huge wealth inequalities
I've never understood this point. There are huge inequalities in the world in intelligence, in musical ability, athletic ability, application, perseverance, etc.
Why would anyone expect that moneymaking ability should be different from all the other abilities? I mean do you complain that musical ability in the world is unfairly distributed?
In a free market, there will never be a monopoly. Simply because in a free market, no one can force you to buy something (hence 'free'). Microsoft is not a monopoly. Of course, the govt. decided that it was a monopoly, but some govt also decided that pi=3; just because a govt says something, does not mean it is true.
Are you free to use a non-Microsoft product like I am doing right now? Are you free to use OSX, Solaris, UNIX, Linux, OOo, etc.? If so, then how is Microsoft a monopoly? People *choose* to use Microsoft's products because that gives them the maximum economic advantage. If enough people buy Red Hat, MS will have to work with them or lose sales. Most people prefer MS because it is in their best interest.
I bought a Toyota instead of Ford. If everyone does that, is Toyota a monopoly? Some people will disagree with that analogy, saying "I'm free to alter the Toyota to run on non-Toyota stereo, while MS prevents that".
Well, you are correct. How is MS able to do that? By making the govt. enforce it for them by patents, copyright and other things. A monopoly is possible only with the use of force and only govt has that power - hence a monopoly is not possible without govt. help.
If, in a free market, monopolies are inevitable (as some sibling posters have claimed), why isn't there a monopoly in cars? Washing soda? Ship building? - I'm not claiming that these have had no govt regulation (there is no such area), but I'm saying these industries did not have large scale govt. 'anti-trust' action and are free.
Show me one instance in the history of mankind where in a (relatively, since there has never been one) free market, where one entity had a monopoly that was not supported by the govt? And if someone wants to mention Standard Oil or the railways, I'll be more than happy to dispel that myth.
You still have not told me how India, China and Mexico are not free markets.
A free market is once where competition is welcomed. You argue that the USA is a free market economy and also because of that it should restrict competition? It is a funny argument.
While I agree with you that India, China and Mexico are not free economies, neither is the USA - unions, import tariffs, pork spending, govt enforced elimination of competition (anti-trust), skill discrimination (minimum wage), quotas, eminent domain, non-tariff barriers (Dubai port deal), etc, etc. It is far from a free economy. It is a govt managed economy.
Its funny that you talk about the free market while simultaneously advocating protectionism. In what way are India, China and Mexico less free or more protectionist than the USA? How are they damaging you in the 'unskilled labour market'?
If someone is willing to work for $1/day, then in a free market he will get a lot of customers. That person is not damaging your 'unskilled labour market'. It means that the work he is performing is only worth $1/day. That is the definition of the free market.
You are free to disagree whether it is right or wrong, but don't pretend to understand the free market while condemning free competition and advocating artificial barriers to trade.
What is "stolen" is not the identity, but the traits that we look at when trying to verify identity.
The victim can still authenticate himself...it's just that someone else can impersonate them.
Imagine if a company/govt relies on the person's name as an identification and authentication code - now would you say I can impersonate you because I know your name? I hope not.
Now, companies should be allowed to use whatever the heck they want as a means of identification - as long as they bear the losses arising from that. Pretty soon, you will have a foolproof system. But right now, it is the responsibility of the people to keep such information secret. It bugs me that the govt also uses the same means of identification and asks the ppl to bear the costs of the failures arising from this braindead method.
The entire basis of the credit industry is that they collect all of your personal information and then sell it freely without your knowledge or permission.
It is not 'private information' if someone other than you knows about it. My point is that data that is known to someone other than me should not be used to control my bank account/ credit,etc.
My SSN is known to at least 100 other people. So it should not be used as a means of identification. Passing a law prohibiting those 100 people not to disclose my SSN without my notification will not make me comfortable because if one of them does leak me SSN, it will still harm me.
All the law can do is punish the guy who leaked it after the fact. That does not undo the damage to me. Unless the law can travel back in time and undo what has been done, it is useless.
The worrying questions should be
Why should anyone be able to ruin your finances by just knowing some numbers?
Why should someone be able to borrow in your name by just quoting some number?
