/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3039087
YEAH REPUBLICANS. WE NEED TO PRIVATIZE MORE STUFF.

Hey OP i know a lot of people that go from medical research to weapons manufacturing and get X folds increase in income.

maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities in life.

>>3039087
>>MFW scifags think resources are infinite
>>death is part of life, earth is overpopulated, the last thing we need is more high consuming ameritards living longer.

Murica?

I live in Norway. Hospitals are not private here. We never die.

>>3039143
>>3039144
correction, the last thing the world needs is more spoiled WESTERNERS living longer

If you want to invest in human life, send albendazole and praziquantel to african children so they don't get elephantiasis or prolapsed rectums.

>>3039143
>>>MFW scifags think resources are infinite

The trouble with this statement is that improved healthcare seldom requires more "resources". At the most it requires more money.

>>3039087
How about you lower the price of the equipment then you greedy Jew?

>>3039143
wow is that a real horse abortion? fascinating

>>3039154
>mfw westerners now as many when compared to easterner population
Retard.

Name of center?

What tech does it have?

>>3039445
Why can't OP's boss sell his product to the hospitals instead of the competition? Why doesn't he lower his price to below what they're charging?

Because his takes more resources to produce.

Money can generally be viewed as resources, although government interference can change this a bit.

Corporations usually have customers who pay.

NHS: Utilitarianism spending.

Greatest good for the greatest number of people. We can fork out 2million for one of your treatments and save one person 100% of the time, or we can spend 1million and save 10 people 80% of the time.

>what are we going to pick?

>>3041415
> philosophical garbage

People should get the care that they pay for. Can't pay for it? Tough.

>>3041433

That usually the entire premise behind "teaching" hosptials, though.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the government should provide health care.

>>3041433

>Ad hominem.

>Likely had to google utilitarianism.

>Does not appreciate that people are not born with equal opportunity.

>Does not understand the point of a safety net.

Stay classy.

>> the government should provide health care.

He forgets the government is funded by We The People. And going to the hospital and paying nothing does not mean it was free - someone paid the salaries, mortgage, electricity, etc. And who decides whether to spend $1 million on the 97-year-old smoker to replace her heart and lungs?

>>3039213
what's the point of that? they'll have even more babies if they survive.

>>3041395

>>3041514
Insurance companies are also funded by we the people, only they tend to try to get profit from you as opposed to trying to break even.

The government already protects us from fires, criminals, and foreign threats. Why not disease?

>>3041534
> The government already protects us from fires, criminals, and foreign threats. Why not disease?

> implying it should have a monopoly on any of those things
> implying YOUR diseases are MY responsibility

>>3039087
>investment on human life
OP, there's a reason health insurance is nigh unaffordable for something like 30% of the American populace, and it's because of this expensive tech that adds about .01 years on to the average life expectancy.

>Like I understand the importance of money, but this is an investment on human life.
>I understand the importance of money
>this is an investment of human life

so then why doesn't your boss just give it to them for free?

>>3041548

Can you honestly not see the opportunity for abuse with any of those things?

There is a reason the government exists to do such things.

No, it's not greed. They are not profitable (in the way that the government does them, at least, and nor should they be).

>>3041548
But you're giving back to society! You live within society you have to accept the overhead costs!

Yes, I'm implying the government should have a monopoly on police, army, etc, because those are things the market cannot handle as effectively as a government.
Or are you one of those anarcho-capitalists who think that the government shouldn't even exist?

>>3041548

I think I'm starting to figure out why America is unpopular.

So many are taught to be such fucking selfish dicks.

>>3041568
> Can you honestly not see the opportunity for abuse with any of those things?
> There is a reason the government exists to do such things.

Oh look, another statist with delusions that the government is here to make everything better.

If anything is going to abuse power, it's the thugs who already rob us at gunpoint every year. At least with the free market I can choose whether or not I want to pay, and who I pay if anyone.

>>3041575
> Yes, I'm implying the government should have a monopoly on police, army, etc, because those are things the market cannot handle as effectively as a government.

> effectively as the government
> government
> effectively

Nope.jpg

>>3041587

So because I have SOME sort of support for the government running certain vital societal functions I'm automatically a statist?

Enjoy being blackmailed by underground crime who will inevitably worm their way into those sorts of businesses. Think you can stop them? Oh wait, they own the police too. And the courts. And the judicial system.

Good luck.

At least with the current system there is, more often than not, fairness in the system. It's nowhere near perfect but it's a damn sight better than what you're proposing.

>>3041580
And I'm starting to figure why Europeans are a bunch of backwards retards.

They insist on forcing everyone to subscribe to their brand of moralfaggotry.

>>3041597
Sad as it may seem, the private corporations do a worse job of it. See: health insurance in America today.

The simple solution is that health care is unprofitable, just like maintaining an army to defend a country's borders is unprofitable, just like stopping fires for free is unprofitable, and just like public libraries are unprofitable. It is not the government's fault.

