Universal Healthcare is Wonderful and Will Ensure Better Health care for everyone

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by dr.benway

fact is "illegals" bring great profit. people only want them gone when there's a crisis.

what is more convenient then the possibility of underpaying someone, abusing them, without them having the legal right to demand anything?

Yes, a slave class that helps some unscrupulous business people. Is that what we want?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

i mean if it helps you sleep at night that i think you're a fuckhead simply because of your politics then go right ahead

how about the way you talk about arkansas football like you're just a coach away from a national title

i don't need to make a list. your politics are just the icing on the douchebag cake.

We'll take this up again when Arkansas wins the SEC here within the next couple years.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Corganist

We'll take this up again when Arkansas wins the SEC here within the next couple years.

ah, so you're not an idiot douchebag because of your political beliefs, you're an idiot douchebag because of the sports team for which you root

makes sense to me

[JokeyLoki]

http://forums.netphoria.org/wwwboard/icons/icon10.gif

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

This notion that "the govt just doesn't pay what they're supposed to" is not a bug but a feature. I guess if you're a private insurance company or drug company and you see how medicaid and medicare, with their massive benefits of scale, reap huge savings and cost reductions (e.g., medicaid negotiating deep discounts on drugs), you would be apt to accuse them of "not paying what they're suppose to."

I'm not saying that the government doesn't pay providers what they think their services are worth. I'm saying that they don't even pay providers what the government says those services are worth. It's not just that the government lowballs providers on payment for services, but it also drags its feet on getting the money out, period. It'd be a different thing entirely if the government paid providers regularly, albeit at a lower rate than private insurers. But they don't do that. And none of that even includes the time and money lost on all the onerous paperwork and regulations forced on providers when they care for Medicare patients.

Medicare has kept its cost growth below that of the private insurers. Both Medicare and Medicaid have wildly low administration costs compared to that of the private insurance (6% vs 30%).

And it shows. You get what you pay for.

And if anybody jumps up to accuse the govt of forcing medicare/medicaid on anybody, it's simply not true. Medical facilities are free to decide whether they will accept or refuse medicare/medicaid patients. Obviously, hospitals do not make as much profit from medicare/medicaid patients compared to privately insured patients. But if it becomes actually unprofitable, then hospitals all over the country would drop their medicare/medicaid patients and it would spurn the govt to raise their reimbursement rates.

If that is so, then why hasn't it happened yet? More and more providers are dropping or limiting care of Medicare/Medicaid patients, and yet disbursements keep going down.

I don't think the government is going to force providers to accept government health care. I think they'll let that all take care of itself. Government health care gets enacted. Lots of people drop off the private insurance rolls as companies shed employer based health care to cut costs, leaving fewer people to share the burden amongst the privately insured, thus driving premiums higher. The government dicks around providers like it always has, causing providers to lean on the privately insured even more in order to eke out some sort of compensation, driving premiums yet higher and eventually forcing more people off of private insurance. That leads to insurance companies going under, forcing more people to the government teat. And then providers eventually have to come crawling back to the government and submit to whatever paltry compensation they can get from them since the private option has been priced out of existence.

Despite this popular meme that private companies always run things more efficiently than govt, it's simply not true in the case of healthcare. And why is that?

The key is probably the fact that the govt is not looking to make a profit in this business. There is just something distasteful with having a profit motive here, where it benefits a private insurance to deny somebody coverage or underinsure them.

I don't see how a profit motivation is that much different than the government's motivation (one would hope) to keep the program out of the red. If anything, I think the latter might be less conducive to making good coverage decisions than the former.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I'm not saying that the government doesn't pay providers what they think their services are worth. I'm saying that they don't even pay providers what the government says those services are worth. It's not just that the government lowballs providers on payment for services, but it also drags its feet on getting the money out, period. It'd be a different thing entirely if the government paid providers regularly, albeit at a lower rate than private insurers. But they don't do that. And none of that even includes the time and money lost on all the onerous paperwork and regulations forced on providers when they care for Medicare patients.

To be honest, I'm not aware of this. Do you have a source?

Originally Posted by Corganist

And it shows. You get what you pay for.

Same thing. I'm not aware of any data that definitively shows that people on private insurance are any better off than those on medicare. I've read implications of the opposite actually.

Originally Posted by Corganist

If that is so, then why hasn't it happened yet? More and more providers are dropping or limiting care of Medicare/Medicaid patients, and yet disbursements keep going down.

