Zachary Young

I don't think this is true. In the American system, back when it was actually FREE MARKET, no one ever got turned away from the hospitals. So this idea that doctors would refuse to heal the poor is simply not credible.

The Idiot Society As a child I thought there was something wrong with me, that I was so different from everyone else. Naturally I did not fit in. I did not fit in at school. I hated school. It was a truly dreadful place. The other children were mean to me. The teachers treated me with contempt. And perhaps I deserved some of the criticism and scorn that was directed to me. I was a whiny, petulant brat. Precocious, perhaps, but unbearably so. But over the years I have come to realize the reason I am apart is because everyone I know is an idiot. I live in an idiot society. A world populated by idiots. Or perhaps it is not everyone who is an idiot, but only the most vocal, the most self obsesed, the people we see constantly. Those who self aggrandize, those who live by public opinoion alone. It is difficult to say. For a long time I believed passionately in the greatness of my fellow citizens, but I must report that I believe this way no longer. I believe we, as a people, Canadians, Ontarians, Londonians, we have been conditioned for dullness and obedience. The root of our problem is our school system which is thoroughly dysfunctional. My mother, something of a non comformist herself, shuttled us around the province, moving from city to city. I attended a great number of institutions of public education, both primary and secondary, and had the opportunity to meet a great number of children and teachers. The heart of the problem with our education system seems to this observer to be rooted in the fact that it is mired in government monopoly. We have a monolithic centralized education system, where directions come down from the ministry and hapless (and none too bright) teachers attempt to fit every round peg in their classroom into the square hole of ministry mandated standards. Part of the problem is the coercive nature of the system. It is funded by coercive taxation and every child under the age of 16 must attend. While it is true that children can attend private schools - which also must follow state mandates as to the content of the curriculum - very few parents can afford first to pay the taxes which fund public schools and second to pay the cost of a private school education. The unleashing of the creative potential of our youth is a great task for society. There is so much ability in every individual, but it is nearly impossible for that greatness to be developed absent sufficient challenge and motivation. Instead of teaching children how to soar like eagles, we teach them how to be obedient and docile in the face of authority. Children must beg for permission to urinate, they must sit quitely for hours on end and they must at all times obey every little instruction from the authority figure (teacher, principal, cop, judge, what have you). This sort of system may be effective in creating soldier or worker drones but as far as teaching individuals how to accomplish impossible feats of dering do, or even to have healthy and productive relationships it is quite useless. The idea that every student must be taught the same amount of each subject is absurd. As we get to high school some specialization emerges, but it is quite limited, as is the nature of a centralized structure. What we really need is a market in education, completely naked of government regulation or interference. The advantages would be legion. Not only would we have market competition driving prices down and quality up, schools would have real incentives to innovate. We could have schools that specialize in the trades, schools that specialize in the arts, schools that specialize in the social sciences. And we could have competition in teaching methods, radical new techniques could be tried and they would be evaluated by the market place. Schools that do the best would be rewarded by profits and schools that failed our students would suffer losses and eventually go out of business.

I prefer the American model of 60 years ago, prior to the government take over of health care. There is nothing wrong with insurance though, as a means of covering catastrophic care. It's actually quite practical. This idea, on the other hand, that we should get things for free is nonsense. Why stop at health care? Why not have every industry giving out things for free? Of course that would be total economic disaster. How many people have died because our health care system isn't good enough? Because the market hasn't been able to work here, like it works in electronics and other industries? How much money do we waste on inefficient bureaucracies?

There is nothing parasitic about downloading music, for example. No one is hurt by this action. Actually this is symbiotic behaviour because the musician in question benefits from free advertising when you play the music you downloaded. On the other hand when you steal the proceeds of someone else's labour, you are doing EXACTLY what a parasite does - feeding off the host.

The difference between say oil that is below the surface and my lost car is no one already owns the oil. I already own my car. When an individual or an organization goes out and makes use of that which was formerly unowned, they get it. This is the origin of private property. The government's claim to all as of yet unclaimed resources is invalid. You cannot just say "I own this" and be taken seriously. This is just another excuse for people to profit off of other's hard work. If you did nothing to contribute to a resource being used to satisfy the demands of consumers you should have no claim on the profit. Why is it that everyone thinks they can mooch off other people and their labour? If you want wealth go out and create it, don't steal from those who do.

Of course they become yours. That is how private property is justly established. You mix your labour with previously unowned resources and homestead them. The lazy sods who did nothing don't deserve to own what other people have created. That is parasitism.

