(September 9, 2017 at 7:31 am)Nymphadora Wrote:

(September 7, 2017 at 4:37 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: Why exactly? You think it's the politicians who have advanced the medical science? No, it's the scientists, and politicians just take credit for that.

Scientists aren't going to hand over their own money to continue supporting the numerous government programs already in existence for disabled people. That isn't how it works. Just because advancements in the medical community grow, doesn't mean fuck all if there isn't a government around to make sure that the disabled living in this country have a means of getting some kind of much needed monetary support. 

Stay in school young one. You still have a LOT of learning to do.

Not to mention the vast amount of cutting-edge primary research that is done courtesy of public funding.

(September 9, 2017 at 2:52 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

Quote: Because there would be no mechanism for redressing breach of contract except taking your business to another company which may well do the exact same thing. In the meantime, the patient's still dying.

An insurance company wants to kill its customers? What kind of twisted logic is that?

Insurance companies want to minimize outlays. They can and do drop customers whose claims get too expensive, and that happens even with regulations. It has happened within my own family, nearly killing my son's mother while she battled cancer.

I suggest you reread what I wrote and refrain from imputing views to me which I don't hold.

I also suggest that you read up on history. Anarchy doesn't fare well, and as I mentioned earlier, we have a modern example. I wonder why you didn't address that point?

Bottom line: anarchy relies upon the premise that people will do the right thing in the absence of legal authority. That is a very shaky premise which lacks any evidence on the scale required by your claim.

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:Bottom line: anarchy relies upon the premise that people will do the right thing in the absence of legal authority. That is a very shaky premise which lacks any evidence on the scale required by your claim.

^^^^

/thread

(September 8, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 8, 2017 at 4:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I also don't see what the alternative would be - not let people have trust funds or inherit their parent's money?

A high tax rate on any inheritance.

Ok..... but that would still be capitalism. 

(also not sure if doing that is entirely right, but that's for another conversation)

People who seem to think Anarchy is a great way to run things, tend to be the ones who just don't want to pay taxes. They want to keep their hard earned money.

I wonder, then, what they would do when I decide to rob them blind under anarchy. I get a bunch of my friends together, and decide to rob you. About 500 of us, all armed to the teeth. Then with part of that money, we buy private mercenaries so you can't come after us.

Anarchy sounds pretty awesome actually. Let's do it. Steal from the rich, and kill all who get i n our way. Why not? Sounds like a sweet deal. Let's do it! You're still up for it... right?

(September 9, 2017 at 11:14 am)Cecelia Wrote: Anarchy sounds pretty awesome actually.

Yes it does:

(September 9, 2017 at 11:14 am)Cecelia Wrote: People who seem to think Anarchy is a great way to run things, tend to be the ones who just don't want to pay taxes.  They want to keep their hard earned money.

I wonder, then, what they would do when I decide to rob them blind under anarchy.  I get a bunch of my friends together, and decide to rob you.  About 500 of us, all armed to the teeth.  Then with part of that money, we buy private mercenaries so you can't come after us.

Anarchy sounds pretty awesome actually.  Let's do it.  Steal from the rich, and kill all who get i n our way.  Why not?  Sounds like a sweet deal.  Let's do it!  You're still up for it... right?

Not that I'm an advocate of anarchy, but some of the opposition questions to anarchy don't prove much of a point.

In the situation where a person can gather together 500 friends, their only goal is to rob this one person, they're armed to the teeth and presumably none of them has any morals because they're all willing to use their power to rob this victim, that person is getting robbed with or without the existence of a government ran police force.  Unless these 500 people are 6 years old or something.


In a sense it's an argument for a totalitarian government.  Because what if you have just a normal police force, they're not over zealous, CCTV isn't watching everyone, no one has government required ankle tags on.  And then what if 5 streets of people, let's say 100 people per street, decide to kill the occupants of a single household.  What we need is a totalitarian government incase 500 people decide to pick on one person.

Aside from this argument, other arguments like lack of law and enforcement of contracts are valid points but I think people who argue for anarchy would say there are other methods of organizing these things aside from government power.

Just to clarify though I am definitely not in favor of anarchy, I'm pretty comfortable living under a government .

Overall I get the feeling that no matter what arguments an anarchist has that might look viable on paper won't work practically in the real world.  A lot like the people who say communism would only work if it was the real communism.

I still want to know how anarchy handles something like the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, or shit, even the basics, like education.