Why is my future dependent on whether some data entry operator in some company follows the proper security precautions?
I hate how everyone is using the term 'identity theft'. No one can steal someone else's identity (for now anyway).
What 'identity theft' really means is that the the methods the financial industry uses to identify people is broken.Whenever the govt holds hearing on 'identity theft' they are only legitimizing these methods and making the people responsible for the failures of the financial industry.
Well it is obvious that your understanding of the market exceeds even that of federal judges who have studied it for years. No one can doubt your logic.
Can't come up with a logical answer, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
You could just as easily argue that it is your choice to live in a state/country that has whatever laws you don't like -- or your misfortune to be born there.
If I fall and break my leg, that is misfortune. If my neighbors break my leg, that is not misfortune. You are saying 'it is your misfortune that you were in my house when they broke in.' If in Libertarian-land, it is your choice or misfortune to live in a residential neighborhood separated from the commercial district (where you work) by a single road, the owner of that road can stipulate whatever he wants, and you are forced to comply (or hike through the wilderness to get to work, although then you'd be tresspassing on others' land).
Yes, he can charge me whatever he wants. The owner of the road is holding a gun to my head because of my choices - I bought the land and I made a bad choice that places me in this position of being at the road owner's mercy. It was my bad choice to buy a land that did not come with access rights (or maybe a contract that fixes the price for the road access).
But in this world, he cannot prevent me from taking an alternate road (if there is one) or force me to take his road (if I just choose to stay home). But that is exactly what happens now - the govt. says, you have to take his road; if you do not have to take the road, you still have to pay for it.
I think this is the difference between how you see things and how I see them. You are saying (and correct me if I'm wrong):
It does not matter how you get to a situation where you are at someone else's mercy - they are all the same.
I'm saying: It matters how you got to that situation - if someone (say, the govt or a private overlord's army) forces you, that is unacceptable. If you got to that situation through your own choices (e.g., the hungry guy and the restaurant, the road owner,etc), then that is your fault.
In a libertarian world, the only way someone will be able to dictate terms to me is if I want that someone's labor (or property). In the current scenario, I could be a subsistence farmer needing nothing else outside my land, but I'd still be forced to pay for things I do not need.
Now, let us look at your solution to the scenario above - do you propose that the govt take over the guy's road because you need it? If your answer is yes, then can I take your car? You see, I have to travel a long way to go to work and the only way I can do that is using a car. But you refuse to give yours to me. Since that places me at your mercy, the govt should take over your car and give it to those who need it.
Extreme libertarianism (i.e. the "get rid of the government entirely" kind) is anarcho-capitalism. Anarchy transforms into despotism as soon as the ones with power and wealth realize that there is nothing stopping them from aquiring more power and wealth, because the only police and army are the ones they hire. The only defense against the creation of a de-facto government that is most definitely not the choice of the people is to create a government that is.
Who/What prevents the people from creating a govt that protects them from the despot? What prevents them from forseeing such a scenario and creating a huge army and police? But that is what we're doing now you say? What I object is the fact that those people are forcing me to join their govt that protects them from the despot. Soon, they will stipulate when I can go out and what I can do (to protect me from the despot). I do not forsee any such scenario - why should I pay to create the army and police? Why should I give up my rights? Or maybe I want to be killed by the despot. If you believe that such a despot will rise and attack you, should give up your rights and pay to create the army. You should not force others to believe what you believe.
It will be true when Anarchy becomes a viable form of government. Which is to say, never for any population larger tha
Homer Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer I see.
Lisa But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
Why should the insurance company judge and price your risk any differently?
Uh.. because they would like to offer different products and get more customers? If the insurance company decides that it is too cumbersome to create several different products, then that is their business choice which they are free to make. At present however, they do not have that choice.
If the risk of having to pay out to you is near zero, then the cost of covering you against that risk is near zero, and therefore any discount you would receive for not being covered against that risk would be near zero.
*I* think the risk is zero. The only way the insurance company will be convinced that their risk is zero is if they remove it from my coverage. Which they are not allowed to do at the moment. So, they charge me for the risk that I might get diabetes even though I think it is zero. It is like forcing me to buy an umbrella on a sunny day.
