Would We Accept "Single Payer" Groceries?

Post Reply New Topic

@Orwell wrote:

When all relationships are voluntary no one gets screwed. The is no logical basis for a violation of rights if you are not forced into any transactions that you do not agree with. All forms of collectivism take choices out of the individual's hands and put them into the hands of gov't or society. Totally voluntary association of men only possible under a system of laissez-faire capitalism. For better of for worse, it's the only system that doesn't reduce men to sheep in one way or another. Collectivism destroys rights by transferring them to society. Society's don't have rights, only individuals have rights. Only individuals are capable of deciding what is best for themselves in any specific form. Individuals can be proactive, rational and intelligent. Groups of people are panicky, emotional and irrational.

Society is only beneficial to man on a strictly voluntary basis and vice versa. If a man desires a benefit from society, then he may only claim it by trading value for value on terms agreed to by both sides.



My tax money helps pay for the highway system, why would I waste my money by not using it? I am in a totally voluntary agreement with my internet service provider.



The answer is simple because it is an issue of principle. You must define the correct principles first. For these principles to be achievable, they must not violate the law of identity, or any of it's derivatives. If these principles are to be achieved in reality, all policy must adhere strictly to said principles.

No system can protect man's rights through the violation of those rights. Collectivism is immoral because it forces men into associations with no choice to opt out.

Even granting that, JWC's argument does not hold. I agree that most goods and services should be provided through a market mechanism, but I think we both agree that there exist at least some instances where it works better for the government to be involved. The question in regards to any particular issue then becomes whether it is one of those instances. I have taken no stance on what should be done on healthcare in this thread; merely stated that it is necessary to have an actual discussion about it rather than dismiss major options out of hand.


Almost everyone values publicly-funded museums at higher than the rate they actually pay to support them, just off the top of my head. I could probably dig up other examples, but suffice it to say that the wealthy benefit from the existence of a stable and strong government.


False. Rational actors will attempt to minimize their losses, but in instances where large power discrepancies exist, the weaker party gets screwed. There is more than enough historical evidence to show that a lot of people get screwed in the absence of government involvement. (People also get screwed where there is government involvement... we have to go on a case-by-case basis to find which way screws over fewer people)


You don't necessarily agree with the transactions, but when your only alternative is death you take what you can get. Your belief that no coercion can possibly exist outside of the government is absurd.


Most people don't give a damn about whatever "principles" you imagine. They want a functional society, and your ideals do not lead to one.


I suppose I shouldn't expect rigorous thought from someone who believes Ayn Rand to be a deep philosopher. You have nothing even approaching a real axiomatic foundation of rights.


No modern Western state prohibits emigration. You are free to leave this country for another part of the world. There are a handful of places that come to mind that have no domineering government to get in your way: Somalia, Antarctica, and the Pakistani/Afghan border region. Take your pick.

@Orwell:

Are you resorting to your elementary school insults already? Out of rational arguments so soon?

1. Protection from coercion and theft
2. National defense
3. Basic infrastructure
4. Safety net (kept to a minimum)
5. Anti-trust laws

That's all I really believe the Government should be responsible for.

Value is subjective and I have no interest in museums, so museums would hold no value to me. I shouldn't have to pay for an institution I don't even access, especially when museums have a specific purpose and not a more generalized one such as libraries or schools. The Royal Ontario Museum costs $24 for an adult fee or $31 for admission + water displays so I don't see the need for making it public. Seems affordable enough to me.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/canada/091109/canada-swine-flu-h1n1-hockey-justice

Here's where I'll start making my case. Basically NHL players got to skip lines for the swine flu vaccine (keep in mind our vaccines are free). It's still pretty sensationalist as this happened before the line ups got huge and before people started getting worried about it running out. But regardless, they were given preferential treatment and the health care representative responsible for giving em the flu shots was fired:

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Albe ... story.html

This is the first case I've presented, but it significantly debunks the BS myth that bigger Government influence will somehow magically eliminate the hierarchical nature of human beings.

You've said the natural monopoly thing I brought up was irrelevant, and this is exactly why it was relevant. The supply is more inelastic, but there should still be enough competition to keep em in check from insanely jacking the prices up. Even convenience stores in the country side where there is much less competition than in the city usually have goods that are 5% more expensive at most. Yes convenience stores and hospitals are two different things but we're talking about supply and demand and even in the country side where there are much less stores than in the city(around 50-70 compared to say 3-5), prices don't get insanely jacked up.

Once again, he is not an anarchist.

OK, but there is a serious debate to be had over the extent of each of these things. We can have stronger or weaker anti-trust laws, the social safety net can take on a lot of different forms, what you mean by "basic" infrastructure may differ from other people's ideas, etc. As far as protection from coercion and theft, why not protection from fraud as well? Hence agencies such as the FDA. Or protection of inherently common resources (such as the atmosphere, rivers, lakes, etc) from private exploitation (industrial pollution)? The EPA has a legitimate role. Public education? How much should be devoted to national defense? Should we have conscription or not? And why do you choose those things, and not others, as places where the government has a justifiable role?


