Will The Temptation To Privatise The Nhs Become Too Strong?

[easy2012]

I would suggest listening to this series if you are genuinely interested about resolving disagreements, without having to resort to theft and violence:

A question for you - in an 'associative society' - how do we override NIMBYs interest to build something like a transnational railway or electricity grid ?

Secondly, how do we get enough resources to build high tech weapons like the Euro Fighter especially when some pacifist within the associative group will probably even try to sabotage such project ?

[aussieboy]

Apologies - I thought you were talking about recessions, rather than the ability for a market to operate efficiently.

However, free markets include charity. Altruism makes someone feel wealthy in non-monetary terms, as otherwise there would be no charity. Someone may feel wealthy if they can lie on a beach all day, even if this was less productive in economic terms. If you view a market through a narrow perspective of monetary self interest, it will lead you to misleading conclusions.

If you are talking about monopolies, they are very difficult to maintain in free markets. Without the state granting legislation to limit competition, there is always space for new entrants.

As a monopoly implies high profits, the temptation for new entrants to enter the market will be high, eating into the market share of the monopolist. If the monopolists slashes prices, their products will become cheaper (benefiting the consumer), as will their profits. After they have fought one new entrant off and spent much of their reserves, another entrant will soon be along to beat them up again.

That's a narrow view of both history and theory. Other than the granting of patents, the last century has been a period of govt stepping in to break up monopolies, not maintain them.

In the absence of govt, there is a natural propensity, depending on how many factor decide the succes of an industry, towards monopoly or at least the 80:20 / 20:80 situation which is found in most industries you would care to mention.

You description of new entrants ignores most of the other five forces, many of which are controlled by those with market power. How can you force your product onto Tesco's shelf when they charge for space? How do you negotiate with a monopsonist when there are only two buyers for you milk? The whole "monopoly rent leads to new entrants" is largely McKinsey theory: if it weren't for the ACCC here in Australia, the supermarkets and banks would be much naughtier, and that's without taking collusion into account.

I'll leave the definition of utility for another day.

For natural monopolies, free societies don't usually accept ownership of common land and resources. Putting a fence around some land and declaring ownership won't be respected without a state to enforce it.

Creating a big, coercive monopoly called 'the state' isn't going to solve this problem either. At best, you're replacing distributed market failures, with one big centralised one which we can't escape.

You can change it or amend it significantly at every election.

When they can't hide behind a corporate legal shield, arbitration against them as an individual would lead to isolation and ostracism from society. They would be unable to request arbitration, which would leave them vulnerable to anyone who would take things from them as perceived compensation.

This just doesn't happen in the real world. There are many examples of companies internalising positive externalities and socialising the negative externalities, particularly in a global free market where consumers / investors in one country couldn't give a stuff about what's happening in another: a CEO in Atlanta is hardly scared of an angry mob in India and his mates couldn't give a stuff. People still socialise with those who work for tobacco firms. And on the list goes.

Just because you don't have a coercive state, it doesn't mean that you don't have societies.

You seem to have a narrow view of a free marketeer. Free markets extend to arbitration and policing too. When the state doesn't control both of the latter, the power isn't with the corporation (a statist legal fiction), but is instead with the individual.

Isolation through ostracism the non-aggressive versions of violent coercion. It is passive resistance, which leads to exclusion of the offender.

Your loss, tbh.

No, my definition is very broad. Thing is, if we can't get past the basics of why unfettered free markets don't make any sense either theoretically or in practice, no brainers like why the state controls the police and the army would be too painful.

[Traktion]

That's a narrow view of both history and theory. Other than the granting of patents, the last century has been a period of govt stepping in to break up monopolies, not maintain them.

Like the banks? How about the press/media? Give me a break!

The state gives corporations legal status, limited liability, regulation protecting them from competition and so forth. Lobbying by corporations encourages the aforementioned too.

In the absence of govt, there is a natural propensity, depending on how many factor decide the succes of an industry, towards monopoly or at least the 80:20 / 20:80 situation which is found in most industries you would care to mention.

Source?

