Socialism

[NewLiberty]

Does it provide the best outcome, though? Take the revolution against Apartheid in South Africa. Initially, Mandela preached non-violence. He acted similar to Gandhi or MLK. What did his non-violence accomplish? Nothing. Then, once he started bombing government buildings, South Africa started moving towards equality.

Good example, thank you for this.
Madman, trolly, apartheid.  The trolly is the only one that does not appear to involve self-defense and is one of pure initiation of aggression.  It also seems to be the one with which, you most disagree.

From all appearances, you have (perhaps) a better or more evolved principle for "minimal" aggression, as it applies in the real world rather than the purely philosophical.  It is less absolutist than non-aggression.  Maybe it is closer to the Asimov 3 laws of robotics, and the struggle to find the balance between the three laws?

Would the righteousness or effectiveness of Mandela's cause with respect to moral authority have been harmed if it started with the bombing? Or was the proof of necessity so integral to the moral authority that the bombing was acceptable as minimal aggression?  Determining the point of ethical authority for aggression seems the sliding scale for where socialism finds its social traction.

Socialism in contrast places a high value on social cohesion.  It assumes societal splits are bad, or put another way, that the bigger a society gets the better it is.  The relative weighting of the value of social cohesion vs non-aggression seems to guide many.  There may be a fear that lack of social cohesion may lead to aggression and that fear/distrust conjures a higher weighting for social cohesion.

Social cohesion may also engender societal fragility as well, in much the same way that mono-cultural farming can create famine.  I am not convinced that it is always a good, even if it is more productive.
I had recommended to me: "Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (Black Swan Author).  From a discussion this weekend.  Going to have to digest that when it arrives.

[bitlancr]

Great discussion. I guess the NAP is vulnerable to a '51% attack' of sorts - that is to say if the majority support aggression, how can it be stopped?

Apartheid is an aggression in itself, so a certain degree of self-defense is warranted by NAP. The question is then: who are the initial aggressors, and does bombing government buildings overstep the mark of self-defense?

[J603]

Good example, thank you for this.
Madman, trolly, apartheid.  The trolly is the only one that does not appear to involve self-defense and is one of pure initiation of aggression.  It also seems to be the one with which, you most disagree.

Really the only reason I disagree with the trolly situation is because it is so implausible. Real life does not just have two options, and I think that the best way to discuss philosophy is use realistic situations, as opposed to hypotheticals. I can see the value in it- and I'm sure that there are situations where people would believe that they must choose between the lesser of two evils. But there is always a third choice.

I think that the trolly could (sort of) be represented by appeasement prior to world war II- the Allies knew that giving Hitler Czechoslovakia would lead to violence and death, but they thought it was justified because they thought that forcefully stopping him would lead to greater violence. Of course, 40 million corpses later the Allies choice of non-aggression was a mistake. Had they stopped Hitler in Czechoslovakia, perhaps he never would have been able to occupy Europe and slaughter millions of innocents.

In this case, it appears that non-aggression led to greater violence.

However, say that you choose to pull the lever and switch the rails. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an example of this. Allied commanders knew that they had to do something to stop Japan- the country was going to fight to the death. They believed that they were saving more lives than they were ending.

However, the problem with any of these logic traps is that you can't know more than one outcome. We can't go back in time and stop Hitler, or invade mainland Japan. That's my main problem with NAP- There's really no way to prove it either way. However, just for the record, while I don't fully agree with NAP I don't agree with initiating aggression either.

From all appearances, you have (perhaps) a better or more evolved principle for "minimal" aggression, as it applies in the real world rather than the purely philosophical.  It is less absolutist than non-aggression.  Maybe it is closer to the Asimov 3 laws of robotics, and the struggle to find the balance between the three laws?

I do believe that philosophy should have a base in reality, and that it should be judged based on realistic examples. Otherwise it's very easy to prove anything. I also believe that choosing a philosophy to follow is often detrimental. We should not allow a fixed set of ideals to determine how we act. Instead, everyone should have their own philosophy.

Would the righteousness or effectiveness of Mandela's cause with respect to moral authority have been harmed if it started with the bombing? Or was the proof of necessity so integral to the moral authority that the bombing was acceptable as minimal aggression?  Determining the point of ethical authority for aggression seems the sliding scale for where socialism finds its social traction.

