Topic: The transition to AnCap (Read 6697 times)
Actually on further thought the current system is somewhat similar to how I imagine biomed research would be funded in an ancap society. You pay a subscription to some healthcare company for access to discounted care, etc. Then some portion of that money goes into paying for experimental drugs and equipment, which then goes on to fund the development of new biomed technologies. Really that is where alot of the money from these monster claims ends up anyway. From that perspective it doesn't look like such a bad price. Add on the extra $250 per taxpayer that goes to fund NIH and there you go, a decent business model for healthcare researchers.
I suspect very, very few people's premiums + deductables + copays add up over their lifetime to less than their claims.
No shit! That's the way insurance works. Most people over pay so that the unlucky can get paid for their monster claim. It's a smoothing of risk. You may be that next unlucky person next week. What do you think I've been saying for the past few posts?
Yes, I agree, the problem is that people drastically overestimate the risk of such events leading to drastically overpaying and draining their savings. Rather than just saying I "may" be that unlucky person next week/year, attach some numbers to it. My bitcoins may be worth $1 million dollars next week too. Is this more or less likely to occur than having a monster medical bill? Anyway this is OT so lets just save it for future relevant conversations.
I suspect very, very few people's premiums + deductables + copays add up over their lifetime to less than their claims.
No shit! That's the way insurance works. Most people over pay so that the unlucky can get paid for their monster claim. It's a smoothing of risk. You may be that next unlucky person next week. What do you think I've been saying for the past few posts?
Slightly OT but we've talked about this before and I want to pimp my chart. Insurance is set up to trick young (under 45) people into overestimating their risk and subsidizing the healthcare of the elderly, while providing predictable revenue to the insurance companies. The monster claims you speak of are exceedingly rare and the majority of those are actually due to predictable chronic conditions that people get in old age. Keep in mind the chart below only includes people who did have medical bills greater than zero.
Furthermore, we already know those monster claims are rare. Duh. That's why insurance can pay for them even though your premiums would never add up to their totals. That's the whole point.
You might have a monster claim next week.
I suspect very, very few people's premiums + deductables + copays add up over their lifetime to less than their claims. People basically pay for any bills less than $2.5k per year, and are putting in ~$2k per year regardless of if they receive healthcare or not. If the average 30 yr old and their parents had invested that money in something that matched inflation there would be some asset worth ~$50k waiting for them in case of emergency. If any of it went unused this could then be inherited by their children, unlike the premiums which are just spent.
The general premise of insurance is fine but the current system is not designed that way.
Slightly OT but we've talked about this before and I want to pimp my chart. Insurance is set up to trick young (under 45) people into overestimating their risk and subsidizing the healthcare of the elderly, while providing predictable revenue to the insurance companies. The monster claims you speak of are exceedingly rare and the majority of those are actually due to predictable chronic conditions that people get in old age. Keep in mind the chart below only includes people who did have medical bills greater than zero.
Furthermore, we already know those monster claims are rare. Duh. That's why insurance can pay for them even though your premiums would never add up to their totals. That's the whole point.
You might have a monster claim next week.
You're conflating strategies within a particular insurance industry with the general premise of insurance. Insurance is designed to function exactly as I explained it.
Companies can look at a particular project and simply pass because it won't be profitable. In fact, they're guaranteed to do so. A government has a more unifying plan (or is supposed to) and will look at a particular project and often do it because it works in a larger grand unifying plan.
It's not unlike the concept of insurance, as insurance insurance is designed to work, not how some think insurance is supposed to work. Some individuals actually mistakenly believe insurance claims by an individual should roughly equate to insurance premiums paid in by that individual minus operating costs and some profit allowed to the insurance company. But that's not how insurance is designed. Insurance is designed to collect premiums from all whom are insured such that the unluckiest will be able to weather through monster sized claims, while everyone else has the peace of mind that comes with paying a premium, in the event that they become one of the unlucky.
It's not unlike the concept of insurance, as insurance insurance is designed to work, not how some think insurance is supposed to work. Some individuals actually mistakenly believe insurance claims by an individual should roughly equate to insurance premiums paid in by that individual minus operating costs and some profit allowed to the insurance company. But that's not how insurance is designed. Insurance is designed to collect premiums from all whom are insured such that the unluckiest will be able to weather through monster sized claims, while everyone else has the peace of mind that comes with paying a premium, in the event that they become one of the unlucky.