>>3041611

Sorry, I didn't realise that having respect for human life moralfaggotry.

>>3041609
> So because I have SOME sort of support for the government running certain vital societal functions I'm automatically a statist?

Support state = statist.
This isn't that hard, even you should be able to wrap your head around that.

>>3041611
Ah America
where the rich get to fuck the poor in the ear without caring about "morality"

>>3041620
You draw a black and white image of statist and anarchists. Do you even agree with that yourself?

>>3041620

Idon'tthinkthattmeanswhatyouthinkitmeans

So you're an tribal-anarcho-capitalist?

>>3041624
Ah Europe
Where everyone has to kowtow to the moralfags and their particular brand of arbitrary rules OR ELSE.

>>3041620

Actually, that is the definition of a statist.

>>3041611

>Respect for human life.

>Backwards.

Nigga what are you smoking?

Maybe your boss should give them away for free.

This is a rough graph I made few days ago outlining some problems with healthcare. I could empand on it a lot, and I think I will soon.

>>3041634
Or else you can leave the country and go to some forests in Africa and start your society anew.

>>3041641
resident /sci/ economist, I've seen you around for the past week or so and I like you more every time.

>>3041634

Are you slightly aspie?

>>3041641

> some problems with healthcare
> no mention of government regulation

NOPE

HEY OP WHY DONT YOUR COMPANY GIVE IT TO HOSPITALS FOR FREE? LIKE I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF MONEY BUT ITS AN INVESTMENT ON HUMAN LIFE

YOUR COMPANY IS A CORPORATION

>>3041641
Does this indicate insurance is inherently flawed and just a middle-man making a money off a problem that doesn't need to be there?

I'd be interested to here an economists perspective of this.

>>3041635

A statist is someone who supports the majority of economic actions being controlled by the state.

Calling me a statist because I support basic things being state controlled is like calling Kim Jong Il a capitalist because he allows certain free-trade to go on.

>>3041655
I think it's meant to be a simplified model of a pure free-market. Things get more complicated when you add additional systems.

>>3041661

Insurance is flawed in that it would be a much smaller business if there was no state.

>>3039453
OP here, the product is marked at a price that will keep us in business so we could continue to produce them. If we lower prices total cost will exceed total revenue and make us broke.

>>3041655

Healthcare needs government regulation. Those problems arise in a free market.

>Does this indicate insurance is inherently flawed and just a middle-man making a money off a problem that doesn't need to be there?

No it doesnt. Is insurance just a middle man that takes money? I didnt think it was...

>>3041651

Thank you, Im so flattered...

>>3041661
I'm not an economist, but my view on it is that it is simply impossible to provide a good health insurance plan AND make money.

>>3041655

I don't think you really understand how societies work, do you.

As far as I can tell your entire concept is "FREE MARKET GOOD GUVMENT BAD".

Why must you be so black and white?

>>3041675
I can appreciate this OP. Pharmaceutical industries may come across as brutal, but they continually walk a fine line of bankruptcy.

Utter bullshit.

>>3041676

> implying those problems do not happen within the state
> implying they dont happen more within the state

I prefer a Liberty market. It is a free market with no coercion, force, or fraud.

>>3041679

I do not support the free market.

>>3041682
That's because you can't make money off of health care.
Which is why government should do it.

>>3041687

Do you really think that's possible without government regulation?

You're like the communists from the early 20th century. You have far too much faith in the goodwill of humanity.

>>3041676
They're not providing a service to anyone though, are they? Yet they make money. I fail to see how this isn't flawed.

Like this anon says (>>3041677), how can they be doing anything to better civilisation.

>>3041699

> is uoptia possible

Of course not, it is a utopia.

>>3041687
>>3041692

Nigga what are you smoking? Blatant contradiction in these two posts.

>>3041706

> implying offering healthcare for less than full retail is not a service

You commies are silly.

>>3041687

> implying those problems do not happen within the state

"within" the state? Well they happen within the country. The state has the power to do something about it. They are happening right now because the government hasnt solved the problem. The government can solve the problem.

>I prefer a Liberty market. It is a free market with no coercion, force, or fraud.

Well how do you plan on having a totally free market that has no coercion or fraud?

Free markets simply cant exist. They dont exist not because the government doesnt let them, but constraints on reality. Like barriers to entry. Costs, monetary or not, associated with everything, asymmetry of information... etc etc

>mfw when dude criticizing corporations work for one 0/10

if troll 7/10
or better, 9/11

>>3041717

> say i support a Liberty market
> point out how it is not a free market as it goes further than a free market
> you say they are the same

sigh

>>3041708

I'm sorry. I was under the impression we were talking about realistic solutions to real world problems.

>>3041729
/sci/ cannot into reality. Not implying that is a bad thing, however.

