Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
My Anarchism
- Thread starter Tiervexx
- Start date
Tiervexx
New member
samoth said:
Interesting artical, but it hardly seems relevent to anarcho-capitalism, lol.
I am very interested in upper mathmatics but it still might be a little while before I really understand what "lie groups" are. But I would like to know sooner or later.
fuck you samote
StickFigure
New member
The only thing I got out of this thread was something about an apology for killing something. 
samoth said:God dammit, I knew you'd click on this!
your life is an incorrect observation.
StickFigure
New member
SoreArms said:
Badges!! We don't need no stinking BADGES!!
Tiervexx, fuck you. Are you still at Mizzou? It should be within the next year that I get into school there
Tiervexx
New member
juicedmohawk said:
This is my second year, I'm double majoring in Industrial Engineering and Economics, and it often takes people an extra semister just to finish the IE degree so I might be here for a while longer, lol.
Do I know you? or did you just pick up that I was going to mizzou on some thread where I mentioned it?
BTW, I'm now President of the Campus Libertarians so I've been spending more and more time talking about government and why it should not exist, and I would be happy to talk with anyone interested.
Tiervexx said:
Dude, I'm juicedpigtails, juicedmohawk, juicedmullet... juiced ''hairstyle'' lol
wtf dude?
U
UA_Iron
Guest
anarchism in its purest form is silly.
if it were 'implemented' I'd go out of my way to make sure it didnt work. haha. I told some anarchist that.
if it were 'implemented' I'd go out of my way to make sure it didnt work. haha. I told some anarchist that.
Tiervexx
New member
UA_Iron said:
Anarcho-capitalism really is not a lot alike some ideas of Anarchism you might have.
It simply means that EVERYTHING is privatized, and open to free competion. For example, if you go out of your way to cause trouble, a private security firm would just hawl you away to a court.
It is very likly that under such an individualistic system people would be more widly armed, so the most likely result of you causing trouble is you getting shot by whoever's rights you where trying to violate. Get it?
BTW, if you read articals before attacking them you would not make as much of an ass out of yourself.
U
UA_Iron
Guest
Tiervexx said:
I was talking about classical anarchism, not anarcho-capitalism. I have not yet read the article - and I did not attack it.
Does this need more clarification?
B
BrothaBill
Guest
Ok, tiervexx, since youve got it all figured out. Explain how Anarchocapitalism and healthcare in the US with an aging population and social security. People who built this country and paid into the system and trust fund their whole lives are now reaching retirement age. How would your system with the rising costs of medical care pay to help old people receive medical care that they so desparately need. How does it pay for large systems such as medical care and dont say privatize it b/c private organizations go out of business and the capital investment is huge and Im sure you are aware of issues like dialysis machines and how the govt had to step in and pay for them in the beginning. Were talking about life and death of real people. If you believe in anarchy then those of us who work in medicine think you are just ignorant of how systems work on large scales but Id love to hear you explain how you could transition my field into a workable anarchical system so that people dont die from lack of infrastructure. Then we can transition from that to providing security and defense b/c afterall Im sure youre smart enough to understand geopolitical realities. So Im all ears, Ill debate you, I might be at a disadvantage seeing as how you have two years of college under your belt and know it all already but Ill see if I can ask some questions that may make you think, Im sure you'll be able to answer them seriously. Please, no cutnpastes, in your own words
Tiervexx
New member
BrothaBilly said:
The cost of Medicare is many times it's actual market value because the FDA blocks a lot of research and competition in that industry. Pharmaceutical companies actually lobby FOR the excessive regulation because it helps protect their monopoly thereby making it possible for them to price gouge.
Look up the prices of Healthcare and medical insurance in the 1960s when the government first got involved, and compare those to now, you will notice that it’s gotten a lot worse in a big hurry.
Want proof? They say healthcare is getting more expensive because it is getting more advanced but computer technology is growing much faster despite falling costs. You know the fundamental difference between the computer industry and the health industry is that one of these is a lot more regulated than the other.
But I could have told you this before even going to college, I read about it just on my own time, and there are very few economists that still think that socialist Medicare is a good idea. My economics TA last year was very apolitical, and had almost no interest in politics except that he really hated our Medicare system. You said you just wanted my own words so here they are, but I could link you to a shitload of facts and figure going into detail about how much of a mistake it was for government to get into the healthcare business. I don't think anyone has it "all figured out" but I am very confident that this particular issue is very one-sided in my favor.
