Socialized Medicine - Who has it - What do you think?

The poor could be covered. No one is not talking about not covering the poor.

I am 100% against aggressive violence.

I think you are trying to construct a strawman.

Then we need to arm the citizens further. I find it ironic that people think guns make us less safe, and so they should be limited. Criminals have no problem illegally acquiring guns. Limiting them to the innocent just creates victims to be preyed upon.

Can you fire a bad cop? Do bad cops get fired?

The answer is no. They are a cartel within the government, like many other cartels. They use the power of government to protect themselves when they are the ones raping someone in a bathroom with a broomstick.

A mercenary you can fire. A mercenary you can hire to protect you from a bad mercenary.

If your police department is corrupt you are really screwed.

Tell that to Saddam. lol

 

I agree with this as well, though defining what constitutes a victimless crime is obviously, from past exchanges, an area rife with interpretation.

But let's be clear. I don't think we are talking about responsible use of public police force. I think we are talking about tossing it altogether and going to profit-based enterprise for what should be considered public need. I cannot agree with this at all, for many reasons stated.

Speaking also as one who has lived many years in the country (about as rural as you can get - the Wyoming Valley, WI, and the Upper Peninsula, MI), the argument that somehow rural areas is a need apart from other areas in this way is not my experience. It's simply unsupportable to believe a profit-driven, private police and fire firm is a workable solution to a community need for the services we're discussing.

I reiterate: from a standpoint of market or other anarchy, the very notion of a "public good" cannot be embraced, because it is stark tyranny.

On the other hand, once you accept the notion of public goods, that society indeed does feel it is better served by at least some measure of publically funded, common services, then it comes down to what that society deems is essential. To the subject of this thread, the notion of universal healthcare is seen as precisely this, in most modern industrialized nations - a national priority. So far, in the states, that notion has not received an audience. But it very well might change.

 

I also do not believe the police force should be made out of a for profit enterprise.

There are a few items I think the base service needs to be handled by the government 'with limited powers' one being the police force, another being fire prevention/fighting.



---
BTW I see a difference between items such as fire control and police protection to that of health care, don't have the time to get into ATM though as I'm about to get ready for the gym

 

Don't have time to really respond to any of this right now, but I wanted to say how funny I think it is that I was regarded as a pinky idiot with comical concepts but when some of these other folks make these same points (albeit better than I) they seem to be treated much kinder I also find it funny I was dismissed as some sort of intellectual elitist by someone behaving in that way themselves. Good times.

 

Man, I really want to stay on topic here about healthcare, but you guys got me off track. Now all I can think about is how I want to hire my own private band of Ninjas to crawl around in the dark and protect my house! Sweeeet!

And I can't even walk by a "rent-a-cop" without thinking "Stop or I'll throw my keys!" LOL

And guerilla, does anyone own any REAL allodial property in the United States? I mean, we all have to pay taxes, etc. so does anyone ever really own allodial property anymore?

 

Earth, forgive me, but I for one don't remember our exchanges, if so. If I was ever out of line, sorry. I can tell you I think your posts in this thread have been very worthwhile.

 

Welllllllll, if you've got the cash....



(by the way - the guy being tossed is a cop....hahahahah).

The concept of any kind of taxes is deemed unjust in a philosophy of market-anarchy, as a coercive instrument of the state.

 

I hope you don't feel I was talking down to you, because if you do feel that way, I'm sorry. You may be a pinko commie, but your ability to reason transcends many of your forum peers.

 

Well, also consider, it also opens up Ninja as a legitimate career if there is a market demand for stealth warriors for property defense.

No doubt. Again, I think the bank security guard model isn't perfect, but it is interesting. Obviously the bank uses security to protect it's property, and doesn't rely solely on the police for such. That's why they have cameras and silent alarms and such. Wouldn't it make sense for private citizens to also defend their property in a similar manner? I'm not 100%, but it is worth considering.

Maybe in Nevada. Most people really don't understand that if you don't pay your taxes, you can be stripped of your property, even the property that you already 100% own and have paid sales taxes on.

