|
I think jrod's problem isn't actually with the state, but with the fact that doctors aren't willing to provide crappy treatments from half a century ago for dirt cheap, as they should (?).
Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Jan 25, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes this is self evident. But that doesn't explain the healthcare phenomenon. I mentioned that we can compare an apples to apples comparison like heart surgery in 1960 and heart surgery today and see price inflation far higher than the CPI. This isn't explained because heart surgeries are so much more sophisticated now. They still require a skilled surgeon, a bunch of assistant, a few hours in a hospital room and several days to recover before heading home. Yet the costs have increased quite substantially, much more than could be anticipated by comparing general price inflation in the broader economy. The world is a toy world to you, isn't it. To you it's simply a matter of "well you need a certain number of people in funny white coats to cut open a person and fix their heart; like fixing a Kia. How can costs have increased so much since the time when a bunch more people died?" You are denser than a white dwarf where every hydrogen atom is a tiny Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
edit not quote gd it
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Are you loving kidding me? You're typing this on the Internet, invented wholly by the state, using electricity, regulated by the state, living in a building, ensured to be safe by the state, probably stocked with food, water, and things like headache or muscle ache pain relievers, all ensured safe by the state. You get to your job (if you're employed) on roads built by the state, and your 40 hour work week is a product of the state, as is overtime pay for anything over that should you so choose to work more than that. Everything the State does is funded through taxes extracted from the productive economy. Remember, the market economy comes first. If there isn't private production wealth created through the division of labor and free exchanges, how would the State collect taxes? How would the State redistribute wealth and fund all these wonderful things you think they should provide? The technology the created the internet was indeed created through government research. Absolutely. But it is the private market that used this underlying technology and made it useful to average Americans. Recall the Broken Window Fallacy? I want to select a small quote from an article I read recently on the subject: Libertarian internet enthusiasts tend to forget the fallacy of the broken window. We see the internet. We see its uses. We see the benefits it brings. We surf the web and check our email and download our music. But we will never see the technologies that weren't developed because the resources that would have been used to develop them were confiscated by the Defense Department and given to Stanford engineers. Likewise, I may admire the majesty and grandeur of an Egyptian pyramid, a TVA dam, or a Saturn V rocket, but it doesn't follow that I think they should have been created, let alone at taxpayer expense. The internet is remarkable and fantastic but to claim that the State is the sole reason why it exists in its current form that we all benefit from would be as wrong as if I claimed that the internet was produced entirely by the private market economy. After all, it was Xerox PARC and Apple who developed a useable graphical user interface (GUI), a lightweight and durable mouse, and the Ethernet protocol. They essentially made the internet usable for average people. I find it astounding that you say that what I "take for granted" is "only possible through the State". So the State outlaws competition in many of the services it provides and we are supposed to think that these services could NEVER be provided by the market? If that were true, they should legalize free competition with State services. Let UPS and Fed Ex deliver first class mail. Allow alternative market based currencies to circulate as alternatives to the Dollar, which means they would have to remove any and all taxes on alternative currencies because a currency can hardly function if you have to pay a tax, in US dollars on every transaction you make with the new currency. If the market can't provide these services as you suggest, no harm in letting people try right? As to all that noise about how I am a "leech" because I don't want to pay for these State services I supposedly benefit from, I am not a tax evader. I pay my taxes like everyone else. And if I am legally restricted from using competition for many services that I am being forced to pay for, you really want to call me a hypocrite for using the Post Office? Honestly? If I am given alternatives to State monopolized services, I choose the alternatives. I want the right to choose. I'd like to change the system but it is absurd to say that I have to lock myself away as a hermit for fear that I may expose myself as a hypocrite because I benefited from something that is payed for with tax dollars, including MY tax dollars. The government spends trillions of dollars every year. Of course some of that money goes to things that are actually useful. If I stole money from all my neighbors and built a library and opened it to the public, the thing I spent money on would have some utility but that doesn't excuse the theft of the money in the first place. And please don't give me that bullshit about how "taxes aren't theft". There is absolutely no significant difference between the act of confiscating money through threats of violence by a private crook or an IRS agent. The fact that I may get some of that money back at some point through the utility of things that the money funded has no bearing on the coercive act of confiscating my property against my will. I never signed any contract that I agreed to participate in this system. Yet I am forced to nonetheless. As a utilitarian you probably are pleased with the outcome of this property confiscation but that doesn't change the nature of the confiscation one bit. It is done under duress, under threats and intimidation. If I refuse, if I want to peacefully withdraw from this system, armed men will come to my home, take me away and throw me in a cage for a LONG time. Making a payment to someone when THIS is the consequence of not doing so is clearly an example of extortion. No one can produce a contract where I agreed to any of this. If a payment is not made voluntarily, then it is by any rational definition, theft. Own up to it and embrace it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
quote:Libertarian internet enthusiasts tend to forget the fallacy of the broken window. We see the internet. We see its uses. We see the benefits it brings. We surf the web and check our email and download our music. But we will never see the technologies that weren't developed because the resources that would have been used to develop them were confiscated by the Defense Department and given to Stanford engineers. Likewise, I may admire the majesty and grandeur of an Egyptian pyramid, a TVA dam, or a Saturn V rocket, but it doesn't follow that I think they should have been created, let alone at taxpayer expense. experiencingcrisis.txt