You description of new entrants ignores most of the other five forces, many of which are controlled by those with market power. How can you force your product onto Tesco's shelf when they charge for space? How do you negotiate with a monopsonist when there are only two buyers for you milk? The whole "monopoly rent leads to new entrants" is largely McKinsey theory: if it weren't for the ACCC here in Australia, the supermarkets and banks would be much naughtier, and that's without taking collusion into account.

I'll leave the definition of utility for another day.

Some people say Tesco is an evil monopolist. Others say that they provide great value. The former don't shop with them, but the latter do. Ofc, Tesco doesn't have a monopoly anyway, as there are many other shops to go to.

In fact, the moment Tesco appeared to offer less value over Christmas, people abandoned them for their competition. While the monopolist is providing a cheap, good, service it is convenient for all. The moment they stop doing this, there is room for others to take market share.

You can change it or amend it significantly at every election.

This just doesn't happen in the real world. There are many examples of companies internalising positive externalities and socialising the negative externalities, particularly in a global free market where consumers / investors in one country couldn't give a stuff about what's happening in another: a CEO in Atlanta is hardly scared of an angry mob in India and his mates couldn't give a stuff. People still socialise with those who work for tobacco firms. And on the list goes.

Whether other people continue to buy their goods, is beside the point.

It's not just about boycotting the products. It's about people local to the problem, asserting that damage is being done to them. State courts and police may be on the side of their creation called 'the corporation', but free market arbiters would recognise the individuals involved and judge against them. This would ultimately strip the offender of any right to arbitration, making them what some would call an 'out law'.

Every person has a responsibility to avoid causing damage to others. When you remove the legal cloak of incorporation and limited liability, anyone can be liable for claims for damages. If there is a factory manager, being told what to do by their CEO in Atlanta, the factory manager will be liable for damages, as would potentially his 'employees' (another statist construct) - people freely associating, to form companies, each have their liabilities right down the supply chain.

While ever we have legal fictions imposed on us by the state, the corporation will continue to wield power over the individual. The legal status of corporations was rejected under common law (where only the individual is recognised), requiring the state to pass legislation to impose their status on the legal system.

No, my definition is very broad. Thing is, if we can't get past the basics of why unfettered free markets don't make any sense either theoretically or in practice, no brainers like why the state controls the police and the army would be too painful.

Broad? Pfft. You don't even seem to recognise that the corporations you say the state needs to restrain, only exist because the state is present at all.

No state = no corporations. Instead, you have individuals, with personal liabilities, associating freely.

[Traktion]

A question for you - in an 'associative society' - how do we override NIMBYs interest to build something like a transnational railway or electricity grid ?

They would likely have to demonstrate that there would be compensation due. If their argument is only about protecting 'their' view, I doubt it would be given much consideration by arbitrators. Ofc, if there was pollution of sorts, they may well have a case, which could result in compensation and/or a change of route.

Additionally, if the NIMBYs have nothing to do with the land on the proposed route, they have little in the way of a claim to prevent the building of it (if not damaging them). If they were working/improving the land, they could refuse to release it at a price which wasn't acceptable to them.

Secondly, how do we get enough resources to build high tech weapons like the Euro Fighter especially when some pacifist within the associative group will probably even try to sabotage such project ?

It would depend on the demand for such technology. If people were willing to fund such projects as part of their personal security subscription (should they choose to purchase it), then they would get built. If they were only concerned with having burly blokes turn up if they were having their safety threatened by thugs, they may not see it as a priority.

If said agency is legitimately funding the development of weapons, the pacifist would owe the agency damages if they sabotaged their stuff. They may decide this is still worth doing and others may support their actions, but it wouldn't change the facts.

Would such people become ostracised or out laws? I would suggest it very much depended on their level of support of others, who ultimately judge the actions of any arbiters (who in turn reflect those opinions again).

edit: typo

Edited February 23, 2012 by Traktion

[ingermany]

