Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France

[charlie.simm]

Charlie, you might enjoy this read (PDF, 58 pages):

The Private Production of Defense by Hoppe

Thanks Jake, I'll read it later today.

Sure, I have an opinion that's based on the knowledge and experience I've gained so far but I love finding out what people who see things differently have to say.

Why wouldn't anarcho-capitalists have drones and nukes too?

You can make a nuke off blueprints from the internet.

Again with the hollywood.

You think that my post represents a "hollywood" way of seeing things and I respect your opinion.

I however firmly believe that thinking you can defend yourself against the army of a huge country with weapons made off blueprints from the Internet represents a perception of reality that is far more influenced by hollywood than mine.

Why would anyone invade a country with no central government and everyone is personally armed? What would be to gain? How would they control, let alone hold it?

In an earlier post, I think you said that in your opinion, humans are not inherently evil. I agree.

Nobody invades countries for the lulz but if you currently occupy a territory worth living in (decent resources such as oil, for example), history has taught us that you will have to eventually deal with invaders/enemies.

So let's assume you live in a small libertarian island called Island X near Country X, where Country X is a "traditional" country with a population of 300,000,000. All of a sudden, you discover that Island X has shitloads of oil.

Now back to your question: why would Country X eventually attack Island X, in other words why would Country X invade an island with no central government and where everyone is personally armed?

They would obviously do it because you have oil and they want (or will eventually want) your oil and they would ironically do it because your island has no central government and that makes it vulnerable. Ok, everyone is personally armed, great. But if you think that the population of a small country (where, as you said, everyone is personally armed) has a chance against the army of a country with a population of 300,000,000 (just think about how much they're investing in weapons, technology and so on), you are mistaken.

Actually try to think, imagine you're Saddam Hussein. Why would you invade an America where people live in private enclaves and are well armed?

Well armed is a relative term, well armed compared to what?

Compared to a small gang of mercenaries sure, the libertarians who live in enclaves are well armed.

But compared to the army of a huge-ass country such as the one I referred to? I don't think so.

 

[pixelo]

Econ

Whats the point in arguing with these tax is theft/no government people? Their system will never exist unless some massive catastrophe happens.

Btw you should read the Economist article on state backed capitalism, the state can make capitalism more effective in some ways

Emerging-market multinationals: The rise of state capitalism | The Economist

Ultimately not the right way to go IMHO and more things wrong with it than right, but it disproves the ridiculous mantra that government is always wrong and always inefficient etc.

 

[ANOMOANON]

Luke, can you tell us more about your penis extension surgery done in Thailand? Is the scarring bad? How is outpatient care?

LOL!

 

[guerilla]

I however firmly believe that thinking you can defend yourself against the army of a huge country with weapons made off blueprints from the Internet represents a perception of reality that is far more influenced by hollywood than mine.

A nuke is a nuke bro. Basic physics.

That said, you haven't made the case why a huge country would invade peaceful people, and if they did, where would they get the popular support to do so? There is a reason why western democracies have never gone to war post WWII. It is impossible to manufacture consent.

So again, like your fear of businesses poisoning customers (which indicates how little you know about product development, let alone supply chain management) or your fear of big countries invading other people, why not just go straight to invasion by aliens with superior technology as long as we're paranoid of every possible outcome?

Nobody invades countries for the lulz but if you currently occupy a territory worth living in (decent resources such as oil, for example), history has taught us that you will have to eventually deal with invaders/enemies.

That's why free trade is necessary. When goods do not move across borders, armies will. It is always cheaper to trade than it is to fight.

Ok, everyone is personally armed, great. But if you think that the population of a small country (where, as you said, everyone is personally armed) has a chance against the army of a country with a population of 300,000,000 (just think about how much they're investing in weapons, technology and so on), you are mistaken.

Afghanistan.

Well armed is a relative term, well armed compared to what?

Look at what a handful of guys with boxcutters did on 9/11.

Understand that government exists by consent, not by direct control. The government you live under "works" because you consent to it. When enough people stop consenting, Berlin Walls fall and Soviet Unions break up.

You still haven't addressed why it is right to use violence against innocent people. Why is that ok for government?

 

[guerilla]

Whats the point in arguing with these tax is theft/no government people? Their system will never exist unless some massive catastrophe happens.

That's sort of like saying slavery will never end 500 years ago.

Or that women will never be independent and single parents and have careers 200 years ago.

The issue isn't whether such and such system will exist. That's a canard.

The issue is why it is ok for you to live off the taxes of others? Why do you use the government to live off the life and property of other people?

