|
Caros posted:Awww, I got a call out by the troll. I think I feel a tear in my eye. [09:00:44] <Shiranaihito> and i know responding to caros is pointless because he's a sociopath troll [09:00:57] <o_^> yes truly a sociopathic troll would write such things Well his response would not be worth much, even if he wasn't trolling (I suspect this is in reality an elaborate trolling effort of his that has been going on for years by now) he would tell you how your friend would've survived under anarchist capitalism because medical care would be available for ~*~*~everyone~*~*~* Naturally any doctor of faith healing from the University of Rangoon would've cured AIDS by now if it weren't for those meddling governments trying to keep pasty white men down.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 08:11
|
|
. You don't understand the culture here, and you aren't interested in either debate or discussion. You've said it yourself, you aren't going to win any converts here.
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
jonnypeh posted:Well his response would not be worth much, even if he wasn't trolling (I suspect this is in reality an elaborate trolling effort of his that has been going on for years by now) he would tell you how your friend would've survived under anarchist capitalism because medical care would be available for ~*~*~everyone~*~*~* Congratulations, you got me to respond :P In a nutshell, Caros seems to think that problems caused by government are a justification for government. Of course, he doesn't actually think that. He knows the fact that healthcare is expensive somewhere doesn't actually make extortion moral, especially when that extortion is the basis for what's caused healthcare to be expensive. Suppose you've got cancer, you're a friend of Caros, and you live in the US. Will you do your loving darndest to not die? -Of course you will. If you're thinking of going to Canada for some healthcare, would it occur to you that some other country might be an option too? -Of course it would, especially with someone as smart as Caros assisting you. You'd even like, look pretty hard for viable options, and you would do whatever the gently caress you could to finance a trip to Thailand, where good medical care is available for a small fraction of the price in America. Oh, and Caros would do whatever he could to help you, because *he cares* soooo loving much that he'll just *turn irrational* if you die! :P So I bet he'd also chip in to cover the costs of, you know, having you live. I'm not buying Caros' sob story, and we all know it wasn't a (rational) justification for rejecting AnCap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:I'm not buying Caros' sob story, and we all know it wasn't a (rational) justification for rejecting AnCap.  What would be a rational one then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:
Not anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Oh, and thanks for showing me that JP is exactly like you all. He's had so much fun with me over the years that you must be quite envious of him :P
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
The only argument shiranaihito seems to be making right now is "I am an incredibly bad person, but bad is good." e: shiranaihito posted:Not anything. The Ken Ham of ancaps (kidding; all ancaps have the mind of Ken Ham, no single ancap may lay claim to him).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Cancer patients just aren't trying hard enough? Nope, not a real person. I can't and won't believe someone is willingly that dumb and proud of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Even putting aside the fact that some people don't have the resources to leave the country just to get medical treatment (especially long-term treatment), you're making a bit of a silly argument. If your answer to healthcare being broken in your country to the point that it might kill you is "go to a country with socialized medicine," you're kind of taking the socialized medicine and its benefits for granted. You just don't want to pay to live in a healthy (and well-educated ) society. As for Thailand, if you think that "fly around the world and stay somewhere while paying for treatment" is a realistic option you are not living in the real world. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Oh, and thanks for showing me that JP is exactly like you all. He's had so much fun with me over the years that you must be quite envious of him :P Not really. I can only imagine trying to seriously discuss anything with you is torture. JP must have the patience of a Saint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Congratulations, you got me to respond :P All of your bullshit and horridness aside (for gently caress's sake, what is wrong with you?), Thailand has universal healthcare. So all that you've done is made a tacit admission that a well-funded public healthcare system is superior to the ancap libertarian alternative. In other words, taxes that save lives are moral 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:All of your bullshit and horridness aside (for gently caress's sake, what is wrong with you?), Thailand has universal healthcare. So all that you've done is made a tacit admission that a well-funded public healthcare system is superior to the ancap libertarian alternative. In other words, taxes that save lives are moral To be fair, the ideal solution to most problems in an an-cap society would be "leave for a more socialist country as soon as possible" so it's actually a pretty good answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
