"Freedom" thread or something

*frinspar* wrote: We are well over 100 years removed from the Sherman Act and the much smaller world that existed then. While greed has always been the same, you have to admit that the abilities for instant global corporate maneuvering are something that didn't exist at the time. You're right. I don't deny that, although I don't see what greed has to do with anything. We're talking about the inch and mile here, and if the handling of our army and police forces are handed over to private concerns, you can guarantee that such controls like the Sherman Act would quickly see their demise. We see the dodges and dealings daily in how companies operate now. Good! Anyway, I'm not talking about handing over the current military apparatus to anyone. I'm talking about allowing private companies to compete to develop the best defense system. And if there is even a hint of profit in "taking over" then it would certainly happen. They'd have the entire rest of the world to sell to, while holding one nation as a labor force. Profit has no morals. And corporations exist for one purpose: profit. I don't think other companies would be too happy about that, and you can bet they would try to stop it. Waging war is very, very expensive. It's doubtful that one could make a profit waging continuous war, not only against potential foreign threats, but also against domestic companies trying to unseat a company that sets itself up as a despot. Also, how blurry would the line become between law and company policy? Private arbitrators exist now and would settle disputes in much the same way. The difference is that law would be democratized by which courts people chose to use. But this i a complex subject that I do not really want to digress too far on. But out military will not turn on its nation, not even in another 100 years. It's impossible. Again, you can count on the larger part of the soldiers in uniform not following such orders. So soldiers ordered to take over the country would refuse, why would not employees of this hypothetical monopoly do the same? Are soldiers that much more moral than the average person? You're creating support for the idea of private security based on a fantastical premise that you admit is not likely. Again, you misunderstand me. I did not need to create support for an idea I already pretty much accepted (anarcho-capitalism) I needed to overcome a misgiving I had. Once I realized that the threat of violent takeover under a free society would be no greater than it is now (i.e. not very great) I cold embrace the idea fully. I'm saying the same thing, really, just from the other, more likely position. People can fight against taxation. But have you ever tried calling your cable company about the seemingly arbitrary, outrageous and continuing increases in your bill? No, but I have tried switching cble companies or ceasing to consume cable. It works like a charm.

Hm, interesting about monopolies, it does make sense though.
I guess the way I looked at it, yeah it's interfering with the market (thus it is a violation of liberty) by not allowing a buyout, but on the other hand...it also feels like it's anti competitive in nature. Also, consumers have no say in the matter, which is what made free markets appealing to me, the fact it basically decentralizes power to us.

I see the biggest problem with your later points, what counts as a monopoly and who decides. Government is a flawed answer since that's ripe with blatant abuse. I guess the judges? But then who decides the law anyway? Guess it probably is best to make sure the market is free as possible to make sure a monopoly can't realistically sustain.
Perhaps a better role is to prevent collusion?

thellama73 wrote: Health care and environment are tough ones, indeed, and I don't pretend to have all the answers on them, but I believe a free system is the only just one and have faith thta a market would solve these problems at least as well, if not better, than we have so far, although I can't say exactly how it would work.

My issue is this. If left to the markets, there will be uncovered people. This is really beyond debate I think.
If people are fine with this, than a ok.
I struggle with it myself. I see it as vitally important as well, people die unnecessarily because of it.
Also, the point of any for profit company is to make profit. I'm fine with this, but with healthcare I see some issue. And the cost can be detrimental as we know, if you lose a job (thus insurance) and a bad illness strikes...you can be f**ked. A majority of bankruptcies are due to medical costs, and many of those are middle class people with insurance. So while not ideal, a non profit universal insurance I can see a need for. Naturally, there will be free market health insurance as supplement. And with a limited government, instead of being the HUGE burden health is now, it can be a more suitable role for government.
We also have an unfree health insurance nation and it should be opened up. Part of our problem I believe is this for profit but with government interference thing we have...kind of a bad deal.

Whew! Maybe I'm trying to compromise, but I want the least worst scenario of an un-ideal situation.