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Oh, PS - gently caress you Jrodefeld. We already had this conversation. I don't think that is a sufficient answer. Caros seems to be contorting himself in order to discount and discredit a very real and successful libertarian alternative to the current status quo in medical care. Caros admits that the prices are indeed lower but makes excuses as to why that is the case. The most revealing portion of his response is "So yeah, you can have a successful surgery center when it is run by ideological libertarians who cherry pick their patients and avoid most overhead. Its the same system used to make charter schools look good. " As libertarians further attempt to prove the feasibility and the success of a libertarian society, I expect this sort of dismissal to continue. "Yes you can have a successful private arbitration service when it is run by ideological libertarians who cherry pick their clients and avoid most overhead. But of course it would never work 'in the real world'". Repeated ad infinitum for every libertarian success that is demonstrated in our small "libertopia" experiment. What will undoubtedly be continually asserted is that "the libertarians that move there are ideologically driven and fairly well off so this can't possibly translate into a larger and more complex society." So there is likely no actual empirical proof that will be satisfactory to you supposed utilitarian and empiricist lefties. It will probably be revealed that you are just as religiously and irrationally attached to your ideas about "wealth inequality" and other Marxist-inspired tropes as you claim libertarians are to their principles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And please don't give me that bullshit about how "taxes aren't theft". There is absolutely no significant difference between the act of confiscating money through threats of violence by a private crook or an IRS agent. The fact that I may get some of that money back at some point through the utility of things that the money funded has no bearing on the coercive act of confiscating my property against my will. Your residence in the US is entirely voluntary and you can leave at any time. By staying and enjoying the privilege and protection granted by the state, you implicitly give assent to abide by the laws and restrictions that are the bedrock of the state's ability to function. The fact that I can't produce a written contract is meaningless; your situation is a result of your own voluntary choice in full knowledge of the consequences. You chose to live on territory owned by the United States, and it's their rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Real life isn't like Call of Duty, you ignorant child. Jesus, are you even out of high school? How can you write something so stupid? Way to keep it classy. I don't know why you'd even take the time to write such a substance-less rebuttal of my arguments? Ah yes I see. It is so self evidently stupid to consider hiring a private mercenary special forces unit to go and capture or kill Bin Laden after 9/11 but I suppose the "adult" and "sophisticated" thing to do would be to invade and occupy Afghanistan and then a year and a half latter invade and occupy Iraq and try to build up a new nation from scratch so they don't become "safe havens", whatever that means. All while Bin Laden is hanging out in Pakistan and most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Yeah THAT is the perfectly reasonable and adult response to an attack like 9/11. But hiring a private contractor to go get Bin Laden and the handful of people who directly plotting and carried out the attack and bringing them to justice? Well that is so ridiculous as to be not worth discussing. The most ironic thing is that this is essentially exactly what was supposedly done with Seal Team 6. They figured out where Bin Laden was, they stormed his home, shot him and dumped him in the ocean. What I am suggesting is that we do that, and ONLY that, get the guys responsible and come home. But do it immediately when we knew exactly where bin Laden was after 9/11. Send a message. You attack our people, we'll get you quickly, ruthlessly and effectively then we'll come home and ignore the rest of you. We'll live our lives and prosper the best we can. Are you really saying this is such bad alternative solution to terrorist attacks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The reason we are even discussing healthcare is that, for many many Americans, a reasonable standard of medical care is simply unattainable to them. And of course the main reason for this is that the prices are too high. Out of pocket spending is simply not an option for most people and health insurance premiums are too high, their insurance is irrationally tied to their employment and their isn't enough competition in the provision of health insurance. OK, I feel like we're making progress! If I understand you right, you're arguing that healthcare costs are high because
If this is the case, it would seem logical that countries with more state intervention should experience better healthcare outcomes but at a much higher overall cost to society. Your problem is to explain why that doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Ah yes I see. It is so self evidently stupid to consider hiring a private mercenary special forces unit to go and capture or kill Bin Laden after 9/11 but I suppose the "adult" and "sophisticated" thing to do would be to invade and occupy Afghanistan and then a year and a half latter invade and occupy Iraq and try to build up a new nation from scratch so they don't become "safe havens", whatever that means. All while Bin Laden is hanging out in Pakistan and most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Considering the amount of time it took to find him and the fact that it basically boiled down to a coin toss as to wether or not to even conduct the mission: yes. It's absolutely so ridiculous as to not be worth discussing. You are probably the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever seen posting on the internet. So who's going to pay for all of the hunting/searching/intelligence gathering in your libertarian society? Who's going to do vile things to other human beings in that effort? Who's going to pay for it? There's nothing ironic in how Bin Laden was killed. The massive US intelligence machine went to work until they came up with a plausible theory, informed the president who then basically had to roll the dice on an operation that could just have easily have resulted in a failed mission with zero results... From a business perspective the whole endeavor is hardly worth the risk considering the payoff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