I don't think the government is going to force providers to accept government health care. I think they'll let that all take care of itself. Government health care gets enacted. Lots of people drop off the private insurance rolls as companies shed employer based health care to cut costs, leaving fewer people to share the burden amongst the privately insured, thus driving premiums higher. The government dicks around providers like it always has, causing providers to lean on the privately insured even more in order to eke out some sort of compensation, driving premiums yet higher and eventually forcing more people off of private insurance. That leads to insurance companies going under, forcing more people to the government teat. And then providers eventually have to come crawling back to the government and submit to whatever paltry compensation they can get from them since the private option has been priced out of existence.

This is a very well known fear among the lawmakers right now. It also happens to be the biggest fear among the private insurers. And that industry has a lot of money. And a lot of lobbyists.

So, naturally, congress, even the democrats in congress, is well to the right of public opinion on single-payer. There are many safeguards being built-in to prevent a trojan horse scenario (e.g., companies cannot shed their current private provider without proving severe financial hardship, reimbursement rates must stay in the same ballpark as average rates by private insurers, etc.). Actually, many lefties are worried that there are too many safeguards, to the point that the public plan will be too weak and whither away. That is probably more likely right now than a public plan that will destroy the private insurers.

Then again, I don't necessarily see something wrong with a public plan forcing private insurance companies out of business if they simply can't keep up. The goal here is to provide universal quality care and a decent cost. If the public plan can do that better than a private plan, so be it. Let's put them both out there and let them compete.

Originally Posted by Corganist

I don't see how a profit motivation is that much different than the government's motivation (one would hope) to keep the program out of the red.

true enough here.

Originally Posted by Corganist

If anything, I think the latter might be less conducive to making good coverage decisions than the former.

But I think the exact opposite here.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

ah, so you're not an idiot douchebag because of your political beliefs, you're an idiot douchebag because of the sports team for which you root

makes sense to me

unrealistic expectations and standards reveals serious character flaws

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

To be honest, I'm not aware of this. Do you have a source?

It's mostly anecdotal. It's what I'm told by family members and other people I know who work on the provider side of the medical profession. I'll try to find something more concrete to back that up.

Same thing. I'm not aware of any data that definitively shows that people on private insurance are any better off than those on medicare. I've read implications of the opposite actually.

I was just referring to the administrative costs. Sure, there's a lot of difference between 6 percent and 30 percent, but that difference shows up in how smoothly the operations run. Medicare may be able to cut costs by keeping administrative costs so low (a lot of which is done by shifting the administrative burden to the providers), but like I said, they get what they pay for.

Then again, I don't necessarily see something wrong with a public plan forcing private insurance companies out of business if they simply can't keep up. The goal here is to provide universal quality care and a decent cost. If the public plan can do that better than a private plan, so be it. Let's put them both out there and let them compete.

I think that's fine, but the playing field has to be even for that to happen. And personally, I think that if the solution were as simple as adding another competitor to the market someone in the private sector would have done so by now. Why not just lift some of the regulations on private insurers and let them do some of the things that a public plan would be able to do and then let them compete with each other?

But I think the exact opposite here.

I think that on a moral level, a company withholding treatment for profit is worse than one doing so to stay solvent. But on a practical level, at least a company operating with a profit oriented goal will never be unable to pay a claim, even if they are unwilling to do so (i.e., you can always try to change their mind). In my mind that beats an option where treatment must be withheld because the funds simply aren't there to give, which I'm afraid would be the shortcoming if the government was in charge.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

unrealistic expectations and standards reveals serious character flaws

So does twisting the arguments of others. I've never said Arkansas was a coach away from a national championship. I just said that we could do better than 4-7, 5-6 type seasons in down years and 8-5 in "good" years where we're loaded with 3 (3!) future NFL starting tailbacks in the backfield.

I predicted (an optimistic) 7-5 for Arkansas last year. They went 5-7. I'm holding out for 8-4 this year if the ball bounces right. I may be a homer, but I don't think I'm so far gone yet that it's indicative of character flaws.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

This is for the benefit of others, since I've generally concluded that you are a complete moron when it comes to political philosophy.

