Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins?

[myrkul]

So we disagree.  It has to go to arbitration.

And since:

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

And any sane arbiter would tell you to get fucked.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Wimp.  You go to hospitals for paper cuts and look for foreigners to provide statute law for it to be done free.  Be less pathetic.

Sooo...you're admitting you didn't know what you were talking about?

I know exactly what I am taking about.  You are asking me to find a statute that obliges free treatment of papercuts.  And that's pathetic.  You get free treatment of emergencies - be grateful for that.  

Better still, stop free-loading and buy insurance.

So by redirecting the argument onto this un-important matter, are you dodging the fact you were wrong about taxpayers footing the bill for patients who can't pay?

Its you were on about paper cuts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

... requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

If its an emergency you get it for free.  If you had a charge on your credit card, your "charitable" doctors are having a laugh.

[Hawker]

So we disagree.  It has to go to arbitration.

And since:

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

And any sane arbiter would tell you to get fucked.

You can tell yourself that.  But I am 100% sure that most arbitrators would be pro-growth and would regard your stubbornness as interfering with my property.

The nice thing is that I will accept the decision of the arbitrator.  You two are giving the impression that if you lose the decision, you would not accept it.

[cryptoanarchist]

...snip...

Wimp.  You go to hospitals for paper cuts and look for foreigners to provide statute law for it to be done free.  Be less pathetic.

Sooo...you're admitting you didn't know what you were talking about?

I know exactly what I am taking about.  You are asking me to find a statute that obliges free treatment of papercuts.  And that's pathetic.  You get free treatment of emergencies - be grateful for that.  

Better still, stop free-loading and buy insurance.

So by redirecting the argument onto this un-important matter, are you dodging the fact you were wrong about taxpayers footing the bill for patients who can't pay?

Its you were on about paper cuts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

... requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

If its an emergency you get it for free.  If you had a charge on your credit card, your "charitable" doctors are having a laugh.

It didn't say you get service for free, it said they are required to treat you if you are IN NEED.

I wanted to let you hang yourself here, because I actually DO KNOW exactly how hospitals treat you with no insurance since I've been in that boat many times. So congratulations on sounding like an ignoramus.

FACT: I have an untreated inguinal hernia. I went into the hospital and they didn't treat it saying "its not an emergency until its strangulated, so we can't do anything."

FACT: I also have a torn rotator cuff. One time I went to the Emergency Room because I couldn't get it back into socket. They took me in after about an hour, popped it back in, then gave me a bill for about $3000.

Don't talk about how healthcare works in America, unless you want to sound like a total asshole.

[myrkul]

The nice thing is that I will accept the decision of the arbitrator.

Even if he tells you to get fucked?

[cryptoanarchist]

So we disagree.  It has to go to arbitration.

And since:

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

And any sane arbiter would tell you to get fucked.

You can tell yourself that.  But I am 100% sure that most arbitrators would be pro-growth and would regard your stubbornness as interfering with my property.

The nice thing is that I will accept the decision of the arbitrator.  You two are giving the impression that if you lose the decision, you would not accept it.

Maybe government arbiters who are biased. Who's to say that being pro-growth means your road is more important. What if he's drilling oil on his property and that supports the economy more than your road?

[Hawker]

...snip...

Maybe government arbiters who are biased. Who's to say that being pro-growth means your road is more important. What if he's drilling oil on his property and that supports the economy more than your road?

You either accept the NAP or you don't.  You give the impression that in a NAP based society, you would demanding a constitution with protection of property rights.

[myrkul]

FACT: I have an untreated inguinal hernia. I went into the hospital and they didn't treat it saying "its not an emergency until its strangulated, so we can't do anything."

Same situation. Kinda weird, but probably not statistically significant.

But yeah. The law only says they can't refuse treatment in an emergency. Not that they can't bill ya.

[Hawker]

FACT: I have an untreated inguinal hernia. I went into the hospital and they didn't treat it saying "its not an emergency until its strangulated, so we can't do anything."

Same situation. Kinda weird, but probably not statistically significant.

But yeah. The law only says they can't refuse treatment in an emergency. Not that they can't bill ya.

Call me confused.  If its an emergency and if you are broke, do they have to treat you for free or not?  

EDIT for clarity: if the answer is no, then I'm with cryptoanarchist and its outrageous to make insurance compulsory.  But I know a flaky fucker who says he gets free care.

[myrkul]

Call me confused.  If its an emergency and if you are broke, do they have to treat you for free or not?

They have to treat you. It does not have to be free. Also, you never answered this:

The nice thing is that I will accept the decision of the arbitrator.

Even if he tells you to get fucked?

[Hawker]

Call me confused.  If its an emergency and if you are broke, do they have to treat you for free or not?

They have to treat you. It does not have to be free. Also, you never answered this:

The nice thing is that I will accept the decision of the arbitrator.

Even if he tells you to get fucked?

I am in court Tuesday and the whole litigation thing is just part of what you do in the business world.  If you win, you win.  If not, you move on.  In a NAP world, where the arbitrator is balancing the economic interests of 2 million against the economic interest of one, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.  I'd be buying land around the the motorway exits like a mofo.