Say the insurance company sells 100 health plans and one dental plan, if the one dental plan customer ends up costing the insurance company more than they pay, that money is coming out of the health plan pool,
Or they charge more for dental plans while keeping the premium the same for the health plans. And if that company chooses not to do that and increase premiums for everyone, then I will take my business to some other company that keeps its cost low by carefully choosing who and what they cover. The market will provide the lowest price for the product I want.
Here are premiums from the blue cross site :
1. Insurance with maternity coverage for a 30 yr old female - $235
2. without maternity coverage - $82
Replace maternity with diabetes and you will see the point I'm trying to make.
If you could buy a policy without diabetes coverage, you'd still be paying the same amount....
So in your world all insurance policies, regardless of the coverage they offer, cost the same? So the cost of a policy with just dental would cost the same as the cost of a policy that covers dental, vision, etc?
The price of insurance is set by the insurer based on the risks he sees - if his max payout is $10,000,000, he is going to charge me much more than what he would charge me for a $100 coverage.
Funny, you don't seem to understand what the point of insurance is
But implying that this can only occur in the presence of government regulation is the typical naive Libertarian argument against government that ignores any power relationship other than government-citizen.
You are attacking a straw man here. Let me explain:
The argument of the Libertarians is not that this can occur only in the face of govt regulation. The Libertarians do not say "if the govt disappeared, there will be no more situations where we will be at the mercy (so to speak) of others".
Rather, the argument is, "if the govt disappears tomorrow, we will not be FORCED into these situations. We may still find ourselves in such positions, but it will only be due to our choice or misfortune." a hungry person looking for food isn't forced to buy from the only restaurant in town, but otherwise he starves, so in reality he is forced.
He is forced only because of his actions that led him to this situation. So he has to agree to whatever price the restaurant wants.
Contrast this with the situation where the govt forces you into situations like this (by holding a gun to your head).
Then don't go putting VOLUNTARY in caps like just because you aren't forced at gunpoint to have insurance that they don't get to dictate terms.
If nobody is holding a gun to your head, then whatever actions you take are VOLUNTARY.
In your own example (There are many industries in which insurance is not mandatory by law, but rather mandatory by practical necessity), it is still VOLUNTARY - you can choose to leave the industry and do some other work.
The terms the insurance company (or any other producer) sets are for their work; their labor. They can ask for whatever they want. You should have the choice to take it or leave it.
Not that you are one.
No - a Libertarian argues that his position is correct because soceity would be better off by adopting his methods. I've always argued that a man's right to his labor is an inherant right - regardless of what effect that might have on soceity.
I'm just saying I've heard the argument before and it still isn't true.
I've heard the argument several times before and it is true.
"Volunteering" to not have insurance is like volunteering to go out of business,
If you need their services that bad, you should pay what the insurance companies are asking for. If I'm hungry and there is only one restaurant available, I have only two choices - pay the asking price or go hungry. Many people on this website ask for the third option - steal from the restaurant using the government.
From some website:
As of December 2005, forty-six states have some type of laws requiring health insurance coverage to include treatment for diabetes. Most states require coverage of both direct treatment and the costs of diabetes treatment equipment and supplies often used by the patient at home. The states not included are Alabama, Idaho, North Dakota and Ohio.
This is just one example. The price of a simple policy for a 27 yr old healthy person like me is way too high because of stuff like this - shouldn't I be the one deciding what I want,what I need and what I can afford under my present circumstance?
Capitalism is where insurance companies get to dictate what you do.
In a capitalist economy, the insurance companies cannot 'dictate' what you should do if you do not enter into a VOLUNTARY contract with them asking for their services.
The reason insurance companies get to dictate to you (in most western countries) is because of mandatory insurance and regulation of the insurance industry.
I cannot find a health insurance plan that I want because most insurance companies are required by the state to carry coverage for things that I do not want. I chose not to have health insurance - until of course the govt mandates that everyone buy insurance.
If you want to keep something private, don't share it with anyone else.
If I tell my friend that I shoplifted, then it is no longer a secret - he can reveal it to whoever he wants, whenever he wants. Sure, I can make him promise not to do so, I can even make him sign a contract that penalises him if he shares the secret.