Edited by JJLehto - January 21 2013 at 17:45

JJLehto wrote: Perhaps a better role is to prevent collusion? My issue is this. If left to the markets, there will be uncovered people. This is really beyond debate I think. If people are fine with this, than a ok. I struggle with it myself. I see it as vitally important as well, people die unnecessarily because of it. Also, the point of any for profit company is to make profit. I'm fine with this, but with healthcare I see some issue. And the cost can be detrimental as we know, if you lose a job (thus insurance) and a bad illness strikes...you can be f**ked. A majority of bankruptcies are due to medical costs, and many of those are middle class people with insurance. So while not ideal, a non profit universal insurance I can see a need for. Naturally, there will be free market health insurance as supplement. And with a limited government, instead of being the HUGE burden health is now, it can be a more suitable role for government. We also have an unfree health insurance nation and it should be opened up. Whew! Maybe I'm trying to compromise, but I want the least worst scenario of an un-ideal situation.

I don't agree with preventing collusion either, but it's really just a matter of freedom for me. Is it really right to throw people in jail because they talked to each other about their businesses?

Yes, there will be uncovered people, but no one will stop you if you want to help them.

Also, I don't really believe that any doctor would just allow someone with a serious injury to die on his doorstep. I mean, if you were a doctor, would you? I suspect there would be a certain amount of pro-bono work and probably some ex-post arrangements to have people help pay off their debt over time. It would probably be pretty bad for business if word got out that doctors were ignoring dying people, and those who took on hard luck cases would see their customers rise accordingly.

thellama73 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Perhaps a better role is to prevent collusion? My issue is this. If left to the markets, there will be uncovered people. This is really beyond debate I think. If people are fine with this, than a ok. I struggle with it myself. I see it as vitally important as well, people die unnecessarily because of it. Also, the point of any for profit company is to make profit. I'm fine with this, but with healthcare I see some issue. And the cost can be detrimental as we know, if you lose a job (thus insurance) and a bad illness strikes...you can be f**ked. A majority of bankruptcies are due to medical costs, and many of those are middle class people with insurance. So while not ideal, a non profit universal insurance I can see a need for. Naturally, there will be free market health insurance as supplement. And with a limited government, instead of being the HUGE burden health is now, it can be a more suitable role for government. We also have an unfree health insurance nation and it should be opened up. Whew! Maybe I'm trying to compromise, but I want the least worst scenario of an un-ideal situation. I don't agree with preventing collusion either, but it's really just a matter of freedom for me. Is it really right to throw people in jail because they talked to each other about their businesses? Yes, there will be uncovered people, but no one will stop you if you want to help them. Also, I don't really believe that any doctor would just allow someone with a serious injury to die on his doorstep. I mean, if you were a doctor, would you? I suspect there would be a certain amount of pro-bono work and probably some ex-post arrangements to have people help pay off their debt over time. It would probably be pretty bad for business if word got out that doctors were ignoring dying people, and those who took on hard luck cases would see their customers rise accordingly.

Is that the official definition of collusion?
Obviously I was thinking more like price fixing/being a cartel. Though actually, I guess that'd be even harder to sustain than a monopoly...the urge to undercut someone involved would be huge.

Yeah, in my heart I wanna say that. My brain says things are so corrupted/messed up that maybe they've lost some good will, but that seems silly and pessimistic. Especially doctors, you'd hope would maintain compassion
And yeah, guess if Dr Logan is giving people very cheap even free service while Dr Brian kicks em out and lets em die, I'd suffer financially.
It's such a massive issue and Chipotle awaits me for now

The idea about the doctor not letting someone die on their door is nice and all but we're not talking about those cases. We are talking about the cases of people undergoing serious health battles like cancer that are forced to ruin and misery and carry their families with them. Yes, doctors would get bad reputation if they don't help the dying man but nobody will ever know a doctor said no to treatment for someone with cancer or something like that or that the person was forced to sell away his life in order to try to save his real life.

Sorry, only with healthcare the "I'm sure things will be better" doesn't work for me. I would want an actual solution that is more real than just purely hypothetical.

^And I understand the severe conflict there would be between saying everybody together can pay for that person in your example (a development of your third option) and standing up for liberty. The way the world is nowadays, the way children are taught to care for "me me me" and that their actions have little consequence, empathy losing importance as a value, I don't believe much people will really do what your option 2 calls for. And in the example option 1 is not an option because the person doesn't have the money. So it' would be either death or forced contribution.