On the big question, if you are broke and entitled to free medical care, damn right I want insurance to be compulsory and collected through the tax system.  Free-loaders can cry all they want.

EDIT for clarity: if a man with a gun or a jail where you risk rape is what it takes you make you pay for your own medical care, then so be it.  I'm taxed enough already.

[cryptoanarchist]

FACT: I have an untreated inguinal hernia. I went into the hospital and they didn't treat it saying "its not an emergency until its strangulated, so we can't do anything."

Same situation. Kinda weird, but probably not statistically significant.

But yeah. The law only says they can't refuse treatment in an emergency. Not that they can't bill ya.

Call me confused.  If its an emergency and if you are broke, do they have to treat you for free or not?  

EDIT for clarity: if the answer is no, then I'm with cryptoanarchist and its outrageous to make insurance compulsory.  But I know a flaky fucker who says he gets free care.

OMG...they have to treat you if it is an emergency, which usually means life threatening. They NEVER treat you for free. If you don't have insurance, AND its an emergency, than you are billed.

[Hawker]

...snip...

OMG...they have to treat you if it is an emergency, which usually means life threatening. They NEVER treat you for free. If you don't have insurance, AND its an emergency, than you are billed.

But if you are an illegal and leave the country or just a bloody deadbeat, I'm stuck with the bill you neglected to pay. 

[myrkul]

In a NAP world, where the arbitrator is balancing the economic interests of 2 million against the economic interest of one, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

I'mma take that as a "Yes, but I don't think that would happen." See, the problem is, the arbiter is not there to balance the economic interests of anyone. He is there to decide if building the road through the land would violate that landowner's rights.

Remember:

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

Hence, he would tell you to get fucked.

[Hawker]

In a NAP world, where the arbitrator is balancing the economic interests of 2 million against the economic interest of one, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

I'mma take that as a "Yes, but I don't think that would happen." See, the problem is, the arbiter is not there to balance the economic interests of anyone. He is there to decide if building the road through the land would violate that landowner's rights.
..snip...

Fine.  I'm 100% happy that in a NAP world, the arbitrator will be market led and that the damage of the 2 million people will outweigh the damage to the one objector.  I will buy land around the proposed motorway exits.  The objector is interfering with my use of my land and will lose.  For people like me, there would be nothing to worry about.

Call this a win.  You've convinced me that your idea would work for me  Your recommendation of "The Machinery of Freedom" was a master-stroke.

[myrkul]

In a NAP world, where the arbitrator is balancing the economic interests of 2 million against the economic interest of one, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

I'mma take that as a "Yes, but I don't think that would happen." See, the problem is, the arbiter is not there to balance the economic interests of anyone. He is there to decide if building the road through the land would violate that landowner's rights.
..snip...

Fine.  I'm 100% happy that in a NAP world, the arbitrator will be market led and that the damage of the 2 million people will outweigh the damage to the one objector.  For people like me, there would be nothing to worry about.

Call this a win.

Your logic baffles me.... But I guess I'll accept a win. I take it to mean you will now support the Non-Agression Principle, and a market-based society?

[Hawker]

In a NAP world, where the arbitrator is balancing the economic interests of 2 million against the economic interest of one, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

I'mma take that as a "Yes, but I don't think that would happen." See, the problem is, the arbiter is not there to balance the economic interests of anyone. He is there to decide if building the road through the land would violate that landowner's rights.
..snip...

Fine.  I'm 100% happy that in a NAP world, the arbitrator will be market led and that the damage of the 2 million people will outweigh the damage to the one objector.  For people like me, there would be nothing to worry about.

Call this a win.

Your logic baffles me.... But I guess I'll accept a win. I take it to mean you will now support the Non-Agression Principle, and a market-based society?

Yes I'm happy that for people with money, things will be fine.  For some reason, I've always been one of them so its going to be OK for me. 

On the other hand, you will be miserable.  The fact that eminent domain still exists under a new form will really spoil your dream.  My bet is that you will be agitating for a written constitution with guaranteed property rights.

[myrkul]

The fact that eminent domain still exists under a new form will really spoil your dream. 

This statement is in direct conflict with this one:

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

Which is correct?

[Hawker]

The fact that eminent domain still exists under a new form will really spoil your dream. 

This statement is in direct conflict with this one:

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

Which is correct?

Both.  Its an anarchy.  There are no fixed property rights or indeed any rights at all.  Its all market law as set out in "The Machinery of Freedom."  If you are on a patch of land and doing something that affects my land, you are interfering with my property without my consent. For example, if a road will raise the value of my land and you are stopping the road, you are interfering with my property without my consent.

If there are 2 million people like me and one of you, then you are interfering with 2 million people's property without their consent.  Its arbitration or die.  To be honest, you are lucky we are willing to go to arbitration.  Who do you think you are?

[myrkul]

If you are on a patch of land and doing something that affects my land, you are interfering with my property without my consent. For example, if a road will raise the value of my land and you are stopping the road, you are interfering with my property without my consent.

I am not stopping the road. Roads can curve. The minute the road hits my property, however, then you are doing something that affects my land. Build around.

Or, take me to arbitration, and get told, not only to get fucked, but to pay me for my time, and cover all the arbitration costs.