But none of that can *prevent* him from sharing the secret. And once he does so (due to malicious intent, due to carelessness or maybe because a supervillain tortured him), the secret is out. No contract will put the genie back in the bottle.
Same thing with your email and phone records - once some company has the information, it is no longer secret. Sure, you may be able to sue them and punish them, but your 'private' information is out - no judge or law in the world can undo that. Yet.
How can anyone steal someone else's identity? Oh, you mean they stole people's social security numbers. That should not be a problem, because as we all know, ss numbers are not meant to be used for identification.
The real problem is companies and the govt using SS# for identification. At this point, about 50 ppl know my SS# - the librarian, the assistant at my school, the clerk in the bank, etc, etc. - so any of these people can harm if they don't like me for some reason? This is stupid.
So what next? Some company decides they are going to use FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME as the id and we are all supposed to keep our names a secret? And run around complaining when our 'identity' (FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME) is stolen?
In many countries, you need a notarised signature to obtain loans, etc. While not foolproof, you can always prove it was not you and it takes more effort to commit fraud.
The ticket reservation system in Indian Railways uses a dumb-terminal front end attached to dot-matrix printers, with Unix systems in the backend... I'm not sure about the databse and the progrmming language though.
An IBM exec in India told me that the database was DB2 - had no way of verifying it though.
Of course, a guy in Africa will go to his grave not understanding why you make more in a year than his whole village will see in his lifetime.... Isn't there such thing as "enough"? Give the guy in Africa $10000 and he'll spend the rest of his days.....
See how it works?
Where's my seven mil? And that is why you will never understand what it takes to make money.
Slashdot Mirror
huge wealth inequalities
I've never understood this point.
There are huge inequalities in the world in intelligence, in musical ability, athletic ability, application, perseverance, etc.
Why would anyone expect that moneymaking ability should be different from all the other abilities? I mean do you complain that musical ability in the world is unfairly distributed?
In a free market, there will never be a monopoly. Simply because in a free market, no one can force you to buy something (hence 'free'). Microsoft is not a monopoly. Of course, the govt. decided that it was a monopoly, but some govt also decided that pi=3; just because a govt says something, does not mean it is true.
Are you free to use a non-Microsoft product like I am doing right now? Are you free to use OSX, Solaris, UNIX, Linux, OOo, etc.? If so, then how is Microsoft a monopoly? People *choose* to use Microsoft's products because that gives them the maximum economic advantage. If enough people buy Red Hat, MS will have to work with them or lose sales. Most people prefer MS because it is in their best interest.
I bought a Toyota instead of Ford. If everyone does that, is Toyota a monopoly? Some people will disagree with that analogy, saying "I'm free to alter the Toyota to run on non-Toyota stereo, while MS prevents that".
Well, you are correct. How is MS able to do that? By making the govt. enforce it for them by patents, copyright and other things. A monopoly is possible only with the use of force and only govt has that power - hence a monopoly is not possible without govt. help.
If, in a free market, monopolies are inevitable (as some sibling posters have claimed), why isn't there a monopoly in cars? Washing soda? Ship building? - I'm not claiming that these have had no govt regulation (there is no such area), but I'm saying these industries did not have large scale govt. 'anti-trust' action and are free.
Show me one instance in the history of mankind where in a (relatively, since there has never been one) free market, where one entity had a monopoly that was not supported by the govt? And if someone wants to mention Standard Oil or the railways, I'll be more than happy to dispel that myth.
So what is the cost of commercial databases? Do the math:
Cost of OSS DB=$0 , which is 50% cheaper than commercial DBs.
0.5 * X = $0
X=$0
So, commercial databases really cost $0. I'm calling Oracle to get my copy.
(Yeah, yeah, TCO is not $0...)
Just look at NAFTA, and CAFTA. "Free" trade indeed...
It is free for the US!
You still have not told me how India, China and Mexico are not free markets.
A free market is once where competition is welcomed. You argue that the USA is a free market economy and also because of that it should restrict competition? It is a funny argument.