Btw you should read the Economist article on state backed capitalism, the state can make capitalism more effective in some ways

Emerging-market multinationals: The rise of state capitalism | The Economist

That's not an argument against the market though. You'd do well to read Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy and understand the epistemological concept of seen and unseen.

Ultimately not the right way to go IMHO and more things wrong with it than right, but it disproves the ridiculous mantra that government is always wrong and always inefficient etc.

Government is always inefficient because there is no market price structure, and so there can be no math to determine efficiency.

You can't say that Kobe Bryant is more efficient than Michael Jordan after the NBA ruled that Jordan had to play with only one hand.

 

[charlie.simm]

A nuke is a nuke bro. Basic physics.

That said, you haven't made the case why a huge country would invade peaceful people,

I explained why when analyzing the Island X vs. Country X scenario:

"They would obviously do it because you have oil"

That's just one example, huge countries have invaded peaceful ones throughout history for all sorts of reasons.

Afghanistan.

You obviously can't say things like "ok, the war is over, we won" in Afghanistan due to the fact that the opposing forces are scattered throughout the country.

Let's refer to the Country X example again and assume that the inhabitants of Island X would be scattered throughout the island. If Country X is just in it for the oil, then all they'd have to do is secure a few key areas and bam, problem solved.

Hunting down each Island X citizen one by one in order to ultimately say "we won" would definitely be next to impossible but what if Country X isn't after the "we won" verdict? What if they're only in it for the oil or what if they have another goal that can be reached without actually having to "win" the war?

and if they did, where would they get the popular support to do so?

There is a reason why western democracies have never gone to war post WWII. It is impossible to manufacture consent.

You're assuming that Country X is a western democracy and that the Country X government takes popular support into consideration before making a decision instead of letting propaganda do its thing or instead of simply not giving a fuck.

Countries have been invaded throughout history and under the right circumstances, it's fairly safe to assume that they will be invaded in the future as well.

World War II ended in 1945, in other words 67 years ago.

Not thousands of years ago, not hundreds of years ago. It ended 67 years ago.

The Cold War ended less than 25 years ago.

Not thousands of years ago, not hundreds of years ago. It ended less than 25 years ago.

I hear arguments such as "come on dude, things changed, there won't be any huge wars from now on" all the time. A dangerous assumption in my opinion, especially if you take the fact that WWII ended a mere 67 years ago and the fact that the Cold War ended less than 25 years ago into consideration.

You still haven't addressed why it is right to use violence against innocent people. Why is that ok for government?

Using violence against innocent people is not fair, I never said it was fair.

Taxation is theft, I never said it wasn't.

As you pointed out on more than one occasion, states don't really produce anything. They redistribute. As a result, some people receive more than they "deserve" and some people receive less.

A person who pays $5,000,000 in taxes throughout his or her existence won't receive products/services from the state worth $5,000,000. The same way, a person who is on the receiving end will get more products/services throughout his or her existence than he or she paid for.

I'm not a hypocrite, I can't say that the current system is fair for all parties involved. It isn't. I'm just saying that in my opinion, it's the best compromise our society can put on the table for the majority.

Politicians have to understand that governments are involved in way too many things atm, can't argue with that. But getting rid of them altogether would be a mistake, the best solution (IMO) would be keeping them around but decreasing their influence because as I've explained through my previous posts, in some cases size matters :anon.sml:

 

[JakeStratham]

I have an opinion that's based on the knowledge and experience I've gained so far but I love finding out what people who see things differently have to say.

A long time ago, I was guided by opinions based on my knowledge and experience. A dear friend then introduced me to ideas that triggered a "needle-across-the-record" moment. I realized my experience and knowledge were limited, and that sad fact tainted my opinions. Sort of like astronomers once believed the sun's positions throughout the day meant it rotated around the earth. Limited knowledge and evidence, wrong conclusion.

So, I set it all aside, and chose logic. And then tested everything, opinion by opinion, logically. It was like pouring coke on car battery corrosion. lol

Maybe you'll take the same path. Maybe not. But one way or the other, reading Hoppe is always fun.

 

[DanWesson]

They would obviously do it because you have oil and they want (or will eventually want) your oil and they would ironically do it because your island has no central government and that makes it vulnerable. Ok, everyone is personally armed, great. But if you think that the population of a small country (where, as you said, everyone is personally armed) has a chance against the army of a country with a population of 300,000,000 (just think about how much they're investing in weapons, technology and so on), you are mistaken.



Well armed is a relative term, well armed compared to what?

Compared to a small gang of mercenaries sure, the libertarians who live in enclaves are well armed.

But compared to the army of a huge-ass country such as the one I referred to? I don't think so.

