NationStates Jolt Archive

My fellow Libertarians please report in and state what school you follow.

I am a follower of the Chicago School of Economics, following the teachings of Milton Friedman. Though I do support the Austrian School's concept of having a currency being convertable into some material good, preferable being a precious metal.

This should be good...

what a coincidence, i too enjoy wearing tinfoil hats and hoarding gold and guns

This should be good...
My thought exactly.
what a coincidence, i too enjoy wearing tinfoil hats and hoarding gold and guns
Dont forget not giving a flying fuck about anyone but yourself, and MAYBE the corporate elite.

what a coincidence, i too enjoy wearing tinfoil hats and hoarding gold and gunsYes, I do hoard gold and guns.

In fact my net worth is probably a good deal higher then yours due to my hoarding of wealth.

Yes, I do hoard gold and guns.

In fact my net worth is probably a good deal higher then yours due to my hoarding of wealth.
Good thing that your net worth matters to no one but libertarians.

You know, I was thinking earlier, about the whole "tie currency to gold" thing a little while ago. I came to the conclusion it's truly arbitrary. Here's why.

Proponents of it argue that it can prevent inflation by always tying the value of the currency to a tangible "thing". If a dollar could buy you an ounce of gold, or a pound of figs, of 30 seconds of a blow job, then the dollar always has some fixed value. It's always worth that "thing" that we say it's worth. So this prevents inflation. A hamburger can't cost 1 dollar today and 5 dollars tomorrow, because the value of the burger, theoretically, doesn't increase from being worth one "thing" today to five "things" tomorrow, without a supply/demand thing.

In other words, the theory goes, currency value doesn't inflate because it's always tied to something.

The problem is, the value of that something is, in itself, utterly subjective. Gold, or figs, or blow jobs are only worth what we decide they are worth. Just trading one thing of subjective value for another thing of subjective value. Gold is just as subject to inflation, or deflation, as little pieces of paper are. The only reason they appear not to be such is because we don't use it as currency, and therefore isn't as effective by inflationary pressures that currency is. But that's exactly what happens on a gold standard. When we tie gold to currency, we just essentially exchange paying for things with cash with paying for things in gold, with the bills just being little "IOU some gold" notes (which is how currency got started, incidentally).

You might as well just cut out the middle man and make that subject thing pieces of paper. Beats the effort of having to store all that fucking gold.

If a dollar could buy you....30 seconds of a blow job

Dude...you gotta give me that chick's number.

Dude...you gotta give me that chick's number.

who said it was a chick?

Good thing that your net worth matters to no one but libertarians.The womens like it too.

who said it was a chick?

Is it....you?

If a dollar could buy you...30 seconds of a blow job...

30 seconds with me is worth way more than a dollar, honey. ;)

You know, I was thinking earlier, about the whole "tie currency to gold" thing a little while ago. I came to the conclusion it's truly arbitrary. Here's why.

Proponents of it argue that it can prevent inflation by always tying the value of the currency to a tangible "thing". If a dollar could buy you an ounce of gold, or a pound of figs, of 30 seconds of a blow job, then the dollar always has some fixed value. It's always worth that "thing" that we say it's worth. So this prevents inflation. A hamburger can't cost 1 dollar today and 5 dollars tomorrow, because the value of the burger, theoretically, doesn't increase from being worth one "thing" today to five "things" tomorrow, without a supply/demand thing.

In other words, the theory goes, currency value doesn't inflate because it's always tied to something.

The problem is, the value of that something is, in itself, utterly subjective. Gold, or figs, or blow jobs are only worth what we decide they are worth. Just trading one thing of subjective value for another thing of subjective value. Gold is just as subject to inflation, or deflation, as little pieces of paper are. The only reason they appear not to be such is because we don't use it as currency, and therefore isn't as effective by inflationary pressures that currency is. But that's exactly what happens on a gold standard. When we tie gold to currency, we just essentially exchange paying for things with cash with paying for things in gold, with the bills just being little "IOU some gold" notes (which is how currency got started, incidentally).

You might as well just cut out the middle man and make that subject thing pieces of paper. Beats the effort of having to store all that fucking gold.Which is basically one of the key reasons why the Chicago School of Economics is against having a gold standard. Though I will state the reason why I support it is because of the fact inflation is rampant when the government controls a currency, or when a group that reinforces a currency goes bankrupt or prints far in excess. Yet, a gold standard forces the expansion of the supply of currency to go up at a far more steady pace.

30 seconds with me is worth way more than a dollar, honey. ;)

Source.

The womens like it too.

That they do.

One thing money does buy is lots of guns and ammunition. Just in case you have to guard your loot when shit hits the fan.

Which is basically one of the key reasons why the Chicago School of Economics is against having a gold standard. Though I will state the reason why I support it is because of the fact inflation is rampant when the government controls a currency, or when a group that reinforces a currency goes bankrupt or prints far in excess. Yet, a gold standard forces the expansion of the supply of currency to go up at a far more steady pace.

What happens when more IOUs are given out than gold exists in the world?

That's why we don't have the gold standard anymore...

That they do.

One thing money does buy is lots of guns and ammunition. Just in case you have to guard your loot when shit hits the fan.That is why I installed a T-Rex in my vault, and also bought a tank.:p

What happens when more IOUs are given out than gold exists in the world?

That's why we don't have the gold standard anymore...Go to bimetallism.

That is why I installed a T-Rex in my vault, and also bought a tank.:p

He, but do you know how to drive a tank and fire it? I do.

That is why I installed a T-Rex in my vault, and also bought a tank.:p

Do you feed the T-Rex poor people?

Dont forget not giving a flying fuck about anyone but yourself, and MAYBE the corporate elite.
I know that communism has failed miserably every time it's been tried in the past but I just know that if we give it another chance it'll work out. All we have to do is get rid of all those capitalist pigs and take everything they worked for and silence all dissent. What could possibly go wrong?

He, but do you know how to drive a tank and fire it? I do.That is what my handy dandy remote controller is for.:tongue:

What happens when more IOUs are given out than gold exists in the world?

That's why we don't have the gold standard anymore...

Most countries during the gold standard did not have enough gold to fill all those IOU's. you don't need it is rare to have a run on redemption, and normally only occurred when countries were under valuing their gold, like the UK did when they tried to reinstate their gold standard post WWI . All going to a gold standard would entail would be raising and lowering interest rates and printing of the dollar based upon gold redemption rates.

Do you feed the T-Rex poor people?Depends, if they sneak in I do.:wink:

Go to bimetallism.

i don't know, that sounds pretty homersexual...

I know that communism has failed miserably every time it's been tried in the past but I just know that if we give it another chance it'll work out. All we have to do is get rid of all those capitalist pigs and take everything they worked for and silence all dissent. What could possibly go wrong?

Not that there has ever been a real communist government or anything.


Hell, at least 'communist' governments that have been tried have lasted more then 40 seconds.

i don't know, that sounds pretty homersexual...Yes, yes it does.

Do you feed the T-Rex poor people?

Just takes it for a ride on the tank down to the homeless shelter.

Go to bimetallism.

Oh god no. Bimetalism is just a loose monetarist gold standard.

Just takes it for a ride on the tank down to the homeless shelter.Don't you do the same?

Do you feed the T-Rex poor people?

Never! Remember the wonderful quote you sigged?

Don't you do the same?

Duh.

Is it....you?

Honey, five minutes with me and I'll own your house

I mean heaven forbid a group of people favor a return to economic policy of the 19th century. Which saw less severe downturns, lower unemployment and higher growth rates.

Honey, five minutes with me and I'll own your house

Well, yeah, youre a lawyer.

I mean heaven forbid a group of people favor a return to economic policy of the 19th century. Which saw less severe downturns, lower unemployment and higher growth rates.

Yeah, not like a lot has changed since the 19th century that would make such a policy unfeasable.

Yeah, not like a lot has changed since the 19th century that would make such a policy unfeasable.

Like ?

Like ?

Well, a massive growth of international trade, for example.

But if you really dont know whats changed from the 19th century to now, I cant help you. Only your history teacher can.

Well, a massive growth of international trade, for example.

But if you really dont know whats changed from the 19th century to now, I cant help you. Only your history teacher can.

Actually during the gold standard days there was more trade. *


To fix your statement perhaps a shrinking of world trade would be more correct.

Still want a reason that would make implementation of previous economic policy impractical.


* in relation to GDP

Well, a massive growth of international trade, for example.

But if you really dont know whats changed from the 19th century to now, I cant help you. Only your history teacher can.Which should be a impetuous for more innovation and greater growth.

In other words, the theory goes, currency value doesn't inflate because it's always tied to something.

That's not actually it.

Any credible economist, of any ideological affiliation, will admit that the value of currency as currency always will be--always must be--higher than its value in itself: otherwise people won't use it as currency. The two don't actually have any real connection to each other, except for that fact. So the mere truth that you can exchange a given unit of currency for some tangible good or service does not interfere with the process of inflation or deflation.

The argument instead is that by adhering to the gold standard, by tying your currency to a scarce metal whose supply is relatively stable (blow jobs would never work), you guarantee the value of your currency. With "fiat" currency there is nothing restraining policymakers from bringing about inflation: the Treasury can always print more currency. Coming up with more gold to back new currency is a more difficult process, meaning both that currency is less subject to what is seen as destructive government manipulation and that currency is more trustworthy because it is known to not be subject to said manipulation. (Most mainstream economists accept this claim but come to a different conclusion, arguing instead that the gold standard constitutes a straightjacket that interferes with the capacity of policymakers to implement the economically best policies.)

To this is also tied the conviction of the more philosophically-inclined Austrians that specie-based currency arises from voluntary action while fiat currency is a matter of government imposition; the former is thus preferable to the latter on grounds of individual freedom.

Not that there has ever been a real communist government or anything.
That's like saying there's never been a real capitalist society. You don't get to say that your ideas never got a fair shot just because the attempts to implement them have always degenerated into a great big frenzied authoritarian clusterfuck.

That's not actually it.

Any credible economist, of any ideological affiliation, will admit that the value of currency as currency always will be--always must be--higher than its value in itself: otherwise people won't use it as currency. The two don't actually have any real connection to each other, except for that fact. So the mere truth that you can exchange a given unit of currency for some tangible good or service does not interfere with the process of inflation or deflation.

The argument instead is that by adhering to the gold standard, by tying your currency to a scarce metal whose supply is relatively stable (blow jobs would never work), you guarantee the value of your currency. With "fiat" currency there is nothing restraining policymakers from bringing about inflation: the Treasury can always print more currency. Coming up with more gold to back new currency is a more difficult process, meaning both that currency is less subject to what is seen as destructive government manipulation and that currency is more trustworthy because it is known to not be subject to said manipulation. (Most mainstream economists accept this claim but come to a different conclusion, arguing instead that the gold standard constitutes a straightjacket that interferes with the capacity of policymakers to implement the economically best policies.)

To this is also tied the conviction of the more philosophically-inclined Austrians that specie-based currency arises from voluntary action while fiat currency is a matter of government imposition; the former is thus preferable to the latter on grounds of individual freedom.

The trick with the gold standard, is as gold gets rarer so do dollars.
Then banks raise their interest rates and it becomes more worthwhile to dig for gold.
A gold standard doesn't remove inflation, or deflation it simply creates a cycle where their is a small inflation then as people pull out of currency and get in a gold currency returns to par value.

Not that there has ever been a real communist government or anything.

There are so many types of communism; which one did you have in mind?