Caros posted:I just want to point out that Anarcho-capitalism hasn't actually caused any rising living standards since it is by and large a 20th century rump philosophy that was never adopted by anyone, whereas marxism can be directly traced to massive rises in the standard of living in the Soviet Union, even if that did come along with the brutalities of Stalinism. I had to stop and do a double take at this point specifically. You really are not accurately capturing the atrocities of Communism with this tone. Its like "Marxism caused massive living standards improvements, even if it had a few problems like that pesky Stalin, those millions of corpses, those starving babies and other minor things like that." In fact, communism is usually attributed to have caused 94 million deaths in the 20th century. It is, by far, the leading ideological cause of death during the past century. Communism in practice, not as some abstract theory on the pages of Das Kapital, is monstrously evil. It was a colossal failure. I cannot imagine why serious people still cling to such a discredited ideology. Once the Soviet Union fell apart, Marxism really became heavily unfashionable. Clinton declared "the era of Big Government is over" and nearly everyone accepted that the market economy and private ownership of the means of production, price competition and the division of labor were proven superior to socialist central planning. Full blown advocates of socialism receded into the background. Some reinvented themselves under the guise of "environmentalists". These academics are sometimes called "watermelons" because they are green on the outside and red on the inside. Get it? The left progressives begrudgingly accepted the superiority of capitalism but only proposed "modest" State interventions to "smooth out" and regulate the "excesses" of the capitalist economy. I am not defending anarcho capitalism here. I am defending free market capitalism in comparison to Marxism and socialism. Caros posted:
You understand that there are people starving in the world today while you spend your money on (relative) luxuries you don't need. Should we all think ill of you and blame you for the starving people in the world? Charity is a virtue and I think we all should contribute to worthy causes, but if you understand the market economy, it is absolutely NOT a zero sum game. A rich person who buys a Rolls Royce does not take food off your table by doing so. Voluntary exchange leads to mutual benefit and it is consumers who dictate capital investment and the lines of production which are needed to meet the needs and desires of the average people. The pie grows ever larger and all have rising living standards than previous generations. Caros posted:And taxation isn't theft. Really is a bitch when someone doesn't agree with your worldview isn't it? Threat of starvation is a form of duress btw. I understand that you don't think that taxation is theft. But I have yet to hear a substantive difference between the act of coercively taking my property by a Mafia boss and an armed IRS agent. The key factor that makes this theft is not that one has an official badge and title and the other doesn't. The key is the act of force and the threats of violence if I don't comply. The only way progressives weasel their way out of this is to make up this ridiculous notion of a "social contract" and claim that I have already agreed to the property confiscation. So show me this contract. When did I agree? If you claim that I agree because I didn't flee the country, this doesn't make any sense. There is absolutely no other area where such a ludicrous defense would ever be offered. If the mafia was extorting me through threats that if I don't pay they'll break my legs or kill my family and I don't immediately flee the city, am I said to have consented to paying the mafia? It is a ridiculous argument that never had any merit. So if there is no contract, then the coercive taking of property against the will of the owner is indeed theft. This is about using plain language in its correct way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
A man chooses to live and work in the United States and pays taxes - violent coercion A man signs a contract agreeing to work seven days a week for $3/hr in a smoky factory without ventilation to avoid starvation in Libertopia - a voluntary transaction and a good example of the free market working correctly Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I had to stop and do a double take at this point specifically. You really are not accurately capturing the atrocities of Communism with this tone. Its like "Marxism caused massive living standards improvements, even if it had a few problems like that pesky Stalin, those millions of corpses, those starving babies and other minor things like that." Standard of living did increase though. If we're comparing corpse piles don't worry, your idols would amass piles as well. But they'd be justly starved or shot by bounty hunters, so morality would be upheld.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I understand that you don't think that taxation is theft. But I have yet to hear a substantive difference between the act of coercively taking my property by a Mafia boss and an armed IRS agent. The key factor that makes this theft is not that one has an official badge and title and the other doesn't. The key is the act of force and the threats of violence if I don't comply. I've never experienced an armed IRS agent because.... they aren't armed! quote:The only way progressives weasel their way out of this is to make up this ridiculous notion of a "social contract" and claim that I have already agreed to the property confiscation. So show me this contract. When did I agree? If you claim that I agree because I didn't flee the country, this doesn't make any sense. Here's why I'm okay with a social contract: I'm not a sociopath and I never want to experience what it's like to take another human life. You agreed at birth but there's good news! People have pointed out places you can go to get out of said social contract and live a tax free life. Of course you'll have to fend off african warlords and if you're not a sociopath you may have issues taking another human life. quote:There is absolutely no other area where such a ludicrous defense would ever be offered. If the mafia was extorting me through threats that if I don't pay they'll break my legs or kill my family and I don't immediately flee the city, am I said to have consented to paying the mafia? The good news is in your society a sociopath/mafia guy won't have anything to prevent him from "taxing" you for literally no benefit beyond you get to keep breathing for another month! "oh well the free market" doesn't mean poo poo when sociopaths with sufficient resources move into your neighborhood. I'm sorry, this is just reality. If any arguments don't have merit, it's the poo poo you keep parroting from mises.org as if though it were somehow insightful poo poo we haven't heard before. Maybe my good news isn't good news at all! I suggest you consider the fact that even if you convince one state to dissolve itself completely in favor of your "ancap" ways that you'll just get conquered by a smarter neighbor at the end of the day and be right back int he same boat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