>>3041706
Middlemen are not always useless. In theory, when you get health insurance, you are paying for your medical care in advance in case something bad happens to you later. It's like any other kind of insurance: put money in, and then get it back out in case something happens. Additionally, the health insurance companies can also be powerful bargaining agents with hospitals in matters of price and such, as they could represent tons of people. They're not useless.

>>3041722

Fraud, coercion, force, murder, rape, all happen within the state. This is because a state cannot eliminate them.

By having a Liberty market.

Glad you are telling me. In other news, the state which you support cannot eliminate them either.

>>3041737
I'd rather see the job of lobbying providers done by the government who doesn't have the same profit driven agenda.

>>3041729

> implying what you want is realistic
> implying what you want can happen
> implying what you want will have the desired outcome you claim it will
> implying your utopia will work but mine will not

>>3041727

Further than a free market? What does that even mean?

You basically said it was a free market without people taking advantage of each other... which is just a free market in a perfect world.

They are the same thing. Your "new" idea just puts a constraint on that is not relevant economically, and so therefore not relevant in terms of the ideologies of economic ideas.

>>3041754

I literally told you what a Liberty market was. Literally.

A free market is never what you just claimed. Total freedom can include rape, murder, and torture. So no, your claim is not true.

Fraud, coercion, and force are always economically relevant.

>>3041747

You are criticising the state for having problems within it and then propose an idea that has BLATANT problems, and your defence is that you're talking about in a utopia?

Are you fucking retarded?

In a utopia there wouldn't be any of those problems in the state, either. They aren't inherent to the state, they are just possible within it.

If you think that coercion, fraud and deception cannot happen in your "liberty market" then you're fucking deluded.

>>3041706

>They're not providing a service to anyone though, are they?

The service is the insurance. Its the promise that they will pay for your medical costs.


He is right. It is difficult to make a profitable health insurance company. In fact, it wasnt until insurers learned a few tricks that they could be profitable at all until like, the 40s and 50s.

>>3041763

You knew what I meant. The constraint is applied politically, not economically. There is no economic policy that can stop those in and of itself.

Care to explain how you want to prevent them without a government?

>>3041751

They don't have a profit agenda because they don't need to make a profit to survive. They simply steal from the citizens in order to support their programs. This is opposed to a business that is in business ONLY because their product or service is wanted. But yeah that evil profit is evil and stuff, and gubbmint should run everything and stuff.

>>3041747

>Fraud, coercion, force, murder, rape, all happen within the state.

Well they can happen outside the state too, dont you think? How do you define state? If its just "Big bogey man organization thats all tough'n'stuff" a group like that will always exist.

I think, like everything, the government has the capacity to accomplish some good. Just like a hammer has the capacity to nail nails, it also has a great window breaking capacity.

>>3041778

>Thinks in black and white terms.

>Cannot grasp blatant flaws in anarchic free markets.

Enjoy your monopolies. Enjoy trying to stop corruption without your government.

>>3041769

What problems exist in utopia?

These problems are the definition of a state. Hence.

> admit that a utipia is perfect
> then claim mine would be not a utopia

Huh?

>>3041769
Yes, these represent two competitive models in dealing with exterior information. One response to a realization that the government is flawed and that the market is not working correctly is to attempt to fix the institutions involved. Sadly, this requires cognitive effort and sophistication and doesn't provide the satisfaction of being a gadfly.

The more common alternative is to declare one institution to be manifestly evil and the root of every evil and thus to devise a thought experiment whereby the offending one magically evaporates. This works well in winning arguments, because it offers the possibility of ideological clarity without the risk of heading into difficult waters. It also sounds better on paper.

>>3041776

Government does not prevent them. So we can put that faggity baby to bed right now.

>>3041790

A state is any person or group of people that regulate and punish. Rape is a punishment for breaking a regulation, for example.

>>3041774
In a none-monetary based paradigm the service they provide would be obsolete. This is the point I was getting at. I do, however, realise that is unrealistic of me to expect.

>>3041778
Again, perhaps my idealism is seeping through again. My assumptions are based on the government actually serving the people who support it.

>well, I'll always have my fantasies.

>>3041795

What?

How are corruption, deception et al. inherent within a state? In a perfectly run state you would not have these problems (obviously). They are not actively caused by the state except for when humanity gives in to its flaws.

Yes, your idea would be fine in a utopia. So would mine. Unfortunately we do not live in a utopia, but instead in the real world. My idea is far better suited to cope there.

>>3041795

> monopolies bad
> they evil and stuff, enjoy them
> supports the monopoly of government
> supports all government monopolies

sigh

>>3041817
PRIVATE monopolies are bad. Public monopolies where you elect who's in charge, and there is no need to worry about making a profit, are not quite as bad.

>>3041807

They would be worse without a government. Look at Somalia, for example.

You have still failed to come up with a better solution.

>>3041799

Thanks for your input. I hope Liberty can take it in.

>>3041810

Power corrupts.