I think that his "righteousness" would have been affected had he immediately started killing Apartheidists. It is clear that he did everything in his power to negotiate with the government, but there's no negotiating with racists. Racism in itself is one of the most illogical ideals, and racists can't see reason. I think that they forced his hand.

Socialism in contrast places a high value on social cohesion.  It assumes societal splits are bad, or put another way, that the bigger a society gets the better it is.  The relative weighting of the value of social cohesion vs non-aggression seems to guide many.  There may be a fear that lack of social cohesion may lead to aggression and that fear/distrust conjures a higher weighting for social cohesion.

Social cohesion may also engender societal fragility as well, in much the same way that mono-cultural farming can create famine.  I am not convinced that it is always a good, even if it is more productive.

I agree that forced social cohesion is not a very stable system. Obviously, if everyone truly agreed to one system and one society it would be stable, as it was based on the choice of the people. But if a government forces this cohesion, it creates paranoia and distrust, like you said.

That's why I believe that laws, and "morals", should be chosen by the majority of society. That way, there's less forced social cohesion.

I don't want to bring up a hypothetical, but if I use a real world example I'll offend someone, and that's not the point. Let's say a group of aliens from Mars come to Earth. They're different from humans in every way: They look different, they communicate differently, they don't even have the same genders we do. They even breathe nitrogen instead of oxygen. Naturally, the majority of Earth, let's say 90%, distrusts them, if they don't outright hate them.

The government has two options: they can force cohesion upon the populace. The aliens are given equal rights under UN law, and maybe are even given land to start settling on. 90% will be unhappy. Some are going to get violent. The majority of society will rise up, and probably end up hurting the aliens anyways. Society is completely unstable, as Earth devolves into a civil war.

Or, they can expel the aliens from our planet. This doesn't mean genocide, just that the government will not allow the Martians on Earth. In this case, 10% would be unhappy. A relatively small amount. The majority of people remain happy. The 10% might resist with their Martian friends, but ultimately they will have to concede.

There is still violence either way- whether it is the majority enforcing social cohesion or the minority attempting to. But when the majority takes control, there is more natural cohesion.

This is why I believe that "majority rules". Going way back in the posts, someone (I forgot who) said something along the lines of "If 51% of people are against gays does it make it ok to discriminate against them?"

I support everyone's equal rights. I want to make that clear. But in this case, I believe that supporting the 51% would be the more logical decision, as it enables more "natural" social cohesion. Society will be fractured in either case, but better to see the majority of society be happy then the minority. That being said, I would not take the "logical" decision and support bigots.

I had recommended to me: "Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (Black Swan Author).  From a discussion this weekend.  Going to have to digest that when it arrives.

This looks interesting. I'll definitely check it out.

[Anon136]

the trolly situation actually happened once in real life.

[NewLiberty]

It happens all the time in other ways too, Organ donors who could save several if only they would die...

But also interesting, if we accept majority rule as the arbitrator of ethics.  This raises the question of the 51%.

Why not 55%, 66%, or 75%?  Is avoidance of aggression only worth 1%?  51% seems an arbitrary threshold, and also a low value on non-aggression vs social cohesion (which may or may not be good in some cases).
Some law seems to agree. Cloture=60% (US Senate), Delegation of Danish Soverignity 84%, US Constitution amendment 2/3 house + 2/3 senate + 3/4 States

Now that we are aggression whores, and will initiate aggression if enough folks think we ought to do so, it is just a matter of setting the prices and menu.

Should exacting a new type of tax require a super majority?  Does it depend on the claimed reason for the tax?

[J603]

It happens all the time in other ways too, Organ donors who could save several if only they would die...

But also interesting, if we accept majority rule as the arbitrator of ethics.  This raises the question of the 51%.

Why not 55%, 66%, or 75%?  Is avoidance of aggression only worth 1%?  51% seems an arbitrary threshold, and also a low value on non-aggression vs social cohesion (which may or may not be good in some cases).
Some law seems to agree. Cloture=60% (US Senate), Delegation of Danish Soverignity 84%, US Constitution amendment 2/3 house + 2/3 senate + 3/4 States

Now that we are aggression whores, and will initiate aggression if enough folks think we ought to do so, it is just a matter of setting the prices and menu.