Remember guys whenever you're out of money the correct solution is to fly to Thailand and buy things there. And if you see any problems with that system whatsoever, well I guess you just deserve to die. For not *wanting* it enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
I can understand why someone who lives in a socialist hellhole like Finland with a publicly funded healthcare system would just straight up not believe that medical costs could ever be a life-or-death problem for someone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
Have there ever been ancaps that actually succeed in business? At all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Have there ever been ancaps that actually succeed in business? At all? The Kochs. But I'm pretty sure they were wealthy to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I can understand why someone who lives in a socialist hellhole like Finland with a publicly funded healthcare system would just straight up not believe that medical costs could ever be a life-or-death problem for someone. It really is hard to overstate just how bubbled those of us from the Nordic countries can become about things like this. I always thought I was pretty on the ball with how well off we actually were up here, but it wasn't until about... 2005/2006 that it really was driven home to me just how hosed up things were under privatized healthcare in the US. Up until that point, while I had a general, abstract idea about how having to pay for your own healthcare out-of-pocket woud be a 'bad thing', I hadn't actually met anyone who had to deal with it on a day-to-day basis. It's cliche as gently caress, but actually getting to know someone who had to quit their job and stay at home to care for an ill spouse while simultaneously fighting the insurance-companies trying to kick them off/jack up their policy changed everything for me, and especially killed any lingering, naively romantic notions about the US as a 'land of opportunity', or of 'free markets' as an unadulterated good. My acquaintance could work part-time - barely - but had to make sure not to be away from their spouse for too long, out of fear that said spouse would expire due to complications. Thankfully, their families were able to step in and care for the ill spouse enough that some money could be brought in and they at least didn't starve ( again, barely ). And yeah, to those of us living up here, especially idiots like KnowNothingGuy ( who's proven his username was well-chosen, at least! ), it sounds a lot like fiction. In fact, he dismissed Caros' story as fiction, because I don't think he's capable of accepting that something like that ever could happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The Kochs. But I'm pretty sure they were wealthy to begin with. No. Do not give them that. The Kochs are not ancaps. They're evil, not stupid. The Kochs do not want to give up free police protection from the poors and they certainly don't want to give up the US Navy securing their shipping routes and the armed forces ready to deploy anywhere in the world to protect US-company-owned resources from the people who live there. Like most Libertarians, they're just neocons running from the brand they've made toxic. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
Undead Hippo posted:Remember guys whenever you're out of money the correct solution is to fly to Thailand and buy things there. And if you see any problems with that system whatsoever, well I guess you just deserve to die. For not *wanting* it enough. Like I've always said: healthcare is like a new suit. I know that when I was poor and unemployed, I needed a new suit for a job interview, but I had very little money. Luckily, I realized that I could've flown to Thailand to get a suit made because suits there are the cheapest in the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Have there ever been ancaps that actually succeed in business? At all? Molyneux does pretty well exploiting his cult, but that's a pretty narrow business model.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Like I've always said: healthcare is like a new suit. I know that when I was poor and unemployed, I needed a new suit for a job interview, but I had very little money. Luckily, I realized that I could've flown to Thailand to get a suit made because suits there are the cheapest in the world. I like his Thailand argument. Because every universal healthcare country would NOT give you healthcare for free unless you were a citizen, since that is whole point. Here in Germany I can get a kickass new artificial hip for free. Anybody else pays a premium.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Have there ever been ancaps that actually succeed in business? At all? No, ancap is a philosophy embraced by failures who don't understand human nature or commerce. Actual tycoons like Steve Jobs whose personal ideology bears some resemblance to it don't bother to make silly, tortuous faux-academic arguments, they just believe they don't owe anybody anything. Because they are genuine psychopaths.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Like most Libertarians, they're just neocons running from the brand they've made toxic. Putting it literally up on the walls =! running from the brand. Fundamentally structuring one's business around it, ie. "The theory of MBM is rooted in the Science of Human Action." =! running from the brand. (http://www.kochind.com/MBM/) I mean they are basically and publicly telling everyone: This poo poo here (KII) runs on praxeology. And if they are anything other than Libertarians they're John Birchers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