Something has to give certainly. As I see it the NHS has no hope of improving the health of the nation (excluding public health interventions like clean water, immunisation, accident prevention, safe food supply). . At the margins it will save some lives of course, and for those individuals it is valuable. But at the population level it is at best a zero sum. The NHS classifies many potentially fit people as sick or disabled, assigning them a life of benefit dependency and hospital care. The entitlement to "free" care encourages a culture of dependency, creating a habit that costs billions to service, and diverting resources away from people finding real solutions to their problems. For example the explosion in "stress" and "post traumatic stress" caused by things like workplace bullying have created a burgeoning health care industry out of problems that are nothing to do with medicine. Furthermore we now know that the NHS expects its legal bills to be about 16 billion or 1 in every 7 pounds spent, which will go to pay legal fees and compensation for damaging care. And the costs will continue to rise and rise. Brown's NI hike recapitalised the NHS dramatically, but we are now back where we started. The NHS has no potential to make the nation healthier, but shows every sign of making it a lot poorer. A degree of privatisation is entirely logical. We already have a high degree of consumerism in health care, but without the consumer having any requirement to take any financial responsibility for his or her choices. It makes perfect sense to set out the relationship between provider and consumer more transparently. Private health care already does this, hence the ability of government to gleefully wash its hands of the breast implant fiasco.

Unlimited government liability to provide high tech, high risk and questionably evidenced medical interventions, along with the risks entailed is just not sustainable. Despite all the fuss about Lansley's proposed revolution for the NHS, he is only doing a bit of cosmetic tinkering. I think a major dismantling will eventually be unavoidable and actually beneficial.

[easy2012]

They would likely have to demonstrate that there would be compensation due. If their argument is only about protecting 'their' view, I doubt it would be given much consideration by arbitrators. Ofc, if there was pollution of sorts, they may well have a case, which could result in compensation and/or a change of route.

But under an associative society, people can refuse the choice if arbitrators isn't it and violent organised coercion of any sort is prohibited. So, they like the view, and don't want the grid to be build, so they just say no and the grid won't get built.

If said agency is legitimately funding the development of weapons, the pacifist would owe the agency damages if they sabotaged their stuff. They may decide this is still worth doing and others may support their actions, but it wouldn't change the facts.

Would such people become ostracised or out laws? I would suggest it very much depended on their level of support of others, who ultimately judge the actions of any arbiters (who in turn reflect those opinions again).

Presumably most people don't need that many 'friends'. As long as the pacifist group (or the hawk group) have enough people around them (say 30% of the population each vs 70%), orchestration would have no real effect on them. Orchestration might have worked in a village of 200, but in a country of 66 million... doubt it.

And again, the 30% will simply refuse to pay any damages created/invented/imposed by the 70% as it is deemed to be unjust.

In an associative state, the opinion of the 70% should have no coercive effect on the 30% isn't it or the 70% is now allowed to use organised violent in this case?

[fluffy666]

I have got a interesting question for you here:

Say we discover a few men have a special type of blood/gene that can cure, say Alzheimer and we can extract these genes/blood to cure the suffering of others. However, each time the procedure takes place, the donor will have to suffer from pain and fatique.

We wouldn't have forcibly make them 'donate'. However, why the view on forcibly extraction of money via taxation is viewed differently ?

Well, we might - although a combination of cash and anastethics would be preferable to direct force.

But taxation is, in my view, just a part of life - something you pay towards shared resources with the effect of having a society in whych to live. Might as well complain about the terrible injustice of having to pay for food on pain of starving to death.

If the logic is to be consistent, then surely we are morally and legally allowed to extract the special genes from them for greater good as we are allowed to take other's money to relief the 'general suffering' of others ?

Then, are we too should be allowed to force people to work at NHS as needed (paid or unpaid), so to relive the sufferings of "others" ?

Moral philosphers have spend centuries debating where and how the boundary between individual rights and the common good should be set. Reducing it to a black and white question dosen't really help. Both completly libertairian and completely communist societies would not be particularly nice places to live in.

[Traktion]

But under an associative society, people can refuse the choice if arbitrators isn't it and violent organised coercion of any sort is prohibited. So, they like the view, and don't want the grid to be build, so they just say no and the grid won't get built.

Ofc, people can ignore arbiters, but they then don't have any formal legitimacy for their actions. If something has been judged against by independent and respected arbitrators, they have no substantial claim to stop the building being done. Should they ignore this advice and cause the other party damages, the latter may request compensation against the former.

Those who have caused the damage could ignore the arbiters again too - there is nothing to stop them - but why would any arbiters then work for said people, when they refuse to accept their well respected judgement? Each time the opinion from respected, independent arbiters is ignored by someone, they are risking having any access to arbitration for their own future needs... taken to the extreme, they would have no access to respected arbitration, essentially pushing them outside of the law - an out law, if you will.

