Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins?

[Hawker]

1. Some people pay in more than they receive back through public services.

2/3. Even in a system with lower cost health care due to the free market, there will still be people who cannot afford to pay. They may be living month to month, or they may even be destitute and have no money whatsoever. What happens to them?

1. Yes, most people do. Those are the people being robbed of the rewards of their productivity.

2/3. In a free market system, where anyone can provide healthcare to anyone, the market will aggressively trade with the poor. Again, look at Wal-Mart. They might not get as good of service, just like a poor person can't afford as nice of anything as a rich person, but they'll get poor people healthcare. Shopping at Wal-Mart isn't as nice as other stores, but poor people are content to shop there, and Wal-Mart is happy to cater to them.

What you leave out is that no matter what system you have, health has to be paid for and it can't be paid for when you are sick as you likely can't work. 

So, using the tax system to pay for your own health care makes sense.  Everyone pays taxes; everyone gets sick; when you get sick, you get back the money you have paid in.

And its pretty certain you will get sick...modern societies have such long lifespans that almost everyone needs hospital care at some point.

[1714119734]

1714119734

[1714119734]

1714119734

[cryptoanarchist]

Let's start with "Sometimes, and only temporarily."

No, competition always drives down price. That's basic logic. Monopoly prices are higher to maximize revenue if there is no one to offer an alternative.

Incorrect. You need to understand the dynamics of X. Increased competition does not really increase supply. It only moves it from its source to the consumer. And once consumed, the actual supply is decreased further and permanently depleted. At best, you will see a temporary price decrease which will be more than offset by the future rise in prices due to the permanent total supply depletion available at the source. Again, your understanding of the full process is deficient.

I never said that increased competition increases supply, it doesn't have to. It can lower demand for the competitors product, which decreases their price. You are making the econ 101 mistake of applying the supply/demand curve to the entire market for a product, even though competitors may have different methods of production. Like most statists, you think there is some magical formula to find the best price, and throw out the day-to-day decisions of individuals that constantly change the numbers.

Can you give any real life examples of your absurd scenario? How would healthcare be "permanently depleted" by competition?

[cryptoanarchist]

1. Some people pay in more than they receive back through public services.

2/3. Even in a system with lower cost health care due to the free market, there will still be people who cannot afford to pay. They may be living month to month, or they may even be destitute and have no money whatsoever. What happens to them?

1. Yes, most people do. Those are the people being robbed of the rewards of their productivity.

2/3. In a free market system, where anyone can provide healthcare to anyone, the market will aggressively trade with the poor. Again, look at Wal-Mart. They might not get as good of service, just like a poor person can't afford as nice of anything as a rich person, but they'll get poor people healthcare. Shopping at Wal-Mart isn't as nice as other stores, but poor people are content to shop there, and Wal-Mart is happy to cater to them.

What you leave out is that no matter what system you have, health has to be paid for and it can't be paid for when you are sick as you likely can't work. 

So, using the tax system to pay for your own health care makes sense.  Everyone pays taxes; everyone gets sick; when you get sick, you get back the money you have paid in.

And its pretty certain you will get sick...modern societies have such long lifespans that almost everyone needs hospital care at some point.

So do you think it is ok for you to point a gun at my head and tell me I HAVE to pay for your healthcare, OR ELSE?? Is that the kind of thug you are? If so, our conversation is over.

[Hawker]

...snip...

So do you think it is ok for you to point a gun at my head and tell me I HAVE to pay for your healthcare, OR ELSE?? Is that the kind of thug you are? If so, our conversation is over.

No - you have to pay for your health care.  You may be healthy now but you almost certainly will get sick and you do have to pay for your care.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Finally: If  do not wish to pay for healt care I should not have to. Of course this would man I would not receive any either. I ant to make my own decisions. Adults should.

That's a perfectly valid position.  The problem is that people never stick to it.  When healthy they skip insurance and talk about freedom of choice. Then they show at emergency clinics desperate not to have their baby die and society has to pick up the cost.