Did I ever make such a claim? The question is whether such problems are going to be worse with or without government involvement. Obviously this depends on a number of factors, including the regulatory and oversight mechanisms in place over government agencies. It's largely going to be a case-by-case decision. Sweeping proclamations here are foolish.


It doesn't have to be a natural monopoly for the assumptions of perfect competition to fail.


Then what's this claptrap about "collectivism" and "forc[ing] men into associations with no choice to opt out" and all the other crap he spews? If he is not an anarchist, he is inconsistent with his own declared positions.

No, but regardless of whatever obscure anecdote you dig up the Canadian system is far more fair than the American one. Anecdotes like this are a perfect example of the right's tendency to strain at gnats while swallowing camels.


Actually the existence of competition doesn't guarantee the non-existence of coercive forces and abusive/unfair power structures. Even when physical coercion and fraud is expressly outlawed and punished, people with power will find subtler ways to abuse their position in unfair ways. The need for regulation will always come about regardless. Some form of democratic collective force is needed to prevent abuse of power. Whether you want to call that force government or not, it is something that will naturally form even if one starts with a completely anarchic society. Hunter gatherer societies had their own version of government on a micro-scale. They had to come up with collective agreements and rules to prevent conflict between individuals within a tribe. Government is not some unnatural aberration and instrument of oppression that people like JWC make it out to be.


Actually JWC has a rather rigid and impractical outlook on how society should function. He is much more of an ideologue than the "liberals" he attacks.

Last edited by marshall on 22 Mar 2011, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Perfect competition is about as existent as a perfect line. Even the poster children for competitive markets tend to be monopolistically competitive, with many firms selling slightly differentiated goods.

@ marshall

Did you stop and consider that Government may be responsible for many of the problems.

You were talking about a case by case analysis, so this is what I started with. I will bring more to the table and allow others to contribute.

There's no such thing as perfect competition, but the prices aren't going to be blown way outta proportion so I still think the free market would work fine. Plus you have the problem of less people wanting to be doctors in a public health care system.

You need to take that into context. He didn't mean all forms of collectivism are bad, but they are for the most part. The exceptions are pretty much his underlying assumptions which he should've made clear.

@ marshall: I'm aware that Government has always manifested in some form or another. I recognize that Government is a social construction, but it fulfills a need inherent to human nature. And no I don't think Government is the root of all evil. The masses are the most tyrannical element of any society and the Government is a medium through which they conduct mob rule. I am not so much anti-Government as I am anti-mob rule. Orwell was talking about a case-by-case analysis and that's the first thing I brought to the table. There's more to come and others can bring their own cases to the table whether it pertains to the Government or private sector.

I wasn't referring to trading anecdotes; that is meaningless. A question like "Would healthcare be more adequately delivered through private or public channels?" is not answered by individual anecdotes relating to a failure or corruption in any existing implementation (either public or private), any more than it is answered by appealing to a catch-all stance that "government is bad!" or "government should take care of people!"


Prices are currently being blown way outta proportion. It seems rather silly to insist that something won't/can't happen when it is in fact happening right now.

And people will make the determination of whether to become physicians based on what they expect to gain from it. As long as they are paid well, people will keep entering the field. It would also help if med school were more affordable.


Then why has he explicitly stated that all forms of collectivism are bad and immoral? I do not have the psychic powers you evidently possess; I can only assume JWC means what he says.

Then what is it answered by?

We've discussed the reasons for this in other threads, and yes malpractice lawsuits are pretty significant since they provoke defensive imaging.

It's called reading between the lines and I have good news for you; there's nothing psychic about it. I make educated guesses on whether their response is within the scope of a narrow or broad set of circumstances. That statement pertains to trade rather than everything the Government is involved in. It would make sense to interpret it as "All forms of collectivism are bad when it comes to trade". I doubt he's talking about roads, highways, etc.

The problem is JWC starts all his arguments with the axiomatic premise that "collectivism is bad" because it imposes some limitations on personal choice. He doesn't bother looking at the negatives and positives of both sides and weight them. Also, if JWC accepts that roads, highways, etc. are best publicly funded, he doesn't give a reason why they should be an exception, just like he doesn't give a reason why health insurance shouldn't be an exception.

Q: Would We Accept "Single Payer" Groceries?

A: sure sounds great.

-Clint

Dr. Hurd is a quack.

All:

I am not an anarchist. I believe that gov't should consist of (I am intentionally not going into excessive detail here):

1. Police - to protect us from domestic criminals
2. Courts - to arbitrate disagreements between citizens
3. Military - to protect us from international criminals.

There are only two ways of dealing with others, by reason or by force. Gov't should hold a monopoly on the use of force, freeing individuals from the necessity of resorting to force. Since gov't is an agent of force, it's scope must be extremely limited.

So....no public roads?