Slightly OT but we've talked about this before and I want to pimp my chart. Insurance is set up to trick young (under 45) people into overestimating their risk and subsidizing the healthcare of the elderly, while providing predictable revenue to the insurance companies. The monster claims you speak of are exceedingly rare and the majority of those are actually due to predictable chronic conditions that people get in old age. Keep in mind the chart below only includes people who did have medical bills greater than zero.
If it was designed the way you claim then there would be more people on plans paying a couple hundred a year with $10-20k deductibles but covered up to $1 mil or so.
Companies can look at a particular project and simply pass because it won't be profitable. In fact, they're guaranteed to do so. A government has a more unifying plan (or is supposed to) and will look at a particular project and often do it because it works in a larger grand unifying plan.
It's not unlike the concept of insurance, as insurance is designed to work, not how some think insurance is supposed to work. Some individuals actually mistakenly believe insurance claims by an individual should roughly equate to insurance premiums paid in by that individual minus operating costs and some profit allowed to the insurance company. But that's not how insurance is designed. Insurance is designed to collect premiums from all whom are insured such that the unluckiest will be able to weather through monster sized claims, while everyone else has the peace of mind that comes with paying a premium, in the event that they become one of the unlucky.
It's not unlike the concept of insurance, as insurance is designed to work, not how some think insurance is supposed to work. Some individuals actually mistakenly believe insurance claims by an individual should roughly equate to insurance premiums paid in by that individual minus operating costs and some profit allowed to the insurance company. But that's not how insurance is designed. Insurance is designed to collect premiums from all whom are insured such that the unluckiest will be able to weather through monster sized claims, while everyone else has the peace of mind that comes with paying a premium, in the event that they become one of the unlucky.
however i dont see any indication that companies solve every problem better than governments do. for many services, there is very little competition or incentive to provide the cheapest or best possible service. in some markets, there are so few players so that price agreements are very easy. in other markets its very hard for a layman to jugde the overall quality of the service, so the best marketing wins.
in the end, the assumption that companies solve all problems better is just a dogma. you will always find examples in which governments handled something ridiculously ineffecient. but that doesnt prove anything. or if it does, what does fukushiima say about the ability of companies to handle critical infrastructure? companies have scenarios where they fail really badly just as governments do. mostly those that require long term reliability and viability, minimizing risks, minimizing external costs. a company can always just cut their losses and run, or go broke.
That would be a good response if anyone was arguing that companies would necessarily do everything significantly better than governments. in the end, the assumption that companies solve all problems better is just a dogma. you will always find examples in which governments handled something ridiculously ineffecient. but that doesnt prove anything. or if it does, what does fukushiima say about the ability of companies to handle critical infrastructure? companies have scenarios where they fail really badly just as governments do. mostly those that require long term reliability and viability, minimizing risks, minimizing external costs. a company can always just cut their losses and run, or go broke.
If the government ran all the supermarkets, you'd say the exact same thing about food. You would worry that all the grocery stores would close and you would starve. But, the thing is, in an AnCap world, there's money to be made by solving real problems. If the problem you've identified is a real one, then someone will find a way to solve it and charge you for that solution. And then someone else will find a better way to solve it and charge you less. And before you know it, the problem's gone. Problems are opportunities.
You might think it sucks to have to pay for everything. But the fact is, you're paying for everything now. It's just being done by an inherently inefficient government with little to no incentive to innovate and facing no competition.
You might think it sucks to have to pay for everything. But the fact is, you're paying for everything now. It's just being done by an inherently inefficient government with little to no incentive to innovate and facing no competition.
you are always paying for everything, in any possible scenario. however i dont see any indication that companies solve every problem better than governments do. for many services, there is very little competition or incentive to provide the cheapest or best possible service. in some markets, there are so few players so that price agreements are very easy. in other markets its very hard for a layman to jugde the overall quality of the service, so the best marketing wins.
in the end, the assumption that companies solve all problems better is just a dogma. you will always find examples in which governments handled something ridiculously ineffecient. but that doesnt prove anything. or if it does, what does fukushiima say about the ability of companies to handle critical infrastructure? companies have scenarios where they fail really badly just as governments do. mostly those that require long term reliability and viability, minimizing risks, minimizing external costs. a company can always just cut their losses and run, or go broke.