Tiervexx
New member
yes government is needed to help people pay for the current mess Medicare is in but YES I'M GOING TO SAY PRIVATIZE IT.
Harry Brown liked to say that "govenrment is good at one thing, it can break your leg, hand you a crutch, and say see, if it was not for govenrment you' wouldn't be able to walk" The aparent need for government help in Medicare only exists because the FDA has long been sheilding it from real free compitition.
So in short, medicare = the crutch, but the FDA is what broke our legs in the first place.
Harry Brown liked to say that "govenrment is good at one thing, it can break your leg, hand you a crutch, and say see, if it was not for govenrment you' wouldn't be able to walk" The aparent need for government help in Medicare only exists because the FDA has long been sheilding it from real free compitition.
So in short, medicare = the crutch, but the FDA is what broke our legs in the first place.
Tiervexx
New member
BrothaBilly said:
This is a very important facility for me to address on it's own.
It is a very popular opinion among school teachers and those that work in Healthcare that privatizing it would be a terrible idea.
I will of course admit that many of them know more about there specific feilds than I do but the problem is that these people often know little to nothing about economics, they base these opinions on ideas about how governments compare with markets that are simply not true.
It is also VERY, VERY important that you understand that about 90% of all failed privatizations that people point too really are a far cry from a real one. In order for an industry to be private the following must be true:
1) It is privately owned
2) Individuals choose where to put there money
3) there are no legal barriers to entry and exit in the market.
Most so called privatizations only meet the first condition. Every single theory about the free-market is dependent on free competition, if some crocked government official hands an industry to his buddy, but still protects it form free competition, than it is still a government agency, just a privately owned one.
If you carefully look up the details about how truely private industries work compared to government ones, you will see that government really can't do anything better, or even as good as the market.
Tiervexx
New member
Alright,
I've been waiting for responses for some time now so I'm just going to go into some angry anarchist rant.
Lets talk about...The social contract theory!
The social contract theory really is the early political scientists' attempt at magic. I think that on some level they understood that the state was, is and will always be indefensible so they needed a way to justify it, so they came up with the social contract theory:
"yeah, you never signed this contract, and you've probably never heard of it but it's binding because....because........IT SIGNED YOU!!"
Of course there have been some serious attempts at rationalizing the damn thing, like saying that we consent to government by using government services for example. However, this argument would still need a preexisting social contract to make sense because a) government uses force to grant itself monopoly privileges over the production of many things, and b) we are forced to pay even for services we don’t use so by using government services we are really just trying to get some of our money BACK.
Another attempt at justifying the state is to say that we consent to it by being living on land that it allegedly owns. This argument would also need a preexisting social contract to make sense because governments “own” land simply be declaring ownership of it. John Locke, who had some libertarian ideas understood that you gain ownership of something that was previously unowned by “mixing you labor” with it. Man has a natural right to self-ownership, and with that a natural right to their labor, so through their labor can own what they use and produce.
This homesteading argument is admittedly not perfect but it still makes a whole lot of sense compared to the way governments own land by what Murray N Rothbard called the “Columbus Complex” where they simply declare that it is theirs.
I've been waiting for responses for some time now so I'm just going to go into some angry anarchist rant.
Lets talk about...The social contract theory!
The social contract theory really is the early political scientists' attempt at magic. I think that on some level they understood that the state was, is and will always be indefensible so they needed a way to justify it, so they came up with the social contract theory:
"yeah, you never signed this contract, and you've probably never heard of it but it's binding because....because........IT SIGNED YOU!!"
Of course there have been some serious attempts at rationalizing the damn thing, like saying that we consent to government by using government services for example. However, this argument would still need a preexisting social contract to make sense because a) government uses force to grant itself monopoly privileges over the production of many things, and b) we are forced to pay even for services we don’t use so by using government services we are really just trying to get some of our money BACK.
Another attempt at justifying the state is to say that we consent to it by being living on land that it allegedly owns. This argument would also need a preexisting social contract to make sense because governments “own” land simply be declaring ownership of it. John Locke, who had some libertarian ideas understood that you gain ownership of something that was previously unowned by “mixing you labor” with it. Man has a natural right to self-ownership, and with that a natural right to their labor, so through their labor can own what they use and produce.