However, whether an arbitrator is respected or not, very much depends on the fairness of their judgements. If an arbiter was constantly taking brides and backing corporate interests, they would lose respect. If the opposite was occurring, with NIMBYs winning every case, they would also lose respect. A good arbitrator is one who is both fair and consistent and that is their selling point.

Presumably most people don't need that many 'friends'. As long as the pacifist group (or the hawk group) have enough people around them (say 30% of the population each vs 70%), orchestration would have no real effect on them. Orchestration might have worked in a village of 200, but in a country of 66 million... doubt it.

Ostracism works today, even with millions of people. It isn't easy getting good employment if you have a criminal record, for instance. If you have a history of abusing children, you will have trouble finding a house to live in if it is made public too.

The real recriminations of crime is what sticks after you have left prison, not the pain of being in it.

Arguably, prisons should actually be voluntary too. If you have a record of stealing stuff and violating others, people aren't going to trade or associate with you. However, they may associate with you, if you have a guardian who will insure your activities and keep you out of harms way if necessary; a prison, in other words.

To expand, if you want to feed, cloth and shelter yourself, you will likely need to trade. A prison allows people who would be unable to trade outside of its walls, trade from within them. The prison would charge a fee and would likely negotiate to compensate the victims from the income of their client.

Finally, prisons offer protection from others who would seek more direct retribution. Asking to be kept safe in a secure building, in exchange for limited liberties may be something worth accepting.

And again, the 30% will simply refuse to pay any damages created/invented/imposed by the 70% as it is deemed to be unjust.

In an associative state, the opinion of the 70% should have no coercive effect on the 30% isn't it or the 70% is now allowed to use organised violent in this case?

30% would be a rather substantial number of people. I can't say exactly how a free society would deal with such a situation, but I should imagine they would be seen as freedom fighters by many, rather than terrorists. Arbitrators would ultimately be forced to accept this, if such a situation persisted.

However, for 30% to agree with what they were doing, they would have to have a strong argument against the manufacture of the weapons. If so many thought it was unacceptable, with likely a quiet minority who were neutral, I doubt the manufacturer would have a sustainable business model.

Pushing at the fringes of what would be acceptable is just as hard in a statist society, so I tend to concentrate on the non-fringe aspects primarily. Any case on the margins is hard to deal with, whether you have a state or not.

edit: missing word

Edited February 23, 2012 by Traktion

[fluffy666]

The same way as they are now, but instead funded by charitable donations and actions. The degree/amount of the latter, would depend on the nature and choices of other free individuals.

So, just hope, then? Didn't work before we had the NHS, but there you go.

If it is something which may affect others personally, others will likely volunteer to pay money to keep such infections under control. It is in their interest, so why wouldn't they?.

Because people are not completely rational, never have been. Public health required coercion to make people act in their own interests, because what one person does affects others. If you make a free choice to pop antibiotics whenever you feel like it, you may kill me by breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria. How do you sort that out without coercion and in the full knowledge that people do precisely this when given free choice?

Or are you happy to see people die en masse to keep your ideology pure?

The alternative to a free market approach is using theft and violence to coerce people into doing something they otherwise wouldn't.

No, it's using the tax system, which is not theft, no matter how many times you claim it is. Indeed, as far as I can tell

If people are altruistic and compassionate, they will help others. If they feel little empathy, they will not. It is their choice, not yours.

Or they could vote for a system where they paid taxes towards a health system and could therefore get on with their lives without having to worry about it.

[easy2012]

Ostracism works today, even with millions of people. It isn't easy getting good employment if you have a criminal record, for instance. If you have a history of abusing children, you will have trouble finding a house to live in if it is made public too.

The problem we have is that a lot of things are not as black and white. Some view taxation as theft, some view taxation as theft is wasted, and some view taxation as the legitimate things some don't (and each block has a pretty big majority) . When it comes to religious matter, it becomes even more muddle up.

The Pope and the Mullah are both well respected arbitrators within their community, but both don't agree with each other.

Even things that are black and white, people don't agree - such as teaching of "intelligent design" unless an associative society will allow people to teach falseness.