While I agree with you that India, China and Mexico are not free economies, neither is the USA - unions, import tariffs, pork spending, govt enforced elimination of competition (anti-trust), skill discrimination (minimum wage), quotas, eminent domain, non-tariff barriers (Dubai port deal), etc, etc. It is far from a free economy. It is a govt managed economy.
Its funny that you talk about the free market while simultaneously advocating protectionism. In what way are India, China and Mexico less free or more protectionist than the USA? How are they damaging you in the 'unskilled labour market'?
If someone is willing to work for $1/day, then in a free market he will get a lot of customers. That person is not damaging your 'unskilled labour market'. It means that the work he is performing is only worth $1/day. That is the definition of the free market.
You are free to disagree whether it is right or wrong, but don't pretend to understand the free market while condemning free competition and advocating artificial barriers to trade.
What is "stolen" is not the identity, but the traits that we look at when trying to verify identity.
The victim can still authenticate himself...it's just that someone else can impersonate them.
Imagine if a company/govt relies on the person's name as an identification and authentication code - now would you say I can impersonate you because I know your name? I hope not.
Now, companies should be allowed to use whatever the heck they want as a means of identification - as long as they bear the losses arising from that. Pretty soon, you will have a foolproof system. But right now, it is the responsibility of the people to keep such information secret. It bugs me that the govt also uses the same means of identification and asks the ppl to bear the costs of the failures arising from this braindead method.
The entire basis of the credit industry is that they collect all of your personal information and then sell it freely without your knowledge or permission.
,etc.
It is not 'private information' if someone other than you knows about it. My point is that data that is known to someone other than me should not be used to control my bank account/ credit
My SSN is known to at least 100 other people. So it should not be used as a means of identification. Passing a law prohibiting those 100 people not to disclose my SSN without my notification will not make me comfortable because if one of them does leak me SSN, it will still harm me.
All the law can do is punish the guy who leaked it after the fact. That does not undo the damage to me. Unless the law can travel back in time and undo what has been done, it is useless.
This story raises a number of worrying questions:
The worrying questions should be
Why should anyone be able to ruin your finances by just knowing some numbers?
Why should someone be able to borrow in your name by just quoting some number?
Why is my future dependent on whether some data entry operator in some company follows the proper security precautions?
I hate how everyone is using the term 'identity theft'. No one can steal someone else's identity (for now anyway).
What 'identity theft' really means is that the the methods the financial industry uses to identify people is broken.Whenever the govt holds hearing on 'identity theft' they are only legitimizing these methods and making the people responsible for the failures of the financial industry.
And as we all know, once the state says something, that is the truth. There cannot be another opinion about it.
Well it is obvious that your understanding of the market exceeds even that of federal judges who have studied it for years. No one can doubt your logic.
Can't come up with a logical answer, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
You could just as easily argue that it is your choice to live in a state/country that has whatever laws you don't like -- or your misfortune to be born there.
,etc), then that is your fault.
If I fall and break my leg, that is misfortune. If my neighbors break my leg, that is not misfortune. You are saying 'it is your misfortune that you were in my house when they broke in.'
If in Libertarian-land, it is your choice or misfortune to live in a residential neighborhood separated from the commercial district (where you work) by a single road, the owner of that road can stipulate whatever he wants, and you are forced to comply (or hike through the wilderness to get to work, although then you'd be tresspassing on others' land).
Yes, he can charge me whatever he wants. The owner of the road is holding a gun to my head because of my choices - I bought the land and I made a bad choice that places me in this position of being at the road owner's mercy. It was my bad choice to buy a land that did not come with access rights (or maybe a contract that fixes the price for the road access).
But in this world, he cannot prevent me from taking an alternate road (if there is one) or force me to take his road (if I just choose to stay home). But that is exactly what happens now - the govt. says, you have to take his road; if you do not have to take the road, you still have to pay for it.
I think this is the difference between how you see things and how I see them. You are saying (and correct me if I'm wrong):
It does not matter how you get to a situation where you are at someone else's mercy - they are all the same.