And likewise, through eminent domain (such as the TTC project in Texas), people can lose their property to private corporations, if the government is willing to collude with those corporations and there is damn little the average citizen can do about it.

The right to own property, whether it is your dog, your house or the food on your plate, is a fundamental and key right. As soon as people start laying claim to what is yours, the door is open to never being able to own anything.

 

Agreed.

(ATM - sorry, don't know that one)

That's great - and this is the debate, it seems to me. Is healthcare as essential to the community, to include all its members, as fire, police, or, nationally, a standing national defense? I believe so, and you don't. We can respectfully agree to disagree along these lines.

Edited to add: 'kay, a guy who birthed intellectually when Berkeley offered Unix and a terminal, and the PC Jr. was king. I JTM learned what ATM means in netlingo. LSNED, ALAYAWTLIU.*****

*****(JTM: Just this minute; lSNED: learn something new every day; ALAYAWTL: as long as you are willing to look it up.)

 

in an all pay system who is paying for the poor

lol, when you have criminal groups whose full time occupation is crime, your average citizen or citizens group will be out match

they get fired all the time, the problem is they all lie for each other a problem which won't get better by having mecenaries

 

I should add that I am strongly against eminent domain - I once worked for one of Chicago's preminent eminent domain law firms, and had to leave as it eventually literally made me sick to know I was supporting the work.

That said, it should be noted that the "right" of the state to eminent domain is prescribed in the U.S. constitution, Article 7 of the Bill of Rights (Amendment 5):

http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

This is why I cannot accept a literalist notion of the Constitution, without considering intent and recognizing that times change. I also would say this is a prima facie example of my contention that the idea of "natural" rights and our society doesn't hold up - we constructed our country, and it is a continuous process.

Such a constructed process may consider the kinds of priorities - as we're discussing here - we as a people deem are important enough to place them in the realm of public goods.

 

Who pays for the poor now?

Seriously, I will. You will too, right?

What are the differences between taxes and charity?

Which is why you hire security specialists.

Yes it will. Right now, you can't turn to anyone if the police are against you.

In a free market, you will have other options. You are not helpless because someone holds a monopoly on law enforcement or security.

 

umm people actually pay their taxes

also why would people who live in good safe areas pay for others, if you are counting on human kindness then you are pretty naive

people complain now about helping sick people get medical care, you really think people are going to give money to help secure poor often minority neighborhoods where they don't live

there is internal affairs, its usually the feds that arrest the corrupt police where I am from

in a free market you at the mercy of whoever has the money, what if some one want to drop the property values of you neighborhood so they can buy it cheap, they just pay the security companies to not police it

you think that sounds like fantasy but similar things have been done by police before they were caught, in your world what they would be doing would be legal

you should get a copy of jennfier government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government

and snow crash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash

to masturbate to

 

Are you saying people don't give to charity?

Am I really? Who was more effective in New Orleans after Katrina? DHS and FEMA or The American Red Cross (with a fraction of the budget)?

I think you are naive to trust in politicians.

No, they don't complain now about helping. They are taxed to the hilt, and the government through subsidization has driven prices through the roof. They are demanding the government do something, perhaps because they know that subconsciously the government has exacerbated the problem. Do you know how much richer we would be if we ended the drug war, taxed marijuana and stopped maintaining imperial bases all over the globe, and engaging in wars and (sic) foreign aid bribes and handouts?

Every American could have awesome health care.

What if the FEDs are corrupt?

No, that's where you are wrong. In a free market, the little guy has options. He's not restricted to handouts and welfare. He can start a business, take a job below minimum wage, work 3 jobs and keep the fruit of his labor, make use of charity resources. In a managed market, the little guy doesn't have options. He can't go to a less expensive herbalist rather than a Doctor if the herbalist is unlicensed or unapproved. He can't cheaply grow and smoke pot to address his anorexia or chemo side-effects. He can't try a new drug the FDA won't approve because the drug companies block it.

If someone paid a firm to not protect me, then I would seek out a firm that would. The person who wants to drive down property values would have to pay off all of the firms (economic disincentive) and limit new competition in the market (not possible under a free market system).