Issue on trident weapons etc are pretty split and many issues are even on at 51% vs 49% line.

[aussieboy]

SNIP

Broad? Pfft. You don't even seem to recognise that the corporations you say the state needs to restrain, only exist because the state is present at all.

SNIP

At this point, the discussion took off on bubblegum wings to fairyland and Aussieboy went to bed.

[Traktion]

So, just hope, then? Didn't work before we had the NHS, but there you go.

It depends what you call 'worked'. Even in the much discredited US system, people do still pay for health and there are still volunteers who provide care for those who can't afford it.

Because people are not completely rational, never have been. Public health required coercion to make people act in their own interests, because what one person does affects others. If you make a free choice to pop antibiotics whenever you feel like it, you may kill me by breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria. How do you sort that out without coercion and in the full knowledge that people do precisely this when given free choice?

Or are you happy to see people die en masse to keep your ideology pure?

What if the treatment had an unknown side affect, which caused early death of the previously healthy individual, problems with child birth/health etc? When you go down the road of enforced medication, you open up a whole can of, liberty impeding, worms.

The rational thing to do is to protect yourself, which in turn protects others. Being irrational, doesn't mean that people get to force medication on you though.

TBH, I think the majority of people trust the word of experts anyway. I wouldn't start self medicating, just because I had easy access to many drugs... I'd be more concerned with harming myself.

No, it's using the tax system, which is not theft, no matter how many times you claim it is. Indeed, as far as I can tell

Of course it's theft. If I demanded money from you, in exchange for services I thrust upon you, you would rightly tell me to get stuffed. What you do with the loot doesn't escape the fact that it was stolen.

Or they could vote for a system where they paid taxes towards a health system and could therefore get on with their lives without having to worry about it.

They could, but that would involve forcing people (no matter how small a minority) to do things they otherwise wouldn't, using a combination of theft and violence.

IMO, theft and violence are always wrong. It doesn't matter who is doing it or what services they intend to provide after it.

[Traktion]

The problem we have is that a lot of things are not as black and white. Some view taxation as theft, some view taxation as theft is wasted, and some view taxation as the legitimate things some don't (and each block has a pretty big majority) . When it comes to religious matter, it becomes even more muddle up.

Taking something from someone against their will is theft. People can attempt to say that I somehow agreed, through my social contract with the state or some such, but if the aforementioned agreement is false, it is theft.

When people suggest there is a social contract, I ask to see where I signed it. People then usually say that it is implied or some such, but then it would be fraudulent anyway, as there was no meeting of minds (the state is hoisted by its own petard etc).

Some then say that I have to agree because the state is violent and will force this contract upon me, whether I agree or not. At which point, I have to admit defeat - yes, the state uses theft and violence to coerce me into doing stuff I wouldn't otherwise do. It is big, has lots of guns and there isn't a right lot I can do about it. It doesn't make it right though and certainly doesn't give it moral legitimacy.

The Pope and the Mullah are both well respected arbitrators within their community, but both don't agree with each other.

Even things that are black and white, people don't agree - such as teaching of "intelligent design" unless an associative society will allow people to teach falseness.

They don't have to agree with each other. People don't even have to agree with them. Many things are indeed shades of grey, which is exactly why one state, providing a monopoly on law and order doesn't fit.

Maybe some people will get several opinions from different arbitrators. Maybe they will all have a different view, but will compromise somewhere in the middle. Maybe there just isn't a precise legitimacy one way or another, but rather 6 of one and half a dozen of another. That's life though and people just muddle on regardless.

Ofc, many disputes can be analysed from first principles. You can define a series of axioms and analyse many things scientifically. On the fringes where this isn't possible, it isn't an option. It doesn't mean that negotiation can't be done and compromise can't be reached.

Issue on trident weapons etc are pretty split and many issues are even on at 51% vs 49% line.

Well, for that case 51% of people can pay for it, if it makes them feel safer. I'm sure they will say that others are 'free loading', but that's the cost of not having a consensus. The other 49% may think it is a complete waste of time and money, so why should they pay?

Edited February 23, 2012 by Traktion

[Riedquat]

Ofc, people can ignore arbiters, but they then don't have any formal legitimacy for their actions. If something has been judged against by independent and respected arbitrators, they have no substantial claim to stop the building being done. Should they ignore this advice and cause the other party damages, the latter may request compensation against the former.

