Sick Medical Care

Post Reply New Topic

I understand the argument perfectly and I think it is a very poor one indeed. Universal healthcare is a public good because it benefits all people. Everyone can be expected to become ill at some point and at this point they will benefit. And what is so bad about paying for the treatment of others? I would gladly do this if I had the money. I would gladly pay for taxes to pay for healthcare and education. I do not agree to pay taxes for my country to invade other countries. This is not defence.

Who are the mods this thread is just a fire fight???

There are private police forces.

Ok, private schools.

I would rather have competing currency systems. Frankly, the early US did not have much of a universal monetary system either but rather had banks issuing various notes. Often we hear about the wildcat banks, but some banking systems were able to create innovative regulation systems.

No, no universal laws. All places have their laws, and these laws are enforced by the powers that be.

There will always be punishment.

Umm... right, and you are an expert on anarchist theory, right? I guess you must have read the books I haven't.

You clearly believe that you have the right to be superior to others?

I disagree. I do not believe a worth can be placed on a human life. Bush has as much worth as the poorest person or the worst criminal as have you, me and every other human on this planet.

Anarchy is the belief that power is the greatest evil that a human can perpetrate. Wealth gives power and should be opposed at all costs.

No, actually it isn't a poor argument. My argument was very analytical and pointed out the widely respected differences between the military and the health care system.

Universal health care as a public good, is changing the use of the terms I was using. I put forward some criterion, for something to be a public good it must be non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Not only that, but there is no reason for everyone to benefit, let's just look at the argument:

Universal health care is a system where the government collects taxes to pay for health care.
This means that payment for health care is based upon the tax bracket rather than usage.
This means that those with higher tax rates or lesser usage of the system will pay more for their usage than poorer or sicker people.
Ergo, some people lose, and some people win. I mean, nobody would argue that universal healthcare is Pareto efficient(the economic term for everyone benefitting) as you displace certain jobs in the economy, you eliminate some freedoms of bargaining and so on and so forth.

What is bad about it is that I am not choosing to pay for it, somebody else is choosing for me. Not only that, but we are replacing a private system with a public system against the wishes of all of the participants on both the side of the government and necessarily all of the people as well.

I do not agree with the taxes for invading other countries either.

Ok so who would control the police and hold them accountable for their actions??

Private schools don't work during the birth of our country only about 5-10% of children got a basic education.

Universal currency is easy to understand that is a duh anything else is far to confusing.

Sorry no government means no laws, if their are laws then a government is in place.

You know it just shows how pathetic your ideas are when you have to change topics and insult me. Really your the worst example of humanity in my opinion you don't care for others only about yourself you have no empathy that I can see and no sympathy for those who suffer, your ideas disgust me and I swear I will fight your kind till we are all treated the same.

Well, I can't be denied a right to superiority, if only by my own standards or those of others. People can never be equal without being the same.


Well, sucks for you because worth is placed on human life by everyone who has ever lived. If the value of life were infinite, then we'd minimize all risks to it at all costs, but we do not. Not only that, but if worth did not exist, then benefits provided by other people based upon special abilities would not exist. Worth is clearly different and that is an analytical belief.

Anarchy is a school of thought with many branches, some considered legitimate, some not so. Max Stirner for instance thought that all rights were simply based upon power, and is noted for being an individualist anarchist and an egoist. Anarcho-capitalists believe that power naturally exists, but that it should not be concentrated in a government. Frankly, I disagree with your assertions on power, and think that the abolition of power is not even possible in a world like Harrison Bergeron.

The people hiring the police, and of course the interests of other people who want police.


During the birth of our country, education was a lot less important and stressed than it was today. There was very little ideal of education and it was strictly a middle class value.


I understand universal currency.

Right, and anarcho-capitalism is best expressed as the existence of multiple governments and multiple orders within a geographic region.

I had to change topics??? You brought up this topic, not me. I rarely bring much attention to my specific views on government. Everyone only cares about themselves, you only care about your ideology and not about what other people desire. If anything, I care more about others than you do by wanting them to be free to do what they want. You plan to fight forever, good for you, as an impossible ideal remains so no matter how much you war for it. The very fact that you treat me with disgust shows that we cannot be all treated the same until we all think the same.

we are watching you all handle yourselves like ladies and gentlemen


Merle

So from your arguments, it appears you resent people having power over you (taxes etc.), yet you want to have power over them (superiority).

Is this correct?

Do you not see conflicting ideas here?

You have a choice to elect a government? Is this not the power to decide what taxes are used for?

I advocate complete decentralisation of power and the abolition of nations as a way to return decision making power to citizens. Each interested person would have a say in the decision making process. No one would be elected to make decisions. Each person would have equal power to everyone else regardless of wealth, age, race, intellect. The majority vote would be used to make crucial decisions about healthcare, education, defence etc.

I think your ideas are worth crap but I think you deserve all the crap the rest of us would get if we were treated as equals because even though I don't like your ideas you still deserve them since your part of the human race.

No, I resent coercion over anybody, I just want to be superior. What does superiority mean? I can be a superior thinking, superior swordsman, superior businessman, etc, without having any real coercive power over anyone.


No, I do not have a choice to elect a government. This power is somewhat towards deciding the use of taxes though, but I would rather have less taxes.

I advocate the same. I just don't believe in democracy and disagree with you there.

I am having difficulties with your sentence structure, I might be tired or something like that, so forgive me if that is the issue I am having.

Superiority implies coercion or at least the ability to coerce. If you are superior, it implies someone else has been deprived. Superior is here referring to measurable qualities like health, wealth. Intellect is not a measurable quality.

What is your alternative to democracy?

Meritocracy?

Aristocracy?

Dictatorship by you?

Last edited by corroonb on 17 Aug 2008, 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Keep the discussion on the subject, and do not make personal attacks, Awesomely Glorious.

Merle


2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not

Last edited by sinsboldly on 17 Aug 2008, 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How????? None of the things I gave as examples showed an ability to coerce or deprivation!! ! I am just confused, I think you are jumping into a zero-sum view of the world where I do not accept one as existing. If I am superior in arguing, who have I deprived? If I am a superior thinker, then who have I deprived? If I am a better friend, then who have I deprived? Who am I coercing???

Well, as a market anarchist, I'd say the market.