This homesteading argument is admittedly not perfect but it still makes a whole lot of sense compared to the way governments own land by what Murray N Rothbard called the “Columbus Complex” where they simply declare that it is theirs.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
Tiervexx said:
lol, the FDA is the best system system from keeping dangerous drugs off the market, I point to history of drugs that cause birth defects in other countries that never made it through the FDA. Come up with a better solution please.
Leave your answer here _____________________________________.
Make sure you take every variable into account, Ill see you in ten years after completing your pHd on the subject mr. smartypants, you'll have to have an accredited degree from a respected university. Then, after you have proven workable solutions that I can point to on your curriculum vitae, Ill appoint you czar of FDA reformation. Remember: "PRIMUM NON NOCERE", "above all do no harm"
But, you HAVE to have a PHd in the subject for me to sell you to all the MDs and PHds and all those who spent their lives dedicated to this subject or lest they think you are some crackpot anarchist and arent really dedicated to the matter, so you have to have a proven track record of education and success.
leave your accomplishments here: _________________________________
How many peoples lives have you improved with your system, leave it here ______________________________________.
How many people's lives has YOUR system saved, leave the numbers and names here: ______________________________________________
Please include references of people and families you have affected and made their lives better, leave that here _____________________________________.
Explain privacy issues and regulation that I deal with in the REAL WORLD here ________________________________. Not a cutnpaste, I could link shit all day long, but I dont have time to google when I can just discuss it b/c its much faster since I deal with it every day.
Discuss the issues of propietary software and regulation here ________________________________. You dont work for free do you?? Why should individuals who write specialized software for the medical industry do so? answer here ____________________________________________.
Why should people work in the medical field when they can make more money in other fields and deal with insurance and HMO bullshit and other issues? Describe the issues of keeping a welltrained and EXPERIENCED workforce in the medical industry and how that affects economic costs rising in the medical field, answer here _____________________________________.
Compare and contrast socialized medicine vs. the U.S. model, discuss medicare reimbursements that they are so low that physicians and hospitals cannot afford to treat them, such as in Seattle where medicare patients, old people, people that built this country cannot get treatment and fucking die. Those same old people that cant afford to buy their medicine in the US and eat cat food or steal chicken breasts from the all u can eat buffet just to get by on the shitty returns from all the money they paid into social securities trust fund. Leave your argument to the democrats on the board about reforming social security here ___________________________________.
When was the last time you did any volunteer work at the local nursing home to help people. _________________________________________
When was the last AIDS hospice you stopped by or any hospice in your community? ______________________________________
What is a hospice? _______________________________________________
What the FUCK have you done in your young life that makes me want to take you seriously???? I mean REAL accomplishments beyond a book and a search engine???? _________________________________________________
Tiervexx
New member
BrothaBilly said:
That's comical. People rely on doctors to suggest what will help them, if someone wants to just take their chances with something, it is there right. The real joke behind the FDA is that it will not even let the terminally ill take drugs that might be life saving. Yes, the absence of the FDA will mean that some dangerious drugs will be on the market, but it also means that new drugs can reach the market when they are devoluped and not waste years.
The FDA has also admited to delaying very important drugs for years thus killing many people that could have been saved.
In order to defend the FDA you must believe that everyone is a moron but you. Thus we must use force to keep drugs off the market. This is an indefensable, and insane belief.
You don't get it, I'm replaceing it with nothing. If someone wants to say safe they ask their doctor. If they want to take chances they can do that too. Things like the FDA have no place.
These are pathetic, childish ad homians.
I told you before. The FDA delays the release of new drugs but +15 years. If you don't believe me you can look it up, if you can't see how that affects you on a daily basis than you are a fool.
The Red tape caused by the FDA jumps up the costs of producing new drugs. Do you think that delaying release of new products by 15 years is going to be cheap?
This huge cost also, more than anything makes it hard to start new companies. Legal barriers in a market restrict free competition. Restricting competition will of course reduce incentives to cut costs, thus driving up the costs of healthcare.