There are so many types of communism; which one did you have in mind?

One that wont fail or kill millions of people I presume.

That's like saying there's never been a real capitalist society.

No, it is not.

I accept that no real-world communist society will be pure. I would not say "But Person X can meet his needs 5% more than Person Y!" to prove that communism did not exist in a given society.

But at the same time, just because a society (or a party) labels itself communist or socialist does not mean that it actually is so--any more than the "German Democratic Republic" was by virtue of that fact democratic and republican. And if a society pays nothing but lip service to communist principles, I can say "That is not a communist society" perfectly reasonably and coherently.

No, it is not.

I accept that no real-world communist society will be pure. I would not say "But Person X can meet his needs 5% more than Person Y!" to prove that communism did not exist in a given society.

But at the same time, just because a society (or a party) labels itself communist or socialist does not mean that it actually is so--any more than the "German Democratic Republic" was by virtue of that fact democratic and republican. And if a society pays nothing but lip service to communist principles, I can say "That is not a communist society" perfectly reasonably and coherently.

So you decide what communism is ??

Just like the US decides what democracy is?

can you say communist imperialist ?

Well, I follow the "NL school". It's a combination of an Objectivist rejection of the principles of forced altruism and a CSE-type combination of pragmatic macroeconomics/imperialist microeconomics. I see the validity in some of the Austrian criticisms of mainstream economics, but I see the crusade against fiat currency as just plain silly, propagated more by laymen than the Austrians themselves.

Then banks raise their interest rates and it becomes more worthwhile to dig for gold.

But this is a matter of increasing marginal costs, and there is no reason to assume that the benefit of digging for gold will match the costs to exactly the right extent such that the value of gold will remain constant with growth in the economy.

If the value of gold rises 10%, there is no reason to assume that the quantity of gold supplied at a 10% higher price will necessarily be 10% greater.

One that wont fail or kill millions of people I presume.

Never heard of it.

Im an anti-Libertarian, Libertarian, *nods* lol

But this is a matter of increasing marginal costs, and there is no reason to assume that the benefit of digging for gold will match the costs to exactly the right extent such that the value of gold will remain constant with growth in the economy.

If the value of gold rises 10%, there is no reason to assume that the quantity of gold supplied at a 10% higher price will necessarily be 10% greater.

Actually it does. All a gold standard does is turn money into a commodity. The economy demands more money then more money is produced as gold.
The economy loses demand for money less gold is produced and people turn cash into gold.

What's this about libertarianism, now?

There are so many types of communism; which one did you have in mind?

One where the workers actually own the means of production. You know, the key tenet of communism?

One where the workers actually own the means of production. You know, the key tenet of communism?

So, what, they divy up the stock in the factory? Marx never really explained any of his theories very well, he just kinda rambled on about historical determinism and stole his value theory from Adam Smith.

So, what, they divy up the stock in the factory? Marx never really explained any of his theories very well, he just kinda rambled on about historical determinism and stole his value theory from Adam Smith.

Communism:
If it didn't kill so many people it would be the biggest joke of the 20th Century.

One where the workers actually own the means of production. You know, the key tenet of communism?

In which they managed it? So you think the basic flaw in all the "communism" of the 20th Century was that the governments were dictatorships?

In which they managed it? So you think the basic flaw in all the "communism" of the 20th Century was that the governments were dictatorships?

Well, there are many, many other flaws with them, but them being dicatorships was one of the bigger ones, yes.

All a gold standard does is turn money into a commodity. The economy demands more money then more money is produced as gold.

...yeah, so? That does not imply a constant value of gold.

If the current supply of gold in a gold-standard economy is founded upon one ounce of gold being exchangeable for one sandwich, and due to other economic factors one ounce of gold is now exchangeable for two sandwiches, the supply of gold will certainly increase... but only to the point where the marginal cost of acquiring one more ounce of gold is equal to the marginal benefit of two sandwiches (or, rather, before that, because as more gold is supplied its value as currency will decline).

There is no guarantee that this intersection point will be at twice the original supply of gold. That would only be true if the marginal cost of gold were constant (in which case the limiting factor would be the decline in marginal benefit as the supply rises). But it is not; like any other natural resource it has increasing marginal costs. The more that is acquired, the more difficult the process of acquiring it becomes, because all the easy gold has already been taken.

Communism:
If it didn't kill so many people it would be the biggest joke of the 20th Century.

To be fair, Marx never suggested the opponents of his philosophy be put to death, so he can hardly be blamed.

Still, I would not advocate his principles, since he never managed much of anything financially or politically that I recall. I suppose I would classify his works with the likes of Plato's Republic (though unlike Marx, Plato does advise locking-up dissenters).

Well, there are many, many other flaws with them, but them being dicatorships was one of the bigger ones, yes.

What other flaws? Lack of freedom speech would be another important one as far civil rights go--but I mean economically.

So, what, they divy up the stock in the factory?

As far as Marx is concerned? No. He refers to the conversion of the means of production to common ownership, not to putting them in the private hands of their original workers.

That said, control over one's condition of labor is a basic principle of communism (as the emancipation of workers from alienated toil): there is nothing anti-Marxist (though plenty anti-Leninist) about workers' self-management.

Well, a massive growth of international trade, for example.


Actually, if everyone had stayed on the Bretton Woods tie to gold a very great deal of the past thirty years nonsense could have been avoided. It would over the long run be beneficial for international trade because it would avoided the structural imbalances that built up between importers and exporters.

What other flaws? Lack of freedom speech would be another important one as far civil rights go--but I mean economically.

The two are hardly separable, since, in any society where economic decisions are made through the political process, both protections for freedom of expression and the right to political participation are pretty essential to ensuring that the decision-makers can be held accountable to the public good.

Defender of capitalism beg the economic question by pointing to dictatorial statist societies, because instead of arguing that their method of accountability (the capitalist market) is superior to (one version of) socialism's method (popular democratic input, presumably in the context of liberal free discussion), they cut off the comparison by pointing to a case where neither was present.

...yeah, so? That does not imply a constant value of gold.

If the current supply of gold in a gold-standard economy is founded upon one ounce of gold being exchangeable for one sandwich, and due to other economic factors one ounce of gold is now exchangeable for two sandwiches, the supply of gold will certainly increase... but only to the point where the marginal cost of acquiring one more ounce of gold is equal to the marginal benefit of two sandwiches (or before that, because as more gold is supplied its value as currency will decline).

But as the value of gold declines so does its demand.


There is no guarantee that this intersection point will be at twice the original supply of gold. That would only be true if the marginal cost of gold were constant. But it is not; like any other natural resource it has increasing marginal costs. The more that is acquired, the more difficult the process of acquiring it becomes, because all the easy gold has already been taken.

It is because monetary gold is a very small portion of gold mined. Most of your gold goes into jewelery.


And even looking at production Ive doubt we tapped that. The US peaked in gold production in the year 2000. But I doubt that's even the peak and is more likely then not tied to economic issues, following gold production it tends to follow to slightly predict the economy.

Actually, if everyone had stayed on the Bretton Woods tie to gold a very great deal of the past thirty years nonsense could have been avoided. It would over the long run be beneficial for international trade because it would avoided the structural imbalances that built up between importers and exporters.

Breton woods was only meant to be temporary. In time they were supposed to return to the gold standard. The french even got back on the gold standard. Just they learned If the main Economic power is not on the gold standard you shouldn't be either.

It is because monetary gold is a very small portion of gold mined. Most of your gold goes into jewelery.

It makes no difference. It's still a matter of increasing marginal costs as your movement to move gold into currency runs against the people who really want jewelry with gold in it.

And even looking at production Ive doubt we tapped that.

It's not a matter of "tapped" as in "used up all the gold in the world", but "tapped" as in "used up all the gold at a given maximum cost of production in the world."

It makes no difference. It's still a matter of increasing marginal costs as your movement to move gold into currency runs against the people who really want jewelry with gold in it.

As the demand for currency goes up people melt down their jewelery. Or less gold produce goes to jewelry.



It's not a matter of "tapped" as in "used up all the gold in the world", but "tapped" as in "used up all the gold at a given maximum cost of production in the world."

If people can get gold with the following methods
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQeFMi53nQI
I doubt that is an issue at this time.

Breton woods was only meant to be temporary. In time they were supposed to return to the gold standard. The french even got back on the gold standard. Just they learned If the main Economic power is not on the gold standard you shouldn't be either.

Whatever the flaws in BW (and there were many, not least the US inability to control government waste and profligacy), it was remarkably good at stopping large trade imbalances from becoming structural. And those are the sort of things that lead to financial meltdowns eventually.

BW should have been fixed, not abandoned. (And it really was a gold standard).

I am a minarchist leaning toward Austrian economic theory. I'm listening to Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty audiobook as I post this. A PDF version is available here. (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp) I don't necessarily agree with all of his opinions espoused therein, but it is an interesting work.

As the demand for currency goes up people melt down their jewelery. Or less gold produce goes to jewelry.

That's right. As the value of gold as currency increases, more resources will be dedicated to acquiring gold as currency, and the amount of gold used in that way will rise. That's almost a truism. I have not disputed it.

The issue is your particular claim that this truth constitutes an automatic corrective process to shifts in the value of gold. It does not.

Whatever the flaws in BW (and there were many, not least the US inability to control government waste and profligacy), it was remarkably good at stopping large trade imbalances from becoming structural. And those are the sort of things that lead to financial meltdowns eventually.

BW should have been fixed, not abandoned. (And it really was a gold standard).

The idea behind it was that with gold redemptions Europe would eventually be able to restart their gold standards.
After WWII the US held I think 80% of the worlds monetary gold, and we didn't want the break down in world trade that happened 1930.

That's right. As the value of gold as currency increases, more resources will be dedicated to acquiring gold as currency, and the amount of gold used in that way will rise. That's almost a truism. I have not disputed it.

The issue is your particular claim that this truth constitutes an automatic corrective process to shifts in the value of gold. It does not.

your leaving out something.
Technology.
Gold has become cheaper to get not more expensive(adjust for inflation post 1973).

As far as Marx is concerned? No. He refers to the conversion of the means of production to common ownership, not to putting them in the private hands of their original workers.

Common ownership as in state ownership? Because state ownership is the only way I can see getting around the tragedy of the commons (since total privatization is out of the question, according to Marx).

Lacadaemon: does it matter to you that your signature quote is taken completely out of context?

Edit: Actually, it's not just out of context, it's also an actual misquote:

"In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm

The "this" in question references the preceding sentence:

"As to the rest, Stalin, through Pravda, openly advised the local organs not to give them work."

That is to say, the reference is to a particular policy of a particular individual in a particular state-owned economy.



gold has become cheaper to get not more expensive(adjust for inflation post 1973).

...which would make the supply (and thus the value) of gold even more unstable as technology changes. And which would not, incidentally, alter anything I have said.

Why all the hate? Libertarians and Commies can work together see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Good thing that your net worth matters to no one but libertarians.

lol, ok mate.

Why all the hate? Libertarians and Commies can work together see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Different sense of "libertarian", at least when it comes to substantive issues of what does and does not constitute "liberty."

Common ownership as in state ownership?

In the sense of "There are public authorities that administer it, rather than it being a free for all"? Yes.

Why all the hate? Libertarians and Commies can work together see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

It's the whole "property" thing, I'd guess. Capitalist libertarians tend to make their arguments based entirely on property rights-based arguments, while socialists don't even think they exist at all.