They are the state. That is the disconnect here. What you are trying to explain is a 100 percent consensual government. Which is a utopia and not possible.

>>3041817

That's because governments are not after profit (for the most part). It is certainly not their only motive.

>>3041830

You seem to have this idea in your head that if something is not perfect it must be completely scrapped, as opposed to attempting to solve it.

I am happy to admit that governments are nowhere near perfect, but you've still failed to come up with any solution at all yourself.

I am merely saying that governments are necessary to a certain degree.

>>3041825

> implying democracy is great because more people want the regulation than do not.

I do not support majority force rule.

>>3041828

> somalia has no state

I see this very common misconception often. Just because they have no centralized state, does not mean they have no state. There is simply thousands of states imposing regulations and punishments on the people there.

>>3041807

>A state is any person or group of people that regulate and punish

I would disagree about the punishment part. Punishment implies some intentions of the state, that I dont think it has.

>Rape is a punishment for breaking a regulation, for example.

Rape is not punishment. Punishment is done for the sake of the punished, and in hopes of creating a better future circumstance. People dont rape for the sake of others.

>>3041830

Perfection is possible sometimes. It being the utopian solution does not render it automatically impossible.

You need to take a course in basic logic.

>>3041841

What? Every state punishes. Period. It is what they do.

Ah, but you see, the future for them is much brighter for the raped if they consent to the sex since they know rape will come if they don't.

>>3041808

How are you going to get rid of money, and why does the service become obsolete without money?

People buy insurance because they dont want to be stuck in a circumstance where they need a lot of money, and they dont have that money. They also want insurance because if something happens to them that was out of their control, they dont want to suffer for it. Insurance exists to alleviate these problems. If you were a farmer with a bad season, and you went out of business, the insurance alleviates that risk. And as a consequence, we all get cheaper food.

>>3041844

A utopia is by definition not possible.

> implying you took a logic class

AnCaps be crazy. Dem so crazy.

>>3041840

So you have a better solution than democracy? Let's hear it.

If you think that the "governments" in Somalia have any sort of actual control then you know nothing about the situation in that country. It is effectively an anarchy, and currently one of the worst places to live in the world.

>>3041856
what a horrible explanation.

Insurance exists to spread social risk for random occurances.

It could easily be taken over by the government, at additional cost.

>>3041862

Consent.

You seem to think a state is a place where nothing bad can happen. That is hilarious.

Enjoy Capitalism.

>>3041857

>Implying I did not.

You know nothing about me.

>Definition of utopia: A world in which everything and everyone works in perfect harmony.

There is nothing there about it being impossible by definition. Therefore it is fair to say that a utopian government could be 100% consensual (whatever that is supposed to mean).

>>3041861

Oh goody. You realize that these guys are anarcho-capitalists. I cringed when I saw someone earlier call these guys anarcho-communists.

>>3041857
can i get some of what this fag is smoking?
his logic makes me giggle. :3

>>3041862

Consent.

Huh? Rape happens there, rape happens here. Murder happens there, murder happens here. Etc happens there, etc happens here. This is because these things happen within a state, and are the definition of a state, partly.

>>3041869

*sigh*

Once again you demonstrate that you can only think in black and white.

I said that in a state FEWER bad things happen.

>>3041856
In a non-monetary paradigm going bankrupt wouldn't be an issue so the farmer having a bad season would be irrelevant.

I'd consider myself an advocate for a resource based economy. I also see myself at near the edge of my knowledge on this subject, I'm not going to continue and try and outsmart an economist at economy.

Though I would be interested to hear your views on an economic system like this.

>>3041862

Benevolent dictatorship, with advisers chosen by meritocracy, reduced bureaucracy, and a focus on science, education, and social services.

Mars in 5 years. An End to Aging in twenty.

On a related note, I'd love to watch the look on the faces of people who advocate for "Healthcare for those who can pay ONLY!" when they contract some fatal illness that has a treatment whose cost is above their pay grade.

>>3041875

You do not know what 100 percent consent means? Are you serious?

>>3041883

I never saw anyone do that.

I called someone a tribal-anarcho-capitalist much earlier on.

>>3041889

Would you support no state if fewer bad things happened?

>>3041888

Black.
and.
White.

Learn what these mean.

Read >>3041889

>>3041897
This anon has my kinda thinking!

>>3041908

I have seen no evidence that a state means less bad thing happen than no state. Do you have it?

>>3041898

I know exactly what it means. However, 100% consent of what? Every person? The majority? A certain selection of people?

Some of these are possible, some are not. Clarify.

>>3041888

What on god's green earth are you on?

>>3041897

I am a person that advocates people paying for services and products they want and not getting them if they cannot pay. Actually, that seems ideal. You want a service or a product, you have to pay the cost incurred by those that provide them.

>>3041911

Well, I try.

If I have my way, I'll be able to implement it. Politics is for me, a means. The goal is a better humanity.

