A (Rhetorical Question)

[Snowguy716]

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

That's an even shorter health-care plan.

Basically.. let the elderly and disabled die. Then we will all be "better off".  Please keep your WoW economics to WoW and let people living in the real world deal with real world problems.

Strange, I didn't see that in the link. You must have read something else.

Strange... it was near the end, which you probably didn't read.  So I guess in a sense I did read something else.

4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

Only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.

Nope, sorry, I asked for the part that says " let the elderly and disabled die". Let's see it.

Are you really that dense?

What do you suppose will happen to the elderly and the disabled when their medical coverage is taken away and they cannot get their medication or see their doctors?

I think it says pretty clearly that they want to thin the herd or at least threaten to thin the herd to try and force at least some of these people into some kind of unspecified action (like... get better.. which isn't much of a solution).

So yes, Libertas, it's exactly that.  If you don't agree it's because you didn't interpret what they said correctly.

So, I'll post it one more time:

4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid

I suppose you're stupid enough to actually believe that by getting rid of all subsidies for the sick and unhealthy, their will to live will just be renewed and they'll all just get better.

For example, if my mother loses her medical coverage, one of two things will happen:

1)  My entire family will go bankrupt trying to pay her medical costs

2)  She will die due to lack of care

Which one of those do you want for my family, Libertas?  Just let me know, and then I'll tell you what I want for you and your family and where you can all have a nice warm extended vacation.

[SPC]

Snowguy, you seem to be misinterpreting his statement. The idea is that if such subsidies were eliminated, people would take greater precautions to safeguard against a potential medical problem happening. Since your stooping to using an argument from pathos, might I ask whether it is moral to use a third-party to force your neighbors to pay for your mother's medical bills?

EDIT: Speaking of bankrupcy, you might want to look at what share of the national debt Medicare and Medicaid make up http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Snowguy716]

Snowguy, you seem to be misinterpreting his statement. The idea is that if such subsidies were eliminated, people would take greater precautions to safeguard against a potential medical problem happening. Since your stooping to using an argument from pathos, might I ask whether it is moral to use a third-party to force your neighbors to pay for your mother's medical bills?

EDIT: Speaking of bankrupcy, you might want to look at what share of the national debt Medicare and Medicaid make up http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I think it is perfectly moral for our society to pay the medical costs of the sick and disabled.  In this made up world you seem to inhabit, it might make sense to get rid of all medical care to the poor or the sick and disabled to cannot afford it and just say "tough!"... but in the real world, we abandoned that cold social darwinism long ago.

But I also think the entire argument is bunk.  People already decided long ago to safegard against potential medical problems, which are much less affordable by the elderly due to higher frequency of problems or by the poor due to lack of funds, by voting for politicians that enacted Medicare and Medicaid.  By doing this, everybody gets medical coverage.  This is necessarily much better, in my interpretation of what is moral, than telling 9 people they must die early so that the 1 person can have enough money to save himself 10 times over and thus go buy a 3rd home for his grandson.

[Mint]

Snowguy, you seem to be misinterpreting his statement. The idea is that if such subsidies were eliminated, people would take greater precautions to safeguard against a potential medical problem happening. Since your stooping to using an argument from pathos, might I ask whether it is moral to use a third-party to force your neighbors to pay for your mother's medical bills?

EDIT: Speaking of bankrupcy, you might want to look at what share of the national debt Medicare and Medicaid make up http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Because if nothing else, even ignoring the obvious moral/sentimental reasons and assuming your worldview, it's just being pragmatic. Do you really think the uninsured or impoverished wouldn't eventually revolt and impose a system even more draconian than whatever comparatively tame social democracy snowguy wants? It's just self preservation. Know when to pick your battles.

[Snowguy716]

Snowguy, you seem to be misinterpreting his statement. The idea is that if such subsidies were eliminated, people would take greater precautions to safeguard against a potential medical problem happening. Since your stooping to using an argument from pathos, might I ask whether it is moral to use a third-party to force your neighbors to pay for your mother's medical bills?