I'm disappointed in you shiranaihito. You could have kept your gimmick going, all you had to do was argue that Caros' friend in any just ancap state was supposed to die; she could not afford the market rate for cancer medicine and ergo was clearly not being profitable enough to afford the medicine. Yes medicine costs are inflated because states stubbornly continue to exist, but with all the money she was stealing from poor defenseless pharmaceutical companies via taxes, she should have been able to afford the treatment 10 times over had she been a smart enough investor/captain of industry/whatever. Since she couldn't, it's clear using precious resources like cancer medicine or wasting an oncologists time doing the surgery on her would have been wasted. THAT'S how you keep a gimmick like this going, go full sociopath but one with something resembling a logical flow to it. Arguing that "Thailand's cheap medical costs prove universal healthcare doesn't work but fly there anyway to treat your cancer  " just makes it too obvious you either stopped giving a poo poo or were half assing this and never thought through answers to pretty obvious questions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Putting it literally up on the walls =! running from the brand. Fundamentally structuring one's business around it, ie. "The theory of MBM is rooted in the Science of Human Action." =! running from the brand. (http://www.kochind.com/MBM/) The "toxic" brand he's refering to is neo-conservativism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Congratulations, you got me to respond :P Pfft, why do you guys never reply in the afternoon? Everytime you or Jrod post its in the middle of the night and all the good rebuttals are taken up. Oh well. For starters, lets talk about cost. Despite your protestation that it would be merely a small fraction of the price, I believe you severely underestimate the cost of cancer medicines. This is not surprising, seeing as you've likely never had to even consider the idea since you enjoy socialized medicine, and have almost certainly led a privileged life. The cost of chemotherapy drugs alone in the US runs over $100,000. Even assuming you cut this down by a fraction of five, which is the typical tourism rate you're still looking at $20,000. While the 1/5 fractional cost is typical of many single surgery procedures, the cost savings are typically not as significant when looking at something like chemo and radiation therepy which require expensive drugs and ongoing care. When she was pricing out the idea of medical tourism, and despite your protestations she did also consider that, it quickly became apparent that it wasn't going to be affordable. Again I suspect you probably don't understand what it is like to be poor, but $25,000 plus living expenses for six months to a year in a foreign country was as far out of her price range as $100,000 in the same city. There are people in the US who can't afford $15.00 of pills to save their lives, the suggestion that the fix is "Fly halfway around the world and leech off the public healthcare systems of less developed nations" should be a fix for free market healthcare failures is absurd. And no, as I demonstrated yesterday in 5000 words or less, the government is not what caused US healthcare to be so expensive. You can assert it all you want, but we both know that you are incapable of rebutting my points with anything more than screeching like a child and calling me a sociopath. Speaking of: quote:[09:00:44] <Shiranaihito> and i know responding to caros is pointless because he's a sociopath troll I'm beginning to thing you just don't know what that word means. I mean, really. I posted a deep, personal anecdote about why I'm not a libertarian, and you came into the thread to call me an idiot and a liar, and to say that it is a 'sob story'. By all means go away and stop posting here, but lets be honest. We both know you are going to sit there in impotent rage, pouting about the fact that the mean old sociopaths on something awful aren't accepting you as god king. A sociopath is a person who's behavior is anti-social, who lacks a sense of social and moral responsibility. That is you buddy. Muscle Tracer posted:The "toxic" brand he's refering to is neo-conservativism. Yeah, but the Koch's were never really Neo-Con's. They've been into the libertarian wackjob wilderness since the 70's. quote:[09:00:44] <Shiranaihito> and i know responding to caros is pointless because he's a sociopath troll Does he always talk that way with you? If so... how have you abided him this long? I've talked to a lot of libertarians over the years, but I've never been able to stomach someone as lazy as Shiranaihito for any significant length of time. As has been mentioned, you are a fricking saint. I hope he doesn't stop talking to you now that he's realized that you're a sociopath like the rest of us. 
