kward

It doesn't have to already exist in order for it to work when tried. The world progresses fueled by inventions never before seen. Generalizing...what are you talking about specifically? How poor, how many poor? Define poor. How much is the health care in this scenario? How much is the person earning? Why are they poor? Obviously, more than you realize. Also, how charitable is someone going to feel when they already have a good chunk of their earning confiscated to pay for services for everyone else? Will everyone be charitable with their money? No. But don't lump everyone into the same category. Wow, well at least you're not cynical. It's amazing how you manage to twist what I've said into something else. You're guaranteed exactly what level of treatment right now? And protection? Is it good enough? Is it cheap enough? Is it readily available enough? How much money are you willing to throw away with little say in the matter? How much more personal power and personal responsibility for your own body, and your own health are you willing to give up to bureaucratic oversight that sees you as nothing more than a number on a conveyor belt? I'm not saying everyone should go without medical treatment...just the opposite in fact. And I recognize we achieve that by making health care affordable and more quickly available to all by cutting out the middleman.

What are you talking about? Under anarchy, yes. Contract enforcement is done through the courts. There's a role for government there, and most likely only there. You keep confusing free market capitalism for anarchism. You really need to read up on the differences. That's what the courts are for. Again with the anarchism. People forming their own little private armies is anarchy or feudalism, neither of which I advocate. I recognize the need for a government of some kind, but it must be very minimal...as minimal as possible. Obviously, there is room to discuss what the government should and should not do. I'm open to that, but in the end I wouldn't advocate for the government to control very much. The more government controls the less free are its constituents.

Citizens can help rescue people too, and they do. You're not the government's pet. You're asking people to help themselves, yet at the same time you're advocating in favour of people in government making decisions for you? Which is it? Personal responsibility and accountability, or the nanny state?

You're describing anarchy. I advocate free market capitalism. There is a difference.

And the line is 200? For how long? Until some know-it-all in a position of power decides we need 300? Or until someone decides we have to "rotate" in or out 'x' number of these jets in favour of a new fleet? And this process stops...when exactly? It's an exercise in throwing money away...and it makes no sense, and no amount of gear porn fawning from military fan-boys makes it make sense.

Unregulated medicine is cheap medicine while still maintaining a good quality standard of care. It also means there are those who would try to take advantage and provide poor service or over-charge. Those folks wouldn't stay in business for very long. It will pay to do the due diligence and understand who you're giving your business to. Businesses are in the business of selling, otherwise they're out of business. In a sink or swim free market, insurance companies free of government subsidies would be less inclined to drop anyone.

There is no example of a mass market 100% solar fueled car. There is no example of a cure for cancer. There is no example - yet - of a myriad of things that should be pursued. What's your point other than to state the obvious. Government regulation? Yes. Organized oversight? No. Is that what I said? No, my solution is to embrace free market capitalism. You don't know the difference? People don't just throw away their ethics and moral principles, government or not. Do I think private citizens forming their own oversight organizations to protect themselves and others who wish to take part is better than the government doing it? Absolutely, because when the citizens do it they're not expecting people who have no stake or no say to help pay for it. You can opt out in that scenario. Right now the government does it, and it does it very wastefully. Yes, that's a very realistic scenario. Again, the realism. Staggering. The government is the mob. Is the competition limited to two options? In a free market there is no bar to entry, there is no limit on competition. For every back alley physician there'd be a more viable option. If the demand is there, the market will fill it. The body best able to determine who is qualified to provide treatment is the person receiving it. Of course high ratings, and strong recommendations from their peers is a big help in making that determination. The easier it is to buy a quality med school education, the more qualified doctors will be available. More than enough to go around. Incompetent doctors go out of business making room for those who provide a good service at a fair price. Doctors who charge more than you can afford lose business, and turn away potential profits. There's always a market for every income level - especially without government regulations, and bureaucracy getting in the way. Your example presupposes that there are limits to entry into the marketplace by any and all who wish to practice medicine and provide a service. Scarcity is a product of red tape, and over-regulation, not the opposite.

Agreed.

And Switzerland?