Many Economics professors (I'm double majoring in Econ if that means anything to you) would be happy to explain this too you, but you'd hardly have to be one to grasp such a basic principle. But wait...you don't want me to reference someone else do you? And you've sort of already declared me to be incompetent so you're not even really interested in a debate are you?
This is factually incorrect. Many have taken more money OUT of Social security than they ever put in. And even a zero risk savings account would give a better return than Social security. The only reason why the country went with something as insane as SS is because the Federal reserve sabotaged the banking industry in 1929. If you want to talk more about this very important issue, I'd be happy to.
Frankly, I can't fucking stand old people. But wait, that must mean that my opinions are invalid since you seem to love ad homians. While you are asking so many useless questions, I got one for you. Why is it that all these terrible "SAVE THE OLD PEOPLE!" cries did not happen until AFTER their generation decided to put their trust in government and SS?
I ask you to please calm down, and realize that the failure of government to provide from them as they seemed to expect is evidence AGAINST not for the "nanny state."
As a matter of fact I actually have donated to AIDS related charities...not that it is relevant at all. Pull your head from your ass and see if you can stay on topic.
Oh ge!!! I don't know!!!! could it be a hos that you can piss in?
If I didn't know, I could obviously just look it up so why would you even try to use this against me? It is one thing to be as mean and personal as you are, it is quite another to be so careless at how you do it!
I’m nobody.
But if I was a movie star, or a congressman would I then suddenly be able to prove a point with ad homians alone as you have?
And if I had spent my whole life helping old people in nursing homes would that mean that prove that I know anything about what economic issues would or would not work?
I tried to be civil with you, and then you just attack me. You didn’t even really mention anything I said, you just sent me a big page of insults. Grow up.
Mavafanculo
New member
1) the recently passed Medicare Drug bill included a provision inserted by the republican leadership at the direction of the White House specifically prohibiting Medicare from using its size to bargain with drug companies to obtain lower prices. Even a number of Republican Senators/Congressman are sickened by this and are seeking to re-open the issue. WH acted obviously to protect their friends and supporter/contributors in Big Pharma. screw us.
2) The FDA, especially recently, is very interested and involved in protecting and promoting BIG PHARMA. Screw the public. Money rules.
a) There are numerous cases where FDA Scientists are pressured to remove negative findings from their reports so that drugs can be approved for use. Other cases where the FDA political leadership overides its own internal advisory committees and approves drugs that were flagged or cautioned for more study by the committes
In many cases, its later revealed that cooperative FDA commissioners came from or went to the very companies they bent the rules to benefit. no worries, all is good.
b) They are excessively involved in using their power to ban low-cost effective alternatives to prescription drugs. see ephedrine, l-tryptophan, and their continuing attempts to regulate the health food industry.
-
2) The FDA, especially recently, is very interested and involved in protecting and promoting BIG PHARMA. Screw the public. Money rules.
a) There are numerous cases where FDA Scientists are pressured to remove negative findings from their reports so that drugs can be approved for use. Other cases where the FDA political leadership overides its own internal advisory committees and approves drugs that were flagged or cautioned for more study by the committes
In many cases, its later revealed that cooperative FDA commissioners came from or went to the very companies they bent the rules to benefit. no worries, all is good.
b) They are excessively involved in using their power to ban low-cost effective alternatives to prescription drugs. see ephedrine, l-tryptophan, and their continuing attempts to regulate the health food industry.
-
Tiervexx
New member
Mavafanculo said:
Thank you! good post.
The Ephedrine band (among countless others) helps to demonstrate that the FDA is there for Pharma companies, not us.
And the pharma monopoly also blocks a lot of research into cheap nutritional treatments because such simple (basic vitamin and mineral treatments can't be patented) and cheap treatments would destroy the huge profits produced by their complicated drugs.
Tiervexx
New member
Almost nobody agrees with me on this subject, but it is very hard to get people to really argue with me. I get the occasional personal attack, something along the lines of "anarchy can't work because public school told me so!" and other comparable objections but I would really like to see more intelligent disagreement.
In particular, I want to hear from Matt. He still has not responded to my last email regarding anarcho-capitalism and it’s been close to, if not over a year.
In particular, I want to hear from Matt. He still has not responded to my last email regarding anarcho-capitalism and it’s been close to, if not over a year.
ping.
OK, good thread.