[FirstAscent]

Let's start with "Sometimes, and only temporarily."

No, competition always drives down price. That's basic logic. Monopoly prices are higher to maximize revenue if there is no one to offer an alternative.

Incorrect. You need to understand the dynamics of X. Increased competition does not really increase supply. It only moves it from its source to the consumer. And once consumed, the actual supply is decreased further and permanently depleted. At best, you will see a temporary price decrease which will be more than offset by the future rise in prices due to the permanent total supply depletion available at the source. Again, your understanding of the full process is deficient.

I never said that increased competition increases supply, it doesn't have to. It can lower demand for the competitors product, which decreases their price. You are making the econ 101 mistake of applying the supply/demand curve to the entire market for a product, even though competitors may have different methods of production.

We're not in econ 101. We're in the real world. I am making no mistake here. You are making the mistake in thinking that your example is how the free market works by applying your example to the entire free market. You need to pull your head out of your econ 101 book on economic theory and expose yourself to more modern economic theories.

I could not be more clear when I said your understanding of the free market is deficient precisely because you think one part of the free market and its dynamics apply to the entire free market.

Like most statists, you think there is some magical formula to find the best price, and throw out the day-to-day decisions of individuals that constantly change the numbers.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It's you who thinks the free market finds the magic price.

Can you give any real life examples of your absurd scenario?

Absolutely. And it's not absurd, but rather the scenarios are ubiquitous and are the fundamental building blocks of humanity. The examples include all natural capital which undergoes a non-reversible transformation between initial extraction and consumption at a rate greater than it is renewed.

How would healthcare be "permanently depleted" by competition?

I specifically mentioned that I would be game to have this conversation in another thread or via PM. This conversation is a direct result of your comments about the free market.

[TheButterZone]

Taxes support countless facial and as-applied civil rights violations by pro-criminal tyrannies that result in countless murders, rapes, maimings, and lesser crimes perpetrated with practical impunity against disarmed and defenseless innocents.

[FirstAscent]

FA by referring to a commodity X and showing that deplting that commidty will increase price (if demand is stable) even ina free mrket shows you are the one missing some things. Firstly aleterntives may exist for the utility that X posseses and second with he right level of technology no commodity can ever be depleted because it can always be replenished.

You're the one missing some things. The free market is not omnipotent, and the participants have their own self interests. Price is determined by the knowledge or lack of knowledge on the part of the consumer and the seller. These participants will act in the way I described, and the scenario will play out in the fashion I described. The ultimate cost is determined in the future, after it is too late for the free market to rectify.

Long term a free market is the most efficient system and therefore prices will be lowest.

But as I said, the price determined by the free market is not actually what it should be due to the ignorance of the players.

Seriously, you need to start investigating the deeper and broader consequences in addition to the affect on price.

[pekv2]

Yup, don't wanna to go to prison. Get all the appropriate people, a well known reputable tax man and a lawyer. But that's thinking in the clouds. Unless you have 100Ghash/s machines to pay for all of it.

[westkybitcoins]

...snip...
Finally: If  do not wish to pay for healt care I should not have to. Of course this would man I would not receive any either. I ant to make my own decisions. Adults should.

That's a perfectly valid position.  The problem is that people never stick to it.

This view has a number of problems. First, the universal declaration that people never stick to it. The Amish don't believe in stealing to get what you need. And they've setup a community to help each other so they don't need to rely on national healthcare. And yes, there are non-Amish who also take the position that they shouldn't get what they haven't paid for... and actually stick to it.

Second though, is the curious thought... are these people, after suddenly renouncing their stance due to a personal crisis, showing up at hospitals with guns and forcing healthcare from others? No? Then how are they obtaining it? Because others are choosing to give it to them. How that gets resolved afterwards is the issue. The obvious solution would be debt, or some other payment plan, or simply not giving them the care they can't afford, or giving the healthcare away as charity (from what I understand, many doctors in the past used to do this, before our modern system.)