>>3041904

Obviously. Unfortunately it's not realistic to expect that.

>>3041916

Like I said, Somalia. There is no government that is able to enforce laws properly. There it is an anarchy. It is also a horrendous place to live where a LOT of bad things go on - more than anywhere else, in fact.

>>3041867

Im sorry.

>>3041883

Pff, thats funny. Folks need to learn about what anarchy is.

>>3041891

What is bankruptcy? Its failing to pay your debts. And debts can exist without money. The farmer requires water, labor hours, tools, and those things come at a cost. If you are just trading, the farmer is getting water and labor, and he is failing to provide the food he agreed to offer.

Uh, I hear these resource people talk on /sci/. It doesnt make me upset, but I think its not just a little unrealistic. It doesnt make any sense to me. I dont want to be condecending, because, I really do respect my peers on /sci/ who do like resource economy stuff, but I think its really cute and makes me laugh a lot.

>>3041918

100 percent consent. That is 100 percent of those that can consent.

>>3041931

So it's fair to make someone who had everything stolen from them to pay the cops to get it back?

OH WAIT I FORGOT! In your perfect world crime doesn't happen because of there's no government. Wait, what?

Fucking moron.

>>3041935

Every single state has the same problems Somalia has.

Yet you want to differentiate but will not explain how they are different. Keep in mind state/no state cannot be used.

>>3041939

That is not logically possible. Therefore it is not a utopian solution.

>>3041937
>cute and makes me laugh a lot
I'd struggle to be more condescending. But thank you for your answer. I'd like to think that if you do respect your peers on /sci/ you'd be willing to look into an RBE as an alternative to our current system. You'd likely be able to come to a far more educated conclusion than the rest of us.

>>3041950

I don't think you're getting this.

They have the same problems, but they have them to a lesser extent.

I am not saying a state is all good - look at North Korea to see how it can go too far - but you need to stop thinking that Somalia and Germany, for example, are as bad as each other because they both have the same problems, even though Germany has them to a far lesser extent.

>>3041944

I don't give one fuck about fair. Fair is subjective and thereby impossible to base any logical argument on it.

Theft happens now where the person does not recover their property. This is with a gubbmint. Holy shit, that means a gubbmint does not stop those things.

>>3041931

So, everything can be broken down to the personal level, and your worth to humanity is based only on your direct command of resources?

So people like, let's say, Steven Hawking, or an intellectual equivalent, if they could not directly afford life saving medical care, should be allowed to die no matter the effective cost to the rest of society from their loss?

If you actually believe this, that the only real determiner of worth is the value of the resources you personally control, then you are officially excused from rational debate, and you can leave now.

>>3041954

> finds one person to consent on a proposal that only pertains to me and that person
> we both agree
> 100 percent consent

Woot!

>>3041970

I like that you think 50,000 murders is "better" than 50,001 murders. This has nothing to do with anything though.

Germany is a shithole in terms of problems. You cannot speak freely there.

>>3041971

I give up.

You both completely devalue human life and ignore the fact that things are on a sliding scale as opposed to being entirely one way or the other. Until you rectify these two things (the second is not a subjective complaint, either) then I refuse to discuss this with you further.

>>3041989
He has a black and white stance on something utterly unreasonable. You made the right decision giving up.

pic related, it's Liberty

>>3041977

can be =/= has to be

I also support charity.

If society truly wants them alive, they will consensually pay the money to keep them alive. Simple concept.

Like most discussions, those that support theft from others rarely label another person correctly. You have fallen to this curse also.

>>3041986

How is it not better?

It's fair to say that there should be no murders, but you can't honestly say that fewer murders is just as bad, especially when the figures are 0.86 per 100,000 for Germany and 3.2 per 100,000 for Somalia.

>>3041966

You think I am being too condescending?

Im mostly refering to when I hear people say stuff like "Robot'll do it" Like all our economic problems will go away when we invent enough robots.

I do make specific criticisms of the RBE. I guess Im not 100% what it means. Ive heard of the venus project. I just associate RBE with all those fancy ideas about elimanating scarcity and giving everyone everything they could ever want. Its not that the goal is bad. Its just an idea like that... isnt really an idea. If you want a reality where people dont need to work, or buy anything, you need to start looking into how such a reality will work. And in my opinion, its astronomically costly to develop such a reality, if not impossible. When I say costly, I dont mean, in terms of money, I mean in terms of effort, and design, and actual resources.

Thats why I laugh. Because its like, walking into NASA saying "Why dont we just make a spaceship that can accelerate to the speed of light."

>>3042002

You are already sneaking the very idea of government into your thinking. It is a forced charity, so to speak.

>>3042010

Because those people engaged in actions. Some of their actions may have been to take Liberty from another. I would argue a person that is killed for taking the Liberty of another is a "good" thing.

I used to work as a programmer for a company which manufactured EKG's.

They sold the machines at a loss to small private-practices without the software.

