On September 07 2011 07:15 gororokgororok wrote:
I like to live in a country where things are regulated and where the goverment support the lower social classes.
Those "lower social classes" are working their asses off for other peoples profit. You do realize this, right ?
Im obviously talking mostly about welfare class. And also there are quite a lot of arrangements for people with low incomes as well. They might work their asses off for sure, but there are still some things in our society which are unpayable for most. Health care and education are just a few of them. Also if you don't make a lot of money (but arent on welfare, welfare get this as well btw) you can submit for a free washing machine for example.
Just because people work their ass of doesn't mean they should make a ton of money, a good example of this are losing 24 tabling shortstackers.
On September 07 2011 07:15 gororokgororok wrote:
I like to live in a country where things are regulated and where the goverment support the lower social classes.
"lower social classes"
This also doesn't mean I look down on them, but it's a fact that they are lower social class. You are part of a social class based on (for the most part) your spendable income.
Just because it's called lower, doesn't make them a lower human being, if that was what you are referring to.
1: security (what is to stop the richest and most powerful guy in town from killing that guy who insulted his honour, or even worse, to stop the more powerful town from pillaging/ransoming the neighbouring town?)
Private security, as i stated earlier, we have private security in the area where i live, its way way more effective than any kind of public police
stopping a town from pillaging another one? what stops the US from pillaging an entire nation like Afghanistan/Iraq? you are assuming the current system actually stops this from happening, and it doesnt.
2: education (for example, in your ideal anarchic society, is education mandatory for children? can a parent choose to keep children away from school, to help them work in a farm, factory or mine? if not - who enforces this? this point is particularly important, so please don't dodge it; in a stateless society, what saves children who lack the ability to defend themselves from parents that are obviously unfit? )
Again you make the same mistake of thinking that problem doesnt happen in a society with a state, obviously child labor and illiteracy are HUGE in the world, in societies with government, as you can notice it happens in poor countries, such as China that has huge government oversight, so you can see that the strongest correlation here is not with the state but with poverty and civility.
3: health care (will any health care be provided for someone without the wealth to pay whatever a doctor charges?
Health care costs are absurdly raised by state regulations and who the sytem is run, local small doctors that make house visits dont exist anymore, this system is way more efficient dealing with people living in poverty.
The de-regulation of a healthcare system would be great, so many people could help others with small clinics without people overqualified, most people without money die for things an average nurse can cure.
4: transportation (should people be responsible themselves for building roads that lead to wherever they want to live? should these roads be maintained with toll, or how?)
In mexico we have privately "owned" interstates, they are given the chance to build something and charge a toll for a period of time and believe me they are by far the best roads in the country, sadly the government takes over a period of time and the roads become shit again.
-------------------------
Those questions are very common, in Stefans Molyneux's book you can read way more detailed and informed responses than i can give you, but these questions have never posed the slightest of threats to anarchy.
Your answers to 1 3 and 4 were expected and I don't think there's any point in debating them because we're at a standstill. I understand where you're coming from, and you are absolutely correct regarding that many governments err in the same way I accuse anarchy of. However, my general point is that politicians who are democratically elected and live in transparent, uncorrupt societies, have a great incentive for governing well because they depend upon a population's approval for their ability to work. Thus, they are statistically more likely to come to a conclusion that benefits as many people as possible than what individuals are, because unlike individuals, what benefits others is what benefits themselves - even immediately.
Transparancy is absolutely key though, politicians who are able to use their power unchecked or without a population's awareness are extremely dangerous, as shown time and time again. This (the lack of bad politicians - and bad politicians is an inevitable consequence of lacking political transparancy) is the reason for the success of scandinavian democracy, not that we are more "civil". I mean, our civility isn't genetical, it came from somewhere. Norway has been a fairly violent and contentious country in the past, but because of good governance leading to a more well-educated society and with less wealth disparity than most other countries, our population has become capable of coexisting "more civilly" than almost anywhere else; the underlying reasons for possible conflict are actively handled by the government.
as for your answer to #2, it is complete bs. look at cuba. It's had a higher literacy rate than USA for decades. Even more telling: Look at african countries post-independence. In fact, african countries post-independence (from late 50-s onward) gives off some really damning statistics - and it's quite interesting reading. I have my information from Paul Nugent's book "Africa Since Independence" - I can find more detailed statistics if you'd like but right now I only have time for a summary. Post-independence (or arguably, post-choosing new "master", different new states had different approaches for government, several leaned to the soviet union for support, several towards usa, and similarly had different approaches towards economy and education/health care.
