This is so fallacious and amateurish that it isn't even worth really addressing. Have at 10 Common Objections to Anarchy and make a new thread if you somehow become capable of forming a rational argument.

Any more comments on how government involvement in health care drives up prices?

Oooh, Space-ACists! Not a bad idea.


You mean like how if you happen to 'plop out' within the HOA/DRO's defining borders?

You should probably rethink those ones..

This is technically true. But if you notice, people who buy "insurance" themselves rather than through an employer tend to get something that is a lot more like actual insurance and a lot less like the price-desensitizing health care financing plans that people tend to get through their employers.

Keep dreaming.

Blue Shield came around in 1939 too, but what they initially offered and their coverage area is vastly different than today's system. You really can't compare the two.

He expressly addressed other factors like improved medical technology. You're just conveniently not addressing the whole article. Also compare how he was able to get the service that on the one hand cost $700 for $50 at another place. The twizzler analogy isn't valid. Cute though.

lol at zaz ripping people for correlation = causation and then making two or three posts with that exact argument.

zan nen- I strongly suspect I've read more Rothbard, Block, Hoppe, etc. than all but the most serious ACists on this forum. What can I say, I have deeply weird hobbies. I know all the arguments. We all know all the arguments. This forum has thread after thread about private roads and private courts and how ACists don't know basic microeconomics 101 and on and on.


This thread is allegedly about the effects of the recent health care reform bill on current American citizens, not anarchy.

Huh? Get lost dude. The devastating effects of national borders can be seen most glaringly in Africa, where after the Berlin Treaty, colonial powers raced to claim territory and now irrational boundaries exist between ethnic and cultural groups.


Children have limited rights and are a special case, but I won't get into that all now. A HOA is a voluntary association. A state is not.

But suzzer really nailed it. You guys object, on a moral level, to taxation as an initiation of force. Now, we can quibble over how you haven't really thought that through all the way, blah blah blah, but this is like debating geology with creationists. It's an article of faith with you, I'm pretty good at teh internetz but I'm not going to be able to talk someone out of their faith. The primary thing that will do that is turning 22.

Wow, more of that good stuff you're constantly improving the forum with.

LOL @ you bitching about the timeframe of the graphs and getting owned. Price history won't prove anything. I'll ask yet again:

Claiming you've read a lot and that ACists don't know micro 101 is not a valid argument. This is one big appeal to authority. I didn't drive this toward anarchy this always thirsty noob and your dumb "the free market can do everything the state does! DROz!!!!" did.

There's a ton more articles about the health care bill here for you to attempt to tackle. Pick one. I'll enjoy laughing at the fail.

pvn- I dunno, I apparently got Borodog to stop posting here, I'm gonna coast on that improvement for a while.

With no 'state' in place, the next largest HOA or DRO would have the monopoly on force, and yes, that would take place within a given territory. You know, with like imaginary borders and boundaries and stuff. And yes, people would be born into them.

No, it's not an appeal to authority. It's great that you're like pvn's understudy in misusing logical terms, but it's not even an attempt at an argument. It's a series of factual claims. I'm telling you that you're asking very broad questions in a thread devoted to a specific subject. Start another thread or use the search function.

You claim to be well read, i.e. an authority, on the subject but can't answer a fundamental economic question directly related to health care costs. That the insurmountable problem of economic interventionism happens to apply to the whole range of things government gets its paws on does not make it a "broad question". It's a very specific and simple question related to the topic. It's clear that you are unable to answer and are just trying to distract from teh issue.

Hasta luego, gonna go play some poker.

shouting "tard" as loud as you can until you're the only person left is not really improving anything.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=162

But keep fighting the good fight. Just like all of those other guys who fight their crusades by just trying to shout the other guys down (cf. Fred Phelps, mosque protests, &c).

It's pretty cool how you can express disdain for logical consistency and then immediately turn around and compare other people to creationists.

Health care obeys economic laws, just in counter-intuitive ways. For instance, reducing the number of insurers in an area lower premiums.

zan nen- If you use the search function you'll discovered I've already answered that question. For example, I remember providing you with a link to Kenneth Arrow's seminal health care economics paper. In this very thread, like 200 posts ago. You did not respond.

That doesn't make it an example of the logical fallacy "appeal to authority". Check wikipedia out for a definition of the actual fallacy.