Still clinging to "only state actors can externalize the cost of combat" even though ISIL was perfectly able to sieze oilfields and roll up into villages, extort payments, confiscate supplies, and press conscripts, and no private group formed that was able to stop their aggression, huh? But sure let's abolish the US Government, I can't wait to form a neighborhood militia and battle the drug cartels in the streets of Austin, sounds swell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:I've had enough of your strawmanning and twisting of things in your worthless addled mind. You stated a bullshit fact about he Pareto principal that is entirely unsupported by actual history or an actual understanding of the math and statistics involved, and then come back and decide that what I really meant was pure egalitarianism enforced by the state. You are the one who used an example that was conceived of, and has been repeated, solely for the purpose of denying that the poor have any right to and equitable piece of society's resources. You are the one who quotes racists and vile bigots and dances away from the obvious about what your horrible worldview is. I would say this response is excessive. For all my faults (and I'm sure I have many) I don't tend to lash out with vitriol and seething hatred at you or anyone else that I disagree with. I legitimately don't understand what you mean by people "having a right to and equitable piece of society's resources". People have the ability to homestead resources. And then people have the ability to trade those resources for resources other people have homesteaded. Through this mutual trade and the desire to improve ones standard of living and work towards goals, people end up with different sorts of possessions and outcomes for the actions they have chosen. Is it "good" or "bad" that people end up unequal in material possessions? I don't know if that even enters into it. Choices have effects. And listen, I don't question that luck plays a great part in all this. Some of us are born with natural gifts and advantages that others don't have. Others have great misfortune that they have to deal with. Others still have mental and physical handicaps that greatly limit their productivity. I am concerned for these people and to provide a social safety net and charity to those who need a hand, we first need to have those who are able to be more productive, who have more gifts or simply better fortune to produce more wealth so that greater charity can be provided to those who are not as fortunate or as skilled or as productive. I don't know why it is that some must claim to have a right to land homesteaded by others? Right implies the use of force or violence to to take from one and give to another. There is nothing wrong with redistribution providing it is voluntary. It is voluntarism that is sought. Social cooperation and mutually beneficial economic transactions can and do uplift society, including the most vulnerable. Personally I have many progressive friends. I've even befriended some genuine Marxists. They know my views and they disagree strongly on many of them. But they would never doubt my concern for others or my moral character. Shocking as it may seem to you, we can have these disagreements will understanding that we both are good and decent people who want the best for others. We don't generally call each other "human scum" and the panoply of ad hominem attacks you (and others) have hurled in my direction. Surely you must interact with free market advocates and libertarians in your regular life? Are they all human garbage because they don't believe in equality of material goods or other leftist and Marxist tropes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Could not the exact same argument be made against the ACLU or other left-wing free speech groups who support the rights of bigots to publish hate speech? No one accuses ACLU lawyers of being secret racists when they come to the defense of people who make reprehensible statements. Their goal as an organization is in the defense of the Bill of Rights and any restriction on these rights, even for popular measures such as stifling hate speech, creates a chilling effect and precedent for the censorship or suppression of less controversial speech and eventually all speech becomes threatened. First, I do not agree that there should exist any right to produce or publish hate speech, so your supposition that I automatically support the ACLU in such a case is misplaced. I'm not a liberal, so I don't have to tie myself in knots worrying about the ~*~freedoms~*~ of fascists and wannabe slaveowners. But I will concede that I'm predisposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the ACLU, since I think on the whole they do a lot of important work defending the rights of the disempowered, even if they are ultimately more your ideological allies than mine. That said, if I were talking to an ACLU member, and they actually forced me to ask them for an unequivocal condemnation of hate speech, and I specifically worded my request to focus on the actual practice of hate speech and not the right to create or disseminate it, and their response STILL led off with asserting the importance of the right to hate speech, and the claim that I'd surely agree that hate speech is really okay sometimes, then I would absolutely, 100%, question whether stamping out hate speech was truly a major concern to that person. Do I think that you actually like hate speech? I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe your protestations that you don't. But I do think that you care more about some abstract vision of the rights of racists than you do about the concrete struggle of people of color. And because of this, in my opinion, you function as a tool for racists: by using the rhetoric of individual freedom to talk about a vision of society that is intrinsically amenable to white supremacy, they are able to gain followers who want to believe that they can separate the "freedom" from the racist motivations. But as Caros says, these are ultimately inseparable. Anyway, my goal here is not to convince you that the entire project of libertarianism is racist, or even that some individual libertarian is racist. I was being 100% serious when I said that I was simply asking you to take a little time for introspection, and I still hope you will do that. Just honestly ask yourself: why did I feel the need to talk about the importance of the right to discriminate, and the times when discrimination is good, before condemning discrimination? If a person who faces racial discrimination reads my response, would they believe that I was honestly their ally? If a personal who had committed racial discrimination reads my response, would they believe that I was their ally? I hope that you will consider these questions seriously, and if the answers make you uncomfortable at all, I hope you'll think about privileging abstract rights over real people a little less. If your goal is truly to develop and support a libertarianism that truly advances racial equality, then this sort of self-reflection is essential.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