Don't understand this. Please explain my capital-letter-deficient friend.

I've read all of Neal Stephenson's books. Cryptonomicon was good, but I preferred Snow Crash and Diamond Age.

You do know that his books are science FICTION, not science FACT?

As far as Jennifer Government, that is also fiction, and reading the synopsis, seems to be based upon the flawed premise that corporations could exist in a free market.

On the contrary, governments create corporations by means of legal manipulation. You can't have a corporate entity, with the unaccountability and immunity of it's owners without the legislative fiat of government. So when (quite often) very ignorant liberals or bleeding heart socialists cry about corporations, they are completely missing the point that it's the government that creates and enables corporate power (through law and regulation) which kills off small business and entrepreneurship, and limits the marketplace.

Then again, if you spend any time on DailyKOS, it's really hard to find a liberal who is not totally ignorant.

In the wild, corporations cannot exist, and hence, libertarianism is the furthest thing from increasing corporate power.

 

you take one instance of massive failure, in florida there has been many hurricanes with and good and reasonable responce.

what does that have to with privatization ? they have privatized prisons in some states do you think that means they will lock up more people or less?

Do you think those companies who run those prisions will push for more laws or less?

I am sure it happens but checks are in place, its much harder to become federal officer then a local cop, which makes for less BS

how hard do you think it will be to join a "security company"

dude in your system I could hire the new "rent-a-gangster" security firm and "secure" your neighborhood for me

maybe the bloods could have a firm and call "rent a blood" or something

 

Oh, about a buck or two, a couple of hours, and some cool films to watch...

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2003/12/04/news/region_and_state/89b010c2cbf3d24c86256df20005e860.prt

Ferret, I agree wholly with your line of thought here. But this thread will go on for another few hundred pages, as we probably know, and it will merely go round and round, because the anarchy theory you're dealing with cannot brook anything other than an absolutist position; to admit the state can, in whatever capacity, have a function, would bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

I will say it again:

Just a suggestion - but it might be nice if we move off of the defense of a nation of private, profit-driven police, fire and national defense entrepreneurs to a discussion of healthcare at some point.

 

Chuck Norris is all the security we need.

 

Just as I feel police and fire should be the job of the government on a base line at least with very limited powers 'yes' I do also believe health care should be to an extent.

I do find them differently, I however do feel the government does need to be involved such as the CDC, a base line defense to prevent disease, disease that can effect the nation as a whole.

I guess I am somewhat in the middle, while I am against big government, I do understand there is a point to government otherwise what would be the point of even having one?

Do I feel it's the governments job to give everyone insurance? No I do not.
Do I have a problem with those who need it being helped out? I actually do not, I don't believe so much it's the governments job but i have no problem personally helping those out who need it. What I do have a problem with 'and I know many' is those who abuse the system, those who do not work even though they could, sitting back and collecting free health care while me and my family pays for their care and yet I do not have health insurance myself.

 

And the Red Cross is also there.

Or is it your assertion that no one lifts a finger to help their neighbors, they just sit on the sidewalk waiting for federal agents to show up and repair everything?

You're making my case. The Prisons are run by corporations created by the government, and then the government creates social regulation (laws) which fills those prisons up and makes them more profitable.

The consistent argument is "we will reform government by government". The reality is, in history this has never or almost never occurred. Eventually tyranny gets so bad there is a revolution, and then things restart. There is no reform of absolute government and corporate corruption.

Can you imagine trying to cure a heroin addict by giving them more dope? Or bringing some one who died from gunshots by firing more bullets into them?

How about putting out a fire with a flamethrower?

George Bush. 'Nuff said.

It doesn't matter because if their service is not good, I will not use them. They could hire midget quadriplegics, and if my property was safe, it wouldn't matter. That's how the free market works. You get points for results, not style.

No you couldn't. You're exposig yourelf again with another liberal fallacy. A failure to understand property rights. The security firm could not secure someone else's property without their consent.

That's a great point. Instead of young people getting involved in violence, crime and drugs, they could be employed protecting their neighborhood, community and families against violence and crime.