Fuck you, you goddamn fool. You're so far beyond the edge of reason that no sound political or philosophical mind is in your corner. You have the same political understanding of a high school freshman with an Anarchy patch on his bookbag. You have absolutely no understanding of history, politics, or philosophy, otherwise there is no way you could possibly think the way you do. You live in a hilarious fantasy world. You think that competition is the optimal means to every single conceivable end, and that no monopoly would ever form if given the chance, and that the slaves would never become tyrants if given the chance. Again, your view of the world is a sick, stupid, wrong fantasy and you need to be slapped by sound reason and fact. I will do this for you.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

This is not logical. Citizen armies in democratic societies are the most victimised, because just like other people' money, other people's lives (especially foreigners) can be voted away at apparently little to no cost.

People CHOOSE their leaders who VOTE. Votes of elected officials are those of the people who voted them into office. Democratic republics are built on this concept, and then, to prevent people from being abused (because security is a primary cause for the creation of society) and to prevent governments' laws from swinging back and forth too quickly (as would not be optimally productive) there is a safety net for the minority. You vote for someone you want to make important decisions, if that person gets a majority of the vote, he/she tries to satisfy those people, for the greater utility of that population. If the person for whom you voted loses, you still have some protection, but face it, unless you're a ridiculous moral absolutist, the fact of the matter is that society's current beliefs don't agree with yours and they should not be ruled by your tyrant as a minority.

So, now that I've given you this lesson on how democratic republics work, let's then apply this simple reasoning to the situation above, okay? Can we do that? Do I need to hold your hand? Alright, let's go. You said people's lives get voted away. A citizen army has its own lives at stake. It will try not to needlessly put itself into harm's way. That means it has the incentive to not get thrown into combat, for it has its own personal agenda on the line. A citizen army will always consist entirely of citizens, that is every single member of it is also a member of that government's voting public. When you say other people's lives, clearly you don't realize that a private army's would not consist only of that nation's people. It would be a mercenary group. And from where? Why would not, say, the US hire Russian mercenaries to kill Pakistanis? And yet you tell me that a citizen army would control more largely the lives of foreigners all willy-nilly? The private system would almost always mean ONLY using foreigners to kill other foreigners, because that way they have no effect on votes, that is they can't vote themselves out of harm's way. Moreover, say the English government pays a French mercenary group to defend England against Germany. What stake does the French mercenary group have in seeing the job get done? What incentive do they have to get the job done? And what incentive do they have to not run off with England's money? And if they do run off with England's money, who is going to do something about it? Another mercenary group who could just as easily do the exact same thing? Where is the enforcement? There is none. This is all very, very simple scenario stuff, not even getting into complex contractual negotiations here. Mercenary groups, private armies, would become supra-national companies, and what would stop them from then taking over nations and becoming nations themselves? This is the best part of your logic, in my opinion. You don't see that this is how governments were started in the very first place! And yet you tell me that there would be victimization in my system, without remembering that you would be victimizing even more easily the lives of foreigners, and devaluing the ability of a population to defend itself, and it all hinges on what? Moral absolutism. You basically run into circles and circles around a tree until the leash gets tight enough to slam you right into it. But you call me a moron and tell me that I would victimize people, as the person whose army would have absolutely no incentive to exist in peacetime.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

The army is now a public good, owned by no one, and the the natural human incentives of consumption, exploitation and monopoly occur.

The army is not owned by no one, it is owned by EVERYONE. That is its beauty. It is valued by all, for it is all they have for their protection and it is comprised of their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. It matters very much to everyone, that is why it is such a better alternative.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Citizens are drafted under the banner of nationalism and marched off to fight invaders under threat of everything from unpatriotic stigma to outright death for "treason."

They have incentives that are not lies, moreover your childish view of men and women in the military is laughable. Not everybody joins the armed forces of a nation because they wish only and entirely to uphold its values There is money, the only thing you care about, which is obvious, yet this is the ONLY reason a person would have to join a private army. There is no other reason to be in a private army, yet in a nationalized army you fight for what you believe, what you want to protect, and your commander-in-chief is elected by the majority of your nation's people. You battle for not just your wallet, but for your protection, and to uphold the values of the people you voted into office.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

This also provides an incentive for perpetual war because the means of the state for obtaining goods, since it does not produce them or trade them voluntarily, is through the expropriation and exploitation of either its citizens (in a socialist state) or foreigners (in an imperialist or fascist state).