Honey, five minutes with me and I'll own your house

We're aren't talking about your rate for legal services.;)

Different sense of "libertarian", at least when it comes to substantive issues of what does and does not constitute "liberty."

This.

In the sense of "There are public authorities that administer it, rather than it being a free for all"? Yes.

Okay, so, anarchist-to-anarchist, how can a public entity such as that exist and not be a state or governmental organization? I mean, being an anarcho-capitalist, I view the market as the medium that everything necessary for a society to exist will come from. So - and I've gathered that you're a "pure communist" from your posts, but correct me if I'm wrong - how does Marx justify these public entities and have them not be "states?"

...which would make the supply (and thus the value) of gold even more unstable as technology changes. And which would not, incidentally, alter anything I have said.

you said that gold would become more rare.
Now your saying that it is over produced.

Look at the price of gold while the US was on the gold standard.
up until Nixon. well over 100 years of stability, with one adjustment in the 1930's.

you said that gold would become more rare.
Now your saying that it is over produced.

Look at the price of gold while the US was on the gold standard.
up until Nixon. well over 100 years of stability, with one adjustment in the 1930's.

Yeah but the question is, How much gold does it take to cover Trillions of Dollars in debt, and, is there that much gold?

Lacadaemon: does it matter to you that your signature quote is taken completely out of context?


I didn't give it any context out of which to take it. I suspect it's true though.

Okay, so, anarchist-to-anarchist, how can a public entity such as that exist and not be a state or governmental organization?

By being directly accountable to the public as a whole, rather than being under the control of a political class of rulers. Shareholders do not lose their ownership by appointing a CEO.

Left-anarchist theorists tend to think of "anarchism" in terms of collective democratic rule within the framework of freely-associating communes and workers' syndicates (themselves formed via free association). There is nothing anti-socialist about such a conception.

So - and I've gathered that you're a "pure communist" from your posts, but correct me if I'm wrong

I'm not "pure" anything, but, yes, I have, um, strong communist tendencies.

how does Marx justify these public entities and have them not be "states?"

Because for Marx (and recall that Marx is not a representative of the libertarian/anarchist socialist left), the "state" is an instrument of class rule: its separation from the people and its extensive mechanisms of repression are founded in the fact that it serves to uphold a property system that operates to the benefit of some and the devastation of others. Both the capitalist state and the workers' state share this feature.

In a communist condition where there is no oppressed class (there being no classes), the need for a state in the political sense no longer exists. But there are still "administrators", still authorities, just as there would be in an anarcho-capitalist society.

you said that gold would become more rare.
Now your saying that it is over produced.

*sigh*

I have said neither. All I have noted is that there is no automatic market mechanism that guarantees stability in the value of gold (and thus price stability) in an economy with a gold standard and a free market in gold.

Whether gold shifts upward in value due to increasing marginal costs of production, or downward in value due to technological improvement (or a sudden new find, or any number of other factors), such shifts produce changes in the price level that are outside the control of policymakers and not tied to any real economic phenomenon.

It is among the pitfalls of the gold standard.

I didn't give it any context out of which to take it.

You didn't write it, either, so the context came as part of the package.

I suspect it's true though.

That's nice. I'm sure you could find a quote from Hayek making the same point. I'm also sure you could come up with one yourself.

But it's dishonest to quote someone else (even if you leave out the name--some of us do have Google) as saying something in a way that suggests a meaning that person did not intend.

Yeah but the question is, How much gold does it take to cover Trillions of Dollars in debt, and, is there that much gold?

No one is suggesting going back to the 1930 price or the 1970 price of gold.
Set gold at the current price with a small surcharge (well not exactly right now we need economic stability first). No one is going to redeem dollars for gold at a loss now would they ? Never mind they are now invested in gold that can not be put in an investment and produce a return.
During the 19th century(gold standard era) only one country ever had enough gold to meet its entire currency float, and that was Russia. That had more to do with no one trusted their currency.

*sigh*

I have said neither. All I have noted is that there is no automatic market mechanism that guarantees stability in the value of gold (and thus price stability) in an economy with a gold standard and a free market in gold.

Whether gold shifts upward in value due to increasing marginal costs of production, or downward in value due to technological improvement (or a sudden new find, or any number of other factors), such shifts produce changes in the price level that are outside the control of policymakers and not tied to any real economic phenomenon.

It is among the pitfalls of the gold standard.

Your shifts in cost tie into demand for gold.

Brazil had a gold Rush in 2008. The timing has more to do with the price of gold quadrupling and speculation that it will continue to rise.

Its the same with innovation. If demand is high someone will invent a way to dig it up faster and easier.

The same works the other way around if demand is low the people who work at gold mines get laid off and the mine boards up until demand is high again.

You didn't write it, either, so the context came as part of the package.

Context doesn't come as part of the package.

That's nice. I'm sure you could find a quote from Hayek making the same point. I'm also sure you could come up with one yourself.

As you pointed out it's a misquote. And in super irony, it's Hayek's misquote.

But it's dishonest to quote someone else (even if you leave out the name--some of us do have Google) as saying something in a way that suggests a meaning that person did not intend.

That assumes that I am trying to make the same point as the person who wrote it made - or that I am trying to make any point at all. But as there is no attribution, I fail to see whatever relevance the point whomever originally strung those words together was trying to make in the first place. If I was quoting "Rule Britannia" to make a point other than Britain should rule the waves I'd doubt you'd feel the need accuse me of dishonest behavior because I failed to attribute it to Dr. Arne and I was using it to say something that he didn't mean, and I don't see why this is any different.

I mean Jesus, nobody gets pissy at Wilf Owen for the way he treated Horace.

...

I am a follower of the Chicago School of Economics, following the teachings of Milton Friedman. Though I do support the Austrian School's concept of having a currency being convertable into some material good, preferable being a precious metal.

Friedman was wrong about one important thing: He assumed that his free market policies and democratic freedoms are inextricably intertwined, i.e. you can't have one without the other. Pinochet proved him wrong.

...I view the market as the medium that everything necessary for a society to exist will come from....

Please explain where I go to buy kindness, compassion, civility, common respect, and friendliness in the market.

Or perhaps, you could explain how society can get alnog without these.

My fellow Libertarians please report in and state what school you follow.

I am a follower of the Chicago School of Economics, following the teachings of Milton Friedman. Though I do support the Austrian School's concept of having a currency being convertable into some material good, preferable being a precious metal.

Eh, I would say monetarists are distinct from libertarians, but I guess it's close enough. I'm generally a moderate Keynesian, who distrusts government, but is too much of a pussy to become a proper lib or commie. Though when I do go into my occasional libertarian stages, I tend to follow a sort of Mises institute approach, kind of agreeing with the Austrians about some shit, vehemently disagreeing about other shit, much more agreeing with Robert Nozick. But most of the time I'm not a lib (yeah, I do change opinions like that, got a problem?)

You know, I was thinking earlier, about the whole "tie currency to gold" thing a little while ago. I came to the conclusion it's truly arbitrary. Here's why.


I know you aren't meaning to attack all libertarians about this, but just in case you are, a good deal of libertarians don't agree about the gold backing. Including the OP, if he follows the Chicago School.

Friedman was wrong about one important thing: He assumed that his free market policies and democratic freedoms are inextricably intertwined, i.e. you can't have one without the other. Pinochet proved him wrong.


Yeah, that sounds like a good observation. Though luckily most people don't care about what Friedman has to say about politics these days any more, mainly only technical economic things, like his augmentations of the Phillips curve to adjust for expectations etc...

Friedman was wrong about one important thing: He assumed that his free market policies and democratic freedoms are inextricably intertwined, i.e. you can't have one without the other. Pinochet proved him wrong.

he stepped down after a vote.



Please explain where I go to buy kindness, compassion, civility, common respect, and friendliness in the market.

Or perhaps, you could explain how society can get along without these.

It is more kind and compassionate then to follow market principles that ensure the most people have a jobs? And by jobs i mean real jobs that our outputting something worthwhile, not jobs building roads to no where.

Civility and common respect are things the market teaches. woe be to he who is disrespectful or rude in th market for surely he will get the worst price possible.

Are people not at the most friendly when they can do a fair day's work for a fair days price?

he stepped down after a vote.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that for many years, Pinochet ruled a free market dictatorship.

It is more kind and compassionate then to follow market principles that ensure the most people have a jobs? And by jobs i mean real jobs that our outputting something worthwhile, not jobs building roads to no where.

Civility and common respect are things the market teaches. woe be to he who is disrespectful or rude in th market for surely he will get the worst price possible.

Are people not at the most friendly when they can do a fair day's work for a fair days price?

This does not show that these things come from the market. It just shows that there may be some sort of link between these things and the market. I want to see evidence that these things can actually be purchased or somehow created at the market.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that for many years, Pinochet ruled a free market dictatorship.

He came to power during socialism. As soon as his reforms made the country sufficiently free market democracy took root. seems to prove Milton right to me.


This does not show that these things come from the market. It just shows that there may be some sort of link between these things and the market. I want to see evidence that these things can actually be purchased or somehow created at the market.

Not everything at the market is for sale. Sometimes the social interaction involved there creates it for free.

He came to power during socialism. As soon as his reforms made the country sufficiently free market democracy took root. seems to prove Milton right to me.

Please provide evidence that it was the free market reforms that eventually led to Pinchet's removal of power.

Not everything at the market is for sale. Sometimes the social interaction involved there creates it for free.

Please provide evidence that these things are, in fact, created by the market.

Please provide evidence that it was the free market reforms that eventually led to Pinchet's removal of power.



Free market reforms finished in 1985, Referendum that removed him in 1988. A 3 year lag is a pretty strong correlation.

Free market reforms finished in 1985, Referendum that removed him in 1988. A 3 year lag is a pretty strong correlation.

That's nice. Do you realise I was asking for causation and not correlation?

That's nice. Do you realise I was asking for causation and not correlation?

That's really hard to do in soft science, like poli sci.
My point remains Pinochet did not refute Milton Friedman.
Because once the country had become fully capitalist he turned authority over to a democratic vote.

I know this sounds almost like an Oxymoron to many of you, but I think of myself as Libertarian-Socialist or Anarcho-Syndicalist.
GODDAMN MONGOREEANS PREVENTING MA PUTTING ON HEAH OF A PICTUOR lol I was going to put a Red & Black Flag. M'kay? M'kay.

I know this sounds almost like an Oxymoron to many of you


Not at all, in fact the use of libertarianism to describe left libertarianism pre-dates the use of the word to describe laissez faire (I think).

That's really hard to do in soft science, like poli sci.
My point remains Pinochet did not refute Milton Friedman.
Because once the country had become fully capitalist he turned authority over to a democratic vote.

So, you are unable to show that the free market policies proposed by Milton Friedman caused Pinochet to give up power.

I could just as easily argue that it was necessary for Pinochet to create such reperession in order to enact these economic reforms.

So, you are unable to show that the free market policies proposed by Milton Friedman caused Pinochet to give up power.

I could just as easily argue that it was necessary for Pinochet to create such reperession in order to enact these economic reforms.

But once these reforms were in place there was democracy correct ?

Dictators can hold onto power for long periods of time while the state owns the property, as we see with Mao and Stalin.

Once Pinochet privatized property he insured his defeat via democratic means.
More over the people of Chile refused to convict him of any crimes to this day.

But once these reforms were in place there was democracy correct ?

No, there was not. Many of the reforms were enacted by 1982 and there was no democracy.