After delivering the machines and the purchaser discovers they are useless, the company sold them the software for an exorbitant price.

>>3042021

So you mean like capital punishment? You know, that thing that some governments do.

>>3042016

If society wants to keep them they will CONSENSUALLY give money to keep the people alive. This has not one fuckall thing to do with forced anything.

>>3042002

You are assuming society as a whole consciously knows what is in society's best interest. And regularly acts on it.

I don't know where you're getting your givens for that one, but I haven't seen much evidence of it so far. Also, I'd argue that exploiting people/ ignorance/ rules to gain an exponentially larger proportion of the resources of a society than most members, and then doing nothing with it that benefits that society in proportion to the amount of resources you have obtained doesn't qualify you to bitch when a balancing act is instituted.

>>3042024

Self-defense of one's person or property is never capital punishment. As self-defense is never a state action.

>>3042021
>>3042021
so you think Osama directing the attacks on the WTC towers was a "good" thing because America keeps raping the ME of its resources? Ok.

>>3042031

You are assuming all of society is actually benefited by his life not ending early.

Saving has nothing to do with coercion, force, or fraud. Having more than another is not coercion, force, or fraud. Not using what you obtained through your labor for the whole of society is not coercion, force, or fraud.

>>3042037

America is a location, it cannot rape you of anything.

Any bets that Liberty's never studied economics or politics in his life?

I can't believe people are actually asking that the government provide health care. Have you ever BEEN to the DMV? I got sick once when I was out of town, my insurance wouldn't pay for anything out of state so I had to go to a free clinic. I sat and waited for 6 hours before I could see a doctor who wrote out a prescription for antibiotics (for the flu, which is a virus not a fucking bacterial infection) and sent me home. I refused to fill out the prescription for obvious reasons, it would only weaken the effectiveness of the antibiotic over time and have little effect on the flu.

That's the health care you will expect if the government takes over health care you stupid morons.

>>3042058

I bet all the money you make for the rest of your life.... plus interest

>>3042053

Having it is not, but obtaining it can be done (and will be done if you have your way) by those means.

>>3042015
No, don't worry. Admittedly when I first saw your trip (maybe a week or so ago) my heart sank, thinking great, another economist. But from what I've seen of you you are pretty chill and your posts have substance to them. I don't consider you condescending and appreciate the criticisms of a resource based system. It is far fetched, but I have similar criticisms of the system we live in currently (namely: rich, poor divide and !infinite growth).

>>3042068

I thought you weren't into coercion of fraud.

>>3042055
>>3042055
the United States Government, acting by the power vested in it by its people.

>>3042074

Property obtained through coercion, force, or fraud is not owned by the person that coerced, forced, or committed fraud.

>>3042062

>Anecdotal evidence

Try again.

haha, this Liberty guy is a complete retard, did you even finish high school?

>>3042062

Hi, I'm H+, I'm from one of all the other countries in the First World, you know, the ones who already have government run healthcare?

We are all ahead of you in obesity rates, life expectancy, cost of treatment, percentage of treatment, and access to treatment.

Obviously this public healthcare dealie is non-functional.

>>3042082

Explain how what I said is force, coercion, or fraud.

>>3042088

I agree that majority force rule is anti-Liberty.

>>3042089
so really what you're saying is nobody owns anything

Welcome to communism.

>>3042089

But they have control over it. Care to explain how you would stop them having this control?

You need to start thinking about the implications of what you say before you say them.

>>3042098

You must have hilarious wait times.

>>3042062
oh no, it's mr. anti government and his 'ooooooooo government is full of evil people that'll never do anything right'

Seriously, if you want to scare people about government, you'll need a better inroad than the DMV

>>3042102
You still haven't answered whether you think Osama acting in defense of property owned by the peoples of the Middle East and stolen by feoreign factions and governments was justified in his actions?

>>3042077

Yeah, we definitely have economic problems.

>>3042110
Confirmed for never having left the states.

>>3042096

I think I see what his problem is.

He criticises government on principle and then lets slip that he does support things such as charity for the good of the people or whatever WITHOUT REALISING that that is the POINT of the government. It provides a service at a FAR reduced cost for the good of society.

>mfw hospitals have turned into corporations.

>>3042103

No, not all owned property that exists today was gotten through force, fraud, or coercion.

>>3042105

Possession has nothing to do with ownership. How do you stop theft? How about a shotgun blast to the face?

Lol its a two way street. The corporations who develop all the medical shit over charge...

>>3042102

It was a joke you fucking aspie.

>>3042127
it can be argued that since most, if not all, property owned today was obtained initially through some sort of fraud or coercion and then passed down from generation to generation. You lose.

>>3042132
you mean the people who develop all the medical shit get shit piss wages while the "corporations" sell their ideas by contract? Yeah.

>>3042114

He wasn't acting for that reason though. Of course that is only going on his own words.

>>3042122

Confirmed for having very long waist times in your third would country.