I'm saying:
It matters how you got to that situation - if someone (say, the govt or a private overlord's army) forces you, that is unacceptable. If you got to that situation through your own choices (e.g., the hungry guy and the restaurant, the road owner
In a libertarian world, the only way someone will be able to dictate terms to me is if I want that someone's labor (or property). In the current scenario, I could be a subsistence farmer needing nothing else outside my land, but I'd still be forced to pay for things I do not need.
Now, let us look at your solution to the scenario above - do you propose that the govt take over the guy's road because you need it? If your answer is yes, then can I take your car? You see, I have to travel a long way to go to work and the only way I can do that is using a car. But you refuse to give yours to me. Since that places me at your mercy, the govt should take over your car and give it to those who need it.
Extreme libertarianism (i.e. the "get rid of the government entirely" kind) is anarcho-capitalism. Anarchy transforms into despotism as soon as the ones with power and wealth realize that there is nothing stopping them from aquiring more power and wealth, because the only police and army are the ones they hire. The only defense against the creation of a de-facto government that is most definitely not the choice of the people is to create a government that is.
Who/What prevents the people from creating a govt that protects them from the despot? What prevents them from forseeing such a scenario and creating a huge army and police?
But that is what we're doing now you say? What I object is the fact that those people are forcing me to join their govt that protects them from the despot. Soon, they will stipulate when I can go out and what I can do (to protect me from the despot). I do not forsee any such scenario - why should I pay to create the army and police? Why should I give up my rights? Or maybe I want to be killed by the despot. If you believe that such a despot will rise and attack you, should give up your rights and pay to create the army. You should not force others to believe what you believe.
It will be true when Anarchy becomes a viable form of government. Which is to say, never for any population larger tha
Homer Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer I see.
Lisa But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
Why should the insurance company judge and price your risk any differently?
Uh.. because they would like to offer different products and get more customers? If the insurance company decides that it is too cumbersome to create several different products, then that is their business choice which they are free to make. At present however, they do not have that choice.
If the risk of having to pay out to you is near zero, then the cost of covering you against that risk is near zero, and therefore any discount you would receive for not being covered against that risk would be near zero.
*I* think the risk is zero. The only way the insurance company will be convinced that their risk is zero is if they remove it from my coverage. Which they are not allowed to do at the moment. So, they charge me for the risk that I might get diabetes even though I think it is zero. It is like forcing me to buy an umbrella on a sunny day.
Say the insurance company sells 100 health plans and one dental plan, if the one dental plan customer ends up costing the insurance company more than they pay, that money is coming out of the health plan pool,
Or they charge more for dental plans while keeping the premium the same for the health plans. And if that company chooses not to do that and increase premiums for everyone, then I will take my business to some other company that keeps its cost low by carefully choosing who and what they cover. The market will provide the lowest price for the product I want.
Here are premiums from the blue cross site :
1. Insurance with maternity coverage for a 30 yr old female - $235
2. without maternity coverage - $82
Replace maternity with diabetes and you will see the point I'm trying to make.
If you could buy a policy without diabetes coverage, you'd still be paying the same amount ....
So in your world all insurance policies, regardless of the coverage they offer, cost the same? So the cost of a policy with just dental would cost the same as the cost of a policy that covers dental, vision, etc?
The price of insurance is set by the insurer based on the risks he sees - if his max payout is $10,000,000, he is going to charge me much more than what he would charge me for a $100 coverage.
Funny, you don't seem to understand what the point of insurance is
Yeah. *I* don't
But implying that this can only occur in the presence of government regulation is the typical naive Libertarian argument against government that ignores any power relationship other than government-citizen.
You are attacking a straw man here. Let me explain:
The argument of the Libertarians is not that this can occur only in the face of govt regulation. The Libertarians do not say "if the govt disappeared, there will be no more situations where we will be at the mercy (so to speak) of others".
Rather, the argument is, "if the govt disappears tomorrow, we will not be FORCED into these situations. We may still find ourselves in such positions, but it will only be due to our choice or misfortune."
a hungry person looking for food isn't forced to buy from the only restaurant in town, but otherwise he starves, so in reality he is forced.
He is forced only because of his actions that led him to this situation. So he has to agree to whatever price the restaurant wants.
Contrast this with the situation where the govt forces you into situations like this (by holding a gun to your head).