Dictators can hold onto power for long periods of time while the state owns the property, as we see with Mao and Stalin.

That's nice, but irrelevant.

Once Pinochet privatized property he insured his defeat via democratic means.

You should really start providing some evidence instead of simply repeating your claims.

More over the people of Chile refused to convict him of any crimes to this day.

This is simple ignorance.

Pinochet, before giving up power, enacted laws giving him immunity. They prosecuted him anyway:

In March 2000, the Congress approved a constitutional amendment creating the status of "ex-president," which granted its owner immunity from prosecution and guaranteed him a financial allowance. In exchange, it required him to resign from his seat of senator-for-life. 111 legislators voted for, and 29 (mostly, if not all, from the Left) against [32].

Nevertheless, judge Juan Guzmán Tapia (who had been a supporter of Pinochet during his government) initiated a procedure against him, requesting the suspension of his parliamentary immunity three days after his return to Chile.[citation needed] Pinochet's legal team was headed by Pablo Rodríguez, the former leader of the rightist paramilitary movement Patria y Libertad (Fatherland and Liberty).[citation needed]

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Juan Guzmán's request on August 2000, and Pinochet was indicted on December 1, 2000 for the "kidnapping" of 75 opponents in the Caravan of Death case — Guzmán advanced the charge of "kidnapping" as they were officially "disappeared:" even though they were all most likely dead, the absence of their corpses made any charge of "homicide" difficult [33].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#Return_to_Chile

No, there was not. Many of the reforms were enacted by 1982 and there was no democracy.

Milton Friedman did not give his full approval to the reforms until 1985. During what was dubbed as the second economic miracle. And these part of the reforms had to do with letting business fail. Something Friedman has called for awhile. He did advise them slightly since the late 70's along with influenced on an academic level.

So they had a Friedman approved economy and a dictatorship for 3 years.


That's nice, but irrelevant.



You should really start providing some evidence instead of simply repeating your claims.

The dates would be the evidence.


This is simple ignorance.

Pinochet, before giving up power, enacted laws giving him immunity. They prosecuted him anyway:






Actually, the most recent immunity laws were in acted in the year 2000... 12 years after he had given up poltical power by the democratically elected body the legislature, which is represented by the people.


in July 2002, the Supreme Court dismissed Pinochet's indictment

Oh wait the trail did not happen.
Given this was supposedly for health reasons.

Milton Friedman did not give his full approval to the reforms until 1985. During what was dubbed as the second economic miracle. And these part of the reforms had to do with letting business fail. Something Friedman has called for awhile. He did advise them slightly since the late 70's along with influenced on an academic level.

So they had a Friedman approved economy and a dictatorship for 3 years.

The dates would be the evidence.

Listen, that proves, at best, correlation. If you are correct, which I doubt.

I want evidence of causation, which is what Milton Friedman claimed.

Actually, the most recent immunity laws were in acted in the year 2000... 12 years after he had given up poltical power by the democratically elected body the legislature, which is represented by the people.

Oh wait the trail did not happen.
Given this was supposedly for health reasons.

And compounded by more ignorance, I see. I suggest, minimally, reading the rest of the wiki article I linked to. Or at least the part dealing with the transition to democarcy.

Listen, that proves, at best, correlation. If you are correct, which I doubt.

I want evidence of causation, which is what Milton Friedman claimed.



And compounded by more ignorance, I see. I suggest, minimally, reading the rest of the wiki article I linked to. Or at least the part dealing with the transition to democarcy.

as much fun as arguing for something I don't believe in (and even more fun would get my Latin American history professor to strangle me). I got to go to class with that Latin American history professor.

as much fun as arguing for something I don't believe in (and even more fun would get my Latin American history professor to strangle me). I got to go to class with that Latin American history professor.

Try not to get starngled. EDIT: I mean strangled. Damn tyops.

Try not to get starngled. EDIT: I mean strangled. Damn tyops.

lol. well i wont make this argument in his presence until after my grades are posted at the least. though I want to do just to see his reaction.
Actually might not, he is a survivor of Pinochet so he might really strangle me.

My fellow Libertarians please report in and state what school you follow.

I am a follower of the Chicago School of Economics, following the teachings of Milton Friedman. Though I do support the Austrian School's concept of having a currency being convertable into some material good, preferable being a precious metal.
Oh ffs. Grow up and learn to love the social contract instead of jizzing in your pants every time Ron Paul says anything, chaps and chapettes.

My fellow Libertarians please report in and state what school you follow.

I am a follower of the Chicago School of Economics, following the teachings of Milton Friedman. Though I do support the Austrian School's concept of having a currency being convertable into some material good, preferable being a precious metal.
Any movement that requires one to adhere to a particular school of thought will never become more than a small club of mutual admirers.

Too many minds have been ruined by government education for anything more complex than sound bites to be understood.

Eh, I am a Libertarian who doesn't believe in hoarding gold and/or guns, is planning on acquiring a handgun, just because, and follows the CM school of uniformed psychologinomics.

Libertarian socialist or anarcho-communist.

So, what, they divy up the stock in the factory? Marx never really explained any of his theories very well, he just kinda rambled on about historical determinism and stole his value theory from Adam Smith.Most likely the workers would manage the factory as a worker-owned cooperative.

Common ownership as in state ownership? Because state ownership is the only way I can see getting around the tragedy of the commons (since total privatization is out of the question, according to Marx).Common ownership doesn't lead to the tragedy of the commons; state ownership could, though.

Okay, so, anarchist-to-anarchist, how can a public entity such as that exist and not be a state or governmental organization? I mean, being an anarcho-capitalist, I view the market as the medium that everything necessary for a society to exist will come from. So - and I've gathered that you're a "pure communist" from your posts, but correct me if I'm wrong - how does Marx justify these public entities and have them not be "states?"Anarchists don't oppose governmental organizations, just state organizations.

He came to power during socialism. As soon as his reforms made the country sufficiently free market democracy took root. seems to prove Milton right to me.Democracy already existed in Chile prior to Pinochet taking over. Salvador Allende was democratically elected.

I still don't see how the gold standard could survive with todays' ability to know exactly when there is more money printed then gold available, thus causing a rush on the redemption of the gold.

I think the old economies worked because of the time it took to receive information.

Too many minds have been ruined by government education for anything more complex than sound bites to be understood.

People are too stupid to understand politics, eh?

So begins the march to dictatorship.

People are too stupid to understand politics, eh?

So begins the march to dictatorship.

With me at the head! All hail CM!

With me at the head! All hail CM!

Sorry, you've been tainted by 'government education'. You wouldn't understand.

Amusingly, if Myrmid was saying anything even vaguely sensible (so, don't hold your breath) the people that would be BEST suited to run the country, would be people that had never been educated by the 'government education' of the country.

In other words, if you really apply the 'logic' Myrmid suggesys, you end up with, not only dictatorship, but a dictatorial occupation.

Too many minds have been ruined by government education for anything more complex than sound bites to be understood.

You keep saying things like this. And I keep refuting you and asking for some kind of evidence. You never provide anything. Im done shredding your pathetic arguements. I just have one question...

Where do you get this information from?

You keep saying things like this. And I keep refuting you and asking for some kind of evidence. You never provide anything. Im done shredding your pathetic arguements. I just have one question..Can you provide evidence of a truly effective socialist nation?

Can you provide evidence of a truly effective socialist nation?

.....Sweden? France? Most of western Europe as a whole? Canada in some respects?

All of which have better healthcare and education (as a whole) then we do. And its socialized.

.....Sweden? France? Most of western Europe as a whole? Canada in some respects?

All of which have better healthcare and education (as a whole) then we do. And its socialized.Yes, in the public sector. But in all those fields the United States tend to have a far superior private sector, and in comparison to the public sector of welfare states our private sector is more time efficient and better quality.

Yes, in the public sector. But in all those fields the United States tend to have a far superior private sector, and in comparison to the public sector of welfare states our private sector is more time efficient and better quality.

No, thats actually not true. Especially in health care. Our health care, our public health care, is greatly inferior to that of Canada and Western Europe.

No, thats actually not true. Especially in health care. Our health care, our public health care, is greatly inferior to that of Canada and Western Europe.You just restated my point that their public health care is superior. Yet, my implication was that our private sector provides is better than their public sector.

You just restated my point that their public health care is superior. Yet, my implication was that our private sector provides is better than their public sector.

This is true. The healthcare if you have insurance is of a good standard. However it's not particularly relevant, since a good portion of American's don't have insurance.

This is true. The healthcare if you have insurance is of a good standard. However it's not particularly relevant, since a good portion of American's don't have insurance.Yet, a majority of the people do have insurance correct?

Yet, a majority of the people do have insurance correct?

It's 15% that don't have it. That is a significant portion.

It's 15% that don't have it. That is a significant portion.Yet, a large majority of the people do have insurance, do they not?

Yet, a large majority of the people do have insurance, do they not?

A large majority, yes.

A large majority, yes.So how do you justify taking away the right of people to use their superior abilities to earn themselves a superior place in the world?

the right of people to use their superior abilities to earn themselves a superior place in the world?

That's a right? But it's not taking away any rights. I'm not opposed to private healthcare, but I am opposed to private healthcare WITHOUT also a universal healthcare program. If people want to be superior, they can purchase the additional private healthcare to enjoy more luxurious care on top of the universal system, like in Europe.

That's a right? But it's not taking away any rights. I'm not opposed to private healthcare, but I am opposed to private healthcare WITHOUT also a universal healthcare program. If people want to be superior, they can purchase the additional private healthcare to enjoy more luxurious care on top of the universal system, like in Europe.By enforcing the will of the government, which has no constitutional right do so might I remind to, upon the majority?

By enforcing the will of the government, which has no constitutional right do so might I remind to, upon the majority?

You mean an increase in taxes?

By enforcing the will of the government, which has no constitutional right do so might I remind to, upon the majority?

You mean an increase in taxes?

You are arguing over a view point difference.
In general Americans see health care expenses as an individual responsibility.
In general Europeans see Health care as a basic right that society provides without question.

Not all Americans see it that way of course especially on this board.
And the view and law in the US may change.
Likewise not all Europeans agree with how they do their health care.

Is there a right or wrong view point ?
That is a bit presumptions on both view points.
It is sort of like the US trying to define what democracy is for the rest of the world.

Is there a right or wrong view point ?
That is a bit presumptions on both view points.
It is sort of like the US trying to define what democracy is for the rest of the world.

True. I just want to see how he is going to argue that tax is a violation of constitutional rights.

True. I just want to see how he is going to argue that tax is a violation of constitutional rights.

Since the 16th amendment it is not.

Since the 16th amendment it is not.

It was never properly ratified. What's more THERE IS NO LAW IN THE US REQUIRING YOU TO PAY TAX. Aaron Russo told me that.

It was never properly ratified. What's more THERE IS NO LAW IN THE US REQUIRING YOU TO PAY TAX. Aaron Russo told me that.

life would be so much better if that amendment were never passed.

You mean an increase in taxes?Health care.

Health care.

health care is what? spending? Few people argue the government can not spend money.

try something like this:
A nationalized health care system would take the portion of my income that I have set aside for private health care. It would then force me to to take the governments health care or live a substandard life and pay for a private insurance.

health care is what? spending? Few people argue the government can not spend money.

try something like this:
A nationalized health care system would take the portion of my income that I have set aside for private health care. It would then force me to to take the governments health care or live a substandard life and pay for a private insurance.I know.