EDIT: Speaking of bankrupcy, you might want to look at what share of the national debt Medicare and Medicaid make up http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Because if nothing else, even ignoring the obvious moral/sentimental reasons and assuming your worldview, it's just being pragmatic. Do you really think the uninsured or impoverished wouldn't eventually revolt and impose a system even more draconian than whatever comparatively tame social democracy snowguy wants? It's just self preservation. Know when to pick your battles.

If it's not the gub'mint showin up at your door with guns demanding that you pay up, it'll be somebody.  And somebody doesn't guarantee you rights under the constitution.

[SPC]

Snowguy, you seem to be misinterpreting his statement. The idea is that if such subsidies were eliminated, people would take greater precautions to safeguard against a potential medical problem happening. Since your stooping to using an argument from pathos, might I ask whether it is moral to use a third-party to force your neighbors to pay for your mother's medical bills?

EDIT: Speaking of bankrupcy, you might want to look at what share of the national debt Medicare and Medicaid make up http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I think it is perfectly moral for our society to pay the medical costs of the sick and disabled.  In this made up world you seem to inhabit, it might make sense to get rid of all medical care to the poor or the sick and disabled to cannot afford it and just say "tough!"... but in the real world, we abandoned that cold social darwinism long ago.

But I also think the entire argument is bunk.  People already decided long ago to safegard against potential medical problems, which are much less affordable by the elderly due to higher frequency of problems or by the poor due to lack of funds, by voting for politicians that enacted Medicare and Medicaid.  By doing this, everybody gets medical coverage.  This is necessarily much better, in my interpretation of what is moral, than telling 9 people they must die early so that the 1 person can have enough money to save himself 10 times over and thus go buy a 3rd home for his grandson.

You're setting up a strawman. I'm not against society paying for the medical costs of the sick and disabled. I just feel that would be more efficient if conducted by private charities. Currently, Medicare and Medicaid are run by the same organization that ran Walter Reed Hospital. Additionally, your social contract argument is "bunk" because it assumes that a legal contract is binding that lacks an exit clause and is not consented to by most people (in reality, nobody consents to it). What if they voted for those politicians for different reasons besides their passage of reditributionist policies? Since voter intent can never be determined, one cannot say that they "consented' to those programs. By that logic, Jim Crow was alright because the majority of Southern voters voted for policians that implemented it. But, even all that aside, it shows that the argument for "social democracy" completely lacks any substance since the circumstances could change in the next election.

[SPC]

Snowguy, you seem to be misinterpreting his statement. The idea is that if such subsidies were eliminated, people would take greater precautions to safeguard against a potential medical problem happening. Since your stooping to using an argument from pathos, might I ask whether it is moral to use a third-party to force your neighbors to pay for your mother's medical bills?

EDIT: Speaking of bankrupcy, you might want to look at what share of the national debt Medicare and Medicaid make up http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Because if nothing else, even ignoring the obvious moral/sentimental reasons and assuming your worldview, it's just being pragmatic. Do you really think the uninsured or impoverished wouldn't eventually revolt and impose a system even more draconian than whatever comparatively tame social democracy snowguy wants? It's just self preservation. Know when to pick your battles.

If they're healthy enough to revolt, I would question how sick or disabled they were in the first place.
But seriously, you're saying that I should support these policies because of the potential for violence? Should we also implement Sharia law because fundamentalist Muslims are "revolting"? Of course, the argument you provide is telling of the true nature of government programs: that they are ultimately backed up by violence rather than logic.

[Mint]

Let me put it this way. How do you think property emerged? Was that a purely 'voluntary transaction.' Of course not. The vast majority of 'property' that exists now has been essentially taken from someone else violently. And if it wasn't then that's probably because whoever claimed it for themselves had enough guns, mercenaries, 'money' or sheer influence to make contesting it pointless. The fact that something like the United States as we know it even exists should tell you something about the 'non aggression principle' and how viable it generally is IRL.