Should exacting a new type of tax require a super majority?  Does it depend on the claimed reason for the tax?

51% is arbitrary. I was just using it to represent the majority. However keep in mind, that there's no way to disregard a law.

Say we vote on a new amendment. 65% of the house agrees. 65% of the senate agrees. 36 states agree. The law doesn't pass. Thus, the government has gone with the will of the minority over the majority. More people are angry now than if the government had passed the law, all in the name of fairness.

That's why I believe in the majority. It makes no sense whatsoever to give the minority what they want. 51% seems ridiculous. But it's more ridiculous to go with the 49%.

[smscotten]

That's why I believe in the majority. It makes no sense whatsoever to give the minority what they want. 51% seems ridiculous. But it's more ridiculous to go with the 49%.

Building debate and delay in and create laws based on principle rather than specific instance help this. Most of the time 99.999% are opposed to murder. But then there is a gameshow host that makes some truly disgusting comments and 51% of the people want him dead. Fortunately, the laws aren't about that person. That person is protected by what the majority believes despite the momentary madness of the crowds: that killing someone who hasn't hurt anyone is wrong. Even so, it will take months if not years of debate and the authoring of legislation for the murder laws to be changed to accommodate the hatred of this one person. In that time, cooler heads ought to prevail and people are likely to realize that it goes against their values to make an exception to the murder laws because of something that was said on a game show.

I'm not saying it is impossible for the majority to exert tyranny over the minority but with checks and balances, the passage of time, and the enshrinement of people's rights into the law (which will come because the majority supports it) the risk of such a '51% attack' on a system of laws becomes much lower than with direct democracy.

[J603]

That's why I believe in the majority. It makes no sense whatsoever to give the minority what they want. 51% seems ridiculous. But it's more ridiculous to go with the 49%.

Building debate and delay in and create laws based on principle rather than specific instance help this. Most of the time 99.999% are opposed to murder. But then there is a gameshow host that makes some truly disgusting comments and 51% of the people want him dead. Fortunately, the laws aren't about that person. That person is protected by what the majority believes despite the momentary madness of the crowds: that killing someone who hasn't hurt anyone is wrong. Even so, it will take months if not years of debate and the authoring of legislation for the murder laws to be changed to accommodate the hatred of this one person. In that time, cooler heads ought to prevail and people are likely to realize that it goes against their values to make an exception to the murder laws because of something that was said on a game show.

I'm not saying it is impossible for the majority to exert tyranny over the minority but with checks and balances, the passage of time, and the enshrinement of people's rights into the law (which will come because the majority supports it) the risk of such a '51% attack' on a system of laws becomes much lower than with direct democracy.

I wouldn't want laws to come into play instantly. I still want a process for them to come into place. I just want a system where the majority rules. I don't think it's fair that the minority should have their way. Why do they get their way and the majority doesn't?

In the example you gave, I don't believe that 51% of the people would truly believe that the host should be put to death. Many people would be angry. Maybe some would want his show put off the air, or even to imprison him. But the majority of people do not want to put someone to death for something trivial like that.

[smscotten]

In the example you gave, I don't believe that 51% of the people would truly believe that the host should be put to death. Many people would be angry. Maybe some would want his show put off the air, or even to imprison him. But the majority of people do not want to put someone to death for something trivial like that.

Exactly. The argument for delay is get at what the people truly believe, not just what they would vote for if you caught them at the right (or wrong) moment. The downside is that if something gets into law it becomes difficult to remove.

[NewLiberty]

We are missing the excluded middle (where the state does nothing).  It is less a matter of whether the majority or minority "get their way" and more a matter of whether some percentage of the population gets to use the power of law (guns and jails) to do something.  If so, what that percentage should be.

We get bad law when we act too fast.

The "mob rule" of satisfying a simple majority who elect to kill or steal from others for their benefit or satisfaction does not sit well with me at all.  
It does not make it any better that >50% will be angry for failing to kill or steal, it still ought not be done just to satisfy a majority (of those who voted).
Even if 60% are upset at not using the law to steal or kill, that might still be right and just, given the ethical breach for using the law against their fellow country people for that purpose.