>>3042123

> supports gubbmint because he supports consensual giving of money to others

lolwut

>>3042144
Don't forget that the contract was probably obtained through some sort of coercion or fraud.

>>3042089

...What?

But that is the EXACT argument I was making before, which you threw the exact same anecdote back at, which made just as little sense the....

>>Looks back at all this guys posts

>>Coercion, force, fraud, repeated ad infinitum.

Right then. Until you define these and put them in context, I think we can safely call this debate. You clearly have no idea what you are saying.

Anyone who gains something through a loophole that they know about and no one else does coerces.

Anyone who uses existing systems or means to make money off of people by overcharging for things they need uses force.

Anyone misrepresenting claims is committing fraud.

I'm fairly certain you could find examples of the above in the histories of pretty much every billionaire ever. And by your logic it only takes one to invalidate the whole thing.

I'm not even sure which side you're arguing anymore.

>>3042139

Originally obtained through coercion, force, or fraud =/= the people that own them today committed coercion, force or fraud to obtain then.

>>3042146

You realise that's why I support welfare, right?

Because I have a sense of integrity.

Because I care about people other than myself.

Because I like to know that if I get into trouble I won't be bankrupted.

You know, a little thing called piece of mind?

>>3042150
He's an anacho capitalist. He doesn't have a side to defend.

>>3042156

all of your reasons are retarded

DUCY

>>3042155

They don't legally own them.

They obtained them from someone who did not own them, and so they should still be returned to their original owners.

Also, you keep ignoring posts that prove you wrong. Hilarious much, people?

>>3042146
Actually, he's declared again and again and again that he has always acted against western factions because of their imperialist foreign policies. He even barked at the United States for ignoring the Kyoto Protocol because pollution emissions are a violent act against the very economic and ecological systems all men depend upon and reply to feed their families. My lungs have been coerced by your gaseous emissions, my dear friend, so should I kill you for driving in the city?

>>3042155

This doesn't work either, because then a person can do whatever the fuck he wants to gain said money, gift it to a friend who is clean of his 'original sin' and get the friend to gift some of it back. Then he didn't get the money from coercion, fraud, or force, he got it from a friend. Said friend is perfectly morally clean in your world too, even if he goes in with full knowledge.

Time to game the system: 15 seconds. And I'm not even the best grifter.

>>3042150

I am using the generally accepted definitions of these things. That may be bad for you as I do not mean the Marx/socialist/communist definition of these things.

> overcharging

Haha, value is subjective. This cannot be denied.

>>3042156

If you really cared you would give consensually. Forced giving is not giving at all.

>>3042162

How come? All you people ever come out with is ad hom shit or plain insults.

>>3042155
So if I steal billions from someone and give it to my son before I'm caught, the government has no right to take it from my son because it belongs to him now? You're silly.

>>3042146

You're the ones with very long waists, my friend.

>>3042177
>>3042172

Hivemind.

>>3042173

What people want is not always what is best for them.

>>3042158

I am not.

>>3042163

I do not care abotu legality.

There are 100 posts directed to me, which one did I skip?

>>3042167

> implying he never mentioned god
> implying he does not rely heavily on god

>>3042172

Not coercion, force, or fraud. If so they would not own it. You cannot gift that which you do not own.

>>3041687
>free market with no coercion, force, or fraud

lolwut
>implying coercion, force, and fraud occur solely because of government regulation
>implying man is not born into a brutal state of nature in which we all commit crimes to succeed

>>3042173

Once again you're not seeing there is such a thing as a middle ground.

Just because he is not an anarcho-capitalist does not make him a socialist.

>>3042173
>>implying voluntary charity is the best way to correct the natural imbalances of liberty that exist in nature

captcha: check

>>3041869
>consent
And you seem to think that you do not consent to laws by remaining in the state that enforces them.

>>3042192

So you actually think >>3042177 and >>3042172 are ok?

>>3042177

You cannot give that which you do not own.

>>3042185

.765/10

>>3042189

I do not own everyone, so I cannot force them what to do and what to not do.

inb4 self-defense reference

>>3042192
so all inheritance are null and void. Good to know.

>>3041888
>because these things happen within a state, they are the definition of a state
Yeah, and I took a shit in your mom's mouth. It doesn't make "receptacle of shit" the definition of your mom's mouth.

>>3042216

They are rendered physically incapable of giving?

>Idontthinksotim

You make these rules of what is or is not "allowed". Allowed by whom? Who is to prevent these things from taking place?

What is your alternative to the government?

>>3042194

I do not commit crimes. Your claim: destroyed

>>3042199

My claim that he is a socialist is not based on him calling me that. It is based upon his wants that are the wants of all socialists by definition.

>>3042211

> implying being born is consent to anything

>>3042192

That depends on your definition of own.

You do realize that you need to provide reasons and examples as to how things would work in your system rather than just spouting the same talking points over and over again and acting obtuse.