This might be true at times because of economies of scale, but it surely isn't true always like the law of supply and demand. Are you saying that if there were less health care providers, say one - government - then prices and quality of service would improve, just because this type of good is special? It either follows the laws of economics or it doesn't. You just can't say it works in counterintuitive ways.

We can take letter carrying as an example of government monopoly failure. The USPS can constant budget shortfalls and constantly rising prices. What specifically makes health care special that results in this "counter-intuitiveness"?

It's basically the same thing. Whatever the actual fallacy is, it doesn't follow that your opinions become fact because you claim to have read all these Austrian authors, and I am quite skeptical of that claim.

I skimmed that paper, but it is terribly flawed and I have no desire to parse it all. We could go beyond that and talk about several problems of "mainstream economics" like "public goods". The first major problem I noticed in Arrow's paper is the false mechanistic analogy of "equilibrium". There's a couple powerful epistemological arguments, that cut right to the heart of the matter and demolish mainstreamers' attempt to apply the hypothetico-deductive methodology borrowed from the natural sciences.

On that you could start by reading this. Alternatively, cite something specific from Arrow as it applies to any of the articles on health care I linked. There is no way I am wasting my time writing a huge review on all of the problems with his "seminal work".

I don't necessarily mean posters. Obviously you revel in the genuine right wing morons the keep government off my medicare, what's so racist about saying the n word or the pro eugenics social darwinists. But when it comes to other posters you seem to pick one seemingly irrelevant part of a post and turn the debate on that point. I answered your candy bar question above and when you realised I didn't advocate wholesale murder for minor infractions you went looking for something else. The meaning of the phrase appeal to authority. Of course it doesn't help that no one seems able to admit they may be wrong in this forum but part of that is your posting style. You seem to make people feel as if their conceding any point no matter how meaningless to the topic at hand means conceding the entire debate.

It's also kind of telling that driving people away from a discussion forum is a victory for you.

+1

nice retort

again, you dodge the point.
again, you show you have no faith in humanity and that you actually hate society.

Do you not believe that humans are satisficing?
Do you not believe that humans will naturally gravitate toward local maxima?

And, of course, you do your typical 'it won't be utopia' as though utopia is the bar that anarchy has to reach instead of the bar of superior to statism.

as always, you display not-so-subtle contempt for all others opinions as beneath you, which ties into why you hate allowing society to choose for itself, we see how you approach every issue like it's 8th grade algebra. I'm sure you were a really good student. Those skills suck. You're convinced that everything is as simple as 3X+4=13. Reality doesn't match your simplistic solving for X. Please start allowing for spontaneous order of thousands of interdependent variables.

You can assert that most mainstream scientists are state-owned shills all you want. But you'd instantly realize how ridiculous that is if you had any idea about scientific method or what motivates people to become scientists in the first place. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but not everyone is an ideologue who makes sure 100% of their scientific beliefs line up with a pre-determined political philosophy. Not everyone plays that game. Some people just want to do science, to find the truth. As much as you'd like to, you can't paint me or scientists as ideologues just because we aren't for a complete overthrow of the current political and economic system - in favor of an extremely radical completely untried system that most of us feel would quickly devolve into a horrifying chaotic mess. Well I guess you can - but like the rest of your arguments, 99%+ of us out there aren't buying it.

I also hate to burst your bubble about what it means to have an open mind. Hint: it's not throwing yourself at the first person who sells you an easy answer to the tough problems civilization has been dealing with for 1000s of years. Nor is it refusing to even entertain any hard science findings that disagree with your "understanding of the social sciences using proper methodology".

1) None of this is really relevant to the effects of Obamacare.

2) What the **** are you gibbering about? Man, when I say you guys reject empirical science as a concept it's supposed to be an insulting strawman, but here you are actually rejecting it! Amazing.

I skimmed that paper, but it is terribly flawed and I have no desire to parse it all. There is no way I am wasting my time writing a huge review on all of the problems.

M2TR- See, you're doing just want I said. You're casting it as a huge important struggle between liberty and central control and making it about my character flaws, when it's really about your intellectual failings. I'm not a "socialist" because I hate people(wtf), but you are an anarchist because you don't understand economics. You don't want to understand economcis, though. You want to hate the government. That's fine, go ahead.

No, I'm an anarchist because I believe in humanity.

and, your posts say that you don't believe in what humans choose for themselves.