There is really no justification for this idea of socialized medicine. Like any other market, health care benefits from competition. If doctors were forced to compete against each other in terms of both cost and quality we would have health care that costs less but delivers better results. The dreadful bureaucracies we have in place would not exist, adding untold dollar amounts to the cost of health care. Some justify this system saying "but what about the poor". But there are already laws that exist which mandate hospitals must treat the sick. And I find it hard to believe that any doctor would be so callous as to not help someone in need. The very reason why someone gets into the health care field - aside from money of course - is because they are compassionate. Because they want to help people. Some argue that a socialized system removes the profit motive. Of course this is not really true, since doctors, nurses etc. all get paid (and rightfully so!) and make profits, but beyond that this argument is hardly unique to health care. By that logic we should also nationalize food, shelter etc. This would eliminate the profit motive. Of course it would also leave many of us starving to death and homeless, as government is unable to replace the role of entrepreneur in the market place. Canada should denationalize our health care system immediately. Get the government out of the way and the market can solve our health care needs much better than they are currently being met.

It wasn't very long ago, under the direction of Ed Broadbent that the NDP openly called for the nationalization of heavy industry. This is a very bad idea. It is only through capitalism that we can rationally allocate scarce resources. This is the so called 'calculation problem', and it is the reason why in the Soviet Union when they nationalized agriculture you had massive starvation along with record grain harvests. It is only through the miracle of the price system that entrepreneurs are able to gauge where consumers demand is, and through the market place meet these demands. The role of the entrepreneur is too critical to be replaced by some idiot's nephew (that is to say a government bureaucrat).

Education is far too important to be left in the hands of the government.

Actually there is a split between libertarians of the anarcho-capitalist variety, usually influenced by the work of Murray Rothbard, and the minarchist variety, who essentially mimic the ideals of the classical liberals. I am of the former school of thought. I do not see how one can argue against a coercive monopoly on heavy industry, the post office, etc. but at the same time argue in favour of this monopoly for roads, the military, etc.

When was the last time a businessman robbed you to keep his operation going? Oh, that's right, never. The market place is entirely voluntary. You want something, you buy it. You don't want it, you don't. The government, on the other hand, has no money but what it can steal from others. It is entirely involuntary. That we have these hysterical farces known as elections doesn't change that fact. The vast majority of people do not vote for whatever government is in power. How many votes did the Conservatives get in total? 3 million? 4 million? Out of 40+ million. Clearly there is no support for any government, save for a very vocal minority. If I want something I will buy it myself, thank you for very much, I don't need the government to buy it for me. The real reason why people like Canadien support the state is because they want to buy things with my money. They are too greedy and selfish to pay for things with their own money, they would rather use the government to steal my money to buy it for them. While I object sir, I object to you or the government or anyone else taking my money. I would rather have my money myself, thank you very much.

On the other hand, there is something wrong with the government using violence or coercion (the threat of violence) to obtain revenue. As they do with taxation.

There is nothing wrong with using violence in self defence against violence.

Why do people invent new things? No shortage of reasons. Could be a tinkerer who simply enjoys the challenge. Or a business that has a great idea and thinks they can make money with it. But this idea that no one can possibly do anything without the government giving them an incentive to do it is foolish and shows how out of touch with reality the statist viewpoint is. We don't need the government to promote every little thing we want done. The market can do it. Man has been inventing things since he first started walking up right. We see ideas and we combine them. Of course it is wrong for you to steal cars. It is wrong to take anothers property. It's not wrong to look at what other people are doing and say "oh hey, that's a good idea". You can own things. You cannot own ideas. You cannot dictate to me what I can or cannot do with my property. That's the crucial distinction you are unable or unwilling to grasp.

Democracy is a scam, and a dangerous one at that. It is dangerous because it blankets the state in legitimacy. If it is wrong for me to steal, it is wrong for you to steal, and it is wrong for any organization to steal. If ten of your friends take a vote and decide to steal my wallet, they are still in the wrong, despite having a majority of the votes. The state was born in conquest and exists through exploitation. You may argue that the theft by government that is taxation is necessary - though you would be wrong - but unless you change the definition of theft there is simply no way out for the advocates of taxation. Simply because it is the government doing something does not change the reality of what they are doing. Taxation is theft. It is the government, without my consent, taking my property. That is the exact definition of theft. By what tortorous logic can you redefine theft in such a manner that taxation does not fit the bill? The fact that there are some ancillary benefits from this theft is wholely irrelevant to the question of whether or not taxation is theft. It is. On the market place people can only make money by serving consumers. You are wrong in thinking that businesses on the market would mimic the state. You are locked into the current mode of thinking. The governmental means of acquiring wealth through theft is not the means of individuals on the market place. Corporations do not steal from you. They trade with you. The government steals from you, dictates to you, forces you to obey arbitratry rules and regulations. You are wrong in thinking that businesses which mimic the few necessary functions of government would also mimic the evil and unecessary functions of the state. That's the whole point of anarcho-capitalism, to end once and for all the exploitation of man by man, to organize society upon voluntary lines, to do away with theft, fraud, coercion and violence - in short, to abolish government. Might makes right is the philosophy of the state. We must serve the consumer is the philosophy of the market place.