Your argument that only governments can provide defense is not accurate. Most of the current weapons and munitions technologies are developed and manufactured by private firms. If anything, a stateless society offers a much larger market for such companies along with additional defense contractors who would provide training and manpower. This could be done more efficiently by such firms than the currently bloated government model.

 

[guerilla]

I'm just saying that in my opinion, it's the best compromise our society can put on the table for the majority.

I understand this is an opinion, but I still don't think you have substantiated it. I can't argue against opinion, you're welcome to think what you like, but I would love to argue the facts that form the basis for that opinion.

 

[advive]

Your argument that only governments can provide defense is not accurate. Most of the current weapons and munitions technologies are developed and manufactured by private firms. If anything, a stateless society offers a much larger market for such companies along with additional defense contractors who would provide training and manpower. This could be done more efficiently by such firms than the currently bloated government model.

These private firms that make all the weapons. Where do they get their money from? Who buys all of their shit?

 

[guerilla]

These private firms that make all the weapons. Where do they get their money from? Who buys all of their shit?

Exactly. Thanks for making our point. Without a government, private individuals will become their clients.

 

[Moxie]

These private firms that make all the weapons. Where do they get their money from? Who buys all of their shit?

 

[DanWesson]

These private firms that make all the weapons. Where do they get their money from? Who buys all of their shit?

You must have stopped reading before you got to this part: "...a stateless society offers a much larger market for such companies..."

 

[guerilla]

For Charlie, and anyone else interested further in this topic

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU5FcHSMd4A]The Future of Your Freedom - YouTube[/ame]

 

[hellblazer]

I have him on ignore. He is one of the biggest idiots this forum has ever seen, and considering that group includes Hellblazer, Riddar and Moe Bedard, it really says something about what a moron he is.

lol just saw this. Wasn't guerilla supposed to be one of those lofty highminded intellectuals who always sanctimoniously decried the use of ad hominems? And yet now he has supposedly "descended" to my level. Does that make him an "idiot" as well?

 

[guerilla]

lol just saw this. Wasn't guerilla supposed to be one of those lofty highminded intellectuals who always sanctimoniously decried the use of ad hominems? And yet now he has supposedly "descended" to my level. Does that make him an "idiot" as well?

Name calling is not ad hominem.

He is indeed an idiot, his posts prove that out. It's not an insult, an idiot is "a stupid person".

Being stupid is defined as "lacking intelligence or common sense".

An ad hominem would be saying his argument is wrong because he is an idiot. His arguments are wrong because they are illogical, counterfactual etc. It's just a coincidence that he happens to also be an idiot. But that latter point is good enough for me to block him.

 

[hellblazer]

He is indeed an idiot..

he happens to also be an idiot...

So in your expert opinion, you have declared four individuals on this forum to be clinically "idiotic":

In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation.

Individuals with the lowest mental age level (less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbeciles had a mental age of three to seven years, and morons had a mental age of seven to ten years.

In current medical classification, these people are now said to have "profound mental retardation."

Those who are qualified to clinically diagnose individuals with "profound mental retardation" or "idiocy" are generally psychologists/psychiatrists or other medical professionals such as doctors, etc...

What are your academic or medical credentials to make such a diagnosis, on no less than four individuals at this forum? Residency? Guerilla, M.D.? Or dare I say, Ph.D?

Like I said, don't descend to my level. Can't nobody do it like I do.

 

[guerilla]

So in your expert opinion, you have declared four individuals on this forum to be clinically "idiotic".

Maybe more.

What are your academic or medical credentials to make such a diagnosis, on no less than four individuals at this forum? Residency? Guerilla, M.D.? Or dare I say, Ph.D?

That's an appeal to authority. A form of ad hominem.

Like I said, don't descend to my level. Can't nobody do it like I do.

Trust me, you're still the biggest idiot on this forum.

 

[Crynos]

Yes, because your parents never told you to share either.

I share. I help people out who are truly experiencing hardships. It's all voluntary though, and it should always be voluntary. I can't make other people care, because then I'm being a dick.

 

[johnmatrix]

A long time ago, I was guided by opinions based on my knowledge and experience. A dear friend then introduced me to ideas that triggered a "needle-across-the-record" moment.

I've got some literature in the trunk of my car that will change your whole way of thinking.



One thing I found interesting was the thread about the 'pink slime' that is present in nearly all the mince meat sold in the US to basically reduce the pure meat content and fill it with other shit left over from the animals. The Australian government banned the use of that a long time ago.

So without government intervention in the US, these food producers continue to stuff this horrible stuff in the meat you buy, without telling you because there's no regulation on it and they don't even need to mark it on the packaging. In a free market, how would this sort itself out? genuine question.