Where do you get these independent and respected arbitrators from? This arbitration sounds not much different from granting planning permission, and that's hardly a stunning example of open, impartial, and unbiased arbitration. You can somehow guarentee that you won't get arbitrators who will be free of influence and lobbying from whoever stands to gain (could be the person not wanting the building, could be someone standing to do nicely out of it no matter how useful it is or otherwise)? What you're proposing is exactly the system we've got.

[easy2012]

Taking something from someone against their will is theft. People can attempt to say that I somehow agreed, through my social contract with the state or some such, but if the aforementioned agreement is false, it is theft.

But you will find no trouble to find several arbitrators who will decide that this is a fair game (and a few others who decide against) As it goes with a bloated welfare state, you mind well find that the arbitrators representing 70% of the population agree with such decisions.

So, we come back to the issue of ignoring the arbitrators and orchestration (e.g. in your words, no job, no trade etc). So, the government will not threaten non tax payers will force, but will threaten any of the 70% who wants taxation an who breaches the sanctions of dealing with the 30%.

Is that a fair outcome under the 'associative society' system ?

[Traktion]

Where do you get these independent and respected arbitrators from? This arbitration sounds not much different from granting planning permission, and that's hardly a stunning example of open, impartial, and unbiased arbitration. You can somehow guarentee that you won't get arbitrators who will be free of influence and lobbying from whoever stands to gain (could be the person not wanting the building, could be someone standing to do nicely out of it no matter how useful it is or otherwise)? What you're proposing is exactly the system we've got.

An arbitrators unique selling point is their impartial fairness. If they hock that in for a bribe, who is going to trust them after that? In the same way that a state judge would get dismissed for taking bribes, people would reject arbitrators who do the same.

Additionally, there already are private arbitration services, which do offer such services, so it can definitely work.

What we have got is a monopoly on courts and laws. This is the opposite to what I am proposing.

[Traktion]

But you will find no trouble to find several arbitrators who will decide that this is a fair game (and a few others who decide against) As it goes with a bloated welfare state, you mind well find that the arbitrators representing 70% of the population agree with such decisions.

So, we come back to the issue of ignoring the arbitrators and orchestration (e.g. in your words, no job, no trade etc). So, the government will not threaten non tax payers will force, but will threaten any of the 70% who wants taxation an who breaches the sanctions of dealing with the 30%.

Is that a fair outcome under the 'associative society' system ?

Any arbitrator working from the position of individual freedom (the default), will identify if there is an agreement/contract in place, before deciding whether any theft has been done.

As for the state threatening the 70% who want taxation, they can enter a contract with any agency who wants to provide state like services. For the sake of argument, let's call this the agency previously known as the state - the ex-state.

If said 70% agreed to abide by the agency's rules and repercussions, then they have a contract in place. The terms to exit the contract could also be agreed. The remit of the agencies rules would likely include any action which occurred within the subscribers property. The 70% could then enjoy whatever services were offered, at whatever the cost is to provide them.

The other 30% would be outside the remit of the ex-state agency. They would not be bound by the laws of the ex-state, but perhaps by a system I previously described. That doesn't mean that any of the 30% can knowingly break the rules of the ex-state agency, when within its territory of subscribers - you must abide by the rules or face the consequences.

However, the 30% on their own property, would not be subject to the rules of the ex-state agency. They would be very much like different states or countries.

The ex-state may try to extradite someone for breaking the rules when in their territory, much like is done between countries now. However, what a 30%er does outside of the ex-state's remit is between them and whoever they have contracted with (if indeed, anyone at all).

I would say it is fair, as people can still nuzzle at the tit of the ex-state, should they wish. For those who don't want to, they would still be subject to the ex-state's laws, when dealing with their subscribers. However, non ex-staters would not have to abide by ex-state rules when dealing with people outside of the ex-state.

Ultimately, it is giving the choice to people over how much they wish to be governed and by who. Some will want what we have now, where as others will want as much individual freedom as possible.

[fluffy666]

It depends what you call 'worked'. Even in the much discredited US system, people do still pay for health and there are still volunteers who provide care for those who can't afford it.