>>3042241
>>I do not commit crimes
lolwut?
everyone commits a crime. Even Jesus broke a few laws.

>>3042224

All? No.

>>3042228

You didn't though. Your claim: destroyed

>>3042234

Giving outside of that is of course possible.

What rules and what allowed?

Consent

>>3042248

Don't even bother. I've been asking for his alternative for the entire thread and he's yet to produce anything.

>>3042248

> utopia
> prove it

sigh

>>3042254

No.

>>3042241

Being born doesn't consent to anything, you are right.

That argument falls apart when you gain an adult age and have the ability to leave a place you choose not to leave. This is also coincidentally when you can be held personally responsible for your actions under the law of said country, because it operates on implied consent.

Also, I would guess that as you do not have a perfect knowledge of every by-law and rule of your specific area, you have at one point or another, committed a crime.

(In before, that doesn't count)

>>3042258

Aspie detected.

Of course he didn't ACTUALLY take a shit in your mother's mouth you fucking retard. He was making a point with it that you have NOT invalidated.

>>3042258
name one person who ever inherited his money from someone who inherited his money from someones who inherited his money from someone who inherited his money who didn't get his money by coercion, fraud, or force. One person. Do it.

And before you say some new self-made millionaire, remember that the people who invested in his project in the first place were old money thus they never owned capital to invest in the first place, so new money is ruled out.

>>3042270

See >>3041729

In a utopia a government would obviously be unnecessary. Unfortunately we live in the real world.

>>3042272

I do not consent to anything by being born. I also do not consent to anything by not leaving a place I never chose to reside in.

you do not know all laws =/= you committed a crime

>>3042258

I consent to shooting you in the face. I do not consent to you retaliating in any way, shape or, form.

In this system let us assume I have more power than you.

You have no recourse.

How is this good?

>>3042288
Ok, so if you ignorantly steal property you didn't steal property, is that right?

>>3042287
>>I do not consent to anything before I am born
You don't know that.

>>3042270

Did I mention the word Utopia? Once? Ever?

I want descriptions of a FUCNTIONAL system using your ethos. Functional does not equal perfect. In order to support your argument however, it should be better than the current one.

If you cannot think of one, then you must believe we cannot get better than current, in which case you have been wasting a lot of time.

>>3042278

Me.

>>3042288

lol, I already said you would bring up self-defense

You do not need to consent to me protecting myself from your initial act of aggression.

oooh an Anarchist thread!

Dear Anarchist:
This is Anarchy.
Sincerely,
Anon

>>3042299

Why? All you've said is Consent. You've established no other moral framework.

>>3042299
really? Becuase I'm pretty sure I ruled you out already. How did you make your fortune?

>>3042296

Stop making anti-abortion arguments.

>>3042297

I support a utopia.
A utopia cannot exist.
I do not need to prove it can exist.

Of course "we" can get "better" ones than the current on. But i do not care about more better, I care about perfect.

I like the idea of government hospitals running alongside private hospitals. Problem is, up here in Canada, the Liberals declare that it's not fair that the wealthy get quicker, potentially better medical care and, therefore, we must all wait longer, lose money, and pour more tax money into an already overburdened system.

Governments, man...

>>3042314
it wasn't an anti-abortion argument. It's a simple statement relaying the fact that you do no know what you did or did not consent to before you were born just as you do not know what state you existed in, if any.

>>3042305

I guess if consent had no correlation to anything at all you would be kind of, sort of right, in a half sort of way.

morals = me no care or base anything on

>>3042313

Labor.

>>3042321

> consent
> consent without knowing

You seem to not know the definition of consent.

>>3042326
consent does not require that you remember at some point having given it.

>>3042322
and who paid you? How did they get their money?

>>3042339

And so on, and so on, ad infinitum. We don't have to play degrees of separation to find out how this would work.

>>3042314

Oh. I see. You are performing a thought experiment with no practical application.

Right. Argument over guys, we've hit unfalsifiable personal belief. If I wanted to argue the existence of God, I'd go to a chapel.

>>3042339
We can trace this back however far we want to. Somewhere someone acquired that money by force or coercion or fraud and thus it was never theirs to give in the first place still meaning all the money you own does not belong to you. It likely belongs to someone who died.

you all need to understand that if there were govn't funded healthcare there would still be private healthcare, you would just have the option of free, or ultramodern equipment that can keep your head alive without thos pesky organs.

>>3042335

You have to know originally, at least. Never knowing is never consent.

>>3042339

Applied labor to unowned property to transform it into something else.

>>3042350

I give not one fuck about God/gods/etc.

Your definition of practical is, well, not practical.

>>3042366

...

met·a·phor   
[met-uh-fawr, -fer]
–noun
1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our god.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile ( def. 1 ) .

>>3042374

I am impressed that not all your definitions are made up.

captcha was excused hordie

>>3042374

We already established that this guy was an aspie LONG ago.