There are even likely some things that are simply wrong to do even in cases where 99% vote that it should be done (Stupid Talk Show Host example).  The greater harm of murder over the harm of frustration with what STSH said on air doesn't provide sufficient justification.  The lynch mob should not have their way just because they show up with pitchforks and torches.

Voting may also be done under non-factual information, prevalent media spending, emotionalism, or all sorts of situations that may skew an outcome.  Upholding a simple majority as the arbitrator of justice and source of law has dangers and unforeseen consequences enough that we have "a republic, if we can keep it".

For civil matters it may be ok to have one level of majority, but for criminal (where life and livelihood are at issue) there is a higher bar in court cases.  But we do not extend this to our legislative effort.  We create new crime definitions and criminality through a simple majority of 51%, and often bundle much new legislation within a single measure.

The result being that we have ever-greater legal restraints and ever-greater judicial authority in a one direction path toward statism and socialism through democratic incremental addition.  The question is: at what rate do we proceed?

[Rassah]

Oh my god you're a fucking idiot trying to find something wrong with material you have no understanding of.

Hey, I'm not the one who said that removing one of the components of the trophic cascade removes the whole cascade itself.

[FirstAscent]

Oh my god you're a fucking idiot trying to find something wrong with material you have no understanding of.

Hey, I'm not the one who said that removing one of the components of the trophic cascade removes the whole cascade itself.

You're an idiot because:

1. You think you have a point, but don't.
2. You're actually wrong about the specific complaint you have.
3. You're the one who didn't know about any of this stuff until I pointed it out, but you try and act like you did.

Read my long post again, and try to comprehend it - I know it must be hard for you. And read the recent link I provided so won't keep acting like an idiot.

[J603]

We are missing the excluded middle (where the state does nothing).  It is less a matter of whether the majority or minority "get their way" and more a matter of whether some percentage of the population gets to use the power of law (guns and jails) to do something.  If so, what that percentage should be.

But there is no middle. If a vote is made for whether marijuana is legalized, for instance, you can either have it (support one side) or make it illegal (support the other). Same goes for guns, civil rights, abortions, etc.

We get bad law when we act too fast.

Agreed. I don't want votes to happen in a day. There would have to be televised debates showing both sides.

The "mob rule" of satisfying a simple majority who elect to kill or steal from others for their benefit or satisfaction does not sit well with me at all.  
It does not make it any better that >50% will be angry for failing to kill or steal, it still ought not be done just to satisfy a majority (of those who voted).
Even if 60% are upset at not using the law to steal or kill, that might still be right and just, given the ethical breach for using the law against their fellow country people for that purpose.

This assumes that the 51% is more prone to bad decisions than the 49%. Why is this so?

There are even likely some things that are simply wrong to do even in cases where 99% vote that it should be done (Stupid Talk Show Host example).  The greater harm of murder over the harm of frustration with what STSH said on air doesn't provide sufficient justification.  The lynch mob should not have their way just because they show up with pitchforks and torches.

Same thing I said before: why is the 51% more rash and prone to violence than the 49%. The Westboro church is a very small percentage of people yet they're one of the loudest. If anything, the majority of people are more rational.

Voting may also be done under non-factual information, prevalent media spending, emotionalism, or all sorts of situations that may skew an outcome.  Upholding a simple majority as the arbitrator of justice and source of law has dangers and unforeseen consequences enough that we have "a republic, if we can keep it".

Same thing I said before. Why is the majority prone to bad decisions but the minority isn't? For example, what about gay rights right now? I think that we can agree that no harm can come from letting them marry. But even if the majority of people want rights, it doesn't matter because it takes more than a simple majority... And in that case the minority would be wrong.

For civil matters it may be ok to have one level of majority, but for criminal (where life and livelihood are at issue) there is a higher bar in court cases.  But we do not extend this to our legislative effort.  We create new crime definitions and criminality through a simple majority of 51%, and often bundle much new legislation within a single measure.

I think that the amount of time spent on an issue will determine the accuracy of the decision. But why go with the minority's decision, if we can't reach a consensus?

The result being that we have ever-greater legal restraints and ever-greater judicial authority in a one direction path toward statism and socialism through democratic incremental addition.  The question is: at what rate do we proceed?