The impression I get is that you view debt/payments/no-care/charity as a bad, unacceptable array of responses to the problem of some people not taking responsibility for their health care... as so bad, that you consider a inefficient, corrupt, national-scale government wealth redistribution program to be a better option.

Seen in that light, can you understand why so many disagree with you?

[Hawker]

...snip...
Finally: If  do not wish to pay for healt care I should not have to. Of course this would man I would not receive any either. I ant to make my own decisions. Adults should.

That's a perfectly valid position.  The problem is that people never stick to it.  When healthy they skip insurance and talk about freedom of choice. Then they show at emergency clinics desperate not to have their baby die and society has to pick up the cost.

Of course they do that is perfectly rational behaviour. I would too if I had elected not to take out health insurence and got sick. The solution? Easy don't provide the service to people that did not pay. Decisions have concequences you have to live by or die for.

Btw I have health insurance both ecause it is mandatory in my socialistic country but also becausein such countries the top few percentent incomes pay for mot of everyone's public services so I get it for far cheaper than it really cost. Yes I am till at the levelof income that I am basically a parasite of the society like most people are. And l even earn way above average income.

You make it sound simple.  If a man leaves his wife and baby and cancels their insurance, you are 100% happy to let that baby die?

[Hawker]

If you like to you are perfectly free o pay for them. Just don' force me to.

So your view is that the baby dies?

[myrkul]

If you like to you are perfectly free o pay for them. Just don' force me to.

So your view is that the baby dies?

I take that to mean you're not willing to pay for them, but you are perfectly willing to force others to?

[westkybitcoins]

If you like to you are perfectly free o pay for them. Just don' force me to.

So your view is that the baby dies?

Surely you realize that's a false dichotomy.

[Hawker]

If you like to you are perfectly free o pay for them. Just don' force me to.

So your view is that the baby dies?

Surely you realize that's a false dichotomy.

wachtwoord says he wants people to take responsibility for their decisions.  So the question I ask is simple; if its wachtwoord's decision, is he happy to let the baby die?

[cryptoanarchist]

If you like to you are perfectly free o pay for them. Just don' force me to.

So your view is that the baby dies?

Surely you realize that's a false dichotomy.

wachtwoord says he wants people to take responsibility for their decisions.  So the question I ask is simple; if its wachtwoord's decision, is he happy to let the baby die?

Hawker, are you happy when someone dies because of poor government service?

[cryptoanarchist]

...snip...

So do you think it is ok for you to point a gun at my head and tell me I HAVE to pay for your healthcare, OR ELSE?? Is that the kind of thug you are? If so, our conversation is over.

No - you have to pay for your health care.  You may be healthy now but you almost certainly will get sick and you do have to pay for your care.

So now you are saying I should take responsibility for myself? Isn't that my position?

[westkybitcoins]

If you like to you are perfectly free o pay for them. Just don' force me to.

So your view is that the baby dies?

Surely you realize that's a false dichotomy.

wachtwoord says he wants people to take responsibility for their decisions.  So the question I ask is simple; if its wachtwoord's decision, is he happy to let the baby die?

But your question presumes that the only two options are: (1) wachtwoord pays via national healthcare, or (2) the poor baby dies. That is a false dichotomy.

(And as an aside, there are also issues with option (1) of the false dichotomy itself, the most notable being the presumption that it ensures that the baby won't die.)

[Hawker]

...snip...
Hawker, are you happy when someone dies because of poor government service?

Poor service is poor service.  I don't care if its a private company, the government or a charity.  

[cryptoanarchist]

...snip...
Hawker, are you happy when someone dies because of poor government service?

Poor service is poor service.  I don't care if its a private company, the government or a charity.  

so you don't care if the baby dies, you just want to use the guns of the state to force other people to pay for it. Sure you're not British?