Caros fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Caros posted:Pfft, why do you guys never reply in the afternoon? Everytime you or Jrod post its in the middle of the night and all the good rebuttals are taken up. Oh well. Its always bewildering to me how the people who supposedly care the most about personal responsibility are always the ones most likely to suggest policies that are sociopathic. Apparently libertarians, and the conservative counter parts believe that responsibilty for your behavior is only a function of property, hence their obsession with making sure no one can do something that makes their lives messy like shared ownership.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:I like his Thailand argument. Because every universal healthcare country would NOT give you healthcare for free unless you were a citizen, since that is whole point. Here in Germany I can get a kickass new artificial hip for free. Anybody else pays a premium. I know exactly what you mean. If it weren't for the Canadian (Ontario) health care system, my family would've been hosed, both economically and health-wise. Sure, all Canadians complain about it and want to have it improved, but by and large, we'll kill anyone that dares to remove it. Anecdote: unfortunately, dental isn't covered by health care, so when I was without insurance (after university AND college, but before I finally got a job, and my dad had been laid off of his so I had none through him), I couldn't go to the dentist without paying the full cost. The entire time, all I could think was, "God, is this what being an American is like?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:The "toxic" brand he's refering to is neo-conservativism. I misread that then. But I still disagree with it. I've seen (and I mean seen, not read read about online) MBM stuff that predates neo-conservativism becoming toxic. That started happening after the Iraq war. The MBM stuff, some of that is pre 9/11. It's fact that C. Koch was writing about "markets", as defined by Austrian economics, as providing grounds for a firm management theory well before being a neo-conservative becomes distasteful. And JBS funds LeFevre's "Freedom School" where C. Koch gets his boner for "autarchist" thought, which is a bit different from the Ancap stuff. But it's really clear he gets into this stuff way before (like the 50-60s before) the neo-cons roll around in the poo poo they took on the Middle East and stink of it. Again it goes back the the divides in Libertarianism. Hayek / Rothbard and autarchists / anarchists just because an individual or groups is on one side or the other of these divisions doesn't make them not Libertarian. That ("it's not Libertarian") is definitely going to get thrown around internally between the groups on the different sides, but that doesn't make it true. It's like this: Fundamentalists might call Catholics "not Christian", but they (Catholics) definitely are Christian. The Kochs are definitely Libertarian. If they are just neo-cons fleeing the name neo-con, why did C. Koch co-found a think tank with Rothbard in the seventies? Edit: Heh, got examples of the autarchists calling the anarchists socialists. "Thus, without question, even the Americans who followed the banner of anarchy were socialists to some degree, for their primary objective was economic reform of some type."- LeFevre. That ones a beauty there: eliminating government because it's "economic reform of some type" apparently equals socialism. Rolling back regulation must be socialism too. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
They're not ancaps though because the Kochs don't want to disband the police, courts, and army. They're minarchists with the specific exemption of being pro-colonialist, but they don't want to pay any taxes to support the army themselves: paying taxes are for the poor. And they want themselves, and only themselves, to be subsidized in business by the government. They're also fine with allying themselves with those who want the government to regulate everyone's sex lives. In other words, they are neocons. Their praxeology poo poo is just that: a front to get idealistic rubes to vote for Liberty* candidates. *Republicans who will cut taxes on the rich, and then hand us billions in corporate welfare in exchange for a few millions in campaign donations VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Caros posted:
Well we go back almost 10 years and I guess this ended today. I have few years worth of IRC logs where we argue for hours at a time over anarchist capitalism, in the end he declares victory and calls me a troll because DROs, free markets and voluntarism would do anything better even if I've just explained to him how they wouldn't. Oh well, that  was at least spent well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
I'll say I don't get much smug satisfaction out of this, but it does satisfy my curiosity, and hopefully it will help me figure out more about myself and my beliefs. Unfortunately, it also tends to stoke my paranoia, but, eh, I'm used to that. jrodefeld, you've said you'd commit aggression to survive. That's okay, we all acknowledge desperation. So for a thought experiment, ley's say desperate circumstance forces you to commit agression. Say, violent theft for food or medicine. We think that's acceptable right? Or at least inevitable, basically rational, right? The kind of thing it's futile to castigate. And then you jump in a time machine, and go back in time and tell yourself this, before future-you gets erased by a killer future robot. Is it okay to commit smaller aggression (like non-violent theft) now to head off the dire necessity (and violent theft) in the future? You would be explicitly moving from a large aggression to a smaller one. If it is, can a State follow, or is that too big a leap? If it isn't, um, that's kind of the hinge, haha. If not, is self-defense, defense of property still okay? It's aggression to deter or prevent other aggression.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