No, it does not depend. You measre outcomes. Things like maternal death rates. Things that are not a matter of opinion.

What if the treatment had an unknown side affect, which caused early death of the previously healthy individual, problems with child birth/health etc? When you go down the road of enforced medication, you open up a whole can of, liberty impeding, worms.

Again, we have tools called 'stastitics' that can be used. As opposed to the absolutist stance, which is demonstrably more harmful

The rational thing to do is to protect yourself, which in turn protects others. Being irrational, doesn't mean that people get to force medication on you though.

TBH, I think the majority of people trust the word of experts anyway. I wouldn't start self medicating, just because I had easy access to many drugs... I'd be more concerned with harming myself.

.

You don't get it, do you? The actual, physical, real on-the-ground problem is that the irrational decisions of the few will hurt the health of the many. Wishing the problem away dosen't actually make it go away.

And that includes those who act in a perfectly rational manner.

Of course it's theft. If I demanded money from you, in exchange for services I thrust upon you, you would rightly tell me to get stuffed. What you do with the loot doesn't escape the fact that it was stolen.

But that is not an accurate dscription of taxation , is it?

The characterisation of government as some externally imposed organisation of 'others', over which you have no influence, is an example of the fallacy of 'poisioning the well'.

Interestingly, the practical result of such rhetoric - which holds that government must be minimised and all government action is bad, as far as I can tell - is the shift of power from a relatively open and accoutable government to cloased and unaccountable corporations.

IMO, theft and violence are always wrong. It doesn't matter who is doing it or what services they intend to provide after it.

Yes, you've made it clear that you'd rather have people - including those who are too young to have ever made a rational choice - suffer and die of preventable conditions than pay taxes towards a common healthcare system from which everyone benefits.

And I hope I've made it clear that anyone who would increase the amount of pain and suffering in the world for no reason other than the pursuit of their personal ideology is a monster (or at least, potential monster). After all, Lennin (and the other Russian revolutanries) started off assuming that their government would wither away as the workers organised things for themselves.. ther would be no government and no opression in Soviet Russia.

How'd that work out?

[Traktion]

No, it does not depend. You measre outcomes. Things like maternal death rates. Things that are not a matter of opinion.

The US have a working health system. That is a fact.

Whether you think it is better or worse is an opinion.

Again, we have tools called 'stastitics' that can be used. As opposed to the absolutist stance, which is demonstrably more harmful

You're the one saying the US have a system which doesn't work. That is an absolute position (and wrong).

You don't get it, do you? The actual, physical, real on-the-ground problem is that the irrational decisions of the few will hurt the health of the many. Wishing the problem away dosen't actually make it go away.

And that includes those who act in a perfectly rational manner.

Then persuade people that they should contribute.

Your solution to people not wanting to do something of their free will, is to force them to do it through theft and violence. You may think that is fine personally, but I do not.

But that is not an accurate dscription of taxation , is it?

The characterisation of government as some externally imposed organisation of 'others', over which you have no influence, is an example of the fallacy of 'poisioning the well'.

Interestingly, the practical result of such rhetoric - which holds that government must be minimised and all government action is bad, as far as I can tell - is the shift of power from a relatively open and accoutable government to cloased and unaccountable corporations.

The state is imposed on people. If it wasn't, I could opt out.

Corporates are a statist construct. Without a government, they wouldn't have a legal identity and every person working for them would be exposed to liabilities. So, your final point is a incorrect.

Yes, you've made it clear that you'd rather have people - including those who are too young to have ever made a rational choice - suffer and die of preventable conditions than pay taxes towards a common healthcare system from which everyone benefits.

Nope, that isn't my position at all.

My position is that people have their own free will. I respect this.

You, on the other hand, want to violate them to get some result which you would prefer.

I don't want to see any more people die than the next man, but threatening them and stealing there stuff isn't a solution either. Education, negotiating, charity and compassion are, but these aren't fostered through inducing violence.

And I hope I've made it clear that anyone who would increase the amount of pain and suffering in the world for no reason other than the pursuit of their personal ideology is a monster (or at least, potential monster). After all, Lennin (and the other Russian revolutanries) started off assuming that their government would wither away as the workers organised things for themselves.. ther would be no government and no opression in Soviet Russia.