I really don't know at rate we should proceed. I guess we should put it to a vote  .

[J603]

Oh my god you're a fucking idiot trying to find something wrong with material you have no understanding of.

Hey, I'm not the one who said that removing one of the components of the trophic cascade removes the whole cascade itself.

You're an idiot because:

1. You think you have a point, but don't.
2. You're actually wrong about the specific complaint you have.
3. You're the one who didn't know about any of this stuff until I pointed it out, but you try and act like you did.

Read my long post again, and try to comprehend it - I know it must be hard for you. And read the recent link I provided so won't keep acting like an idiot.

There was civilized discussion until you guys posted this (although it was Rassah's fault, he came out of nowhere). Go argue somewhere else, or contribute. Calling each other names does nothing.

[Rassah]

So I stand by my earlier statement: first a system of laws should generally reflect the values of the people who live under those laws, second it would be nice to include that principle in a system of laws, as that would be a symptom of good (in my opinion) values in a society.

I don't need a set of laws to run a Bitcoin node, follow Bitcoin code rules, assign value to bitcoins, and send that values to others. Bitcoin let's be do that regardless of laws. Likewise, I don't need laws to establish ownership of my own property, to respect others property, to tell others if they are infringing on my property, and if needed, to defend my property. There could be laws respecting a NAP system, or there could just be me, telling people to get off my lawn, and threatening to shoot them if they do not (though that mapight get me in trouble in many places). Even in a community with majority who don't respect NAP and think everything should belong to everyone, that majority will be forced to respect the minority of NAP followers simply because the NAP guys will be defending their property. And yes, sure, the anti-NAP majority could come in guns blazing to kick the NAP types out, but all they will have succeeded in is kicking out a few of the NAP followers, no more than shutting down a few BITCOIN nodes. It's an idea, and those can't be killed (not easily).

[Rassah]

Please explain to me what I said that was wrong, instead of acting condescending.

You were confusing non-aggression principle (basically, "I will not be the first to initiate force") with nonviolence (basically, "I will not be violent, no matter what, period). NAP doesn't mean that no violence will ever happen.

But here's the thing: When is self-defense be justified?

Whenever someone threatens your person or property.

If someone is trying to kill you, and they will not stop until they themselves are dead, at what point does self defense end and aggression begin?

It's not so much self defense v.s. aggression, it's who initiated the aggression. As long as someone continues to threaten your life, they are continuing to initiate aggression. You can shoot them in defense, but you can also defend yourself by shooting their gun hand, by sabotaging their weapons, by hiring security to keep them away from you, or even asking why they believe you owe them your life and attempting to resolve the conflict without violence.

It is entirely based on the subjective view of the person "defending" himself. If the defender kills the attacker, they have committed greater violence, and thus they've stopped following the NAP.

Same as above, it's not nonviolence, it's who initiated force. If the defender killed the attacker, he is still only responding to the initiation of force, and is still following the NAP. The only question is whether such extreme defense was justified, or if the situation could have been resolved more amicably (e.g. if the attacker was just drunk and waving a gun around, but was not serious about wanting to kill someone)

If you think that the NAP can justify self defense, then what's the point? You're saying that you're not going to run around killing everything unless they attack you. Congratulations, that's a philosophy that only rabid dogs have a problem with.

Rabid dogs, and anyone who believe they have a right to your property and life, and are willing to use force to obtain it. Forcing you to pay taxes or fees for things you don't need or wasn't, at the threat of being arrested, imprisoned, or shot, is considered initiation of force in NAP.


A question to the general group: What laws do you want to exist or to be implemented by a majority, which are not derived from "don't initiate force/screw with people's life and property?" Modern examples are typically bans on things.

[Rassah]

You're an idiot because:

1. You think you have a point, but don't.
2. You're actually wrong about the specific complaint you have.
3. You're the one who didn't know about any of this stuff until I pointed it out, but you try and act like you did.

Read my long post again, and try to comprehend it - I know it must be hard for you. And read the recent link I provided so won't keep acting like an idiot.

1. You're an idiot because you think your post has a point, but it's just a huge waste of time in relation to these discussions
2. My complaint was that killing wolves disrupts the cascade, not eliminates it, and your post says nothing about the means of protecting environment ecosystems, just about how they work.
3. All this crap was covered in highschool oceanography and lowest level university geology class, so yes, I knew it.