[SPC]

Let me put it this way. How do you think property emerged? Was that a purely 'voluntary transaction.' Of course not. The vast majority of 'property' that exists now has been essentially taken from someone else violently. And if it wasn't then that's probably because whoever claimed it for themselves had enough guns, mercenaries, 'money' or sheer influence to make contesting it pointless. The fact that something like the United States as we know it even exists should tell you something about the 'non aggression principle' and how viable it generally is IRL.

In Western societies, we have this principle called "presumption of innocence". Thus, unless someone can prove that a particular piece of property was stolen from them or their direct ancestors, the current owner of the property is presumed to have acquired it legitimately. Lockean homesteading theory teaches that previously unowned property can come into private ownership by the mixing of a person's labor with the unowned property.

[Snowguy716]

As far as Mint's original post, SPC, you're darn tootin right we should at least make government policy based on the fear of violent revolt.  Unless you threaten the revolt with overwhelming government force or throw the riff raff enough peanuts to satiate them, with today's educated citizens, things will go badly very quickly.

As I've said before, your political ideology would only work in a vacuum, or, perhaps at some point in our evolutionary future when we've become much more agreeable.  But I have a feeling eventually humans will probably drop all forms of capitalism instead for a form of economic collectivism as a simple means of practicality as we devote our minds to other, more important matters.

[SPC]

As far as Mint's original post, SPC, you're darn tootin right we should at least make government policy based on the fear of violent revolt.  Unless you threaten the revolt with overwhelming government force or throw the riff raff enough peanuts to satiate them, with today's educated citizens, things will go badly very quickly.

As I've said before, your political ideology would only work in a vacuum, or, perhaps at some point in our evolutionary future when we've become much more agreeable.  But I have a feeling eventually humans will probably drop all forms of capitalism instead for a form of economic collectivism as a simple means of practicality as we devote our minds to other, more important matters.

Sorry, but Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek already explained that socialism is inherently unworkable because it cannot account for all the calculations that automatically occur under capitalism. The idea that implementation of libertarianism would require us to "become more agreeable" is ridiculous. It is statist ideas such as social democracy that create a conflict of interest between people in the first place. To provide an example: Statist social democrats believe that government should be involved in several areas of our lives, so necessarily politics s a zero-sum game: not everyone can be happy. However, if government stayed out of peoples lives, they would be free to make decisions for themselves like whether to own health insurance or which school to send my chlild to or whether my money should go to Wall-Street fatcats or the literally billions of decisions people make on a constant basis that statists naively think can be handled by some faceless bureaucrat. As far as humans rejecting capitalism in favor of collectvism, doesn't it make you wonder when every single attempt to do that throughout history has failed within a matter of years?

[dialectical fetishist]

I don't see how you can simply dismiss socialism in such a fashion.

[Sibboleth]

Sorry, but Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek already explained that socialism is inherently unworkable because it cannot account for all the calculations that automatically occur under capitalism

Appeal To Authority.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

If socialism, like capitalism in fact, didn't exist then they would have to invent it.

Who 'they' are is a matter I'll leave up to your imaginations (as for that matter, the issue on whether capitalism or socialism really exist. I'm not even sure they do or ever did).

[Vepres]

If socialism, like capitalism in fact, didn't exist then they would have to invent it.

Who 'they' are is a matter I'll leave up to your imaginations (as for that matter, the issue on whether capitalism or socialism really exist. I'm not even sure they do or ever did).

Whahoa, deep man... peace...

[SPC]

Sorry, but Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek already explained that socialism is inherently unworkable because it cannot account for all the calculations that automatically occur under capitalism

Appeal To Authority.

Maybe the Hayek introduction, but you haven't refuted his actual statement.

[Gustaf]

Does no one think it might be possible to have an economic system that involves both a state and free market forces?

(because that is what, you know, a lot, well, most, well...all, really, economists would say)

[Sibboleth]

Does no one think it might be possible to have an economic system that involves both a state and free market forces?

I understand that most people in the real world accept that this is a good idea and that any attempt to totally eliminate either (I don't especially like the term 'free market forces' - partly because it's a bit of a tautology - but I'll run with it as a surrogate for 'markets') generally leads to disaster, but you must remember that this is not the real world. This is the internet, where all your crazy dreams can come true!