Finally someone is talking some sense on these forums.

I think Badelot has a strong point here. All too often businessmen want to socialize the risk while keeping the profits to themselves, and this is wrong. On the other hand, if we didn't have so many tax dollars floating around this couldn't happen, so I say we cut all taxes dramatically or preferably eliminate them.

Besides... the people who make the latest widget and then patent it, they are just as much stealing ideas as the guy who wants to copy their work. Take the example of an author. Did they invent the concept of plot? Of character development? Did they invent English? No. They saw what other people did and borrowed what worked. That's how we progress. Why would we want to retard this progress by saying you can't copy other people? Why should someone else not be able to do to this guy what he did to the greats who proceeded him?

Of course taxation is theft. The government is saying "give us 1/3rd of your income or we will throw you in jail". That is armed robbery. There is no way to spin it in which it is not theft, try as hard as you might. As a matter of fact you can go to pretty much any car dealership and take their car for a ride. It's called a test drive, and they are quite happy to do so in hopes that you buy their product. But of course STEALING a car is wrong. But if you went to a car company, looked at their cars, and then built a car yourself, from your own raw materials, copying their design, I don't see anything wrong with that. Yes, companies should be able to make as much money as THE MARKET will allow. But not as much money as the government will grant them. You don't get to own ideas. Intellectual property is anti-competitive, it's just another way for the government to grant a monopoly to someone, to say 'no one can compete with you'. Well capitalism doesn't work without competition. It's just mercantalism at that point. Competition is everything that is great about capitalism. It's what gets us lower prices and higher quality. If someone invents something, that's great, but the next step is to get that something to the consumers for lower prices and with some improvements, and if someone else can do that better than the guy who invented it, all the better for everyone else.

Governments influence the economy with more than just taxes. Regulations and subsidies both have market distorting effects as well. Tariffs as well - although I suppose in a general sense that is just another tax. Monetary policy also influences the economy, even foreign policy has a great deal of impact.

Then we should all thank God it is not up to you.

Well, with taxation something is stolen. The taxpayer's money. With intellectual property "theft" nothing is stolen. No one has less of something than before. Intellectual property 'copying' is more appropriate. That's what I am doing - copying something. Believe it or not, but the record company doesn't have a right to me purchasing their product.

So if not McDonalds there is 7-11, Burger King, Harveys, Walmart, a bar, a restaurant, etc. etc. The real disgrace is homeless people, who might be able to attain employment at $2 / hr (where no one cares about their smell) doing something manual indeed but employers are forbidden from hiring them at their market price so they are forced into idleness and welfare instead.

To understand why a gold standard would put an end to the business cycle, we must first understand what causes business cycles. Entrepreneurs are tasked with forecasting changes in the economy; and they are a good at it, difficult though the task may be, because those who are not quickly go broke. Most entrepreneurs profit. Yet every once in a while they are fooled en masse into making uneconomic decisions. Did they all suddenly lose their marbles? Or is there another, more likely explanation? The cluster of errors can be explained by entrepreneurs being misled into believing the time preference of consumers has changed. Bank credit expansion distorts the price signal and makes them think that consumers are saving more of their income then they actually are. This leads to malinvestment in capital goods industries. Thus, during the boom capital goods industries benefit greatly. This aritifical bubble must eventually come to an end, however, and when it does capital good industries fail much harder than those of consumer goods industries. Ironically, the bust is actually the healthy part of the boom - bust cycle, despite the short term pain, because the market is getting back on it's feet. Government invariably attempts to remedy the bust, retarding recovery and making the problem so much worse. Thus government attempted no shortage of cures for the Great Depression, and it went on and on and on. Obama attempted no shortage of cures for the current economic crises and the Americans are sliding back into a double dip recession. Harper was slow to do any sort of stimulus and as a result Canada suffered less and recovered faster than the Americans.

So, if prices in Gold currency were 1% of what they are under our current fiat system, and there was a 1:100 exchange rate you would object because you didn't have the same amount of money? You wouldn't lose anything with this new system. Actually you have quite a lot to gain/.