There is a lot here, so we will again approach slowly for you, okay? You say that citizens must be exploited and/or expropriated in order to obtain goods, as though all citizens in a democratic republic were ruled by a conquering tyrant and treated as food, not rather that the government is one of and by the people. So already you're off on some ridiculous premise that, again, sounds like the ramblings of a young child who thinks the government does not depend on voters to exist in the first place. If nobody elected them, they would not be elected, you see? Moving on toward the whole of this bit, you say this exploitation and expropriation (although you can't really exploit and expropriate yourself) is THE means for obtaining goods. THE means? There are no other means? The only way to obtain goods is war? The optimal way to obtain goods is war? What? Do you think Spain can only acquire gold through war?

Originally Posted by jczeroman

The military is the branch of the state, and those elites which wield the power of the state (and these elites are inevitable even in completely collectivist states), to carry out exploitation.

The "elites" you dream of, I like to call CEOs, because their workers don't vote on what they do. If they disagree they are fired and replacements are found. And I'm sure you wouldn't want unions to be involved with this process, so the exploitation is all on the side of the business running the private army- a CEO does not care about one man's job that can be filled by another, for the incentive for him to remain in power is that his workers actually get paid the least and work the hardest, that is they cost the least amount of money and are as productive as possible, all because a CEO's incentive to maintain his/her job is profit. A governor must seek reelection if he or she wishes to maintain his/her position. This means a governor must not upset his/her population too greatly.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Thus the public military is an inevitable step towards perpetual war.

I have proven the complete opposite to be true. I could walk you through everything we've come to understand, but instead will only highlight what you did not understand in my first response to your catastrophically ignorant notion that a private army would be optimal.

Here it is in the most plain terms. If private armies solved all conflicts, their market would disappear, and their business model would bring itself to an end. Private armies would make themselves obsolete if they solved the problem of war on earth. However, the more wars there are, the greater the demand for private armies. Well now they have the incentive to actually create war to maximize profit.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Any private military that seeks perpetual conflict will quickly be out competed by wiser, more judicious and diplomatic military service providers.

So not only do you concede that some private army would probably seek to create perpetual conflict, but you think that we would simply have to wait for the market to eventually work out those kinks, which could take theoretically an eternity, thereby never solving thee issue why armies exist- to STOP conflict. And more, what if these armies never come about? What if the market never sees an incentive to stop war? Win a battle, sure, but stop war completely and kill their means of generating revenue? Never. You've basically given me the argument at this point, despite being entirely and utterly wrong about every single thing you've said so far.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Moreover, militaries that do engage in conflict will need to abide by the ethics of those people who hire them and those who will potentially hire them if they expect to do business.

There is no incentive for Canadian citizens to care what Chinese mercenaries do to North Korean infantrymen. If I were hiring an army, I'd say "By any means necessary" or, on terms of a company "By the cheapest means feasible" which would basically mean the most brutal, quick, efficient, and potent means. Why would you pay a group of guys about whom you don't care to go kill your enemies kindly? But when those guys are your citizens, they don't want to be subjected to committing these atrocities.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

This incentivises specificity in targets, minimisation of collateral damage and (preferably) an end to conflict before it beings. Moreover, private militaries can be held accountable because they would not work in collusion with the state monopoly on courts and justice (which, for the same reasons, should also be abolished).

The only thing private armies would have the incentive to do is gain the most profit. That means doing the cheapest job possible while charging the greatest amount of money.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

The correlation between "democracy" and state monopoly on military and total war, death and perpetual exploitative war is unparalleled in human history.

As mentioned above, if you had a private army and no state-run army, the private army would have power over the nation. So it would be more powerful than the nation itself. You assume that a nation's private army would come from within, however more often than not it would clearly come from the cheapest source, which would presumably be some third world dump that doesn't have a care in the world about your nation or your people.

You need to understand that governments are just businesses with armies. Once you give a business an army, it can, and will, become its own government, seize its own land, and begin to evolve so that, in time, its people will demand certain things, like voting, and the process would just simply begin again where you now have a nation, with an army that is controlled by that nation and its people. You wish for a return to feudalism, which would eventually just move straight toward socializing as time progresses. The free market leads to its own end with any society. It is a self-destructive philosophy.