One trend which showed absolutely true (also applies to latin america - although I'm not sure if to a similar degree) is that countries that took a socialistic approach eventually experienced famine and a greater degree of poverty than countries that took a "capitalistic" approach - but at the same time, countries that took a socialistic approach did a much, much better job at reducing illiteracy rates, and generally had better health care. Essentially, two countries could have nearly the same economy and illiteracy rate and be comparable in many ways (I believe countries that were compared included kenya - tanzania, ghana- ivory coast and senegal - some other) at the point of independence, but after the following 20 year period, countries that enforced mandatory education for children, would have literacy rates around 90%, whereas countries that didn't, were still down at 50%ish.
I know this isn't a discussion of capitalism vs socialism (and the socialistic countries fared worse in other areas of society anyway), but the comparison still shows that enforced education lead to children going to school, while not enforcing education lead to many children not going to school and having to work instead. Government action was the defining trait in determining whether or not children went to school or worked, and thus whether a population became literate or not.
Furthermore, your analogy (from the other post) about "giving one out of 5 barbarians a gun" just doesn't hold water at all. a more correct analogy would be; "five barbarians keep fighting eachother with sticks whenever they feel they have an advantage in strenght and something they can get from the other. Because they reach the conclusion that the constant fighting is detrimental to their personal safety, they agree to appoint one guy (the one guy the majority of them supports) to uphold the safety, and then they give that guy the gun. the guy who got the gun, is also told that his ability to maintain holding the gun (which he likes), depends on him doing his job so well that he will continue to be viewed favourably by the majority."
also, I probably exaggerated the degree scandinavian countries succeed in being like the ideal state I presented - but the ideals I described are also the pursued ideals of the social democratic state.
i wish someone could pick out the best parts of this thread :o it's really interesting but looks like a lot of work to sift though
1
palak United States. Sep 07 2011 23:35. Posts 4601
Health care costs are absurdly raised by state regulations and who the sytem is run, local small doctors that make house visits dont exist anymore, this system is way more efficient dealing with people living in poverty.
The de-regulation of a healthcare system would be great, so many people could help others with small clinics without people overqualified, most people without money die for things an average nurse can cure.
Doctors making house calls has nothing at all to do with regulation. As of now there is already an organization which makes house calls. The lack of house calls is profit driven.
The VA’s IAH program, which has grown over the years to serve veterans in almost every state, has compiled enough statistics by now to demonstrate that this approach to care really works. An analysis of data from a 2002 VA study of more than 11,000 patients showed that after veterans were moved to an IAH program that year, hospital days dropped by 62 percent and nursing home days by 88 percent. Overall costs fell by 24 percent. As spending went down, patient satisfaction went up. The VA says veterans consistently give the program a high satisfaction rating, no doubt in part because patients enrolled in the program are living longer than their counterparts who are not.
Countries with universal healthcare payless on avg and cover more ppl
Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday.
Conservatives always say healthcare costs would decrease massively if we had deregulation. But I've never seen them give any actual examples of countries w/ deregulation vs countries w/ regulation. All i've ever seen is the US is the most deregulated and has the highest costs, meanwhile countries w/ universal public healthcare have much cheaper costs. Even Mexico is almost universal
The big question, critics contend, is whether all those people actually get the health care the government has promised.
Under the plan, children with leukemia have been cured, women receive breast cancer treatment, elderly people get cataract operations and people with H.I.V. are assured their drugs. Usually at no cost.
Even critics who argue that the government is failing to live up to the promise of universal health coverage acknowledge that Mexico’s program saves lives and protects families from falling into poverty in many cases of catastrophic illness.
House visits its not very profitable under the current regulated healthcare system, so yeah its profit driven but only because of the current system.
For your questions on healthcare:
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
palak United States. Sep 08 2011 02:19. Posts 4601
^i hate youtube vids...just flicking through the first one for 30 secs and decided to random factcheck where ever i had landed. Landed at 15:53...he claims around 16:05 that it costs 1billion for a new drug approval.
The statistic Big Pharma typically cites (see, for instance, this PhRMA video on how Mister Chemical Compound becomes Mister Brand-Name Drug) is that the cost of bringing a new drug to market is about $1 billion. Now a new study indicates the cost is more like, um, $55 million.