Edited by The T - January 21 2013 at 19:54

The T wrote: The idea about the doctor not letting someone die on their door is nice and all but we're not talking about those cases. We are talking about the cases of people undergoing serious health battles like cancer that are forced to ruin and misery and carry their families with them. Yes, doctors would get bad reputation if they don't help the dying man but nobody will ever know a doctor said no to treatment for someone with cancer or something like that or that the person was forced to sell away his life in order to try to save his real life. Sorry, only with healthcare the "I'm sure things will be better" doesn't work for me. I would want an actual solution that is more real than just purely hypothetical.

Indeed, and maybe this is cliche but we're the wealthiest, greatest nation on Earth, right? Even though they may hate it....many above that magical 250K line have said they're ok with even more taxes, including for healthcare.
I think if we had a very limited government, a universal health insurance would be far less egregious. More of a "rightful role" thing. I can't vouch for all, or any I guess, but if they had a lower overall tax burden...surely many "wealthy" would be OK with supporting a universal care plan...since it is such a huge issue.
It does feel wrong a family can go bankrupt over something purely out of the hands and necessary.

JJLehto wrote: The T wrote: The idea about the doctor not letting someone die on their door is nice and all but we're not talking about those cases. We are talking about the cases of people undergoing serious health battles like cancer that are forced to ruin and misery and carry their families with them. Yes, doctors would get bad reputation if they don't help the dying man but nobody will ever know a doctor said no to treatment for someone with cancer or something like that or that the person was forced to sell away his life in order to try to save his real life. Sorry, only with healthcare the "I'm sure things will be better" doesn't work for me. I would want an actual solution that is more real than just purely hypothetical. Indeed, and maybe this is cliche but we're the wealthiest, greatest nation on Earth, right? Even though they may hate it....many above that magical 250K line have said they're ok with even more taxes, including for healthcare. I think if we had a very limited government, a universal health insurance would be far less egregious. More of a "rightful role" thing. I can't vouch for all, or any I guess, but if they had a lower overall tax burden...surely many "wealthy" would be OK with supporting a universal care plan...since it is such a huge issue. It does feel wrong a family can go bankrupt over something purely out of the hands and necessary.

As I've said before, I have absolutely no problem with more taxes on people who want to pay more taxes. In fact, I think that's great. The thing is though, when they're paying because they want to rather than because they have to, it's not taxation, is it? It's charity.

It's funny to me that the same people who say "the rich don't mind paying higher taxes. They like it!" also scoff in derision whenever voluntary charity is mentioned as an alternative to taxation.

I mean, obviously people are not monolithic blocks but I remember in 08 (even if it was thin) a majority over 250k supported Obama, they said they were OK with helping pay the bulk of healthcare, and an article I saw said a large % thought that taxes would be unfairly high, but still would accept it as part of the "fiscal cliff" deal.
So yeah, I get a little peeved at the left who demonize the "rich" especially at lower levels. They seem very willing to pay their fair share.

There are greedy manipulators and people who make fortunes unfairly, but many of the 1% are doctors, lawyers and high level managers...not exactly the scum of the Earth!

Thing is, can you realistically "gift" healthcare? Again, maybe progressive taxes suck, but I'm accepting in a case like this. Just discussing, despite your fairly far out views you seem quite logical still llama and at least understand the other side. I'd say we need you to run for office but you are smart and nice so obviously you're not cut out


Edited by JJLehto - January 21 2013 at 21:46

dtguitarfan wrote: The T wrote: TheDoc: these groups are usually labeled as the "right": neo cons, neo nazis, fascists, conservatives, libertarians, anarchocapitalists, religious groups, etc etc. I would like Geoff to explain me what is common among all these groups tha make them uniquevocally "the right". That would take a while to explain.  However, this sums it up quite nicely, and I find it resonates with where I used to be as well as where I am now: "Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear." - William E. Gladstone

I don't trust the people or the government.  I wholeheartedly approve of prudence and I don't fear anything except for spiders.  What does that make me?