"You've got two, he's got none, give him one!" - Redistribution of Health

[myrkul]

Why do you statists always go straight for the gun? You do realize that there are other methods of dispute resolution right? Click the link in my sig for a quick crash course.

I'm not the one arguing for more guns remember. The private armies deal is your ideal solution to problems. I'm quite fine as it is thankyouverymuch.
Now address the real points instead.

No matter the system, you need to make sure others know that your property is your property. One way is signs, or a fence, or other visible barrier. Another is land registries. Either way, you have to stake your claim in some way other than "I can see it, therefore it is mine". Shit, even wolves piss on a tree to mark territory.

[1714138169]

1714138169

[1714138169]

1714138169

[1714138169]

1714138169

[1714138169]

1714138169

[evolve]

as a liberal, i dont think that the lower class has any entitlement to the possessions of the rich.

however, i do believe in social contract. speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, human beings abiilty to work together for the good of the group is what helped us survive long enough to become the top of the food chain. we are social creatures...no man is an island, and no mans success has happened without help from others.

ayn rand be damned, we dont survive as individuals.

i dont think that you owe homeless joe your porche..or your liver for that matter...just b/c your successful.  however, i do think its your duty (as a human being) to help those less fortunate than you.  this isnt politics, its called being a decent human being.



let me tell you a story.

8 years ago, me and my wife were poor...dirt fucking (qualified for foodstamps) poor.  the kicker is that we both worked..she was military, and i had just gotten out of the military and was working some shit job on base. we worked our asses off, but couldnt keep our heads above water....then (despite using the depo shot...birth control) my wife got pregnant...with twins.   needless to say, we needed help.  the military was unwilling to help, so we got on WIC to help pay for formula.  we could (and should) have gotten more assistance, but i let pride get in the way.

fast forward to now.  our household income last year was very close to 6 figures. we live in a VERY high end area and live very comfortably.... and we couldnt have gotten here without help. now that i am in this position, i am more than willing to kick a bit down to those less fortunate than me....ive been there, i know what its like..

[myrkul]

And it's because of people like you, that no one needs to worry about the poor in a Stateless society.

Personally, I believe that decent human beings outnumber the d-bags.

[evolve]

And it's because of people like you, that no one needs to worry about the poor in a Stateless society.

i really wish i could believe that. in my experience however, most people have the attitude of "i got mine, screw you". 

the fact that there is even a debate about poor people getting equal access to health care as the rich is proof enough of that IMO.

been on both sides of that one two....couldnt go to the doctor for years...couldnt afford it....had to let a mole get to full blown melanoma before we had good enough insurance to get it biopsied/removed (an then it still cost us an obscene amount of money)...had we not been fortunate enough to claw our way into our current financial situation, i could have died....for the simple fact that we were poor.

[myrkul]

been on both sides of that one two....couldnt go to the doctor for years...couldnt afford it....had to let a mole get to full blown melanoma before we had good enough insurance to get it biopsied/removed (an then it still cost us an obscene amount of money)...had we not been fortunate enough to claw our way into our current financial situation, in all likelyhood, i could have died.

I could list all the benefits of removing the state (and state-supported) monopolies in Healthcare, but I like you, so I won't bore ya.

[evolve]

we'll save it for another time then, lol....

[JA37]

No matter the system, you need to make sure others know that your property is your property. One way is signs, or a fence, or other visible barrier. Another is land registries. Either way, you have to stake your claim in some way other than "I can see it, therefore it is mine". Shit, even wolves piss on a tree to mark territory.

Emphasis mine.
So, you can't homestead apparently unused property, because someone might use it for something that you don't know? You still have to check for ownership before homesteading. Where's the benefit in your system again?

And the link in your sig? Mediation? That's what you think should happen if you "homestead" my grass field that I use? Aren't anyone who homestead my property "aggressors" that I can "defend" myself against? Or do they have some sort of right if they manage to build a hut before I discover them? Should I pay some restitution for tearing their shack down?

[myrkul]

No matter the system, you need to make sure others know that your property is your property. One way is signs, or a fence, or other visible barrier. Another is land registries. Either way, you have to stake your claim in some way other than "I can see it, therefore it is mine". Shit, even wolves piss on a tree to mark territory.

Emphasis mine.
So, you can't homestead apparently unused property, because someone might use it for something that you don't know? You still have to check for ownership before homesteading. Where's the benefit in your system again?

And the link in your sig? Mediation? That's what you think should happen if you "homestead" my grass field that I use? Aren't anyone who homestead my property "aggressors" that I can "defend" myself against? Or do they have some sort of right if they manage to build a hut before I discover them? Should I pay some restitution for tearing their shack down?

Thus the fence or sign, genius. It helps prevent accidents. This is true even in state societies.

[JA37]

Thus the fence or sign, genius. It helps prevent accidents. This is true even in state societies.

No fence required today. I'm the registered owner. You have a duty to look that up before taking any action on any land.

So what was the benefit of your system again? Please remind me. I seem to have forgotten.

Edit: Please explain the purpose of homesteading while you're at it too.

[Hawker]

Thus the fence or sign, genius. It helps prevent accidents. This is true even in state societies.

No fence required today. I'm the registered owner. You have a duty to look that up before taking any action on any land.

So what was the benefit of your system again? Please remind me. I seem to have forgotten.

There is no benefit to myrkul's concept of a stateless rule-less society and he acknowledges it can never happen.  But its logically consistent and he likes that.