I was pissed off, because I wasted such a long time reading your whole post, waiting to read something new or relevant, but it didn't answer anything about who should be responsible for protecting things, why it should be them, or how. It's basically a nature lesson, and the whole post can be summarized as:

Nature is complicated, therefore government is needed, because...

Apologies for disrupting the discussion.

[Mike Christ]

FA is still here because we're conversing in an anarchistic environment.  If this website was operated as a democracy, we would have the ability to force everyone to gag his speech (and as a totalitarian regime, this thread would've been self-moderated, and only I would've had that power to literally wipe his messages as if they never happened.)  Instead, we allow ourselves (with the help of technology, of course) to decide whether or not we'd like to listen to him.  I prefer it this way, not because I want to, or don't want to, listen to FA, but because I don't want to give the majority the ability to gag me from everyone.  Here, we clearly see how rights work: I give FA the right to speak, for he gives me the right to speak.  Certainly, we could write down something on paper that said, "I hereby decree that the right to speak freely should be upheld" blah blah, but the writing is just intent; the only way we uphold this right is by allowing others the rights we would like to have; this is an example of actual change in the world, and not simply writing; if you've ever met an Unchristianly Christian, you'll know what this means.  Ultimately, this boils down to freedom: I give you the right to be free, and I am free because I give this right to others; those who disagree, who feel they have a right to be free while others do not, is what really kills me.  However, rights don't always have to be granted: the moment we admit that it is okay to kill, we allow ourselves to be killed; this is a very important case of when a right should not be upheld.  I don't believe I should have the right to kill you, because I don't want to be killed.  This is how law comes to existence; law does not highlight our rights, but highlights what rights we do not grant one another. 

This is precisely why it is dangerous to give our collective right to create and take away law from one another to a single entity, which is not required to subject itself upon that law simply because it is the only law-creation entity within its borders; it is essentially the same as saying, "I have no say in what rights you or I have; only the government has that right."  In this sense, government is always corrupt, as it assumes it has more rights than others, as if it were a god; once this entity amasses enough power, it can change the course of our lives in any way it wishes, for any purpose (lately, and probably always if I wanted to look into it, for wealth, and by extension, power; same goes for government and religion.)  It always begins with anarchy; all other organisms of the world, and the world itself, and all of space for that matter, exist in anarchy, just as there are only atheistic babies before they must (literally) be trained to be what specific religion they will take part.  The state lives upon that anarchy, and seeks to change it in the way it sees fit, by housing the world and renting it out to us.  We can certainly talk about the ways best to rule ourselves and our peers, but I believe this notion, that we can successfully govern everyone else but can't even govern ourselves, is becoming outdated; we know a lot more now than we did when we invented government, and I don't think we need divine forces to guide our way any longer.

So, as I mentioned prior, the problem that environmental conservationists face is the same problem that I face; the problem is to change minds.  Government makes no difference; if man has power to give government, which would then be given to whatever problem there was, man has power to give where he so chooses; the difference is, does he have a choice?  For example: if getting involved with wars was something we collectively agreed on, we would be throwing ourselves at the military, yes?

[dominicus]

the fundamental problem is that costs are too high. All the rest of what you're talking about stems from that simple fact.

No, I disagree.  You're confusing problem with symptom.  The high prices (and poor overall outcomes) of US healthcare relative to other countries is a *symptom* of the dysfunction in the current system.  It is not, by itself the cause.

One of the big issues resulting in high individual pricing is that the healthcare revenue pool is currently not well-aligned with the cost pool.  This causes a huge amount of unpaid costs and preventable emergency care costs to be tacked on to those who responsibly have insurance and pay their bills, including business-financed health plans.  Again issue->misalignment, symptom->high prices to those that actually pay for healthcare.  Alignment of revenue & costs is a key part of the solution.  Freeriders be gone.

The other big issue is citizen unwillingness/inability to afford healthcare planning en-masse.  Why do people find themselves with crushing medical debt, unprepared, and even uninsured?  There's a whole number of reasons this happens, and only a few are individually controllable.

