm more about getting myself kicked out.)

I never used the term "Soviet socialism". What I called attention to was that the Soviet economy is oft cited as an example of "state capitalism" (eg, Wikipedia), & thus, even a fan of Soviet style economics is a capitalist. You gotta read what I post carefully.

I don't see how this even begins to address my questions.
But again, you needn't answer. I'm not pressing the issue.

OK, let me refresh your memory here.

I mentioned a few weeks ago that I drift in the direction of "Neo-Marxist economics". Essentially, the version I more lean towards is that eventually that I would like to see all businesses, with the exception of start-up ones, be owned by those that work there, and that includes all levels of work, btw. Also, any corporation would have the workers owning at least 51% of the stock, some lesser amounts by the community, and the rest can be for outside investors.

Unlike your charity health-care scheme, we know this works because there's models even here in the States that have shown that it does. The trouble is getting there from here on a nation-wide scale. In order to accomplish this, there would have to be federal laws that would be needed to alter how private businesses/corporations run, and that would require quite a bit of regulation at first ("socialism").

However, once in place and running, this becomes a system far less necessary to regulate than what we have now since multiple owners with community oversight and ownership keeps better track of what's going on, and this reduces risk of a few taking advantage of their position in order to make a lot of $ at the expense of others. It is also less risky since there's less of an incentive for anyone to take unnecessary risks that could cost everyone their jobs. Also, there's much less of an incentive to move jobs out of the country. Also there's much less of an incentive to have a wide-disparity of wages.

So, what would be the result is competition between mostly worker-owned companies/corporations, which is "capitalism".

Voila!

Of course you're gonna hate this because you like your "privileged" position too much, so I'll be waiting next for the "That is stupid..." response. Except, it works, and we know it works-- unlike your charity health-care approach.

 

[Slide]

...Unlike your charity health-care scheme, we know this works...

Of course you're gonna hate this because you like your "privileged" position too much, so I'll be waiting next for the "That is stupid..." response. Except, it works, and we know it works-- unlike your charity health-care approach.

Hold up. You're getting a bit presumptuous there. It's true that I can't think of a place where anarcho-capitalism has been implemented, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. Of course, if it has been implemented and it failed, someone let me know (cite your sources, please). You seem to be implying, Metis, that anarcho-capitalism healthcare can't work, but how do you know unless it's been tried?