I was merely referring to the fact that health care is not a constitutional power of the federal government.

I know.

I was merely referring to the fact that health care is not a constitutional power of the federal government.

The supreme court that might have agreed with you on the matter disappeared in 1933... and has never returned.

The supreme court that might have agreed with you on the matter disappeared in 1933... and has never returned.Is it not sad?

Is it not sad?

Its reality. Regardless of my opinion.
Calling something unconstitutional when the supreme court disagrees is an exercise in futility.

Its reality. Regardless of my opinion.
Calling something unconstitutional when the supreme court disagrees is an exercise in futility.Not if I form my own nation.

Not if I form my own nation.

You seem to have mistaken the game nation states for reality.

You seem to have mistaken the game nation states for reality.I know not what you speak of.

So how do you justify taking away the right of people to use their superior abilities to earn themselves a superior place in the world?

There is no right.

If you're going to start invoking invented rights, then it is the RIGHT of poor people to take what the rich have by any means. Rather fewer of the rich support that right though.

o7

Austrian School of Economics here.

BTW I perfer the term Classical Liberal, as the U.S. libertarian party is lol.

o7

Austrian School of Economics here.

BTW I perfer the term Classical Liberal, as the U.S. libertarian party is lol.

The problem with the Libertarian party, is the more moderate members either congregate in the Democratic freedom caucus, or the republican liberty caucus. Not really the fault of the libertarian party so much as the two party system.
Every party has their loons, just the libertarians tend to be the ones that remain in the party, rather then joining one of the mainstream aprties caucuses.

It's 15% that don't have it. That is a significant portion.
But not a big enough problem that the entire system needs to be overhauled. And ruined... Adjustments in the programs that are already in place is what is needed. Plus, some of that 15% chooses NOT to have a health care plan. That should always remain an option, so long as they assume the responsibility that goes with the decision.

But not a big enough problem that the entire system needs to be overhauled. And ruined... Adjustments in the programs that are already in place is what is needed. Plus, some of that 15% chooses NOT to have a health care plan. That should always remain an option, so long as they assume the responsibility that goes with the decision.

Poor people don't choose not to have health care. In the US, they just don't have the option. I bet your average poor person would like to have health care provided to them. There is no reason why the rich should have a better quality of life then the poor.

That should always remain an option, so long as they assume the responsibility that goes with the decision.
Nice theory, but unrealistic. Why? Disease doesn't just effect the individual; they can be transmitted from person to person without any regard as to whether they have health insurance or not. Having an individual not seeing a doctor and recieving treatment for an infectious disease and spreading an infection to others as a result is bad for public health and the economy at best, outright dangerous at worst.

A system that allows people to 'assume the responsibility' for not having health insurance, which even you in the States don't have, given that government pays the bills for uninsured patients, would be a public health disaster. And that says nothing about the opposition that wouse arise from doctors and paramedics who would be obliged to put patients at risk because they can't get the funds to pay for their treatment.

But not a big enough problem that the entire system needs to be overhauled. And ruined... Adjustments in the programs that are already in place is what is needed. Plus, some of that 15% chooses NOT to have a health care plan. That should always remain an option, so long as they assume the responsibility that goes with the decision.

I think the people dying of treatable diseases due to poverty would disagree with you as to whether or not it is a 'big enough problem'. I am certain that from the point of view of the well off and insured, it is not a problem, but the viewpoint of those affected by the issue definitely feel it is a problem.

Nice theory, but unrealistic. Why? Disease doesn't just effect the individual; they can be transmitted from person to person without any regard as to whether they have health insurance or not.

This.

When the 'big one' does hit, the US is going to be hit like a third world country, because it is a perfect staging ground for disease - there is a large pool of people who are likely to have poor diets, less access to healthcare, that are actually incentivized to NOT seek medical attention, and that primarily live in either remote concentrations, or densely populated urban settings.

All of that makes Americas poor and uninsured an almost guaranteed vector of disease, if a real epidemic situation erupts.

There is no right.

If you're going to start invoking invented rights, then it is the RIGHT of poor people to take what the rich have by any means. Rather fewer of the rich support that right though.I can tell you have never read the works of Voltaire, Smith, Friedman, and like I assume?

Otherwise you would be able to conclude that we surrender our rights so to the government, so that they might fulfill a certain role. A role that we give to it. As well, you are a Commie and I do not like Commies.:p

I can tell you have never read the works of Voltaire, Smith, Friedman, and like I assume?


You know what they say about 'assume', yes?


Otherwise you would be able to conclude that we surrender our rights so to the government, so that they might fulfill a certain role. A role that we give to it.


You were the one wittering on about 'rights'.


As well, you are a Commie and I do not like Commies.:p

There is nothing 'commie' about pointing out that the system is designed to give power to those capable of leveraging the system.

You'd have to be blinkered or in an unrealistic state of denial to pretend it was otherwise... neither of which would make me a 'commie'.

What usually happens to systems with a fundamental inequity, is that the inequity builds for a period of time, with the laws of the system becoming increasingly accomodating to those who HAVE wealth and power, to facilitate GREATER ability to hold wealth and power. At some point, these systems reach a breaking point, and there is a massive redistribution, usually through violence. So - the 'right' to take back, is at least as valid as your alleged 'right of the people with superior abilities'.

(Which, I'm sure you know is bullshit anyway. If you are richer than me, it doesn't show that you are even necessarily as good as me, let alone 'superior'. It just shows you have more money).

You keep saying things like this. And I keep refuting you and asking for some kind of evidence. You never provide anything. Im done shredding your pathetic arguements. I just have one question...

Where do you get this information from?
We elected the idiot Bush first, then re-elected him. Then we elected the idiot Obama. The fact that the choices were Gore, Kerry, and McCain only re-enforces the argument.

People are just not concerned with government today. It's just the way it is.

Nice theory, but unrealistic. Why? Disease doesn't just effect the individual; they can be transmitted from person to person without any regard as to whether they have health insurance or not. Having an individual not seeing a doctor and recieving treatment for an infectious disease and spreading an infection to others as a result is bad for public health and the economy at best, outright dangerous at worst.

A system that allows people to 'assume the responsibility' for not having health insurance, which even you in the States don't have, given that government pays the bills for uninsured patients, would be a public health disaster. And that says nothing about the opposition that wouse arise from doctors and paramedics who would be obliged to put patients at risk because they can't get the funds to pay for their treatment.
They can always buy major medical, have MSAs, or just plain pay as they go. It's not always necessary to have a all-inclusive medical care plan. Choosing not to have one doesn't mean you go without medical care.

I would say that almost none of you that post and read here need one. You're just too young to be that sick.

I think the people dying of treatable diseases due to poverty would disagree with you as to whether or not it is a 'big enough problem'. I am certain that from the point of view of the well off and insured, it is not a problem, but the viewpoint of those affected by the issue definitely feel it is a problem.
Nice appeal to the emotions. But nothing you write negates the statement that I made about expanding the current services to cover the "less fortunate" better than we do now, rather than forcing all of us to live under a system of rationed medical care.

Do you actually speak for all those people dying of treatable disease, only because they're poor? Wow! What an awesome responsibility.

Awwww, you're talking about those libertarians, not them libertarians.

*is a libertarian*

Nice appeal to the emotions. But nothing you write negates the statement that I made about expanding the current services to cover the "less fortunate" better than we do now, rather than forcing all of us to live under a system of rationed medical care.

Do you actually speak for all those people dying of treatable disease, only because they're poor? Wow! What an awesome responsibility.

Currently the majority of the population via their representatives speak against this. Health care is not nor has it never been a constitutional right so only by a majority vote which must include the 85% of those who are insured and would feel additional cost upon implementation of government health care system.

You're just too young to be that sick.

A very dear friend of the family - a friend's daughter - was diagnosed just a few weeks ago with this: http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site762/mainpageS762P0.html

She's 9.

Is it too much to ask that, if you're going to post nonsense, you at least stop short of really stupid shit?

We elected the idiot Bush first, then re-elected him. Then we elected the idiot Obama. The fact that the choices were Gore, Kerry, and McCain only re-enforces the argument.

People are just not concerned with government today. It's just the way it is.I wrote in Chuck Norris. Thank you very much.

forcing all of us to live under a system of rationed medical care

of course, medical care is already rationed. the question is whether the current method of rationing brings about just outcomes, and if not, what would.

A very dear friend of the family - a friend's daughter - was diagnosed just a few weeks ago with this: http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site762/mainpageS762P0.html

She's 9.

Is it too much to ask that, if you're going to post nonsense, you at least stop short of really stupid shit?
Grow a thicker skin.

I didn't say all and even if I did, it's silly to take a statement like that literally. And I'm still not convinced that a major med policy isn't sufficient coverage for this condition. After all, serious and costly disease is relatively rare and that's what major med is all about.

Nice appeal to the emotions. But nothing you write negates the statement that I made about expanding the current services to cover the "less fortunate" better than we do now, rather than forcing all of us to live under a system of rationed medical care.

Do you actually speak for all those people dying of treatable disease, only because they're poor? Wow! What an awesome responsibility.

It is not an appeal to the emotions. I am simply pointing out that you are not the one who gets to decide whether or not poverty related illness is too small a problem to deal with. To make it even more clear: you're self-centered.

If the people who are most directly affected by the policy feel that the current policy does not adequately cover their needs, why should we simpy ignore them?

It is not an appeal to the emotions. I am simply pointing out that you are not the one who gets to decide whether or not poverty related illness is too small a problem to deal with. To make it even more clear: you're self-centered.

If the people who are most directly affected by the policy feel that the current policy does not adequately cover their needs, why should we simpy ignore them?
Again with the sidestepping... When I suggested that expanded coverage for the folks that don't have it now was better than changing the way we do medical care in its entirety, I don't think that I stated or implied that we simply ignore anyone. In fact, I'm not sure how advocating expanded coverage is even close to suggesting that anyone is ignored. How is that?

Grow a thicker skin.

I didn't say all and even if I did, it's silly to take a statement like that literally. And I'm still not convinced that a major med policy isn't sufficient coverage for this condition. After all, serious and costly disease is relatively rare and that's what major med is all about.

What you said was: "You're just too young to be that sick".

Which - since a close family friend of mine has just been diagnosed with something that absolutely will kill her, within two years, and she's 9 - is obviously not just bullshit, but really stupid bullshit. There is no age limit on serious conditions. You can be 'that sick' at any age.

120 million American are close to losing medical coverage. This is rapidly leading out of the 15% uninsured bubble we've been looking at, nationally, and heading towards the kind of 40% to 50% levels that have been seen in some localities. Our healthcare really is in crisis.


As for the 'grow a thicker skin' comment, you said something obviously nonsensical, and offensive, and your defense against being called on it is to 'blame the victim', so to speak.

For the record - telling someone in a situation like the one I presented to 'grow a thicker skin' shows a massive lack of tact, at the very best. Your father is dead? Grow a thicker skin. Your sister got raped? Grow a thicker skin. Just found out you have cancer? Grow a thicker skin.

I'll say you lack tact, but I'd advise you to watch "Ghost Town", and pay attention to any advice the main protagonist gets.

Again with the sidestepping... When I suggested that expanded coverage for the folks that don't have it now was better than changing the way we do medical care in its entirety, I don't think that I stated or implied that we simply ignore anyone. In fact, I'm not sure how advocating expanded coverage is even close to suggesting that anyone is ignored. How is that?

Because you have decided for yourself what the best solution is (minor adjustments to an expensive and inaccessible system) without even considering the opinion of those who are affected by the system.