Quote
As for the land ownership issue, there's a more specific response. Land ownership includes some bundle of rights. And society, if it's going to have property, has to work out what that bundle of rights is. It may be that preventing people from reasonably crossing your land to access other people's land isn't in that bundle of rights. It may be that shooting anyone who accidentally stumbles onto your land isn't in that bundle of rights. Just as, for example, taxing satellites that pass over your land likely wouldn't be.
i like the thought that absolute property rights might actually lead to having less rights regarding your property
in practice though, that might be impossible. for example, would you still be allowed to build very high walls around your property? or have dangerous stuff lie around in the open?
Quote
Also, covenants can run with land and can specifically exclude some rights for the benefit of nearby land owners. A society has to come up with rules for how those covenants can be enforced, whether they can be valid in perpetuity, and so on.
i agree that can solve many possible problems. but sometimes you just run into problems you coudnt foresee. or could but didnt. for example the necessity for land expropriation can be the result of bad planning. the property could have been aquired much earlier. or the infrastructure could have been built elsewhere. but when there really just one place left to build something or use property in a specific way, there is no existing contract and the owner is completely unreasonable, what do you do in ancap? yes, land expropriation sucks and should be kept to an absolute minimum. but you cant always avoid all situations in which honoring property rights of a single person will be to the detriment of a whole society.
Myrkul seems to overlook the fact that in AnCap World, there is no stipulation or grand plan that says the landowners around my residence give a crap about being in the road business at all. Also, land changes ownership, and new owners may have new plans.
If the government ran all the supermarkets, you'd say the exact same thing about food. You would worry that all the grocery stores would close and you would starve. But, the thing is, in an AnCap world, there's money to be made by solving real problems. If the problem you've identified is a real one, then someone will find a way to solve it and charge you for that solution. And then someone else will find a better way to solve it and charge you less. And before you know it, the problem's gone. Problems are opportunities.You might think it sucks to have to pay for everything. But the fact is, you're paying for everything now. It's just being done by an inherently inefficient government with little to no incentive to innovate and facing no competition.
As for the land ownership issue, there's a more specific response. Land ownership includes some bundle of rights. And society, if it's going to have property, has to work out what that bundle of rights is. It may be that preventing people from reasonably crossing your land to access other people's land isn't in that bundle of rights. It may be that shooting anyone who accidentally stumbles onto your land isn't in that bundle of rights. Just as, for example, taxing satellites that pass over your land likely wouldn't be.
Also, covenants can run with land and can specifically exclude some rights for the benefit of nearby land owners. A society has to come up with rules for how those covenants can be enforced, whether they can be valid in perpetuity, and so on.
Myrkul seems to overlook the fact that in AnCap World, there is no stipulation or grand plan that says the landowners around my residence give a crap about being in the road business at all. Also, land changes ownership, and new owners may have new plans.
Yes, your house is on one road. Good for you. If you don't like the rules of that road (more likely, community), don't move into that house. As for the water pipes, electricity system, and such, those are "dumb pipes" and can be operated as a co-op by the various providers, no need for duplication. "hundreds of overlapping wireless networks"... sounds like a mesh network to me, a very good idea.
Roads is such a non-issue to be stuck on. Road operators want traffic. They can be predicted to do things that will maximize traffic.
Roads is such a non-issue to be stuck on. Road operators want traffic. They can be predicted to do things that will maximize traffic.
i really wonder what planet you live on. maximizing profit by creating artificial shortages happens all the time. maximizing profit is an optimization process in which number of sales is just one parameter.
look at oil for example. saudia-arabia isnt producing at maximum capacity. they intentionally hold back to increase the price. and if, for whatever reason, russia and saudia-arabia decided not to sell oil anymore, the consequences would be devastating. like millions of deaths-devastating.
others nations would never accept that and react with violence, and rightly so.