And he still hasn't answered my assertion that anarchy would kill someone like me.  I may need to provide more info, though, so here it is:

I was born physically disabled.  I've had, to date, 43 surgeries related to my disability in order to give me the (limited) mobility I enjoy today.  Of course, surgeries don't just happen in a vacuum, I also had countless hours of physical therapy after those surgeries.  And, even with those surgeries, I still need a ton of help.  Some of it is technological (wheelchairs, shower chairs, a modified bathroom, a ceiling lift, etc.).  Some of it is physical (constant assistance with activities of daily living).  There are secondary issues with my disability (pressure sores) which have also required treatment.  I have had MRSA, a serious and deadly infection, multiple times because of them.

I'm also a diabetic.  It's late onset Type I... most of the males on my mom's side of the family got it in their early 30s regardless of their diet or physical activity.  I have it, and my oldest brother has it.  I'm on several medications in order to regulate my blood glucose levels.  Without them, I will die.

I also have had a history of kidney stones.  Almost 2 years ago I had one that blocked my left ureter.  Because of the blockage, my left kidney filled with both urine and puss, and I was septic.  I had a 105 fever, and was in the process of dying.  It took two surgeries, a hospital stay, and a shit load of antibiotics to fix me.  I now have to take a citric-phosphate solution every day (tastes like shit) in order to combat the formation of stones, and see my urologist semi-regularly (I have an appointment early next month).

So, tell me... how will anarchy address these issues?  Or am I simply supposed to die?  And if that's the case, do you really think I'll consider it the way to go?  I tend to not react well to people who, intentionally or not, want to kill me.  And, keep in mind, there are millions of other people with health issues just as deadly without the treatment provided to them by the government.  My family racked up a ton of debt over my care, even with insurance, and it was only due to more liberal policies - both Federal and state - that they were able to get out of it.

I think you're incredibly naive, a crusader who doesn't actually know what they're crusading against.  That's okay... it's what 17 year olds do.

Oh god a anarcho capitalist (the yellow flag) Or the (politics of savagery ) as Johann Most put it . Yup likely the worst form of anarchism . But far from the only school .

As for the objection to anarchism as a broad term . There are schools that address most if not all (anarcho capitalism would likely lead to road warrior ) but most others would not. I'm not arguing for anarchism but I will admit some schools do have some interesting idea's .

As for CL every system demands you pay in some form . And capitalism tends to distribute freedom at the top at everyone elses expense . Which is of course why letting capitalists run rampant is a terrible idea .

---

(September 9, 2017 at 1:22 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: I still want to know how anarchy handles something like the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, or shit, even the basics, like education.

And he still hasn't answered my assertion that anarchy would kill someone like me.  I may need to provide more info, though, so here it is:

I was born physically disabled.  I've had, to date, 43 surgeries related to my disability in order to give me the (limited) mobility I enjoy today.  Of course, surgeries don't just happen in a vacuum, I also had countless hours of physical therapy after those surgeries.  And, even with those surgeries, I still need a ton of help.  Some of it is technological (wheelchairs, shower chairs, a modified bathroom, a ceiling lift, etc.).  Some of it is physical (constant assistance with activities of daily living).  There are secondary issues with my disability (pressure sores) which have also required treatment.  I have had MRSA, a serious and deadly infection, multiple times because of them.

I'm also a diabetic.  It's late onset Type I... most of the males on my mom's side of the family got it in their early 30s regardless of their diet or physical activity.  I have it, and my oldest brother has it.  I'm on several medications in order to regulate my blood glucose levels.  Without them, I will die.

I also have had a history of kidney stones.  Almost 2 years ago I had one that blocked my left ureter.  Because of the blockage, my left kidney filled with both urine and puss, and I was septic.  I had a 105 fever, and was in the process of dying.  It took two surgeries, a hospital stay, and a shit load of antibiotics to fix me.  I now have to take a citric-phosphate solution every day (tastes like shit) in order to combat the formation of stones, and see my urologist semi-regularly (I have an appointment early next month).

So, tell me... how will anarchy address these issues?  Or am I simply supposed to die?  And if that's the case, do you really think I'll consider it the way to go?  I tend to not react well to people who, intentionally or not, want to kill me.  And, keep in mind, there are millions of other people with health issues just as deadly without the treatment provided to them by the government.  My family racked up a ton of debt over my care, even with insurance, and it was only due to more liberal policies - both Federal and state - that they were able to get out of it.

I think you're incredibly naive, a crusader who doesn't actually know what they're crusading against.  That's okay... it's what 17 year olds do.

For the hurricane depends on the school

Same for healthcare . Some anarchism argue health as a right and propose communal means of providing it. (Most forms of collectivist anarchism or Altruist Anarchists  And most on the anarchist left believe this) 

Most forms of religious anarchists treat caring for the sick as a religious duty.

Anarcho-pacifism would argue that not helping you would be a form of violence against you.

Honestly there just isn't a point in being anarcho-anything. It's so impossible and impractical.