[jgraham]

Thus the fence or sign, genius. It helps prevent accidents. This is true even in state societies.

No fence required today. I'm the registered owner. You have a duty to look that up before taking any action on any land.

So what was the benefit of your system again? Please remind me. I seem to have forgotten.

There is no benefit to myrkul's concept of a stateless rule-less society and he acknowledges it can never happen.  But its logically consistent and he likes that.

Anyone want to volunteer what exactly this idea is "logically consistent" with?

[myrkul]

Thus the fence or sign, genius. It helps prevent accidents. This is true even in state societies.

No fence required today. I'm the registered owner. You have a duty to look that up before taking any action on any land.

So what was the benefit of your system again? Please remind me. I seem to have forgotten.

Edit: Please explain the purpose of homesteading while you're at it too.

If there is a market need for land registrars (and your vehement argument shows there clearly would be) then there would be registrars. I have never argued against necessary services. I have always argued against the monopoly provision of those services.

The benefit of my system is Better service, better fee schedules, and nobody is forced to pay for a service they don't want or need. Monopolies have never produced good products or services for good prices.

The purpose of homesteading is as an alternative to a land registry. If one can claim land simply by marking it, then there's no need for the registrar, which will keep the registrar's price competitive with that of placing the fence or signs. Also, in a society without registrars, homesteading provides a way to mark your territory.

[NghtRppr]

nobody is forced to pay for a service they don't want or need

To me, that's the only thing that matters since I'm not a utilitarian. The other benefits you mention, though true, are just a bonus.

[myrkul]

Anyone want to volunteer what exactly this idea is "logically consistent" with?

Sure, I'll bite: The removal of monopoly services and replacement with market services is logically consistent with the Non-agression Priciple, which is the guiding principle for both the libertarian and Voluntaryist viewpoints.

[JA37]

Monopolies have never produced good products or services for good prices.

The purpose of homesteading is as an alternative to a land registry. If one can claim land simply by marking it, then there's no need for the registrar, which will keep the registrar's price competitive with that of placing the fence or signs. Also, in a society without registrars, homesteading provides a way to mark your territory.

I thought we settled that monopoly thing not too long ago. The one about the temporary monopoly for pharmaceutical companies. It does provide good products for good prices.

So you can't have both a land registry and allow homesteading. Sort of like how we have it now?

[myrkul]

Monopolies have never produced good products or services for good prices.

The purpose of homesteading is as an alternative to a land registry. If one can claim land simply by marking it, then there's no need for the registrar, which will keep the registrar's price competitive with that of placing the fence or signs. Also, in a society without registrars, homesteading provides a way to mark your territory.

I thought we settled that monopoly thing not too long ago. The one about the temporary monopoly for pharmaceutical companies. It does provide good products for good prices.

So you can't have both a land registry and allow homesteading. Sort of like how we have it now?

Are we reading the same message boards? And the only reason the drug monopoly provides good service at good prices is because it ends. You're comparing a temporary monopoly (which, while it lasts, provides a product at inflated prices, with no guarantee of good service) with a permanent monopoly. Try again.

[JA37]

Monopolies have never produced good products or services for good prices.

The purpose of homesteading is as an alternative to a land registry. If one can claim land simply by marking it, then there's no need for the registrar, which will keep the registrar's price competitive with that of placing the fence or signs. Also, in a society without registrars, homesteading provides a way to mark your territory.

I thought we settled that monopoly thing not too long ago. The one about the temporary monopoly for pharmaceutical companies. It does provide good products for good prices.

So you can't have both a land registry and allow homesteading. Sort of like how we have it now?

Are we reading the same message boards? And the only reason the drug monopoly provides good service at good prices is because it ends. You're comparing a temporary monopoly (which, while it lasts, provides a product at inflated prices, with no guarantee of good service) with a permanent monopoly. Try again.

If you stop saying that "Monopolies have never produced good products or services for good prices" I'll stop calling you out on that bullshit. You have a clear example that it does produce good products for good prices yet you keep repeating that falsehood. What inflated prices? They're charging what the market will allow, how is that inflated? Stop making unfounded claims.
What if it didn't end? What if that monopoly was permanent. The drug they came up with they own forever. Why wouldn't it work exactly the same way if permanent? They charge what the market will bear and if you don't like it don't buy.
Now the state only grants a temporary monopoly to give the companies an incentive to keep innovating, in the interest of the public.

I will admit that there are problems with patents and monopolies, but that they have their uses. Can you say the same?

[myrkul]

If you stop saying that "Monopolies have never produced good products or services for good prices" I'll stop calling you out on that bullshit. You have a clear example that it does produce good products for good prices yet you keep repeating that falsehood. What inflated prices? They're charging what the market will allow, how is that inflated? Stop making unfounded claims.
What if it didn't end? What if that monopoly was permanent. The drug they came up with they own forever. Why wouldn't it work exactly the same way if permanent? They charge what the market will bear and if you don't like it don't buy.
Now the state only grants a temporary monopoly to give the companies an incentive to keep innovating, in the interest of the public.

I will admit that there are problems with patents and monopolies, but that they have their uses. Can you say the same?

No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.

[NghtRppr]

I thought we settled that monopoly thing not too long ago. The one about the temporary monopoly for pharmaceutical companies. It does provide good products for good prices.

Opinion.

[JA37]

No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.

Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.