jonnypeh posted:Well we go back almost 10 years and I guess this ended today. I have few years worth of IRC logs where we argue for hours at a time over anarchist capitalism, in the end he declares victory and calls me a troll because DROs, free markets and voluntarism would do anything better even if I've just explained to him how they wouldn't. That's kinda sad actually.  I know a few AnCaps in Saskatoon, both from back when I was one, and people I've met since. Despite the fact that we're ideologically opposed, I generally don't actually have much dislike for libertarians and AnCaps. I meet one or two a year who are just impossible to talk to, but those are the type who say that all single mothers are shameless whores for example, where their problem is more their racist/misogynistic/poor hating beliefs that are the problem. The fact that you'd talk to Shiranaihito for so long is rather shocking to me however, since he appears to be incredibly unreasonable. Very little of what he's posted here is an actual argument, with the vast majority of it being insults or inflamatory statements about how AnCapism is right and everyone else is wrong. Has he ever argued with you in good faith? Because you don't seem like a stupid person, but I can't imagine talking with him for long when he starts from the point that anyone who disagrees with him is a monster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They're not ancaps though because the Kochs don't want to disband the police, courts, and army. Right they're autarchists, because C. Koch got his start in Libertarianism from LeFerve. Autarchists are still Libertarians. And autarchists often get called anarchists, but they think the anarchists are socialists. http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1965/12/autarchy-versus-anarchy That link there, it might be the place where the split in Libertarianism starts too. "It is the purpose of this paper to begin the process of this essential cleavage." Which they do by... looking to Lysander Spooner. This stuff filters down eventually and these ideas appear in the people posting in this thread. How do the ideas of Spooner get to somebody like Jrod? And importantly the Leferve stuff (which spawns the Koch stuff) is really different from the neo-conservatism of somebody like Kristol and really different from the conservatism of somebody like Buckley. And I think it's a mistake to lump them all together. VitalSigns posted:And they want themselves, and only themselves Right "the absolute sovereignty of the individual over himself and all that belongs to him." That's what matters to them. That's what they believe is the only thing that should rule over their actions. And that doesn't always conflict with goverment, in the way anarchism would. VitalSigns posted:They're also fine with allying themselves with those who want the government to regulate everyone's sex lives. In other words, they are neocons. Their praxeology poo poo is just that: a front to get idealistic rubes to vote for Liberty* candidates. Of course they're fine with allying with groups that want to regulate our sex lives. The sex stuff would be seen as a lack of "self rule" people choosing immoral actions that are against natural law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Congratulations, you got me to respond :P Medical tourism can make sense for some things, but chemotherapy takes many months. It's not like (as an acquaintance of mine did) flying to Argentina for a few days for dental work. But that people can fly to another hemisphere and, including the cost of travel, food, and lodging, end up paying significantly less for a medical procedure doesn't exactly speak well of the American medical system. The public systems in Canada and the UK aren't perfect, but complaints about them tend to be along the lines of "This could be better" rather than "They let someone die solely because of money."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Let's continue to buy accounts for increasingly high-profile ancaps and humiliate them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Let's continue to buy accounts for increasingly high-profile ancaps and humiliate them. While I concur that we should continue to humiliate AnCaps and other strains of libertarians, the market should decide whether or not they have accounts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:While I concur that we should continue to humiliate AnCaps and other strains of libertarians, the market should decide whether or not they have accounts. B-but the most doctrinaire ancaps tend to be the poorest ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:B-but the most doctrinaire ancaps tend to be the poorest ones. Korner Kelly: "Priced Out."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
jonnypeh posted:Well we go back almost 10 years and I guess this ended today. I have few years worth of IRC logs where we argue for hours at a time over anarchist capitalism, in the end he declares victory and calls me a troll because DROs, free markets and voluntarism would do anything better even if I've just explained to him how they wouldn't. It's kinda sad to see a friendship ended because of SA, but if that's how he is normally it doesn't sound like it was that worthwhile of a relationship to begin with. I mean, I have friends/families who are republicans and believe all the worst myths about welfare queens and voter fraud or whatever, but can still act like regular human beings. Given how immediately defensive and angry shiro was over basic questions and light taunting I don't really see that being the case with him? I still want him to be a troll, but a troll who dedicated ten years of his life to acting like an angry stupid baby would be even more pathetic than a true believer, so 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
How would universal healthcare work in libertopia? Clearly there would be no government run programs like medicare and medicaid, and there would be no regulation, and thus nothing to artificially alter prices on the private market. Because the health insurance market is now unfettered, prices for insurance plummet so that even though there's nothing like a mandate to buy health insurance, presumably everyone will buy health insurance because it's so cheap. Did I get that right? If so, what's the explanation for the tens of millions of people (if not more) who didn't have health insurance before LBJ ruined everything with medicare/medicaid?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:04
|
|