Big Pharma has been making its R&D argument for half a century, but the specific source of the $1 billion claim is a 2003 study published in the Journal of Health Economics by economists Joseph DiMasi of Tufts, Ronald W. Hansen of the University of Rochester, and Henry Grabowski of Duke. I will henceforth refer to this team as the Tufts Center group, because they were working out of the (drug-company-funded) Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. The Tufts Center group "obtained from a survey of 10 pharmaceutical firms" the research and development costs of 68 randomly chosen new drugs and calculated an average cost of $802 million in 2000 dollars. That comes to $1 billion in 2011 dollars based on the general inflation rate since 2000 (28 percent). One billion dollars for every little orange prescription bottle in your medicine cabinet! And according to PhRMA, even that is way too low! As of 2006, its calculation of the drug-development average had already risen to $1.32 billion. That means costs specific to drug development increased by 64 percent between 2000 and 2006. Medical inflation typically outpaces general inflation, but PhRMA's calculation puts its rate of cost increase at more than twice the rate for medical inflation during that period (26 percent). If Pharma's alleged inflation rate hasn't slackened since 2006, then the drug-development average should be now approaching $2 billion. But let's not go there. We'll stick to Big Pharma's official last-stated estimate of $1.32 billion.
The new study, by sociologist Donald W. Light of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and economist Rebecca Warburton of the University of Victoria, and published in the journal BioSocieties, builds on some excellent previous research by journalist and health care blogger Merrill Goozner, author of The $800 Million Pill, and the consumer advocate Jamie Love. Light and Warburton begin by pointing out that drug companies submitted their R&D data to the Tufts Center group on a confidential basis and that these numbers are therefore unverifiable. Light and Warburton find it a little fishy that only 10 of the 24 invited firms chose to participate, given "the centrality of the issue and the prominence of the Center" within the industry. "The sample," they suggest, "could be skewed" toward companies or drugs "with higher R&D costs." Light and Warburton also observe that if the Tufts Center group made any effort of its own to verify the information it received from the drug companies, the group makes no mention of it in the study.
I don't see anything else on them increasing costs w/ sources and the majority of places just talk about the amendments as a good thing that helped make drugs safer in America.
Stuff on beta-blocker lag, example of bad regulation, not of regulation being bad. Plus now-a-days the fda is working to speed up approval processes.
Drug approval times pdf spoiled. + Show Spoiler +
his sources found in the description are all from either ruwart, von mises (austrian school thinktank), an anarcho blog which does not cite sources but seems to just be quoting ruwart, a paper by newhouse which actually states universal coverage wouldn't really be bad on page 18, john strossel who goes between varying degrees of bias but who's source used is claiming that medicare is a ponzi scheme for old ppl and that medicare is unsustainable (everyone agrees on the 2nd part), and finally a paper from June of 1975....extremely biased sources for a presentation
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
You're saying that someone who works for 40 hours a week cleaning gardens should make the same money as a scientist who makes the same amount of hours?
That's just ignorant. The scientist studied much longer, is of much higher value etc etc.
"This is the story of Anarchism. By going back over the key events of the last two centuries of social history, the series reveals, for the first time, the origins and destiny of a political trend that has been fighting all gods and all masters for over 150 years.
Who exactly are they? Where do those who have always called themselves anarchists come from and what is their line of thought? Why do we consider their thinking to be confused and their history such a cause for concern?
Featuring previously unseen and forgotten archive footage, in addition to outstanding documentation and accounts by world experts, this documentary series recounts the history of a movement that from Paris to New York, and from Tokyo to Buenos Aires, has constantly imbued the world with its freedom and revolt."
Maybe the authority doesn't like the spectre of Ravachol, bombs, or explosions. There was also a source that talked about Ravachol uttering part of his last words while after being decapitated but there was no distinction on what was actually said. I had never heard of Ravachol before today and that was the type of History I was into.
This idea of the "B____ du travail" (General Condederation of Labor? CGT?) is very important. I didn't know much about this. Phenomenal idea and a precursor to the IWW.
, different new states had different approaches for government, several leaned to the soviet union for support, several towards usa, and similarly had different approaches towards economy and education/health care. 
United States. Mar 02 2019 01:10. Posts 8516