Whether or not you are proposing minor adjustemtns, huge adjustments, or a complete overhaul is besides the point. The point is that you feel that you can decide what is best for them, or more exactly, that they are so few that it is not worth asking their opinion.

Because you have decided for yourself what the best solution is (minor adjustments to an expensive and inaccessible system) without even considering the opinion of those who are affected by the system.

Whether or not you are proposing minor adjustemtns, huge adjustments, or a complete overhaul is besides the point. The point is that you feel that you can decide what is best for them, or more exactly, that they are so few that it is not worth asking their opinion.
This is just silly talk.

Why should the wishes of a minority drive the show?

What you said was: "You're just too young to be that sick".

Which - since a close family friend of mine has just been diagnosed with something that absolutely will kill her, within two years, and she's 9 - is obviously not just bullshit, but really stupid bullshit. There is no age limit on serious conditions. You can be 'that sick' at any age.

120 million American are close to losing medical coverage. This is rapidly leading out of the 15% uninsured bubble we've been looking at, nationally, and heading towards the kind of 40% to 50% levels that have been seen in some localities. Our healthcare really is in crisis.


As for the 'grow a thicker skin' comment, you said something obviously nonsensical, and offensive, and your defense against being called on it is to 'blame the victim', so to speak.

For the record - telling someone in a situation like the one I presented to 'grow a thicker skin' shows a massive lack of tact, at the very best. Your father is dead? Grow a thicker skin. Your sister got raped? Grow a thicker skin. Just found out you have cancer? Grow a thicker skin.

I'll say you lack tact, but I'd advise you to watch "Ghost Town", and pay attention to any advice the main protagonist gets.
Man, if anyone needed a sedative... What I said, in complete context was, "I would say that almost none of you that post and read here need one. You're just too young to be that sick". One meaning a complete medical care policy. Now, if you want to discuss that, fine. If you want to talk about exceptions, I'm done. If you want to insult me, that's fine, too. I do have a thick skin and meaningless crap just rolls right off.

This is just silly talk.

Why should the wishes of a minority drive the show?

Because they are those most directly affected by the policy.

People who use wheelchairs are a small percentage of the US population. Yet the American Disabilities Act states that all buildings must be accessible by wheelchair. As you can see, sometimes the needs of the minority take precedence over the whims of the many.

Man, if anyone needed a sedative... What I said, in complete context was, "I would say that almost none of you that post and read here need one. You're just too young to be that sick". One meaning a complete medical care policy. Now, if you want to discuss that, fine. If you want to talk about exceptions, I'm done. If you want to insult me, that's fine, too. I do have a thick skin and meaningless crap just rolls right off.

Meaningless crap? Ohh you mean like the semblance of concern for your fellow human being, you mean meaningless crap like that?:D

They can always buy major medical, have MSAs, or just plain pay as they go. It's not always necessary to have a all-inclusive medical care plan. Choosing not to have one doesn't mean you go without medical care.
Which misses the point entirely. Not everybody can afford to pay premiums for minimal coverage, and most certainatly cannot afford to deal with huge bills that can result form not having it. Otherwise, it would not be necessary for the US government to pay unpaid medical bills.

I would say that almost none of you that post and read here need one. You're just too young to be that sick.
I can still fall off a ladder, be in a car crash or catch meningitis. Youth does not result in invincibility, and if it were, would shift the burden of paying for healthcare on those who need it most - the elderly and the chronically ill - and who are least equipped to pay.

Which misses the point entirely. Not everybody can afford to pay premiums for minimal coverage, and most certainatly cannot afford to deal with huge bills that can result form not having it. Otherwise, it would not be necessary for the US government to pay unpaid medical bills.


I can still fall off a ladder, be in a car crash or catch meningitis. Youth does not result in invincibility, and if it were, would shift the burden of paying for healthcare on those who need it most - the elderly and the chronically ill - and who are least equipped to pay.
You people are all so careless... It's pointless to go on, but let me correct this one part. When I wrote of MSAs, Major med, etc, I was discussing it as an alternative to a full-featured medical care plan. Read better.

Comprehensive insurance covers auto accidents. Umbrella homeowners covers a lot of things. A fall off a ladder might well be one. There are many alternatives to full-featured medical care. Not everyone needs to have it and no one needs to have it forced upon them.

Not everyone needs to have it and no one needs to have it forced upon them.
Presumably this 'force' is taxation to fund a universal healthcare program?

Presumably this 'force' is taxation to fund a universal healthcare program?
You could presume that, but you'd be wrong. It does depend how it's implemented. If we adopt the schemes where participation is forced and no supplemental insurance is allowed, it is stupid, as well as forced. I'm not especially worried about the details, as any major overhaul is unwarranted.

You could presume that, but you'd be wrong. It does depend how it's implemented. If we adopt the schemes where participation is forced and no supplemental insurance is allowed, it is stupid, as well as forced. I'm not especially worried about the details, as any major overhaul is unwarranted.

So, given the choice between a completely public healthcare system funded by tax dollars yet still allows private insurance, and a system where you are forced to buy insurance from private companies, you would prefer the former?

You could presume that, but you'd be wrong. It does depend how it's implemented. If we adopt the schemes where participation is forced and no supplemental insurance is allowed, it is stupid, as well as forced. I'm not especially worried about the details, as any major overhaul is unwarranted.
But no-one's suggesting a ban on private/supplemental health insurance.

Any problems with a scheme such as the UK's, where one is covered by the NHS, yet there are many private health insurance providers to join if one wishes?

Because they are those most directly affected by the policy.

People who use wheelchairs are a small percentage of the US population. Yet the American Disabilities Act states that all buildings must be accessible by wheelchair. As you can see, sometimes the needs of the minority take precedence over the whims of the many.

Difference between 'needs' of the disabled and 'feelings' or 'opinions' of the unhappy poor is distinct. I still don't see why the 'feelings' or 'opinions' of the minority should drive the show. One could almost wonder why the 'whims' of the minority should drive the show.

Difference between 'needs' of the disabled and 'feelings' or 'opinions' of the unhappy poor is distinct.
Yet the need for proper medical care when sick or injured is quite the same.

But no-one's suggesting a ban on private/supplemental health insurance.

Any problems with a scheme such as the UK's, where one is covered by the NHS, yet there are many private health insurance providers to join if one wishes?
Like I said, I'm not especially concerned with the details at this point. An expanded Medicaid program might be perfectly sufficient. Why throw out everything to accommodate a few more?

Yet the need for proper medical care when sick or injured is quite the same.
Okay. We're going around in circles. I quit.

But no-one's suggesting a ban on private/supplemental health insurance.

Any problems with a scheme such as the UK's, where one is covered by the NHS, yet there are many private health insurance providers to join if one wishes?

I don't have the disposable income to pay for a government scheme via taxation, then afford private coverage in addition to.
An introduction of a government system would force many if not msot to only use the government system.

I don't have the disposable income to pay for a government scheme via taxation, then afford private coverage in addition to.
An introduction of a government system would force many if not msot to only use the government system.
As long as standards were the same, where's the problem?

I don't have the disposable income to pay for a government scheme via taxation, then afford private coverage in addition to.
An introduction of a government system would force many if not msot to only use the government system.

But you do not even pay taxes.

But you do not even pay taxes.

I will sadly have to one day. got to plan for my future.

As long as standards were the same, where's the problem?

Every provider is different so the treatment I received by the government would be different. Likely worse, such as the treatment VA hospitals administer. More over it has made it financially impossible for me to choose an alternative.

Currency won't inflate because it wouldn't be printed out of thin air by the Fed, who don't have the right to print it out in the first place.

It's not necessarily that it will be have a solid value, although that wouldn't hurt-- everything loses its value when there is a great supply of it. I'm sure someone is going to quote this and say, "oh, not EVERYTHING loses its value".

Every provider is different so the treatment I received by the government would be different. Likely worse, such as the treatment VA hospitals administer.
Note I said, "As long as standards were the same...".

More over it has made it financially impossible for me to choose an alternative.
Why does this matter in any meaningful way? Choice is illusory in this regard.

Note I said, "As long as standards were the same...".

again my refute is "That is impossible."


Why does this matter in any meaningful way? Choice is illusory in this regard.

According to ever legislature thus far to serve in congress, and hopefully into the future, in regards to health care choice is not an illusion.
Furthermore, those governments have regarded government ran universal health care as the illusion.

again my refute is "That is impossible."
It's happening in the UK right now.

According to ever legislature thus far to serve in congress, and hopefully into the future, in regards to health care choice is not an illusion.
Furthermore, those governments have regarded government ran universal health care as the illusion.
Good for them.

However, an argument would be nice.

My thought exactly.

Dont forget not giving a flying fuck about anyone but yourself, and MAYBE the corporate elite.

I don't give a rats ass about the poor. They're poor for a reason: they didn't work in highschool. They partied, drank, screwed girls, and had fun. Why is my family wealthy? Because they worked in highschool, studied, made good grades, went to good colleges and busted their asses. I'm a little bit different, I chose a military career, but I think of myself as successful too.

I don't give a rats ass about the poor. They're poor for a reason: they didn't work in highschool. They partied, drank, screwed girls, and had fun. Why is my family wealthy? Because they worked in highschool, studied, made good grades, went to good colleges and busted their asses.
You jest, surely?

I suppose you've never heard of Paris Hilton? Or the concept of inheritance?

It's happening in the UK right now.

To think that private corporations do not adopt standards above government requirements is a bit naive and incorrect. Furthermore it begs the question why do those with money adopt private service if the Standards of that service are the same as the government service.


Good for them.

However, an argument would be nice.

Other than we are not adopting government health care because the majority of the people in the US as represented in government have said no and this is a democracy. So I guess there isn't really much of an argument the answer in the US remains No for the time being.

You people are all so careless... It's pointless to go on, but let me correct this one part. When I wrote of MSAs, Major med, etc, I was discussing it as an alternative to a full-featured medical care plan. Read better.
And all those alternatives require someone to pay for it. My point, which you have seemed to miss, was that all forms of medical care, whether it be through all flavours of medical insurance or simply waiting for something to happen requires someone to pay for it. Given that there is a number of people who cannot afford this, any health care system that is based on 'responsibility', which you referred to previously, allows people not to have access health care, and is irresponsible for reasons I have already given.

Comprehensive insurance covers auto accidents. Umbrella homeowners covers a lot of things. A fall off a ladder might well be one. There are many alternatives to full-featured medical care. Not everyone needs to have it and no one needs to have it forced upon them.
Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

To think that private corporations do not adopt standards above government requirements is a bit naive and incorrect.
That's not the issue at hand.

Government-funded hospitals in the UK offer perfectly good medical care at a level comparable with many privately-run institutions. Your whole objection is that a universal healthcare system is unfair because some would not be able to afford to pay their taxes and pay for private medical care. But the same could be said for any state-run initiative, from a postal service to public transport.

Currently, there are US Americans who cannot afford any medical coverage, or cannot cover expensive treatments that they need. These people would be covered by a universal healthcare system.

I can't afford both to pay taxes and to pay for private healthcare, but that doesn't matter for two reasons; firstly, I'm covered anyway by the NHS, and secondly, there's not some poor sod dying because he couldn't afford medial treatment.

I don't see that as a bad payoff.

