Why are people scared of taxes?

[Richy_T]

No, it will be vastly cheaper if privatised. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem. Also, business are accountable, because I can take my money elsewhere if I don't like their services. The government monopolises its services.

The Economic calculation problem only applies where there is a market which can be free.

Can you explain then why The USA, which has the most privatised health system of all developed nations of world, pays more per capita for it's health services than any other country?  That is only counting public spending, not private insurances.  The USA are far from the top quality wise.  Number 38 in the world on life expectancy, which is lower than even Cuba.

The private sector will organize itself to maximise profit.  This is not automatically the most cost effective way.

There are several factors, the chief amongst which is that health insurance is heavily regulated, creating high barriers to entry and suppressing competition. Employer provided healthcare also tends to lead to people not examining the actual cost of their healthcare leading to higher prices. Employer provided insurance arose, of course, from government wage control legislation.

[1714514585]

1714514585

[1714514585]

1714514585

[1714514585]

1714514585

[Kontakt]

Can you explain then why The USA, which has the most privatised health system of all developed nations of world, pays more per capita for it's health services than any other country? 

It's complex, but Christopher Anvil's short story "Positive Feedback" gives a pretty good analogy.

That's a neat story, and I quite enjoyed it. Reminded me of when I was little reading old issues of science fiction magazines with Asimov and the other greats. The problem is that it's only topical when there is an alternative, the 'old man on a back road' as it were. There is nothing to stop a large conglomeration of companies from starting off the oil wars again. I read a book on the beginning of big oil I found interesting that chronicled the start of Rockefeller and all the other giants. I feel that privatization will lead to this scenario once again. Ideally, the consumer can choose the cheapest, or rather, most economic option, but that's in a fair society. Big companies play dirty.

[Richy_T]

Not every market can be an effective free market.

Cool. Let's start with you list absolutely anything you can think of that you feel cannot be a free market and that the government absolutely must be involved in and then let's get the government out of everything else. Then we can talk again.

[Kontakt]

Not every market can be an effective free market.

Cool. Let's start with you list absolutely anything you can think of that you feel cannot be a free market and that the government absolutely must be involved in and then let's get the government out of everything else. Then we can talk again.

Well, for starters, any service that is controlled by large interests. We all see how well OPEC can make us sweat.

[Richy_T]

Not every market can be an effective free market.

Cool. Let's start with you list absolutely anything you can think of that you feel cannot be a free market and that the government absolutely must be involved in and then let's get the government out of everything else. Then we can talk again.

Well, for starters, any service that is controlled by large interests. We all see how well OPEC can make us sweat.

What? OPEC *is* government(s). Just not ours.

[myrkul]

I read a book on the beginning of big oil I found interesting that chronicled the start of Rockefeller and all the other giants.

Fun fact: Standard Oil dropped kerosene prices from 58 cents in 1865 to 26 cents in 1870.

I don't see where that's a problem.

[Kontakt]

I read a book on the beginning of big oil I found interesting that chronicled the start of Rockefeller and all the other giants.

Fun fact: Standard Oil dropped kerosene prices from 58 cents in 1865 to 26 cents in 1870.

I don't see where that's a problem.

Their monopoly allowed them to do that. Due to the vertical and horizontal control it exerted on the western market, he could dictate the price of crude as he wanted it; there was no one else to sell to. When you control everything, you can do as you please. Rockefeller was no man's fool. He knew how to play the public opinion.

[myrkul]

I read a book on the beginning of big oil I found interesting that chronicled the start of Rockefeller and all the other giants.

Fun fact: Standard Oil dropped kerosene prices from 58 cents in 1865 to 26 cents in 1870.

I don't see where that's a problem.

Their monopoly allowed them to do that. Due to the vertical and horizontal control it exerted on the western market, he could dictate the price of crude as he wanted it; there was no one else to sell to. When you control everything, you can do as you please. Rockefeller was no man's fool. He knew how to play the public opinion.

I still don't see that as a problem. He lowered prices. That's a good thing.

[Kontakt]

I read a book on the beginning of big oil I found interesting that chronicled the start of Rockefeller and all the other giants.

Fun fact: Standard Oil dropped kerosene prices from 58 cents in 1865 to 26 cents in 1870.

I don't see where that's a problem.

Their monopoly allowed them to do that. Due to the vertical and horizontal control it exerted on the western market, he could dictate the price of crude as he wanted it; there was no one else to sell to. When you control everything, you can do as you please. Rockefeller was no man's fool. He knew how to play the public opinion.

I still don't see that as a problem. He lowered prices. That's a good thing.

It's not your fault, really. Rockefeller was quite farsighted. He lowered prices to drive his competitors down about six feet. Without competitors, who is to stop you dictating prices? Lowering prices is a chess move, and your logic is that of a pawn's.

[myrkul]

It's not your fault, really. Rockefeller was quite farsighted. He lowered prices to drive his competitors down about six feet. Without competitors, who is to stop you dictating prices? Lowering prices is a chess move, and your logic is that of a pawn's.

I see. He drove the prices down so he could then drastically increase them. And he did this through having a monopoly on oil. You'll find this enlightening, then.

The argument that Standard Oil extorted high prices from the public is simply unsupported by evidence. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: Refined oil prices "fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897."