Ah right homesteading resources and creating wealth from the sweat of your brow is the only legitimate means of claiming property ownership. Okay so 100% inheritance tax then to pay for childcare and education for all until they're 18 and can homestead their own property? Oh wait no, you'd rather some people just get free stuff for falling out of the right vagina while others start bereft of opportunity? Hm. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
Taxes aren't theft you retard, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise! Living in our society and enjoying all the benefits of having a state and not paying taxes? Now that's theft. And of course the state is going to send people to recover it's property that you have aggressively refused to hand over. It's the natural and just result of you failing to uphold your end of the contract. It's no different from removing someone from your property after they have refused to pay the agreed rent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'll admit I am a bit out of my element since I don't personally know the cost of an MRI machine (probably more than a million dollars) so I don't know EVERYTHING that goes into the price. However, what would prevent a free market from devising cheaper and just as reliable alternatives for the diagnosis of serious medical problems? If you don't know anything about MRIs, then why the gently caress are you assuming that they cost more than they should? It's a machine made of superconducting magnets that can image the entire human body. This is a device that can cost millions of dollars just to purchase and install it in a hospital, and then you need a radiologist on staff in order to use it, plus you incur huge costs just to keep the drat thing running (again, it contains a bunch of superconducting magnets). Hospitals would be eager to purchase an alternative to MRI machines. Keeping liquid helium on site just to run this huge power-hungry machine is not appealing. But MRIs are insanely effective at providing high-resolution images of the body's interior. The incentive for an alternative is already there, but no alternative exists yet, so doctors make do with what does exist. jrodefeld posted:This doesn't make sense and it isn't a rational market with costs like these. Literally NO ONE pays for an MRI out of pocket. They are paid for exclusively by private insurance or the State. Haha, wrong again, doofus. gently caress, you really just have no problem pulling these kinds of statements out of your rear end when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
That's only because of big government regulation. If government got out of the way you could get a cut-rate MRI in any sauna or garage or bodega and I'm sure they'd be just fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Not even close. Liver failure before liver transplantion: really cheap because you just die. Liver failure now: really expensive - 300k just for the surgery in the states (at the mayo clinic, I think that quote was from) nevermind the drugs that cost a shitload (at least in the States - I get mine for free) And why would the politicians have an incentive to pay only a little as opposed to inflated costs for the cell phones (or medical care services or whatever other example you choose)? It is not their money after all and they haven't exactly shown themselves to be paragon's of frugality in other areas. Furthermore, what is stopping the companies from colluding and all raising their prices at the same time by the same amount so the politicians will have to choose one of the inflated cost products or services? Finally what will prevent lobbying by these companies, campaign contributions to politicians and other acts of cronyism which will grant them the ability to charge extra high prices and get further subsidies and kick backs? Without the market prices and consumer demand dictating the show there appears to be not much preventing one of the above outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And why would the politicians have an incentive to pay only a little as opposed to inflated costs for the cell phones (or medical care services or whatever other example you choose)? It is not their money after all and they haven't exactly shown themselves to be paragon's of frugality in other areas. This is directly contrary to what is actually happening in the real world.  "Look Canada's drug prices are cheaper because the government is a monopsony" "That's impossible because governments don't have budgets or any incentive to save money, therefore it is not happening."  "But it is happening. Look, right over there it is happening""Logically impossible, sorry, obviously things that are happening aren't happening, this is self-evident QED"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
The fact that BIG GUVMENT sometimes purchases cars is causing the motor vehicle market to be all out of whack. It doesn't make any sense that a brand new sedan can cost over $20k. I'll admit I am a bit out of my element since I don't personally know the cost of The fact that BIG GUVMENT sometimes purchases computers is causing the computer market to be all out of whack. It doesn't make any sense that a brand new computer can cost hundreds of dollars. I'll admit I am a bit out of my element since I don't personally know the cost of The fact that BIG GUVMENT sometimes purchases pens is causing the writing utensil market to be all out of whack. It doesn't make any sense that a brand new box of pens can cost more than $5. I'll admit I am a bit out of my element since I don't personally know the cost of
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And why would the politicians have an incentive to pay only a little as opposed to inflated costs for the cell phones (or medical care services or whatever other example you choose)? It is not their money after all and they haven't exactly shown themselves to be paragon's of frugality in other areas. The incentive for politicians is that the money can be used to do other popular things to win them votes, so wasting money on healthcare when it could be spent more efficiently is a vote-loser. The government tends to spend less efficiently when the public aren't looking very hard or when their interests don't align with the general public (e.g. the F-35). quote:Furthermore, what is stopping the companies from colluding and all raising their prices at the same time by the same amount so the politicians will have to choose one of the inflated cost products or services? Anti-trust legislation stops companies from behaving in an anti-competitive fashion. It's illegal to fix prices in that way. You know that, right? quote:Finally what will prevent lobbying by these companies, campaign contributions to politicians and other acts of cronyism which will grant them the ability to charge extra high prices and get further subsidies and kick backs? It certainly works better when campaign spending is restricted, I'll give you that. That why lefties like us are generally so against ludicrous rulings like Citizens United. It all makes sense!