[quote]orion wrote:
[text][/quote]
Your speech aside, that isn’t why Rothbard lounged in the bosom of the state - and everyone knows it.
More importantly, conservatives don’t “need” these kinds of libertarians for electoral purposes. Quite the opposite - their presence is toxic to normal people, and you want normal people on your side.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
do you care to provide a condensed version ?[/quote]
No.
You, you specifically, need to watch all of it, because you are the one insisting that “big business” would catapult us into a Blade Runner scenario if they were allowed to.
To level up is work, pretend to be Asian for a few hours. [/quote]
I disagree that I said big business will catapult us any where and if I understand Rothbard I agree with him and do not see anything he says revolutionary .
The only area I would say free market is best would be the labor market. I would also like to comment IMO the Insurance companies have changed the Medical market into the Isurance market and in doing so they have high jacked both profits and control
You may have considered my stance on Mitt Romney as being anti free market. IMO my stance was exactly free market. If Corporations are people then people are corporations especially us that own them . My point was and is that Mitt’s corporations dollar is worth $.86 or more and Mine is worth $.70 or less . There is an inherent disparity that is stacked against me in what you want to refer to as the free market
[/quote]
I do not refer to that as a free market.
I refer to that as crony capitalism, corporatism, neo mercantilism or by its traditional name, fascism.
Its you that wants government that already has granted territorial oligopolies to health insurers to move the US to a non profit system.
Meaning from seriously damaged competition to no competition at all.
Rothbards lecture is relevant insofar as he gives one example after another how big business turned to governments to make cartels and monopolies work, they themselves could never do it for long.
[/quote]
I do not think Insurance companies should be allowed to function as for profit in the Health care industry I think if Insurance is going to be allowed in health care than it should be non profit because as it is presently they (MONOPOLIZE) the health care industry. One Reason I could go a step farther and think health care would be best socialized a
[/quote]
As I said, you want the very organization that makes the status quo possible to fix it by taking it completely over.
I dont know what kind of logic that is, but it goes to show that even by your own logic there is one way, and one way alone (in practice that is) that such systems can be created… with the help of the state.
Armed men that kill you if you dont comply.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I do not understand what you are trying to say ?
[/quote]
You do not like a situation that could only have been created with the help of government and you think more government will fix it?
Waaaaaa?
How else to get to a non profit system?
Who will bust their asses to get cheaper and better and faster and all around more awesome if the could not possibly make a buck off of it?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Your speech aside, that isn’t why Rothbard lounged in the bosom of the state - and everyone knows it. [/quote]
Irrelevant.
[quote]
More importantly, conservatives don’t “need” these kinds of libertarians for electoral purposes. Quite the opposite - their presence is toxic to normal people, and you want normal people on your side.[/quote]
“Normal” people are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
We do not scare them off, you do.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t want to use libertarians. I don’t want their support at all. I’d rather lose, and try to build up conservatism for the future. Not that you’re American, but there’s a nice little Libertarian Party. Good luck.[/quote]
Yeah well, two party system.
Insofar as conservatism is supposed to accept reality as it is and go from there… I think you will have a lot of accepting ahead of you.[/quote]
No please, really, do everything you can to convince fellow libertarians to distance themselves from us. We can go our separate ways like polite gentlemen (and ladies).
[quote]orion wrote:
“Normal” people are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
We do not scare them off, you do.[/quote]
In if that is true (and I am not so sure), Rothbardian libertarians are not simply “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” - they are radicals and weirdos calling for extreme policies far outside the mainstream.
Anf far from it - bourgeois 1950s values on family and economics are coming back into style for normal people (little “c”-conservatism), and 1960s hedonism and navel-gazing (libertarianism) are on their way out.
You have it backwards, as usual.
[quote]orion wrote:
“Normal” people are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
[/quote]
Normal? Maybe self-defeating.
[quote]orion wrote:
There, find some mud to sling on him, I am sure that he is not the perfect human being, by your standards, the only valid one of course, and thereby, by not living up to those impeccable and unimpeachable standards conservative or liberal writers have set, can be dismissed without ever opening a page of his writings.
[/quote]
Love this guy! Such a great speaker and educator.
Off topic but interesting: Apparently he’s “paleo” now and has shed some weight following Mark Sisson’s advice.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
do you care to provide a condensed version ?[/quote]
No.
You, you specifically, need to watch all of it, because you are the one insisting that “big business” would catapult us into a Blade Runner scenario if they were allowed to.