While Standard Oil owned 88% of refining business at its height (by no means a monopoly), its market share had already decreased to 64% by 1911 (before the anti-trust case).

[myrkul]

Since you seem to like monopolies so much, what have you got against dictatorial governments with a "monopoly on violence"? Disappointed that you don't get to be on top? You should be rejoicing that the Anglo-sphere is finally seeing the light!

Maybe you missed this the first time I posted it:

While Standard Oil owned 88% of refining business at its height (by no means a monopoly), its market share had already decreased to 64% by 1911 (before the anti-trust case).

Now, care to answer the question I posed you?

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

Your answer would be very helpful. I'm trying to tease out what, exactly, makes taxation moral. We've already established it's not the voting.

[myrkul]

Resorting to semantics? By your own argument, your government is not a "monopoly on violence" either -- or a monopoly on anything else for that matter -- because there are plenty of people around who are a "law unto themselves" and do all of the same bad stuff but on a smaller scale, and therefore the govt has less than 100%.

Uh, yeah... no. Standard Oil did not enforce it's market share with the use of force. The government wants 100% of the "market" in violence, and uses force to keep it. (That's the definition of "monopoly on violence", btw.)

Now, care to answer the question I posed you?

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

Your answer would be very helpful. I'm trying to tease out what, exactly, makes taxation moral. We've already established it's not the voting.

It depends. Perhaps I forgot to pay protection money to one of the mobsters private, non-governmental entities in your Libertarian utopia? Surely it would be immoral to avoid paying for private services? Your fellow Libertarians are entitled to receive fair compensation for ensuring my safety, even if it seems like stealing, right?

If you could at least come up with a superior (edit) reasonable, thought-provoking alternative to taxation that gives people a real choice, then they would have the ability to act morally by choosing.

You're cute. First you accuse me of "resorting to semantics", and then, you resort to semantics, and sidestep the question. Come on, can't any of you answer a yes or no question with yes or no?

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral? Yes or no?

[Kontakt]

Resorting to semantics? By your own argument, your government is not a "monopoly on violence" either -- or a monopoly on anything else for that matter -- because there are plenty of people around who are a "law unto themselves" and do all of the same bad stuff but on a smaller scale, and therefore the govt has less than 100%.

Uh, yeah... no. Standard Oil did not enforce it's market share with the use of force. The government wants 100% of the "market" in violence, and uses force to keep it. (That's the definition of "monopoly on violence", btw.)

http://www.linfo.org/standardoil.html
Bout a quarter of the way down the page.

[myrkul]

http://www.linfo.org/standardoil.html
Bout a quarter of the way down the page.

That's nice. Is there a reference for that? And how does that jive with it losing over 20% of it's market share?

[Kontakt]

http://www.linfo.org/standardoil.html
Bout a quarter of the way down the page.

That's nice. Is there a reference for that? And how does that jive with it losing over 20% of it's market share?

http://books.google.com/books?id=9VJIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=standard+oil+thugs&source=bl&ots=AXMGarHe3V&sig=--1LPewdkSVbHtXJgmIZ9BW9hOE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oQyIUJzBOIa50AHi14DABg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=standard%20oil%20thugs&f=false

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/power/text2/standardoil.pdf

[myrkul]

http://www.linfo.org/standardoil.html
Bout a quarter of the way down the page.

That's nice. Is there a reference for that? And how does that jive with it losing over 20% of it's market share?

http://books.google.com/books?id=9VJIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=standard+oil+thugs&source=bl&ots=AXMGarHe3V&sig=--1LPewdkSVbHtXJgmIZ9BW9hOE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oQyIUJzBOIa50AHi14DABg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=standard%20oil%20thugs&f=false

Even if this were what I would call an "unbiased source", it refers to breaking up a strike, not destroying competitors.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/power/text2/standardoil.pdf

This seems to discuss solely the transportation deals.

Any real references? (You still haven't answered my second question)

While you're at it, feel free to answer this one:

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

[myrkul]

If you were true to your Libertarian principles, you would respect my non-answer.
Why should I give legitimacy to your analogy by voting one way or the other?

I guess I should expect no different from someone who uses "blahblahblah" as their username... I'm done talking to you until you answer whether or not a mugger becomes moral when he promises to spend some of the money on the mugged.

[Richy_T]

If you were true to your Libertarian principles, you would respect my non-answer.
Why should I give legitimacy to your analogy by voting one way or the other?

I guess I should expect no different from someone who uses "blahblahblah" as their username... I'm done talking to you until you answer whether or not a mugger becomes moral when he promises to spend some of the money on the mugged.

I take objection to your example.

You should have *two* muggers. Then they can clearly come to a majority consensus over the use of your money.

[myrkul]

If you were true to your Libertarian principles, you would respect my non-answer.
Why should I give legitimacy to your analogy by voting one way or the other?

I guess I should expect no different from someone who uses "blahblahblah" as their username... I'm done talking to you until you answer whether or not a mugger becomes moral when he promises to spend some of the money on the mugged.

I take objection to your example.

You should have *two* muggers. Then they can clearly come to a majority consensus over the use of your money.

We've already ruled out majority consensus as legitimizing theft. I'm isolating each factor to see which one it is that makes it moral.

[sturle]

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

Why do you care?  You are an anarchist, so I guess you think it is anyone's right to mug you?  You don't want any laws against it.