I think I put it badly. It’s not just a matter of many AIDS sufferers being poor, it’s also that for other diseases/conditions people may have more money. Were I after profit and profit alone, I would likely spend most of my time and effort into things that can be charged a lot for and where the majority of potential customers can afford it. Cancer would probably be high on that list, obviously, but I think if you’re after profit you’d focus on problems that are most prevalent in the richer countries.
Private charity’s another thing entirely. For one thing, I don’t believe that, were all government support for medical research to disappear tomorrow, people themselves would make up the difference. I think that mandated charity (though I suppose it can’t be called that) is necessary in order to keep a high level of actual money going towards certain conditions.
I didn’t say anything about “only”, either. I said vast majority. I’m quite prepared to take those words back should you find a cite, though. I’m never that comfortable claiming there’s a vast majority of anything.
I have no doubt that it is as you say (and, while I agree on your statement about people of faith, I would hope that wasn’t a subtle jab). The problem as I see it is although people may be incredibly, fantastically generous it still isn’t enough. Without paying out of taxes, the levels of money raised will never be as high as with either that raised through private enterprise or charity or both.
The question is; why did they lie, cheat, and blow smoke? To look good, to look electable. I have no doubt that your average politician is just as or even less trustworthy as your average man on the street (though I suppose one could make an argument based on profile). But, though it is a corrupt, red-tape-filled, slow system, I still think it’s better than the alternative.
By jove you’ve got it! But where you mischaracterized me was where you stated that I personally would prefer to do these things or that I thought the majority of people if given this choice would.
Your mother wears combat boots.
If the owners of that land submitted to a government requiring such, yes. Sucks, don’t it? That’s why most people wouldn’t bother with their own autonomous 2,000 sq feet and just accept the government.
Yes and maybe. On the second count, I won’t give my opinion on something I haven’t thought about much longer than I have the issue of back taxes. I’ll say I’m open to all opinions on that.
Yes, you can interact with the economy, but any disputes that might arise would have to be settled in a way outside of one government’s court. Maybe a pre-agreed upon arbitration? I guess even buying loaves of bread would be subject to the same sort of disputes we see when the member of one country tries to sue another.
If dealing with an unjust government, then non-essentials should be avoided. If you need something like bread, then it’s fine to go ahead and support the tyranny but the difference should be made up to society.
Before you ask, yes, I am putting my money where my mouth is. I am in medical school training to work with Doctors Without Borders.
I never said that everyone or you personally would prefer those things.
Why should the government of the United States allow it? Wouldn’t this allow those crazy-assed militia groups to buy huge tracts of land and declare themselves “independent of the United States?” These are the fundamental reasons why this idea is batshit insane and why it should never be remotely tolerated.
Why should the United States allow this? Why would they even let someone who decided to form their own breakaway piece of property into the United States at all? What if I’m a pedophile, decide to have a bunch of kids, take them to my ranch, decide to “opt out” of government and rape said kids all day every day? Since I’ve opted out of government, the United States would have no authority to do anything about it.
Fundamentally if you genuinely mean what you say, that based on property rights (which are only in existence because of government) then this is the kind of thing you have to be okay with. You’ve said it’s “all or nothing.” So opting out has to be absolute meaning, no law enforcement from the United States, no authority from the U.S. government over YOU at all. So, if you’re willing to put up with the inconveniences, this system of yours would be great for pedophiles, they could even pool their funds, start their own ranch with their own kids, who they’d then breed together periodically to continually inject new kids into the pedo-country for sexual slavery.
Likewise white supremacists could establish their own breakaway “compound.” Which could eventually become a major security threat.
Why would a dictator suffer a democracy? It isn’t in anyway in our current government’s best interest, except to the fact that all citizens who are there 100% voluntarily will be better served to their duty (in the same way a volunteer army has higher morale.) It should happen because it’s right.
Yes? So long as they don’t attack anyone, let them.
Every entity has the right to defend itself from harm, to the death if need be, and a government can invade a sovereign land to defend its citizenry. Or, in my admittedly controversial view, to intercede on behalf of an oppressed people.
Rights exist independent of governing bodies. Governments protect rights, not grant them.
Regarding your “pedofarm” theory, see above about rights to self-defense.
Let’s ALL have fun with fallacies! I will go first.
Ahem.
If there were a great enough need for a country that allows its citizens to opt out of social responsibilities, there would already be such a country. There isn’t, so there isn’t.
What I described is a very direct, observable and testable result of the marketplace that has been the consensus of modern economic thought for over two hundred years. What you are describing is not.
That rather depends on which economist you ask. The conclusion that “if there’s a need, it will be filled” just plain ignores reality. If it’s not profitable, it won’t be met. If serving that need offends the people who run the corporations that would fill that need, it won’t be met. If it takes more than a decade or so of research, it won’t be met ( I’m being generous, here ).
Companies are concerned with making a profit, NOW, and with pushing the ideology of the men who run it; not with meeting people’s needs.
“For example, one place will serve quite admirably as both a Hell for humans and a Heaven for mosquitoes.” – C.S. Lewis, from memory and no doubt slightly paraphrased
Not always. Soup kitchens bleed money but continue to exist.
If they don’t meet anyone’s needs, they don’t make profit any time. Still, none of this changes the fact that governments aren’t subject to the same marketplace pressures that commodities are.
You set up a system, make predictions and see if those predictions are met.
And are too few, too small to make much difference. Without government aid, we’d go back to the “good old days” where people starved, or if they were lucky got dog food. Or just ate the dog.
Which quite often is a good thing. The market is not the sole source of all that is good and just, unblemished by malice and greed, no matter what you want to believe.
Are you even listening to what I’m saying? I’m responding to Ravenman who tried to use my argument that markets create needed services to explain why my ideal government doesn’t exist. I did not argue they are responsible for everything good.
You still dodged around the main point that although companies meet many of people’s needs, there are many that just aren’t profitable to meet. Any public good (i.e. any good that people can’t be excluded from using even if they don’t pay) will not be provided by the market. Who would build a lighthouse if not a government? It’s not as though you can just tell people who aren’t willing to pay to ignore the light.