Carrying insurance, which insulates you from catastrophic or severe expenses is good. It is something everyone should have. Carrying a health plan that insulates you from every expense and makes every decision cost-neutral, on the other hand, is a terrible idea. It guarantees that you will pay more for your healthcare than you would have without it.

It may be a terrible idea to you, and I bet to many alert people with time to micromanage their healthcare, plan ahead, and have a stash of free cash for emergencies and "wellness" care.  This is not the profile of the average US citizen, this is not even your 30th percentile citizen.  I'm happy for you and you seem to have succeeded so far.  However I disagree your stategy is widely applicable, or that it's a good idea to export it to those who are known to be ill-prepared to execute it.

Partial self-insurance is not a workable/sound idea for a population who, for various reasons, is unable to save even for their own retirement.  75% of US people nearing retirement have <$30K saved.  Are you recommending these seniors, unable to save for a patently certain event like retirement, to go with the emergencies-only plan?  If not, then you're just advocating for a variation of the freerider program we had prior to ACA...a "freerider-light"?

if you start talking about cost-effective medicine people freak out like it means cutting corners and getting shoddy care. But because I pay out of pocket, I get to make reasoned choices about the health care options in front of me...

Again, you may be good at negotiating, and it may provide you with instant savings.  The skill and inclination to execute this isn't common, and it's not a strategy that will succeed for your average (especially below-average) population.  There is an enormous, built-in imbalance of power in healthcare, and the patient is ALWAYS in the weakest (pun intended) position to negotiate.  Why hang your hat in the weakest of all pegs?

"...get to make reasoned choices about the health care options in front of me"....really now?  This must be close to verbatim what I read on a notice years ago...Human Resources smooth talk for higher premiums, higher co-pays, and higher out-of-pocket limits.  But hey, they're doing us all a favor, we should all feel good 'cause now we're all empowered and motivated, and have skin-in-the-game, and I guess the HR people can sleep at night.  I'll tell you, a decreasing amount of people actually find these statements convincing.  Not because they're not achievable by some (i.e. there's a bit of truth in every good lie), but because by now everyone is aware they're impractical for most.

I do agree there are costs to be saved, but I have little faith in these savings being realized by grassroots haggling (or pulling bootstraps for that matter).

You talk about regular checkups.  The costs to deliver these are tiny compared to non-preventive care.  Yet, a surprisingly large proportion of patients don't take advantage of annual wellness checkups even when included in their "subscription plan".  I assert that the rate of preventive care will always be hopelessly worse with self-payers.  Given the documented cost-benefit of catching conditions early, again another area your suggestions, as successful as they may prove to you, just don't scale and don't improve the overall system.

Unless people start paying for their own health care, this cycle will never end and eventually the country will be basically a "company town" where we all work for the health care industry.

Really?  The cycle will *never* end?  Well, signs already point to this not being the case, but no one can rule out we'll go a few more years of escalating HC costs.
That being said, you paint an impossible unraveling.  We will NEVER become a "company town" where we all work to pay for HC.  The people will install some form of "single-payer" long before we're anywhere near your prediction.  Not a chance.

My prediction is that we'll be taking another run at a public option again in ~10 years time.  No "company town".

[FirstAscent]

You're an idiot because:

1. You think you have a point, but don't.
2. You're actually wrong about the specific complaint you have.
3. You're the one who didn't know about any of this stuff until I pointed it out, but you try and act like you did.

Read my long post again, and try to comprehend it - I know it must be hard for you. And read the recent link I provided so won't keep acting like an idiot.

1. You're an idiot because you think your post has a point, but it's just a huge waste of time in relation to these discussions
2. My complaint was that killing wolves disrupts the cascade, not eliminates it, and your post says nothing about the means of protecting environment ecosystems, just about how they work.
3. All this crap was covered in highschool oceanography and lowest level university geology class, so yes, I knew it.

I was pissed off, because I wasted such a long time reading your whole post, waiting to read something new or relevant, but it didn't answer anything about who should be responsible for protecting things, why it should be them, or how. It's basically a nature lesson, and the whole post can be summarized as:

Nature is complicated, therefore government is needed, because...

Apologies for disrupting the discussion.

Thank you for that work of fiction. See here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=268056.msg2893060#msg2893060