To level up is work, pretend to be Asian for a few hours. [/quote]
I disagree that I said big business will catapult us any where and if I understand Rothbard I agree with him and do not see anything he says revolutionary .
The only area I would say free market is best would be the labor market. I would also like to comment IMO the Insurance companies have changed the Medical market into the Isurance market and in doing so they have high jacked both profits and control
You may have considered my stance on Mitt Romney as being anti free market. IMO my stance was exactly free market. If Corporations are people then people are corporations especially us that own them . My point was and is that Mitt’s corporations dollar is worth $.86 or more and Mine is worth $.70 or less . There is an inherent disparity that is stacked against me in what you want to refer to as the free market
[/quote]
I do not refer to that as a free market.
I refer to that as crony capitalism, corporatism, neo mercantilism or by its traditional name, fascism.
Its you that wants government that already has granted territorial oligopolies to health insurers to move the US to a non profit system.
Meaning from seriously damaged competition to no competition at all.
Rothbards lecture is relevant insofar as he gives one example after another how big business turned to governments to make cartels and monopolies work, they themselves could never do it for long.
[/quote]
I do not think Insurance companies should be allowed to function as for profit in the Health care industry I think if Insurance is going to be allowed in health care than it should be non profit because as it is presently they (MONOPOLIZE) the health care industry. One Reason I could go a step farther and think health care would be best socialized a
[/quote]
As I said, you want the very organization that makes the status quo possible to fix it by taking it completely over.
I dont know what kind of logic that is, but it goes to show that even by your own logic there is one way, and one way alone (in practice that is) that such systems can be created… with the help of the state.
Armed men that kill you if you dont comply.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I do not understand what you are trying to say ?
[/quote]
You do not like a situation that could only have been created with the help of government and you think more government will fix it?
Waaaaaa?
[/quote]
How else to get to a non profit system?
Who will bust their asses to get cheaper and better and faster and all around more awesome if the could not possibly make a buck off of it?
Insurance was formed for the sole intention of pooling everybody’s money to equalize costs among the participants .
[/quote]
The problem with allowing the free market into a pool designed to equalize medicals costs is that in at least this case the insurance companies have lost sight of their porpose
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The problem with allowing the free market into a pool designed to equalize medicals costs is that in at least this case the insurance companies have lost sight of their porpose[/quote]
No, they have it squarely in sight, they want to make money.
However, by buying themselves some politicians they are now able to do so without competing too much.
You want them to not compete at all.
I say let them compete and if someone gets filthy rich by being cheaper and better than his competitors, good for him.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The problem with allowing the free market into a pool designed to equalize medicals costs is that in at least this case the insurance companies have lost sight of their porpose[/quote]
No, they have it squarely in sight, they want to make money.
However, by buying themselves some politicians they are now able to do so without competing too much.
You want them to not compete at all.
I say let them compete and if someone gets filthy rich by being cheaper and better than his competitors, good for him.[/quote]
I think you are missing my point , a free market would exist with out Health Insurance industry monopolizing Health market
You know I have to think a free market means more than a market with out regulation a free market has to mean also a market not monopolized by parasitic influences
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You know I have to think a free market means more than a market with out regulation a free market has to mean also a market not monopolized by parasitic influences [/quote]
Parasitism could not exist if the market were free.
No sane person would knowingly allow a leech to take him out.
In a free market he would be “free” to fix that.
Consider for example the parasitic minimum wage and entitlement laws that stand in a business owner’s way. Do you think if the market were free he would willingly pay a wage above its value to him or would give away his products for free?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You know I have to think a free market means more than a market with out regulation a free market has to mean also a market not monopolized by parasitic influences [/quote]
Parasitism could not exist if the market were free.
No sane person would knowingly allow a leech to take him out.
In a free market he would be “free” to fix that.
Consider for example the parasitic minimum wage and entitlement laws that stand in a business owner’s way. Do you think if the market were free he would willingly pay a wage above its value to him or would give away his products for free?[/quote]
No but consider a force that was allowed to establish it self as a service . which made it viable . But then because of regulations change it’s focus could change from providing a service to making profit
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You know I have to think a free market means more than a market with out regulation a free market has to mean also a market not monopolized by parasitic influences [/quote]
Parasitism could not exist if the market were free.
No sane person would knowingly allow a leech to take him out.
In a free market he would be “free” to fix that.