1. Kill the supply? Silly-ness. 2. You're talking about anarchy. I'm not. 3. Rob and kill? Do you understand how business works? If you charge what you want, and no one can afford it, how do you make money? How do you stay in business? 4. In what country can you see what amazing example? Of free market capitalism? There is no country in the world that I'm aware of practicing it. Why? Because the wealth is concentrated, and those at the top are bent on protecting it. A free market makes for an even playing field - we haven't evolved enough yet to get to that point. In most countries we're still hoarders, control freaks, and social engineers. 5. Do you know what a democracy is? It's mob rule, and a terrible way to run a society. In a democracy 51% of the people get to make decisions for the other 49...no thanks. 6. It would be pretty awesome, I know. Unfortunately, courage is in short supply. 7. Immorality will always exist...everything else? Well, that's where money comes in. 8. Because you know it's immoral, and stealing is against the law. Again, I'm not advocating anarchy. Just minimal state power. The government has a role to play in maintaining the courts, property rights, and contract enforcement. 9. You seem stuck on this unarmed thing. I am not saying we should disarm. I am saying we shouldn't waste billions of dollars on military toys with no end in sight. A nice "break glass in case of emergency" set up is fine. But even better is being armed with intellect, diplomatic talent, boatloads of cash and product to sell. 10. See numbers 8 and 9. 11. Over-simplifying. If you enter someone else's property, you're on your own. You made the decision, you assume all the risk. 12. Everyone has a price. There are more ways to find leverage than with brute force. Brains will trump brawn every time.

1. People don't need the government to provide an incentive to have research performed that will benefit them and their families. The demand for research comes from the demand for people to feel well, to get better, and to stop diseases from spreading or even occurring in people. This demand is fundamental to human survival. The government doesn't know better than you to help pay for researching illnesses, and disease. It certainly doesn't know any better on how to allocate resources and spend them in the places that make the most sense. With government out of the way, and all of its high-salaried middlemen employees, more research dollars will go directly where it's needed most. Research becomes more effective, and you get more bang for your buck in a free market. 2. It only costs boatloads using today's health care costs as an example. In a free market that cost is vastly reduced. And if in a free market it is still too expensive - you use your catastrophic health insurance to pay or help pay for the procedure. And it's a catastrophic health insurance policy you've purchased in a free market meaning it'd be affordable. No one's talking about letting people die, that's just emotion talking.

This is an argument borne of emotion rather than reason. The ranks of poor would be very limited in number in a free market, because there would be very few people priced out of the labour market. Health care would not be far out of the reach of the poor. People doing well would start, and fund charities who would help care for those who cannot afford care - even as cheap as care would be. Just because people are able to earn more and spend less on goods and services doesn't mean they become different people and stop caring for those less well off. Generosity will still exist in a free market economy - probably more so since they'd be free of onerous government taxation.

This is where property agreements, trespass laws, and contract enforcement come in. And that's where the idea of a minimal government comes in.

I'm not advocating for zero military. I'm saying don't go broke paying for it. Or better yet, don't rob the constituents through taxation to pay for it. I'm saying don't throw away billions on gear when strong diplomatic skills will do. Sure, have something under glass in case of emergency, but don't throw money away on some arbitrary feeling of safety that can never be achieved. You wind up losing most if not all of what you're trying so desperately to defend in the first place. And that makes no sense at all.

Right across the board? You've studied this I take it? But really it's beside the point. I'm not talking about moving to all volunteer fire departments. I advocate citizens who have an interest in paying a fire protection team, come together in their community and pay for it free and clear of government regulations and without being forced into it. AND operating it in a free market economy where the cost of fire and rescue equipment and training comes at a fraction of the cost it incurs now.

1. Don't use today's health care costs as your example of what people can or cannot afford. A free market system means no limits on competition which leads to falling prices and higher quality. The electronics industry is a good example, not perfect, but good. 2. I wouldn't watch people die who can't pay for any care at all (which is highly unlikely given how cheap it would be). But with all the money people would save on goods and services, and not having an income tax, there's plenty of room for charities to spring up that will gladly cover medical care costs for those who have absolutely no money (also a shrinking number of people in a free market economy). 3. I don't advocate for altruism...I advocate for cheap, high quality, readily available health care for all. Only the free market provides that. Do you know how much money it costs right now to research treatments for diseases? Do you know how long it takes for drugs to go through clinical trials, and then how much they're sold for on the consumer market? All of those costs will come down, and the time will be greatly lessened when you take government out of the equation.

Correct, if you decide not to opt in, you are not protected by that service. Maybe there's another cheaper service you'd prefer. Or none at all. Something doesn't effect me directly? Like what? Don't paint with a broad brush, be specific. A bunker? That's just pessimism talking, not reason.