I really should not have taken you seriously, and rather laughed that you actually responded and moved on with my life. However people like you who can't sit down and think for one second that you might be wrong come up with wild dream-like worlds because you're unwilling to question your own beliefs. If you questioned yourself you would soon realize how completely illegitimate they are and you would be able to move toward a more true vision of the universe. You can't reach the totally insane understanding of the world you have unless you never second guess yourself. Because I see absolutely no hint in your rant of placing your beliefs under any scrutiny. You just started with "free market only" and ran with it, never once assessing yourself along the way. This is how you come upon such illogical ideas, and this is why I do not respect you.

[Debaser]

thread derailed

[Trotskilicious]

christalmighty

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Corganist

So does twisting the arguments of others. I've never said Arkansas was a coach away from a national championship. I just said that we could do better than 4-7, 5-6 type seasons in down years and 8-5 in "good" years where we're loaded with 3 (3!) future NFL starting tailbacks in the backfield.

I predicted (an optimistic) 7-5 for Arkansas last year. They went 5-7. I'm holding out for 8-4 this year if the ball bounces right. I may be a homer, but I don't think I'm so far gone yet that it's indicative of character flaws.

blah blah blah

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Debaser

thread derailed

Fair enough.

[duovamp]

I'm turning into sleeper, except instead of the gen board and religion it's the politics board and the free market.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

unrealistic expectations and standards reveals serious character flaws

You're a complete fucking joke. The only reason more people don't call you out on it is because all you do is slam without cause the people who have different opinions than most of the board

They think you're a joke mind you. they just don't call you out on it

[Nimrod's Son]

So you think the free market is evil.

Defend

[Debaser]

straw man.

the free market is amoral, not malevolent. subtle distinction.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

So you think the free market is evil.

Defend

In cases of many utilities, it is simply not optimally productive. Efficient at times, in certain markets, sure. But efficiency isn't always productivity. For luxuries, meh, I have no serious problem with it, although what I'd support would not ever be a totally free market but more along the line of welfare capitalism.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

You're a complete fucking joke. The only reason more people don't call you out on it is because all you do is slam without cause the people who have different opinions than most of the board

They think you're a joke mind you. they just don't call you out on it

talking about yourself?

i didn't slam jczeroman even though i disagree with everything he says. see the thing is he knows what he's talking about and isn't a completely uninformed, biased, ignorant fool.

you're an utter douchebag and there's so much about corganist i don't like, primarily the way he argues about things. The Arkansas thing is silly but it's just one example of what a douchebag he is. And further, both of you don't have any respect for anyone with differing views but act all put upon because the two of you are utter douchebags and people don't respect you. Don't even start to pretend that you have any respect for people who don't agree with your half-baked "libertarianism".

And you know what, yeah maybe I really dislike you both for your political views & how you present them since I think that's a far better reason to dislike someone then anything else.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Fuck you, you goddamn fool. You're so far beyond the edge of reason that no sound political or philosophical mind is in your corner. You have the same political understanding of a high school freshman with an Anarchy patch on his bookbag. You have absolutely no understanding of history, politics, or philosophy, otherwise there is no way you could possibly think the way you do. You live in a hilarious fantasy world. You think that competition is the optimal means to every single conceivable end, and that no monopoly would ever form if given the chance, and that the slaves would never become tyrants if given the chance. Again, your view of the world is a sick, stupid, wrong fantasy and you need to be slapped by sound reason and fact. I will do this for you.

Spoken like a moron. I'll rest my case on that bit here. Also, it's funny that I call you a moron when it comes to political philosophy and then half of your response is petty insults. Funny.

Otherwise, I am going to be as short as possible, as despite the length of your response, the content boils down to basic fallacies that have been dealt with by major political and philosophical thinkers. In other words, this portion of our discussion is where 99% of people ignore these big long, multi-quote statements. If I cared about what you thought, or believed that you could understand what I would write, then I would do you the service of responding in length (and refraining from name-calling). Goodness, even this is too long.

Originally Posted by duovamp

People CHOOSE their leaders who VOTE. Votes of elected officials are those of the people who voted them into office. Democratic republics are built on this concept, and then, to prevent people from being abused (because security is a primary cause for the creation of society) and to prevent governments' laws from swinging back and forth too quickly (as would not be optimally productive) there is a safety net for the minority. You vote for someone you want to make important decisions, if that person gets a majority of the vote, he/she tries to satisfy those people, for the greater utility of that population. If the person for whom you voted loses, you still have some protection, but face it, unless you're a ridiculous moral absolutist, the fact of the matter is that society's current beliefs don't agree with yours and they should not be ruled by your tyrant as a minority.