And all those alternatives require someone to pay for it. My point, which you have seemed to miss, was that all forms of medical care, whether it be through all flavours of medical insurance or simply waiting for something to happen requires someone to pay for it. Given that there is a number of people who cannot afford this, any health care system that is based on 'responsibility', which you referred to previously, allows people not to have access health care, and is irresponsible for reasons I have already given.


Are you being this obtuse on purpose?
You missed my point first, so I win. My point started this way... There are a number of people that don't have paid-for-by-other-people medical care plans. Of that number, some can't buy the plans and some CHOOSE not to buy, but otherwise can afford the plans. For those that choose not to buy a full-featured medical care plan, there are alternatives. These alternatives include Major Medical plans, MSA, etc.

This is the little part that you missed, either deliberately, or because you are careless.

For the rest, that would like a medical care plan, but have no money, we have a suitable, paid-for-by-other-people plan called Medicaid. It can be expanded much more easily than replacing our entire medical care system with something else.

Currently, there are US Americans who cannot afford any medical coverage, or cannot cover expensive treatments that they need. These people would be covered by a universal healthcare system.

Currently, there are many, many more Americans that ARE covered by a medical care plan. Why would they ever be interested in universal medical care?

Currently, there are many, many more Americans that ARE covered by a medical care plan. Why would they ever be interested in universal medical care?
For any number of reasons; a desire to see everyone in society adequately covered if medical misfortune happens to them, a preference for non-corporate care... depends on the person, I suppose.

Frankly, beyond worries about the financial feasibility of the system, and AFAIK there isn't a mass of evidence that private medical care is cheaper overall, I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want universal medical care. The fact that I am completely covered for any medical eventuality, from the moment I am born to the instant I die (and further), is a reassuring thing.

Difference between 'needs' of the disabled and 'feelings' or 'opinions' of the unhappy poor is distinct. I still don't see why the 'feelings' or 'opinions' of the minority should drive the show. One could almost wonder why the 'whims' of the minority should drive the show.

I was not comparing the needs of the disabled with the opinions of the poor. I was pointing out that we as a society have already responded to the medical needs of a minority of the population, even though it increases the costs of those who are not part of that minority. We did this because we finally started listening to the opinions of those who use wheelchairs. Now, extend the analogy to the poor.

Currently, there are many, many more Americans that ARE covered by a medical care plan. Why would they ever be interested in universal medical care?

Because it costs less? Public healthcare systems are cheaper for everyone, not just the poor.

I don't give a rats ass about the poor. They're poor for a reason: they didn't work in highschool. They partied, drank, screwed girls, and had fun. Why is my family wealthy? Because they worked in highschool, studied, made good grades, went to good colleges and busted their asses. I'm a little bit different, I chose a military career, but I think of myself as successful too.

I hope your joking. It's possible to be poor through no fault of your own. Are you saying these people don't deserve a decent standard of living? Support your assertion that everyone who's poor is poor because they didn't pay attention in school, instead of, perhaps, losing their job and not being able to find another. Even if people are poor through their own fault, do they deserve to die of diseases that can be treated?

It's also possible to be rich through the success of your parents (see inheritance). Perhaps, if you want everything to be purely based on the ability of individuals, we should remove inheritance. Would you support that?

The current US system means that the rich have good standards of living, and the poor do badly. In a socialised system, everyone gets around the same standard of care (with the wealthy able to get private care if they want it instead). Would you prefer that poor people (who are still human beings) die just because you can afford it and are fine with a privatised system?

That's not the issue at hand.

Government-funded hospitals in the UK offer perfectly good medical care at a level comparable with many privately-run institutions. Your whole objection is that a universal healthcare system is unfair because some would not be able to afford to pay their taxes and pay for private medical care. But the same could be said for any state-run initiative, from a postal service to public transport.

My objection to Universal health care is it is not what the majority(through their Representative not public opinion polls) of the people want. With the exception a few rights granted by the Constitution there is no justified reason. I live in a town without public transportation outside of roads for a reason.
[/quote]
Currently, there are US Americans who cannot afford any medical coverage, or cannot cover expensive treatments that they need. These people would be covered by a universal healthcare system.

[/quote]
And frankly speaking it is an American concern. We value individual freedom and responsibility. Just like our gun rights we accept the trade off the way it is. Or the right to make war.


I can't afford both to pay taxes and to pay for private healthcare, but that doesn't matter for two reasons; firstly, I'm covered anyway by the NHS, and secondly, there's not some poor sod dying because he couldn't afford medial treatment.

I don't see that as a bad payoff.
That's not a problem for you because you live in and supports societies views that this irrelevant. my view and my societies views is personal responsibility and personal financial choice on these matters is paramount.

Because it costs less? Public healthcare systems are cheaper for everyone, not just the poor.
Not necessarily. From a purely financial standpoint (Which I assume you're trying to play on with your 'cheaper' comment I quoted), Public Healthcare is actually more expensive. Since everyone is covered, the burden must be placed somewhere, and that place is: Taxes. On the taxpayer.

Currency won't inflate because it wouldn't be printed out of thin air by the Fed, who don't have the right to print it out in the first place.
What, opposed to the General Public in Libertarianism?

Aye, I sure as fuck trust them to not make retarded financial decisions for short term gain.
It's not necessarily that it will be have a solid value
Yes it is. Or your money is literally no better than the paper it's printed on as a method of exchange for goods and services.

Not necessarily. From a purely financial standpoint (Which I assume you're trying to play on with your 'cheaper' comment I quoted), Public Healthcare is actually more expensive. Since everyone is covered, the burden must be placed somewhere, and that place is: Taxes. On the taxpayer.
... yeah I think the point is that costs for the whole population are lower than costs for everyone who is currently covered by medical insurance, and that's without getting into extra costs if you're not covered for some item in particular.

You missed my point first, so I win. My point started this way... There are a number of people that don't have paid-for-by-other-people medical care plans. Of that number, some can't buy the plans and some CHOOSE not to buy, but otherwise can afford the plans. For those that choose not to buy a full-featured medical care plan, there are alternatives. These alternatives include Major Medical plans, MSA, etc.

This is the little part that you missed, either deliberately, or because you are careless.
Now you're splitting hairs. People can choose not to have those other plans as well. These people would, if unable to pay bills incurred for medical treatment in a system where "they assume the responsibility that goes with the decision" not have access to healthcare, which was what my point was.

For the rest, that would like a medical care plan, but have no money, we have a suitable, paid-for-by-other-people plan called Medicaid. It can be expanded much more easily than replacing our entire medical care system with something else.
I know, but tha's not really relavent.

Currently, there are many, many more Americans that ARE covered by a medical care plan. Why would they ever be interested in universal medical care?I'm covered with medical care as the result of my (union) job. I might like to leave that job at some point. Should I do so, I would no longer be covered. Ergo, if another job is ever to be appealing to me, it stands to reason I would benefit from universal medical care.

We [the US] value individual freedom and responsibility.
Who doesn't?

And frankly speaking it is an American concern... Just like our gun rights we accept the trade off the way it is. Or the right to make war.

That's not a problem for you because you live in and supports societies views that this irrelevant. my view and my societies views is personal responsibility and personal financial choice on these matters is paramount.
Meh, cultural relativist BS.

The discussion isn't about the current state of affairs or mainstream social norms of the UK and US.

Who doesn't?

The question is where you draw the line



Meh, cultural relativist BS.

Typical Eurocentrist imperialist bs.

The discussion isn't about the current state of affairs or mainstream social norms of the UK and US.

It is about what we choose and will choose. There is no one right answer. We have chosen our and will continue to choose our own answer with flaws.
If it bothers you so much we will send out people who can't afford Health care to the UK so they can be under your system.

Typical Eurocentrist imperialist bs.
On the contrary.

It is about what we choose and will choose. There is no one right answer. We have chosen our and will continue to choose our own answer with flaws.
If it bothers you so much we will send out people who can't afford Health care to the UK so they can be under your system.
Don't know why you're getting all stiff-backed and nationalistic about this; I'm not arguing that UHC is better because it's more common in Europe.

If you don't want to discuss certain US policy, domestic or foreign, then I'd stay clear of international discussion forums.

Man, if anyone needed a sedative... What I said, in complete context was, "I would say that almost none of you that post and read here need one. You're just too young to be that sick". One meaning a complete medical care policy. Now, if you want to discuss that, fine. If you want to talk about exceptions, I'm done. If you want to insult me, that's fine, too. I do have a thick skin and meaningless crap just rolls right off.

Ah, it all becomes clear. Your 'argument' is just 'rolling off'.

Do you really not see how my example makes your 'argument' an instantaneous lie? There is no such thing as 'too young' to need complete medical care.

It was a nonseniscal comment. Good form would be for you to admit that it was nonsensical. Bad form would be for you to keep trying to make out that the problem with YOUR nonsensical comments, is the people reading them.

Let's see which you pick.

...as any major overhaul is unwarranted.

Denying reality won't make it go away.

There is a bugeoning healthcare crisis. 15% of Americans already do not have insurance, and another 120 million are close to the line. A major overhaul is not only warranted, it is critical.

I don't have the disposable income to pay for a government scheme via taxation, then afford private coverage in addition to.


What if the government scheme PLUS the premium for your private coverage 'top-up' was LESS than the current cost of healthcare?

I don't give a rats ass about the poor. They're poor for a reason: they didn't work in highschool. They partied, drank, screwed girls, and had fun.

I don't know whether to say bullshit, or ask you to source it.

I know that, at my school, the people who partied, drank, screwed girls, (interesting that you think all poor people are boys or gay girls), and had fun - were predominantly from already wealthy families. The people from poor families couldn't afford that kind of lifestyle.

So... yeah, bullshit.

For the rest, that would like a medical care plan, but have no money, we have a suitable, paid-for-by-other-people plan called Medicaid. It can be expanded much more easily than replacing our entire medical care system with something else.

Except that medicaid is argued as non-essential, and takes cuts whenever budgets need to shrink.

My fellow Libertarians please report in and state what school you follow.

I am a follower of the Chicago School of Economics, following the teachings of Milton Friedman. Though I do support the Austrian School's concept of having a currency being convertable into some material good, preferable being a precious metal.

I'm an Objectivist/Libertarian. I can't see why Ayn Rand didn't like the past Libertarians, but I think she'd like the new ones.

I'm an Objectivist/Libertarian. I can't see why Ayn Rand didn't like the past Libertarians, but I think she'd like the new ones.

That... Doesn't make me feel much better about the future of the Libertarian party...

I'm an Objectivist/Libertarian. I can't see why Ayn Rand didn't like the past Libertarians, but I think she'd like the new ones.

Ayn Rand confused the term "libertarian" with anarcho-capitalism, aka free market anarchism. To be fair, a number of those who identify as libertarian also identify as an-caps.

What if the government scheme PLUS the premium for your private coverage 'top-up' was LESS than the current cost of healthcare?

1st that's a big IF dependent on how much the tax increase is and how large my wage is.

2nd. I don't want the bottom of part of my plan provided by the government.

That... Doesn't make me feel much better about the future of the Libertarian party...

Why? B/c we value freedom, individualism, and freedom from the masses and collectivism? I see it as the only logical school of thought.

1st that's a big IF dependent on how much the tax increase is and how large my wage is.


Why is that a big if? Look at the UK or Canada, and see how the nationalised scheme is considerably less cost per capita than the US scheme.


2nd. I don't want the bottom of part of my plan provided by the government.

That's irrational. If the exact same service is provided, it doesn't matter who holds the purse-strings.

Why? B/c we value freedom, individualism, and freedom from the masses and collectivism? I see it as the only logical school of thought.