Then don't go putting VOLUNTARY in caps like just because you aren't forced at gunpoint to have insurance that they don't get to dictate terms.
If nobody is holding a gun to your head, then whatever actions you take are VOLUNTARY.
In your own example (There are many industries in which insurance is not mandatory by law, but rather mandatory by practical necessity), it is still VOLUNTARY - you can choose to leave the industry and do some other work.
The terms the insurance company (or any other producer) sets are for their work; their labor. They can ask for whatever they want. You should have the choice to take it or leave it.
Not that you are one.
No - a Libertarian argues that his position is correct because soceity would be better off by adopting his methods. I've always argued that a man's right to his labor is an inherant right - regardless of what effect that might have on soceity.
I'm just saying I've heard the argument before and it still isn't true.
I've heard the argument several times before and it is true.
"Volunteering" to not have insurance is like volunteering to go out of business,
If you need their services that bad, you should pay what the insurance companies are asking for. If I'm hungry and there is only one restaurant available, I have only two choices - pay the asking price or go hungry. Many people on this website ask for the third option - steal from the restaurant using the government.
From some website:
As of December 2005, forty-six states have some type of laws requiring health insurance coverage to include treatment for diabetes. Most states require coverage of both direct treatment and the costs of diabetes treatment equipment and supplies often used by the patient at home. The states not included are Alabama, Idaho, North Dakota and Ohio.
This is just one example. The price of a simple policy for a 27 yr old healthy person like me is way too high because of stuff like this - shouldn't I be the one deciding what I want,what I need and what I can afford under my present circumstance?
Capitalism is where insurance companies get to dictate what you do.
In a capitalist economy, the insurance companies cannot 'dictate' what you should do if you do not enter into a VOLUNTARY contract with them asking for their services.
The reason insurance companies get to dictate to you (in most western countries) is because of mandatory insurance and regulation of the insurance industry.
I cannot find a health insurance plan that I want because most insurance companies are required by the state to carry coverage for things that I do not want. I chose not to have health insurance - until of course the govt mandates that everyone buy insurance.
If you want to keep something private, don't share it with anyone else.
If I tell my friend that I shoplifted, then it is no longer a secret - he can reveal it to whoever he wants, whenever he wants. Sure, I can make him promise not to do so, I can even make him sign a contract that penalises him if he shares the secret.
But none of that can *prevent* him from sharing the secret. And once he does so (due to malicious intent, due to carelessness or maybe because a supervillain tortured him), the secret is out. No contract will put the genie back in the bottle.
Same thing with your email and phone records - once some company has the information, it is no longer secret. Sure, you may be able to sue them and punish them, but your 'private' information is out - no judge or law in the world can undo that. Yet.
How can anyone steal someone else's identity? Oh, you mean they stole people's social security numbers. That should not be a problem, because as we all know, ss numbers are not meant to be used for identification.
The real problem is companies and the govt using SS# for identification. At this point, about 50 ppl know my SS# - the librarian, the assistant at my school, the clerk in the bank, etc, etc. - so any of these people can harm if they don't like me for some reason? This is stupid.
So what next? Some company decides they are going to use FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME as the id and we are all supposed to keep our names a secret? And run around complaining when our 'identity' (FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME) is stolen?
In many countries, you need a notarised signature to obtain loans, etc. While not foolproof, you can always prove it was not you and it takes more effort to commit fraud.
It is as funny as a coporately funded, PHB-driven campaign could ever be.
But the IBM employees who are forced to watch this will laugh though. They better.
The ticket reservation system in Indian Railways uses a dumb-terminal front end attached to dot-matrix printers, with Unix systems in the backend... I'm not sure about the databse and the progrmming language though.
An IBM exec in India told me that the database was DB2 - had no way of verifying it though.
Ok, ok. Me stand corrected.
A more cynical person than **I** might suggest that there is a connection between the two." ...than me...
That should be
Of course, a guy in Africa will go to his grave not understanding why you make more in a year than his whole village will see in his lifetime .... Isn't there such thing as "enough"? Give the guy in Africa $10000 and he'll spend the rest of his days .....
See how it works?
Where's my seven mil?
And that is why you will never understand what it takes to make money.