Please read John Stewart Mill's On liberty, specifically his thoughts on a tyranny of the majority. Barring that, no matter what government you (temporarily) have, its logical end will be an oligarchic or autocratic tyranny. It's merely matter of time. Limited constitutional government, democracy or your "welfare capitalism" is not sustainable.

Originally Posted by duovamp

So, now that I've given you this lesson on how democratic republics work, let's then apply this simple reasoning to the situation above, okay? Can we do that? Do I need to hold your hand? Alright, let's go. You said people's lives get voted away. A citizen army has its own lives at stake. It will try not to needlessly put itself into harm's way. That means it has the incentive to not get thrown into combat, for it has its own personal agenda on the line. A citizen army will always consist entirely of citizens, that is every single member of it is also a member of that government's voting public. When you say other people's lives, clearly you don't realize that a private army's would not consist only of that nation's people. It would be a mercenary group. And from where? Why would not, say, the US hire Russian mercenaries to kill Pakistanis? And yet you tell me that a citizen army would control more largely the lives of foreigners all willy-nilly? The private system would almost always mean ONLY using foreigners to kill other foreigners, because that way they have no effect on votes, that is they can't vote themselves out of harm's way. Moreover, say the English government pays a French mercenary group to defend England against Germany. What stake does the French mercenary group have in seeing the job get done? What incentive do they have to get the job done? And what incentive do they have to not run off with England's money? And if they do run off with England's money, who is going to do something about it? Another mercenary group who could just as easily do the exact same thing? Where is the enforcement? There is none. This is all very, very simple scenario stuff, not even getting into complex contractual negotiations here. Mercenary groups, private armies, would become supra-national companies, and what would stop them from then taking over nations and becoming nations themselves? This is the best part of your logic, in my opinion. You don't see that this is how governments were started in the very first place! And yet you tell me that there would be victimization in my system, without remembering that you would be victimizing even more easily the lives of foreigners, and devaluing the ability of a population to defend itself, and it all hinges on what? Moral absolutism. You basically run into circles and circles around a tree until the leash gets tight enough to slam you right into it. But you call me a moron and tell me that I would victimize people, as the person whose army would have absolutely no incentive to exist in peacetime.

See last comments. Majoritarianism and democracy does not equal individual responsibility. Read Hanns Hoppe Democracy: The God That Failed.

Originally Posted by duovamp

The army is not owned by no one, it is owned by EVERYONE. That is its beauty. It is valued by all, for it is all they have for their protection and it is comprised of their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. It matters very much to everyone, that is why it is such a better alternative.

Read other people's stuff about collective ownership and the problem of incentives.

Originally Posted by duovamp

They have incentives that are not lies, moreover your childish view of men and women in the military is laughable. Not everybody joins the armed forces of a nation because they wish only and entirely to uphold its values There is money, the only thing you care about, which is obvious, yet this is the ONLY reason a person would have to join a private army. There is no other reason to be in a private army, yet in a nationalized army you fight for what you believe, what you want to protect, and your commander-in-chief is elected by the majority of your nation's people. You battle for not just your wallet, but for your protection, and to uphold the values of the people you voted into office.

*vomit*

Originally Posted by duovamp

There is a lot here, so we will again approach slowly for you, okay? You say that citizens must be exploited and/or expropriated in order to obtain goods, as though all citizens in a democratic republic were ruled by a conquering tyrant and treated as food, not rather that the government is one of and by the people. So already you're off on some ridiculous premise that, again, sounds like the ramblings of a young child who thinks the government does not depend on voters to exist in the first place. If nobody elected them, they would not be elected, you see? Moving on toward the whole of this bit, you say this exploitation and expropriation (although you can't really exploit and expropriate yourself) is THE means for obtaining goods. THE means? There are no other means? The only way to obtain goods is war? The optimal way to obtain goods is war? What? Do you think Spain can only acquire gold through war?






The "elites" you dream of, I like to call CEOs, because their workers don't vote on what they do. If they disagree they are fired and replacements are found. And I'm sure you wouldn't want unions to be involved with this process, so the exploitation is all on the side of the business running the private army- a CEO does not care about one man's job that can be filled by another, for the incentive for him to remain in power is that his workers actually get paid the least and work the hardest, that is they cost the least amount of money and are as productive as possible, all because a CEO's incentive to maintain his/her job is profit. A governor must seek reelection if he or she wishes to maintain his/her position. This means a governor must not upset his/her population too greatly.