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And why would the politicians have an incentive to pay only a little as opposed to inflated costs for the cell phones (or medical care services or whatever other example you choose)? It is not their money after all and they haven't exactly shown themselves to be paragon's of frugality in other areas. quote:Furthermore, what is stopping the companies from colluding and all raising their prices at the same time by the same amount so the politicians will have to choose one of the inflated cost products or services? quote:Finally what will prevent lobbying by these companies, campaign contributions to politicians and other acts of cronyism which will grant them the ability to charge extra high prices and get further subsidies and kick backs? quote:Without the market prices and consumer demand dictating the show there appears to be not much preventing one of the above outcomes. Market prices and consumer demand have never prevented any of the potential problems you have listed literally ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And why would the politicians have an incentive to pay only a little as opposed to inflated costs for the cell phones (or medical care services or whatever other example you choose)? It is not their money after all and they haven't exactly shown themselves to be paragon's of frugality in other areas. They do have an incentive: when a politician can say that they helped drive down medical costs and saved taxpayer money, then people are more likely to vote for that person in the next election. So they tend to hire people who are focused on keeping cost low when it comes to running a government program. That's why Medicare has such low overhead rates, even lower than private insurance companies! quote:Furthermore, what is stopping the companies from colluding and all raising their prices at the same time by the same amount so the politicians will have to choose one of the inflated cost products or services? It's a government contract. The companies put in offers to provide services/goods/etc. at some cost. They're competing with each other for the contract. Basically, the government is acting as a player in the free market. They don't all collude and raise prices at the same time in a free market for the same reasons that they don't all collude and raise prices at the same time when bidding on a government contract; technically it can happen, but it usually doesn't. quote:Finally what will prevent lobbying by these companies, campaign contributions to politicians and other acts of cronyism which will grant them the ability to charge extra high prices and get further subsidies and kick backs? These companies are competing with each other for a government contract. Oversight committees ensure that kickbacks are not received. poo poo like that is extremely illegal; people are actually rewarded for reporting occurrences of kickbacks. quote:Without the market prices and consumer demand dictating the show there appears to be not much preventing one of the above outcomes. I disagree; kickbacks and collusion are easily possible in any market. In fact, there are many cases of this having happened throughout many historical markets. Good 'ole jrod, I can always count on you not knowing any history that isn't posted on mises.org QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Standard of living did increase though. If we're comparing corpse piles don't worry, your idols would amass piles as well. But they'd be justly starved or shot by bounty hunters, so morality would be upheld. Could you provide sources for the claim that living standards increased? For which country and for which percentage of the population? Which policy or policies do YOU think attributed to rising living standards? I don't usually think of bread lines and constant shortages as hallmarks of increasing prosperity. Many of you on this thread are either Marxists or share a great deal of sympathy towards the Marxist worldview. Yet we have the 20th century to prove the sort of bloodbath that communism turned out to be. Mises's critique about the impossibility of central planning under socialism turned out to be correct after all. The economic calculation problem was just one of many that contributed to the problem. That is the irrefutable historical record for socialism thus far. As for libertarian anarchy, yes we haven't achieved any examples of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism but we have seen the liberalization of markets in many different countries with corresponding rising living standards. We didn't witness any "corpse piles", only fewer and fewer deaths and longer and healthier lives for the citizens who embraced capitalist reforms. I'm sure you'll find a way to dismiss these examples and say they are not really a reflection on libertarianism but they sure as hell beat the abysmal historical record of socialist central planning. On the one hand we have an ideology that has caused 94 million deaths in the 20th century and the total collapse of every major Communist nation. On the other we have an ideology that, while not attempted in full, modest reforms in that direction have caused increased living standards and higher levels of wealth production and general prosperity for the nations that tried them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:On the one hand we have an ideology that has caused 94 million deaths in the 20th century and the total collapse of every major Communist nation. On the other we have an ideology that, while not attempted in full, modest reforms in that direction have caused increased living standards and higher levels of wealth production and general prosperity for the nations that tried them. Yeah, but that second ideology isn't anarcho-capitalism. During the cold war, the US went with a moderately regulated market and a sizable welfare state, not a free-for-all hellscape libertopia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
Plus we tried not having health and safety laws in the Gilded Age and it sucked so I guess you're ready to abandon that ideology then yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:First, I do not agree that there should exist any right to produce or publish hate speech, so your supposition that I automatically support the ACLU in such a case is misplaced. I'm not a liberal, so I don't have to tie myself in knots worrying about the ~*~freedoms~*~ of fascists and wannabe slaveowners. But I will concede that I'm predisposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the ACLU, since I think on the whole they do a lot of important work defending the rights of the disempowered, even if they are ultimately more your ideological allies than mine. I think you honestly make some good points. I always self reflect and I will continue to do so. Tone is important and I agree that it is important to convey what your values truly are. If I start going on and on about "States rights" some southern neo-confederate and pro segregation racist might get the impression that I am on his side. And I most certainly am not. I think it is important to convey the anti-racist values that I hold. Let's suppose that tomorrow libertarian property rights were respected and people could do whatever they wanted with their property provided they didn't initiate force against others. I think that there would be virtually no private business that would put up signs refusing to serve