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

If socialism, like capitalism in fact, didn't exist then they would have to invent it.

Who 'they' are is a matter I'll leave up to your imaginations (as for that matter, the issue on whether capitalism or socialism really exist. I'm not even sure they do or ever did).

Whahoa, deep man... peace...

Not deep. But has to be said. Over and over again.

[Mint]

Let me put it this way. How do you think property emerged? Was that a purely 'voluntary transaction.' Of course not. The vast majority of 'property' that exists now has been essentially taken from someone else violently. And if it wasn't then that's probably because whoever claimed it for themselves had enough guns, mercenaries, 'money' or sheer influence to make contesting it pointless. The fact that something like the United States as we know it even exists should tell you something about the 'non aggression principle' and how viable it generally is IRL.

In Western societies, we have this principle called "presumption of innocence". Thus, unless someone can prove that a particular piece of property was stolen from them or their direct ancestors, the current owner of the property is presumed to have acquired it legitimately. Lockean homesteading theory teaches that previously unowned property can come into private ownership by the mixing of a person's labor with the unowned property.

So? Again, none of that would exist in the first place if we had followed the non aggression principle. Plus the legal system you cite is by definition based upon coercion for enforcement (taxes, prison, etc.). Besides even if we were to abolish all that over night and implement the 'private court system' you dream about somehow, it would still boil down to two things:

1. Who was better armed.
2. If people had some sort of strong incentive to play along with the people claiming to make the 'rules' (threat of ostracizing, banishment, etc.).

[Senator Libertas]

Does no one think it might be possible to have an economic system that involves both a state and free market forces?

(because that is what, you know, a lot, well, most, well...all, really, economists would say)

No, not all economists say that. Most worthwhile ones don't.

[Gustaf]

Does no one think it might be possible to have an economic system that involves both a state and free market forces?

(because that is what, you know, a lot, well, most, well...all, really, economists would say)

No, not all economists say that. Most worthwhile ones don't.

Give an example of an economist who believes in completely abolishing the state. Or is that too intellectual a thing for you to do?

[SPC]

Does no one think it might be possible to have an economic system that involves both a state and free market forces?

(because that is what, you know, a lot, well, most, well...all, really, economists would say)

No, not all economists say that. Most worthwhile ones don't.

Give an example of an economist who believes in completely abolishing the state. Or is that too intellectual a thing for you to do?

Murray N. Rothbard and David D. Friedman are the two best known ones.

[SPC]

So? Again, none of that would exist in the first place if we had followed the non aggression principle. Plus the legal system you cite is by definition based upon coercion for enforcement (taxes, prison, etc.). Besides even if we were to abolish all that over night and implement the 'private court system' you dream about somehow, it would still boil down to two things:

1. Who was better armed.
2. If people had some sort of strong incentive to play along with the people claiming to make the 'rules' (threat of ostracizing, banishment, etc.).

Those things are present in our current legal system. In suits where the government is one of the parties, the government court is more likely to deliver a verdict favorable to the government. You would think it would make more sense to hire a court in which one of the parties didn't pay the judges salary. Juries are intentionally selected for ignorance of the law. The government's agents (as well as the judge himself) also possess legal immunity from the consequences of their actions, so how can you expect that to yield an unbiased result? How does presumption of innocence involve the initiation of force? And could you explain how homesteading is in violation of the non-agression principle?

[Gustaf]

Does no one think it might be possible to have an economic system that involves both a state and free market forces?

(because that is what, you know, a lot, well, most, well...all, really, economists would say)

No, not all economists say that. Most worthwhile ones don't.

Give an example of an economist who believes in completely abolishing the state. Or is that too intellectual a thing for you to do?

Murray N. Rothbard and David D. Friedman are the two best known ones.

So, you have two guys: one who actually isn't an economist and one dead guy who doesn't appear to have any major contribution to the science beyond his political views.

I think my point pretty much stands.