Yes VOTING to be subject to a majority does a great job to check power.

Originally Posted by duovamp

I have proven the complete opposite to be true. I could walk you through everything we've come to understand, but instead will only highlight what you did not understand in my first response to your catastrophically ignorant notion that a private army would be optimal.

Here it is in the most plain terms. If private armies solved all conflicts, their market would disappear, and their business model would bring itself to an end. Private armies would make themselves obsolete if they solved the problem of war on earth. However, the more wars there are, the greater the demand for private armies. Well now they have the incentive to actually create war to maximize profit.

This is like saying that doctors won't treat diseases and lead a society to a higher and healther standard of life. You realise that the market evolves based on the changing demands of consumer, right? This is why we don't have millions of horse-coach drivers. Once private armys end wars (especially the massive state wars of most of human history) then they will need to evolve, probably into insurance companies to prevent wars. Read Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense.

Originally Posted by duovamp

So not only do you concede that some private army would probably seek to create perpetual conflict, but you think that we would simply have to wait for the market to eventually work out those kinks, which could take theoretically an eternity, thereby never solving thee issue why armies exist- to STOP conflict. And more, what if these armies never come about? What if the market never sees an incentive to stop war? Win a battle, sure, but stop war completely and kill their means of generating revenue? Never. You've basically given me the argument at this point, despite being entirely and utterly wrong about every single thing you've said so far.




There is no incentive for Canadian citizens to care what Chinese mercenaries do to North Korean infantrymen. If I were hiring an army, I'd say "By any means necessary" or, on terms of a company "By the cheapest means feasible" which would basically mean the most brutal, quick, efficient, and potent means. Why would you pay a group of guys about whom you don't care to go kill your enemies kindly? But when those guys are your citizens, they don't want to be subjected to committing these atrocities.





The only thing private armies would have the incentive to do is gain the most profit. That means doing the cheapest job possible while charging the greatest amount of money.



As mentioned above, if you had a private army and no state-run army, the private army would have power over the nation. So it would be more powerful than the nation itself. You assume that a nation's private army would come from within, however more often than not it would clearly come from the cheapest source, which would presumably be some third world dump that doesn't have a care in the world about your nation or your people.

lol

Originally Posted by duovamp

You need to understand that governments are just businesses with armies. Once you give a business an army, it can, and will, become its own government, seize its own land, and begin to evolve so that, in time, its people will demand certain things, like voting, and the process would just simply begin again where you now have a nation, with an army that is controlled by that nation and its people. You wish for a return to feudalism, which would eventually just move straight toward socializing as time progresses. The free market leads to its own end with any society. It is a self-destructive philosophy.

I really should not have taken you seriously, and rather laughed that you actually responded and moved on with my life. However people like you who can't sit down and think for one second that you might be wrong come up with wild dream-like worlds because you're unwilling to question your own beliefs. If you questioned yourself you would soon realize how completely illegitimate they are and you would be able to move toward a more true vision of the universe. You can't reach the totally insane understanding of the world you have unless you never second guess yourself. Because I see absolutely no hint in your rant of placing your beliefs under any scrutiny. You just started with "free market only" and ran with it, never once assessing yourself along the way. This is how you come upon such illogical ideas, and this is why I do not respect you.

I have seen the light - the true vision of the universe!

[duovamp]

It's very pleasing to see that you could not give me any serious response to any single point.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by duovamp

It's very pleasing to see that you could not give me any serious response to any single point.

Would not. You mean "would not." And no, you aren't going to get a serious response.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Corganist

We'll take this up again when Arkansas wins the SEC here within the next couple years.

i hope you aren't serious

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Would not. You mean "would not." And no, you aren't going to get a serious response.

kinda weak dude

[Trotskilicious]

i will say that it should be accepted that the welfare state is unsustainable. i don't think the solution lies in completely free market economics but I'm an historian not an economist.

[ravenguy2000]

i'm a geographer but this thread sucks

[Trotskilicious]

geography is cool

[killtrocity]

If everyone on earth ate the person next to them, we'd still be overpopulated. This is not a fact, just my opinion.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by ravenguy2000

i'm a geographer but this thread sucks

I think a map of this thread would be funny.