Consider for example the parasitic minimum wage and entitlement laws that stand in a business owner’s way. Do you think if the market were free he would willingly pay a wage above its value to him or would give away his products for free?[/quote]
No but consider a force that was allowed to establish it self as a service . which made it viable . But then because of regulations change it’s focus could change from providing a service to making profit
[/quote]
Are you trying to say that ? -
a) providing a service =/= making a profit
and/or
b) that providing a service is mutually exclusive of making a profit
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You know I have to think a free market means more than a market with out regulation a free market has to mean also a market not monopolized by parasitic influences [/quote]
Parasitism could not exist if the market were free.
No sane person would knowingly allow a leech to take him out.
In a free market he would be “free” to fix that.
Consider for example the parasitic minimum wage and entitlement laws that stand in a business owner’s way. Do you think if the market were free he would willingly pay a wage above its value to him or would give away his products for free?[/quote]
No but consider a force that was allowed to establish it self as a service . which made it viable . But then because of regulations change it’s focus could change from providing a service to making profit
[/quote]
Are you trying to say that ? -
a) providing a service =/= making a profit
and/or
b) that providing a service is mutually exclusive of making a profit
[/quote]
Not quite sure what your question is .My point is that if you have a powerful force in the market that was originally intended to be of service and they lose sight of service in search of profits than that force would be a parasite .
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/uninsured_pay_most.html
This is a good question, could the answer be that Health Care is not a free market, could this be evidence that Health Insurance industry monopolizes the Health Care industry
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You know I have to think a free market means more than a market with out regulation a free market has to mean also a market not monopolized by parasitic influences [/quote]
Parasitism could not exist if the market were free.
No sane person would knowingly allow a leech to take him out.
In a free market he would be “free” to fix that.
Consider for example the parasitic minimum wage and entitlement laws that stand in a business owner’s way. Do you think if the market were free he would willingly pay a wage above its value to him or would give away his products for free?[/quote]
No but consider a force that was allowed to establish it self as a service . which made it viable . But then because of regulations change it’s focus could change from providing a service to making profit
[/quote]
Are you trying to say that ? -
a) providing a service =/= making a profit
and/or
b) that providing a service is mutually exclusive of making a profit
[/quote]
Not quite sure what your question is .My point is that if you have a powerful force in the market that was originally intended to be of service and they lose sight of service in search of profits than that force would be a parasite .
[/quote]
The incentive for production in a marked economy is profits, the service a company is offering is just a means to get to the profits. Therefor you are describing something else than a marked economy.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You know I have to think a free market means more than a market with out regulation a free market has to mean also a market not monopolized by parasitic influences [/quote]
Parasitism could not exist if the market were free.
No sane person would knowingly allow a leech to take him out.
In a free market he would be “free” to fix that.
Consider for example the parasitic minimum wage and entitlement laws that stand in a business owner’s way. Do you think if the market were free he would willingly pay a wage above its value to him or would give away his products for free?[/quote]
No but consider a force that was allowed to establish it self as a service . which made it viable . But then because of regulations change it’s focus could change from providing a service to making profit
[/quote]
Are you trying to say that ? -
a) providing a service =/= making a profit
and/or
b) that providing a service is mutually exclusive of making a profit
[/quote]
Not quite sure what your question is .My point is that if you have a powerful force in the market that was originally intended to be of service and they lose sight of service in search of profits than that force would be a parasite .
[/quote]
The incentive for production in a marked economy is profits, the service a company is offering is just a means to get to the profits. Therefor you are describing something else than a marked economy. [/quote]
Just curious would you agree that the Health Insurance Industry monopolizes Health Care Industry ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You know I have to think a free market means more than a market with out regulation a free market has to mean also a market not monopolized by parasitic influences [/quote]
Parasitism could not exist if the market were free.
No sane person would knowingly allow a leech to take him out.
In a free market he would be “free” to fix that.
Consider for example the parasitic minimum wage and entitlement laws that stand in a business owner’s way. Do you think if the market were free he would willingly pay a wage above its value to him or would give away his products for free?[/quote]
No but consider a force that was allowed to establish it self as a service . which made it viable . But then because of regulations change it’s focus could change from providing a service to making profit
[/quote]
If a company relies on customers to make a profit then it cannot by definition be considered parasitism.
Parasitism is living off of a host and providing nothing back to it.
The incentive for profit is what brought those services into existence in the first place. The profit incentive is the only reason you get any of the services you do.
On the other hand you have the parasitism of government which forces you to purchase services you don’t even want - wars, etc.