Quote
Or get on a different road. There's more than 1, you know. Monopoly is the problem we're looking to solve here, remember?
yeah, redundancy is an awesome solution. i really want ten roads to my house, ten water pipes, hundreds of overlapping wireless networks...thats soooo much more effective than whats currently done
Yes, your house is on one road. Good for you. If you don't like the rules of that road (more likely, community), don't move into that house. As for the water pipes, electricity system, and such, those are "dumb pipes" and can be operated as a co-op by the various providers, no need for duplication. "hundreds of overlapping wireless networks"... sounds like a mesh network to me, a very good idea.
Roads is such a non-issue to be stuck on. Road operators want traffic. They can be predicted to do things that will maximize traffic.
get the monopoly of an essential resource, then blackmail your society.
Do you know a system that prevents this? I mean, other than "if you have what we want, even if you justly acquired it, we'll take it from you".It is extremely difficult to build a monopoly without using force. If you used force to get it, nobody disputes that others can take it away from you by force. If you somehow do manage to build it without force, it's going to be very temporary. And the more you leverage it, the more incentive others have to find some resource that replaces it.
In any event, who cares? I'd gladly trade the remote possibility of some temporary blackmail for living under those conditions permanently where the government has an eternal monopoly on a long list of things.
its not totally preventable, no. but leaving essential resources at somebodies personal whim greatly increases the likelyhood of resources being used in a fashion that is very unfavorable for a society. there are no magic market mechanisms that force a person to do whats best for his society to gain profit. its a fun theory, but the world never actually worked that way.
a government can, to some extent, ignore profitability and effectiveness. and i believe it can also be designed in manner that the power of any single person inside the government is small. i admit that we are, at this point, far from having any governments that is both able and willing to pursue the best for its people.
on the other hand, its very unfair to compare current implementation of governments with some sort of ideal ancap.
you either have to compare current implementation of both or the ideal implementation of both. in practice, ancap isnt implemented anywhere, so it cant be compared. in theory, i like an ideal government better than an ideal ancap. can an ideal government exist? probably not. but at least we still got very very much room for improvement within existing systems. id say improving existing governments is a much more viable option than trying to transition into an utopia, that, in my opinion, is neither possible nor desirable.
Quote
Or get on a different road. There's more than 1, you know. Monopoly is the problem we're looking to solve here, remember?
yeah, redundancy is an awesome solution. i really want ten roads to my house, ten water pipes, hundreds of overlapping wireless networks...thats soooo much more effective than whats currently done
You're cute, you know that? Let me lay some truth on you:
In a world* where roads, and indeed all property, is private, roads and other means of transportation would, in fact, be "establishments which invite customers," and which are free to eject them, as well. Just like at McDonalds.
If you wish to move about, you would be patronizing these establishments. They want your business, either because you're eyes on their billboards or because you pay the subscription fee, or entry tolls, or however they monetize. Since they want your business, they cater to your needs. Just like at McDonalds.
Since they want your repeat business, they will endeavor to make your experience pleasant. This means that if you do not want to be harassed by people going above a specific speed, there will most likely be a road company that requires drivers to keep to a speed limit. If you wish to be unfettered by speed limits, there will most likely be a road company that allows that. The freedom to choose ensures that everyone gets the service they desire. Just like at Burger King.
*(if you like, you can imagine Don LaFontaine saying this)
In a world* where roads, and indeed all property, is private, roads and other means of transportation would, in fact, be "establishments which invite customers," and which are free to eject them, as well. Just like at McDonalds.
If you wish to move about, you would be patronizing these establishments. They want your business, either because you're eyes on their billboards or because you pay the subscription fee, or entry tolls, or however they monetize. Since they want your business, they cater to your needs. Just like at McDonalds.
Since they want your repeat business, they will endeavor to make your experience pleasant. This means that if you do not want to be harassed by people going above a specific speed, there will most likely be a road company that requires drivers to keep to a speed limit. If you wish to be unfettered by speed limits, there will most likely be a road company that allows that. The freedom to choose ensures that everyone gets the service they desire. Just like at Burger King.
*(if you like, you can imagine Don LaFontaine saying this)
you really believe in such a naive scenario?
what happens, if, for whatever reason, like racism, religion, personal grudge, you become an unwanted customer to the road company owner? you buy a helicopter?