blacks or Jews or any other category of oppressed minority. The exceedingly few that would enact blatantly racist policies would have to deal with the public backlash from people who abhor this type of racism. The owner of such an establishment would be harassed and hounded every second he was in public. Just how racist do you suppose the country is? I get the sense when talking to many progressives that they truly believe that without the Fed's stopping everyone, society would just slide back to 1960s Birmingham Alabama and we'd have massive segregation and Jim Crow and everything else in many parts of the country. I, on the other hand, feel like we have turned that corner and people will NOT stand for such behavior. The racism today is more like people who have a stupid stereotype in their head or tell an off color joke and things like that. The racism is more of institutional holdovers from the past when attitudes were different. If we had the right to discriminate on our private property, I feel like this would be mainly a right in theory only because most people would not want to discriminate on racial or religious grounds. Most people want an integrated society and enjoy being around people of different backgrounds and cultures. i know I do. I find it surprising that you don't think anyone should be able to print or publish hate speech. Shouldn't we counter offensive speech with better speech rather than ban and censor that which we are repulsed by? This is a classic example of a dangerous slippery slope where the category "hate speech" can grow larger and larger until all manner of speech is banned and people are afraid to openly express themselves for fear of legal repercussions. And banning hate speech obviously doesn't eliminate the hate that the people feel in their hearts and minds. If the grand wizard of the KKK wants to write a book titled "I Hate Niggers" let him do it. Just the fact that it reminds decent people that there are still people who think this way is a service of sorts, waking us up and making us more aware of the continued problem of racism and hate. If people are just forced to hide their bigotry from the surface, it will surely still manifest itself in more surreptitious ways. it is better for this hate to be evident to others so it can be dealt with in the court of public opinion. Better that a bigot express his bigotry by discriminating against people in his store, so all decent people can not give him a cent and hurt him economically. You may not agree, but this is my view of things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
A nonviolent black man can be murdered on video in America and nothing comes of it. Other question: if laissez faire was such a wonderful time of rising living standards and prosperity, why did the labor movement even need to happen in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And why would the politicians have an incentive to pay only a little as opposed to inflated costs for the cell phones (or medical care services or whatever other example you choose)? It is not their money after all and they haven't exactly shown themselves to be paragon's of frugality in other areas. Stop arguing from incredulity. Stop saying "I don't think this is true, so how can it be true." And in general, please get off your loving high horse about how civilized you are, because you are an incredibly disingenuous debater. Something I've noticed that you've done a lot of is go and pick the least substantive arguments to respond to so that way you can pretend that you're showing us all how smart you all. Why don't you respond to my post on health care, or other posts on healthcare. You know, the ones where we explained why costs have gone up. Here's a great example of you being a real poo poo-head: jrodefeld posted:Way to keep it classy. I don't know why you'd even take the time to write such a substance-less rebuttal of my arguments? Well, gee, I don't know, you could read what other people have to say on the matter. You could go to your local library and learn the facts of what happened after 9/11 and all the work that went into finding Bin Laden, and how Obama didn't know when he made the decision to okay the mission if he would be there or if this would blow up in his face. You could do some real research for a change, and stop talking in purely hypothetical situations, and then not realizing that the world doesn't work like that. Do you know why we went into Afghanistan? Because we were attacked, and the government of Afghanistan, the Taliban, were protecting Bin Laden. They were protecting the people that attacked our country. This is the reality of the world, not your little "I'm a shithead who only reads Mises.org" fantasy world. See, your little mercenary group wouldn't be able to go into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, because the local government, the Taliban, would not allow that to happen. And what do you think the Taliban would do to the people who sent your little mercenary group? Do you think they'll say "Hey, these guys were trying to violate our property rights, so we turned them away. Please don't let it happen again." Or do you think they might try to declare war on you? That's why we invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden was there, at the time. He ended up in Pakinstan, but we didn't know exactly where he was. And here's the thing, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is not exactly a very secure border. There was a lot of intelligence that went on to try and find Bin Laden. It wasn't like one team did all the work. After all, one guy hiding out in that area can get pretty far. Also, the War in Iraq is totally different from the War in Afghanistan. Nobody at the time, and certainly nobody but you right now, thinks we went into Iraq because we thought we'd find Bin Laden there. The War in Iraq came from Neo-conservative principals, and was done because we thought we'd find WMDs and that we claimed Saddam was a threat to the world. It was a deplorable war with absolutely no justification, but nobody thought that we were going to find Bin Laden. Or if they did, they were massive idiots who honestly believed that we were bringing freedom to the world. Seriously, you got to grow the gently caress up. You said somewhere that you're like 27 or so? If so, you are a pathetic excuse for an adult. You have a childish view of the world, you run your mouth on poo poo you don't know about. Do some loving research on what happened before you run your mouth. Because you seriously sound like an idiot. Anyone who has any understanding of what happened, who the players are, and how these things work wouldn't think that sending a small team of private mercenaries would work. QuarkJets posted:Heart surgery has changed substantially since 1950, and the number of heart surgeries has also increased substantially. YOU STOLE MY LINK!!! My property rights have been violated! Expect full retribution, and hard from my DRO. (Just kidding man, I assume you were responding to JRod's post where he ignores what other people have said a million times before and just happened to find the same link as me, but I couldn't resist the joke).
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You may not agree, but this is my view of things. In my personal opinion, all Libertarians to ever attain any public notoriety are incorrigible shitheads with other people's worst interests in mind. The only explanation for the rise of libertarianism, and yet a fully sufficient one, is that they are so incredibly arrogant, self-unaware, unempathetic, ignorant, and incapable of coherent thought. They are the dregs of humanity, and the results of their thinking is a kind of evil that a child would recognize in a storybook. They stand in stark contrast to the greatest Americans, like King and Roosevelt and Lincoln, and revile their ideas even as they supposedly revere their memories. You may not agree, but, well, you're a libertarian. You're not expected to agree with reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I understand that you don't think that taxation is theft. But I have yet to hear a substantive difference between the act of coercively taking my property by a Mafia boss and an armed IRS agent. The key factor that makes this theft is not that one has an official badge and title and the other doesn't. The key is the act of force and the threats of violence if I don't comply. Here's the difference: Taxation is a positive charge. You are paying for the services that have been rendered to you. You're paying for the infrastructure that allows you to exist and live in relative safety, with security, with the amenities that you come to know and love like roads, or having a pool of educated people who can fulfill the various jobs that you need them to fulfill. However, a mafia-boss is really giving you a negative charge. You are paying money so something doesn't happen to you. Now, they might say that they are offering you protection, but basically, it's just your way of making sure they don't harass you and give you too much trouble. You're not actually getting anything out of it, except you don't get your legs broken. Now, you seem fixated on the fact that if you don't pay your taxes, there are negative consequences. But you're not paying your taxes to avoid those negative consequences. You're paying your taxes because it's your due for living here. quote:The only way progressives weasel their way out of this is to make up this ridiculous notion of a "social contract" and claim that I have already agreed to the property confiscation. So show me this contract. When did I agree? If you claim that I agree because I didn't flee the country, this doesn't make any sense. There are many circumstances where your continued presence, patronage, employment, and so on and so forth is considered an acceptance of terms. For example, my workplace will sometimes update some of the rules and regulations. Every time they do so, they basically say "By continuing to work here, you are saying you agree to these terms." They don't make me resign my contract agreement. So the contract I signed looks very different than the contract I am currently working under. You must be a joy to work with if you keep demanding that you re-sign your contract every time they change a rule. This is what we call a tacit agreement. When you turned 18, you knew how the world worked. You knew that you would be required to pay taxes if you chose to continued living in the US. You're still living here. The other point to is that the IRS does not initiate a violent response to you if you don't pay your taxes. They may charge you a fine. They may audit you. But they don't come and break your legs. And once again, it's the positive versus negative charge. What the mafia is doing is making you give them money so they don't hurt you. Nobody should be forced to submit to people who are committing theft and extortion. But the IRS doesn't say "Pay, or else!" They say "Pay, because you are getting X, Y, and Z from the government. And if you choose not to pay, you may face consequences." But how is that different from any other contract? quote:It is a ridiculous argument that never had any merit. So if there is no contract, then the coercive taking of property against the will of the owner is indeed theft. This is about using plain language in its correct way. Be careful saying it doesn't have any merit. I just showed you how it does have some merit. Basically, there is an implied contract by you choosing to live and work in the United States of America. If you find this to be terrible, you may denounce your citizenship and live elsewhere. Because honestly, I don't see how your rights are being violated by you being forced to pay for the services you benefit from. But that's just me. You're being a baby, and you need to grow the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But I have yet to hear a substantive difference between the act of coercively taking my property by a Mafia boss and an armed IRS agent. This is not true. You've heard it repeatedly, you just ignore it because you're either a coward or incapable of absorbing new concepts and perspectives. It really is nobody's fault but your own that you're unable to grasp basic concepts like "one of them provides all of the services that private industry cannot do sufficiently well" anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Mocking the idea of a social contract and saying "I didn't sign anything" is bullshit anyway. I also don't sign a contract when I fill up my car with gas, or walk into a grocery store and put items in the shopping cart. Guess what, there's still an implicit agreement to pay. Just like there is when you continue to drive on our roads, be protected by our laws, and breath our air. gently caress off you wanna-be moocher.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I would say this response is excessive. For all my faults (and I'm sure I have many) I don't tend to lash out with vitriol and seething hatred at you or anyone else that I disagree with. Let's be real clear about something jrodefeld. You deserve hatred and scorn. Your ideology is infecting the political discourse with selfishness, greed and ignorance. We are being much nicer to you than you deserve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And please don't give me that bullshit about how "taxes aren't theft". There is absolutely no significant difference between the act of confiscating money through threats of violence by a private crook or an IRS agent. The fact that I may get some of that money back at some point through the utility of things that the money funded has no bearing on the coercive act of confiscating my property against my will. I will gladly explain to you how taxes aren't theft in a way you can't refute just as soon as you grow a pair of balls and debate me on this issue, you ignorant child.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
It's been a trip watching this thread slowly become more and more angry and scornful of Jrod over the last year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 17:52
|
|