There is nothing logical about individualism. That's pure emotion, not logic.

Ayn Rand confused the term "libertarian" with anarcho-capitalism, aka free market anarchism. To be fair, a number of those who identify as libertarian also identify as an-caps.

I'm more just a minimal-gov't capitalist. I see now. I remember reading an interveiw where she called them all anti-intellectual anarchists. I couldn't understand it but I figured it out when I found the date of the interview.

There is nothing logical about individualism. That's pure emotion, not logic.

Why make a faceless mass that has no opinions? If you've read Anthem, then you see the ultimate consequence of collectivism, which is a society in which we are all enslaved to each other.

Why make a faceless mass that has no opinions?


Why present a false dichotomy?


If you've read Anthem, then you see the ultimate consequence of collectivism, which is a society in which we are all enslaved to each other.

If you've read Anthem, you've seen what one author (who some would argue wasn't that good at anything except high wordcounts) certainly believes (or claims to believe) would happen.

But that's kind of irrelevent.

Pure individualism is nonsensical in the post-nationstates world (by which I mean, the era of nation-states - not the time that happened after Max Barry got published).

Why is that a big if? Look at the UK or Canada, and see how the nationalised scheme is considerably less cost per capita than the US scheme.

less cost percapita does not mean less cost for me or even the majority of those with health care currently.



That's irrational. If the exact same service is provided, it doesn't matter who holds the purse-strings.

Thus far when the government provides it its been a whole lot more crappy.
Take flu shots a basic health care service. When the government has given me those I have pretty much be treated like a name and a number and walk in a line roll up sleeve, nurse one swabs my arm off, nurse two gives me the shot.

Why present a false dichotomy?



If you've read Anthem, you've seen what one author (who some would argue wasn't that good at anything except high wordcounts) certainly believes (or claims to believe) would happen.

But that's kind of irrelevent.

Pure individualism is nonsensical in the post-nationstates world (by which I mean, the era of nation-states - not the time that happened after Max Barry got published).

Over all, one person must be their own goal and end in themselves, with any larger group serving as a secondary entity or goal to them. Otherwise, what are you doing alive? If you claim to reject selfishness completely, you should die (I'm not being angry, but by the nature of it, this is what it is): you are breathing. You are taking air from everyone else. Is that not selfish?

less cost percapita does not mean less cost for me or even the majority of those with health care currently.


Maybe. However, if the very wealthy end up paying a few more dollars, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.


Thus far when the government provides it its been a whole lot more crappy.
Take flu shots a basic health care service. When the government has given me those I have pretty much be treated like a name and a number and walk in a line roll up sleeve, nurse one swabs my arm off, nurse two gives me the shot.

When I went and got my flu shot last year, the nurses were really charming to me. Maybe the difference between how you and I were treated isn't about 'public' versus 'private' care.

Over all, one person must be their own goal and end in themselves,


I assume you are not old enough to have a partner or children.

Which I should have assumed the moment you raised the specter of Anthem, I guess.


with any larger group serving as a secondary entity or goal to them. Otherwise, what are you doing alive?


Improving the world a little bit, every day?


If you claim to reject selfishness completely,


...which I didn't, but hey... let's hear where you're going with this...


you should die (I'm not being angry, but by the nature of it, this is what it is): you are breathing. You are taking air from everyone else. Is that not selfish?

I'm sharing air. I'm quite happy for everyone else to have some, too... and I'm not trying to increase my share.

Wow... that was REALLY bad example. You want to try again?

I assume you are not old enough to have a partner or children.

Which I should have assumed the moment you raised the specter of Anthem, I guess.



Improving the world a little bit, every day?



...which I didn't, but hey... let's hear where you're going with this...



I'm sharing air. I'm quite happy for everyone else to have some, too... and I'm not trying to increase my share.

Wow... that was REALLY bad example. You want to try again?


How about a new example, you ask? Fine: Love. Loving someone is selfish. It is to say that they exist for you, and that you want them to exist. From The Fountainhead:

"I love you.... As selfishly as the fact that I exist.... As selfishly as my lungs breathe air.... I breathe for necessity, for my need, for my survival...."

There.

How about a new example, you ask? Fine: Love. Loving someone is selfish. It is to say that they exist for you, and that you want them to exist. From The Fountainhead:

"I love you.... As selfishly as the fact that I exist.... As selfishly as my lungs breathe air.... I breathe for necessity, for my need, for my survival...."

There.

Okay, now I know you're taking the piss. no one really presents Randian arguments in this pseudo-biblical manner.

Also... you've never been in love?

Okay, now I know you're taking the piss. no one really presents Randian arguments in this pseudo-biblical manner.

Also... you've never been in love?

Yes, I love someone right now. I find it deeply gratifying. She's got great ideas. Its way better than the Bible.

Maybe. However, if the very wealthy end up paying a few more dollars, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

So your viewpoint is to Tax the other guy, yet the libertarians are the selfish ones ??


When I went and got my flu shot last year, the nurses were really charming to me. Maybe the difference between how you and I were treated isn't about 'public' versus 'private' care.

That's nice, I still doubt your government care would meet my standards of something Id be willing to pay for in Taxes or otherwise.

So your viewpoint is to Tax the other guy, yet the libertarians are the selfish ones ??


No, my viewpoint is that taxes should be spread in a fair fashion.

But, whatever you need to make up to fit your agenda? Sure, knock yourself out. Just don't be surprised if I don't give the reponses you script.


That's nice, I still doubt your government care would meet my standards of something Id be willing to pay for in Taxes or otherwise.

I could probably care less about the standards you're 'willing to pay for'... somehow... but I don't feel motivated to try. There is no reason why a system couldn't replace our current system seamlessly and invisibly - thus, your objections to it, are pure bias and prejudice.

No, my viewpoint is that taxes should be spread in a fair fashion.

But, whatever you need to make up to fit your agenda? Sure, knock yourself out. Just don't be surprised if I don't give the reponses you script.



I could probably care less about the standards you're 'willing to pay for'... somehow... but I don't feel motivated to try. There is no reason why a system couldn't replace our current system seamlessly and invisibly - thus, your objections to it, are pure bias and prejudice.

That's a another debate over what is a fair tax.
Moreover, to be selfless you should also worry about if someone is paying too much. Instead of writing those off who make more than you as rich who should stand to lose a few dollars.

Moreover, to be selfless you should also worry about if someone is paying too much. Instead of writing those off who make more than you as rich who should stand to lose a few dollars.
There is a relative value to every dollar. Fuck the rich - dollars are worthless to 'um.

Pure individualism is nonsensical in the post-nationstates world (by which I mean, the era of nation-states - not the time that happened after Max Barry got published).
Which in itself is something of a false dichotomy. It's not about pure individualism, it's about voluntary interaction with others. So yes, to protect the voluntary part, you have to stress the importance and sovereignty of the individual. And that necessarily puts one at odds with those who think society as a separate entity has rights that trump those of individuals.

Which in itself is something of a false dichotomy. It's not about pure individualism, it's about voluntary interaction with others. So yes, to protect the voluntary part, you have to stress the importance and sovereignty of the individual. And that necessarily puts one at odds with those who think society as a separate entity has rights that trump those of individuals.

How would you like your irony served?

There is a relative value to every dollar. Fuck the rich - dollars are worthless to 'um.
And healthcare is worthless to old people. And education is worthless to stupid people.

Either you are consequent, and you distribute everything according to diminishing returns principles, or you can't use that argument.

Moreover, to be selfless you should also worry about if someone is paying too much. Instead of writing those off who make more than you as rich who should stand to lose a few dollars.

This would be you 'making stuff up'.

I didn't claim to be selfless. I didn't say anything about people 'paying too much'. I didn't 'write anyone off'. I didn't say they should 'lose a few dollars'.

But the word 'moreover' was good. You were right on course, till that first comma.

And healthcare is worthless to old people. And education is worthless to stupid people.

Either you are consequent, and you distribute everything according to diminishing returns principles, or you can't use that argument.

Another false dichotomy.

Just because you distribute money according to methodology A, doesn't mean you can't distribute healthcare by methodology B, and french fries by methodology C.

This would be you 'making stuff up'.

I didn't claim to be selfless. I didn't say anything about people 'paying too much'. I didn't 'write anyone off'. I didn't say they should 'lose a few dollars'.

But the word 'moreover' was good. You were right on course, till that first comma.

When you say you would lose no sleep over the matter you are pretty much saying you do not care about the matter.

And healthcare is worthless to old people. And education is worthless to stupid people.

Either you are consequent, and you distribute everything according to diminishing returns principles, or you can't use that argument.

Another false dichotomy.

Just because you distribute money according to methodology A, doesn't mean you can't distribute healthcare by methodology B, and french fries by methodology C.

While that's true, NTS, I say we do it his way anyways. Fuck the rich, old, and stupid. Let's see a TRUE meritocracy!

Please fill out Form X145.3 S3 "Form for Continuation of Life Function"

In triplicate

How would you like your irony served?
Well, what's your justification for taxation, or for democracy? There are of course various arguments for things like that, but they come from different basic views of things. And if you support things like democracy (and the taxation and spending imposed by it), then one argument goes that it would be a mistake to see your being in the minority as an unjust imposition because as far as this decision making process is concerned, you are to submit our private interests and right to the sovereign use of your resources to an entity larger than all of us, namely the electorate. So rather than being unhappy that you were outvoted, what actually happened is that society got its will, and by extension and over time, so did you.

And going beyond that, even the other classic justification for taxation (namely that our property doesn't actually belong to us except for a decision by society to allow our claim to it) essentially assigns to society a right to declare property rights that it would be morally wrong to break, while none of us have that individual right to claiming ownership or using whatever resources we want.

Another false dichotomy.
It isn't.

Just because you distribute money according to methodology A, doesn't mean you can't distribute healthcare by methodology B, and french fries by methodology C.
Except that they have entirely different philosophical foundations. You can't follow utilitarianism in one case and some sort of natural rights argumentation for another. Or rather, you can, but you'd be a hypocrite making arbitrary judgements according to your own whims.

So from here you can argue that you'd be utilitarian by using the different methodologies, which leaves you with the acknowledgement that if the aggregate happiness would be improved by it, we should deny education to the stupid or healthcare to the old. Which is the world Virginia Cooper was alluding to, and simply begs the question: if people don't have the right to healthcare, why does society have the right to decide about its distribution. And in talking about that you'd be putting yourself into the position I talked to in the above post on subsuming individual rights to those of society.

Or you come up with a natural rights justification for education and healthcare but not property. Which, if nothing else, would at least be slightly novel.

It isn't.


Except that they have entirely different philosophical foundations. You can't follow utilitarianism in one case and some sort of natural rights argumentation for another. Or rather, you can, but you'd be a hypocrite making arbitrary judgements according to your own whims.


Rubbish. You'd just be choosing different foundations for different things.

That doesn't necessitate arbitrary judgements - it's just as intrinsic in pragmatism.

That doesn't necessitate arbitrary judgements - it's just as intrinsic in pragmatism.
Pragmatism isn't an end in itself, it's a philosophy concerned with reaching a goal. That's what annoys me when people talk about pragmatism as though it was an ideology or a system of beliefs - it doesn't tell you what you want to achieve. That can only be done by something else, something like moral systems based on utilitarianism or natural rights. So there is nothing pragmatic about natural rights sometimes and utilitarianism some other times. It's just arbitrary and inconsistent.