How'd that work out?

Asking to be left alone is hardly imposing my 'ideology' on anyone.

Can't you just keep your thieving hands to yourself and respect the decisions of other individuals?

Edited February 23, 2012 by Traktion

[easy2012]

Well, we might - although a combination of cash and anastethics would be preferable to direct force.

But taxation is, in my view, just a part of life - something you pay towards shared resources with the effect of having a society in whych to live. Might as well complain about the terrible injustice of having to pay for food on pain of starving to death.

Just another thought, so, presumably showering the largest tax payers with privileges, honours to get their taxes are preferably to threat, insults and direct violence ?

[SirGaz]

The US have a working health system. That is a fact.

They don't, what they have is an insurance system that makes vast profits at the expense of anyone might become too sick (so becoming a bad risk) or cannot afford the premiums.

I had a relatively minor procedure and contracted MRSA, I hate to think how much my insurance premiums would have been the following year, If I'd have even been offered cover! :angry:

[PopGun]

Can't you just keep your thieving hands to yourself and respect the decisions of other individuals?

Obviously we need a state opt in system. However why have I got this feeling that it will be the very same state that ends up cleaning up one libertarian ’s mess after another?!

I'm sure you're quite happy to be left alone and ignored by the state or whatever. However if you chose to ignore the knotweed in your garden, and its roots starts to undermine everyone else's veg patches, I'm sure your neighbours would choose to knock on your door. It's only rational.

You're going to have to start looking beyond the old theft and violence chestnut if you want to progress this argument.

Unless you intend to live in the sky somewhere of course.

[Riedquat]

An arbitrators unique selling point is their impartial fairness. If they hock that in for a bribe, who is going to trust them after that? In the same way that a state judge would get dismissed for taking bribes, people would reject arbitrators who do the same.

Additionally, there already are private arbitration services, which do offer such services, so it can definitely work.

What we have got is a monopoly on courts and laws. This is the opposite to what I am proposing.

You are proposing the same thing unless the arbitartors' decisions aren't binding, in which case you're proposing nothing of any use.

[Traktion]

Obviously we need a state opt in system. However why have I got this feeling that it will be the very same state that ends up cleaning up one libertarian ’s mess after another?!

Obviously? I'm not sure it is so obvious to many. I'm glad you see it this way though.

I'm sure you're quite happy to be left alone and ignored by the state or whatever. However if you chose to ignore the knotweed in your garden, and its roots starts to undermine everyone else's veg patches, I'm sure your neighbours would choose to knock on your door. It's only rational.

My neighbours would be free to knock on my door and I would likely attend to my garden. Both parties have to be reasonable and be willing to negotiote though though, as every good neighbour knows.

You're going to have to start looking beyond the old theft and violence chestnut if you want to progress this argument.

Unless you intend to live in the sky somewhere of course.

Theft and violence are at the core of the state. I know I drone on about it, but it is important.

We can talk about utilitarian arguments all day and their pros and cons, with everyone having their own opinion, but we would never all agree (each idea has merits).

The non-aggression principle is a solid base to build from though. I think the vast majority think that both theft and violence is wrong, yet we have so many contradictions due to the way we are governed, that such a philosophical position may seem alien to many. However, it is arguing from first principles.

If you decide that the basis for civilisation should be free association and mutual agreement, discussing who to steal from and who to give to seems rather pointless.

I am happy to debate how this can work in health care or anything else, but is just forcing people to do stuff, really the best we can do? Is it really the peak of civilisation? Do people really have such a low regard for other humans, that they need to be corralled into doing something against their will?

[Traktion]

You are proposing the same thing unless the arbitartors' decisions aren't binding, in which case you're proposing nothing of any use.

The arbitrators' decisions aren't bound by force, as with our current system. They are bound by all parties benefiting, if the decisions are both reasonable and accepted.

You can choose to ignore the arbitrator's decisions, but if you are being unreasonable, you will be making your own life harder in the long run. Not only will you lose support of those you want to trade with, but ultimately you will lose access to arbitration and become vulnerable to other law breakers.

Like many animals, humans are most comfortable and work best when in social circles. Being isolation and ostracised really isn't a safe or comfortable position to remain in.