One of the common problems with the strict - capitalist model is that people are amazingly uninformed. Despite its unprecedented success in changing the US from an agrarian society to an Industrial one, capitalism is often attacked.
Interestingly, no other system ever accomplished such a transformation. But let's leave that aside.
Capitalism has one unqiue characteristic that other economic models (all really based on different levels of state involvement) does not have:
Capitalism alone recognizes the imperfections of people, and does not try to change them. Capitalism does not believe in the perfect-ible society.
Communism - whether the Marx version, the Mao version or the Stalin version, believes in the perfectibility of society. Yes! Communism cries out, utopia is possible. All of Stalin's 5-year plans call for struggle and sacrifice. Same with Mao's propoaganda. You (the individual) may have to sacrifice your time, your labor, your goals, even your life, but the perfect state can be built.
America's modern statist policies are basically also attempts to build the perfect society. In the USSR, Lenin and Stalin used the Red Terror and Great Terror to build their "utopias" all at once. Today, the US is attempting to build a perfect state by solving one problem at a time. Rather than state terror, the US government uses legislation.
For example: people in their old age are running out of money. Here comes Social Security.
Or - Prescription drugs are so expensive. Out comes the prescription drug "benefit".
Slowly but surely, Americans, like Soviets before them, believe that our society can be perfect if we just engineer the "correct" changes.
What is almost always overlooked is that the problems are irresolvable. Poverty will always be among us. Crime will never go away. Wasted talent and missed opportunity are forever.
What is also sadly overlooked is that the means attempted to solve the problems of society are irrelevant. The problems are irresolvable. Whether leaders try to solve them with state terror, or with progressive taxation is wholly irrelevant. Inability to grasp this process will doom the US.
Enough for now. More if we get some responses.
One of the common problems with the strict - capitalist model is that people are amazingly uninformed. Despite its unprecedented success in changing the US from an agrarian society to an Industrial one, capitalism is often attacked.
Interestingly, no other system ever accomplished such a transformation. But let's leave that aside.
Capitalism has one unqiue characteristic that other economic models (all really based on different levels of state involvement) does not have:
Capitalism alone recognizes the imperfections of people, and does not try to change them. Capitalism does not believe in the perfect-ible society.
Communism - whether the Marx version, the Mao version or the Stalin version, believes in the perfectibility of society. Yes! Communism cries out, utopia is possible. All of Stalin's 5-year plans call for struggle and sacrifice. Same with Mao's propoaganda. You (the individual) may have to sacrifice your time, your labor, your goals, even your life, but the perfect state can be built.
America's modern statist policies are basically also attempts to build the perfect society. In the USSR, Lenin and Stalin used the Red Terror and Great Terror to build their "utopias" all at once. Today, the US is attempting to build a perfect state by solving one problem at a time. Rather than state terror, the US government uses legislation.
For example: people in their old age are running out of money. Here comes Social Security.
Or - Prescription drugs are so expensive. Out comes the prescription drug "benefit".
Slowly but surely, Americans, like Soviets before them, believe that our society can be perfect if we just engineer the "correct" changes.
What is almost always overlooked is that the problems are irresolvable. Poverty will always be among us. Crime will never go away. Wasted talent and missed opportunity are forever.
What is also sadly overlooked is that the means attempted to solve the problems of society are irrelevant. The problems are irresolvable. Whether leaders try to solve them with state terror, or with progressive taxation is wholly irrelevant. Inability to grasp this process will doom the US.
Enough for now. More if we get some responses.
Tiervexx
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
Great post.
It is also important to note that all too many of these problems that governments set out to fix where caused by government in the first place, or atleast made worse.
Why did Americans see a need for Social Security? Because the "private" banking system failed. Why did it fail? because the Fed essentually blead the economy to death.
Why do we need Medicare? Because the price of healthcare is skyrocketing. Why is is skyrocketing? because all the regulation eliminates the motivation for companies to cut costs amoung other problems.
Tiervexx said:
Yes - the downward spiral becomes irreversible when the government is providing solutions to problems caused by its own unwieldy interventions.
Imagine if we master robotics to the point we can have robot helpers (like in I-robot). Then the robots figure out how to make robots, and they overrun us. That's the equivalent of government's "intervening to fix interventions".
It is the ultimate result of the tyranny of the majority, and leads inexorably to collapse.
Similar threads