1. Somalia is an example of anarchy, not free market capitalism. 2. All regulation is bad because who decides? Who pays? And who benefits? 3. It's not something out of thin air. It's called logic. It's called reason. This current system of corporate-state blending is terrible and is driving many nations into debt by the billions. If you need proof of this widespread waste and injustice, look around you. 4. You really need to step back from the exaggerating. "No one is regulating"? Is that what I said? No, I said the government should not be regulating...there is a difference. Citizens, private wealth, they can band together and form regulatory bodies, and you can voluntarily take part, or you can choose not to and save your money. 5. Again, if you charge more than people are willing to pay you will not stay in business. People will go to doctors they can afford. Doctors who need to equip their office will buy from a company selling that equipment at an affordable price. This isn't really that difficult to understand. 6. We don't need to pay people to say enough is enough. We can do that for ourselves, and put our money where our mouth. is. A bureaucrat doesn't know better how to spend my money than I do. A government employee does not know how to spend your own hard earned money, than you do. 7. Sure, go ahead. Read a book and start treating people, and see how many people buy your services. There probably won't be too many, but never say never. And if any people do go to see you, they do so at their own risk, and if they get sicker or worse, that's their responsibility. People have to be accountable to themselves for the choices they make. No one else. There's too much of the blame game in this society. It is morally and financially bankrupting us all.

I made a nonsensical point in reply to your nonsensical point. Again, with the oversimplifying of history. A lot more to the story of the second world war than what you're painting here.

1. In a free market you don't control costs. Costs are a reflection of supply and demand. 2. Ah, yes Afghanistan...a great example of free market and free people. Try again. 3. In a free market business owners can only charge you what the market will bear, i.e. what people will willingly pay or can afford. A business owner cannot sell a product if it's priced so high no one can afford it. Business owners want to stay in business so they can keep making money. 4. In Canada you and your family receive substandard care in a rationed, "take a number" fashion. In a free market, you get care when you want at a fraction of the price. 5. You've just stated the problem with government perfectly...just substitute the word "charity" with government. In a free market people, if a charity does a poor job of passing donations onto those in need, that charity will not survive. People vote with their wallets. 6. Your longevity is already in the hands of corporations, except right now they're taxed and regulated by a middleman that allows these businesses to write off costs, and charge more for services and pass the long wait times and expenses along to you and your regional government bodies. 7. Paying a land owner for the use of their territory is the cost of doing business. Of course taking it by force is an option, but it is immoral. 8. Again, an oversimplification. If someone owns territory and you want to use it, there's nothing wrong with paying for the privilege, nor charging. 9. Right, or you could just do as you please and use another person's territory with impunity - and then threaten them with violence if they complain. That's fair. 10. Nothing pushes harder than wealth. And I have no problem with using force and acting like a pirate yourself, but don't rob government constituents to pay for it. 11. See number 10.

Do they spend their wages into the local economy?

I didn't vote Conservative. They don't live up to their name.

Raising taxes? Raising royalties? Royalties is just another word used to describe money earned off resources. I'm saying the most direct "royalty" available is money spent into the economy without passing through an expensive bureaucracy first. That is done when those employed in exploiting those resources spend their wages into the economy. And they'll have more to spend when you ditch the income tax altogether. Value is an arbitrary thing, it is one thing to one party, and something else entirely to another. Royalties that capture value are ways in which people in Canada can derive a monetary benefit from having a resource extracted on Canadian owned land. The land owner makes money, and that circulates through the economy, the people employed there also earn money and put that into the economy. The people who use the resource for fuel or some other means, spend money into the economy, and it circulates around. The government does nothing to help any of this process...the only thing they do is to remove some of this circulating money from the equation, they do nothing to add or increase value.

Oh, that old chestnut...the US health care system...that bastion of free market economics. The US system is every bit as managed and controlled by governments at all levels, and insurance companies regulated and controlled by government at all levels. Pointing at the US health care system as an example of free market health care is crazy. Yes, research and infrastructure costs money, especially when every step of it is gummed up with government regulation and red tape. Health care delivery, research, infrastructure...all of it gets cheaper and more readily fixed, and improved when you get government out of the way entirely. And practitioners can earn boatloads in a private free market system, especially when they're not being taxed on their income. And you'd be paid commensurate with your skills. Your talents would earn you what the market determined your skills were worth. And even better you'd get out of med school without piles of student loans to pay back because school tuition subject to the same market forces would also be affordable, and of better quality.

As in, trees need sun? Great, and when they grow, I chop them down to make room for more panels.