Or get on a different road. There's more than 1, you know. Monopoly is the problem we're looking to solve here, remember?
You're cute, you know that? Let me lay some truth on you:
In a world* where roads, and indeed all property, is private, roads and other means of transportation would, in fact, be "establishments which invite customers," and which are free to eject them, as well. Just like at McDonalds.
If you wish to move about, you would be patronizing these establishments. They want your business, either because you're eyes on their billboards or because you pay the subscription fee, or entry tolls, or however they monetize. Since they want your business, they cater to your needs. Just like at McDonalds.
Since they want your repeat business, they will endeavor to make your experience pleasant. This means that if you do not want to be harassed by people going above a specific speed, there will most likely be a road company that requires drivers to keep to a speed limit. If you wish to be unfettered by speed limits, there will most likely be a road company that allows that. The freedom to choose ensures that everyone gets the service they desire. Just like at Burger King.
*(if you like, you can imagine Don LaFontaine saying this)
In a world* where roads, and indeed all property, is private, roads and other means of transportation would, in fact, be "establishments which invite customers," and which are free to eject them, as well. Just like at McDonalds.
If you wish to move about, you would be patronizing these establishments. They want your business, either because you're eyes on their billboards or because you pay the subscription fee, or entry tolls, or however they monetize. Since they want your business, they cater to your needs. Just like at McDonalds.
Since they want your repeat business, they will endeavor to make your experience pleasant. This means that if you do not want to be harassed by people going above a specific speed, there will most likely be a road company that requires drivers to keep to a speed limit. If you wish to be unfettered by speed limits, there will most likely be a road company that allows that. The freedom to choose ensures that everyone gets the service they desire. Just like at Burger King.
*(if you like, you can imagine Don LaFontaine saying this)
you really believe in such a naive scenario?
what happens, if, for whatever reason, like racism, religion, personal grudge, you become an unwanted customer to the road company owner? you buy a helicopter?
I recommend this thread to go watch some deadwood. It basically depicts the opposite scenario. Ancap -> State.
Who said I would? You seem to be having difficulty following the discussion. I'll remind you again: we're discussing freedom to move about within one's world, where travels are most frequent closer to their place of residence. Since you keep trying to deflect the discussion into points which bear little relevance to that, I think it's time you call it a day. I have provided you a film title to watch, since you obviously need to take a breather from this discussion until you collect your thoughts into something more cohesive.
You're cute, you know that? Let me lay some truth on you:
In a world* where roads, and indeed all property, is private, roads and other means of transportation would, in fact, be "establishments which invite customers," and which are free to eject them, as well. Just like at McDonalds.
If you wish to move about, you would be patronizing these establishments. They want your business, either because you're eyes on their billboards or because you pay the subscription fee, or entry tolls, or however they monetize. Since they want your business, they cater to your needs. Just like at McDonalds.
Since they want your repeat business, they will endeavor to make your experience pleasant. This means that if you do not want to be harassed by people going above a specific speed, there will most likely be a road company that requires drivers to keep to a speed limit. If you wish to be unfettered by speed limits, there will most likely be a road company that allows that. The freedom to choose ensures that everyone gets the service they desire. Just like at Burger King.
*(if you like, you can imagine Don LaFontaine saying this)
So you're saying that if the food safety laws in a country allowed it, McDonalds would let you shit on the tables?
I'm not making a statement one way or another about that. What I'm saying is the McDonald's in your world is something we know nothing about because it doesn't exist, so I suggest you stop hypothesizing about it.
Would you eat a restaurant that let people shit on the tables?
Pointless question, as it does not pertain to my claims. If you need a reminder, my claims are not about patronizing establishments which invite customers. Again, you make too many assumptions.
Why would you go on people's land uninvited?
Who said I would? You seem to be having difficulty following the discussion. I'll remind you again: we're discussing freedom to move about within one's world, where travels are most frequent closer to their place of residence. Since you keep trying to deflect the discussion into points which bear little relevance to that, I think it's time you call it a day. I have provided you a film title to watch, since you obviously need to take a breather from this discussion until you collect your thoughts into something more cohesive.
Jump to: