subverter

> 1. A cap at 21M. It made the currency deflationary by nature. Ask an economist, no one thinks it’s a good idea long term http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/030915...

Most economists, not all economists. And most of those economists are the ones destroying economies, in my opinion.

If you're interested in reading a counter-viewpoint on why deflation is actually good – it's the policies aimed at countering it that are really what's bad – here you go: https://mises.org/blog/deflation-always-good-economy

Should not the individual be held responsible for making a poor decision? Taking the stance that we should be protected from every possible bad thing that can happen is a recipe for economic disaster. Especially when the one offering such protection is the one that manipulates us the most.

"Crony" is so often followed by "capitalism", but it's really just cronyism that's the issue. You can find it in capitalism and you can find it in government. But they go best hand-in-hand. I'd argue that most crony capitalism is made possible only because they can leverage the monopolistic power of their crony allies in government for mutual gain.

Woah, woah – you're telling me people voluntarily help each other pay their medical expenses without the government forcing them to?!

Even if you consider death a state of health – which is odd, who says "yeah, they're really unhealthy: they're dead" – the path to that state differs. Some people get sick very quickly right before death, while others are sick their whole life before death. Their required medical care vastly differs.

Nowhere. I haven't claimed that. We're having a (mostly) thoughtful discussion with different opinions, which is great.

If you read back through the hierarchy to my comment here[1], you'll see that I ask the hypothetical question, What if gay marriage were rolled back in the U.S.?, to make the point that currently you'd have to move out of the country to escape the law. I do not believe in rolling it back! I used it as an example of a law/idea where there's a difference of opinion among worldviews.

We're actually on the same page here, gnaritas. People should have equal rights, regardless of their race, gender, sexual identity, etc. Nobody should be forcing their worldview on others. But that's exactly what the federal government does by making decisions that affect everyone. Every decision they make is made from a specific worldview. It's impossible for them to make a decision that complies with every unique worldview out there.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14554612

No, sorry, you're confused with our current system of centralized power in the hands of a few who doll out rewards to their crony friends.

Who gets the money printed by the Federal Reserve first? Banks, where wealthy bankers then loan the money to others who are wealthy enough to be accepted for the loans. By the time the money reaches the poor and needy, inflation has already taken hold.

What? That's not what I said at all. In fact, as I initially said, "Please don't think I'm in any way arguing for child labor." How can I make it more clear?

My point is, in the hypothetical situation that a state did allow child labor – which I do not at all condone – people could choose not to buy products from that state, as people already do in not buying products from certain brands and countries that use child labor.

If that's what you believe my utopia leads to, then you're completely misunderstanding my worldview. The principal of non-aggression means no one would be allowed to enslave or suppress anyone else. Period. Everyone has equal rights: black, female, gay, whatever.

The point is it's completely voluntary for everyone involved. No one is being forced into anything.

Absolutely.

Not just theft, but aggression of any sort, including the most serious offenses such as rape and murder. Is there not a more fundamental moral value that we can all agree on?

No, the myriad that say "we care deeply about diversity and inclusivity" in their job posts. The ones that come out against banning travelers from Muslim-majority countries. The ones that care about climate change and the effects it has on people of this planet.

There's a good suggestion for dealing with this above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14556688

We obviously have different ideas about what's utopian and what's not. I think it's utopian to believe a centralized, federal government has all of the necessary knowledge and best intentions to make blanket decisions for hundreds of millions of people.

This really goes to prove my initial point in all of this: Why can't we get to a place where you can live somewhere more aligned with your utopian vision, and I can likewise live somewhere more aligned with mine? Why must either of us force our vision on the other?

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it makes sense. "I'm tolerant of everyone except those I view as intolerant." In other words, you're intolerant of those you disagree with.

I believe true tolerance is respecting that everyone can have their own opinion/worldview. We can certainly disagree and have a good discussion about it, but nobody should be forcing their opinion/worldview on others who don't agree.

I try to keep an open mind. I don't believe things will just solve themselves, nor do I think the market is the perfect solution. I do believe, however, that it's a better solution than government intervention, and we haven't found a superior solution.

Also, source for your second assertion?

Then perhaps I misunderstood his/her argument.

If I look at it strictly in terms of child labor, there's nothing stopping those opposed to child labor from leaving Virginia and/or discriminating against products made there. Just as we can today with products produced by brands that we know use child labor.

Look at health care costs pre- and post-1965. They began increasing in 1965 with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, and have continued to increase as more and more government regulations have been added since.

They can't? How do they force everyone to pay state/local taxes? I doubt states would find it difficult to enforce participation.

On "unbridled state to state migration", I already covered that. Maryland would have to face the real cost of providing universal healthcare, and residents would have to decide whether it's still worth it to live there. Many sick people would decide that it's not, and choose to stay put in Virginia.

And if it truly wouldn't work, then it begs the question: Does it really work on the federal level? Why are costs skyrocketing and providers leaving exchanges?

But not everyone is (or becomes) healthy or unhealthy to the same degree. If I have no family history of health issues, or I simply want to take a chance that I'll remain healthy, why should anyone else tell me how much I should value my health?

Child labor is complex subject that we should avoid getting into here. The reason I added my disclaimer is because my argument is about cheaper goods, not any particular way they happen to be produced.

To quote you above[1]:

> That's a matter of opinion.

To be clear, I am not one who is in favor of rolling back gay marriage. But you cannot logically say

> Oppressing others isn't something that should be allowed to happen, period

while in the same breath calling for the oppression of those you disagree with. It's an inconsistent position using the same argument you're railing against.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14555374

I don't. I think paying for firefighters should be voluntary. Either I pay for it individually, or as part of my neighborhood, or at some other level that's much closer to me.

If I don't want to protect against my house burning down, why should I pay for it? And before you go and say, "because your neighbor's house could burn down too", they could choose to pay for firefighters and have them come out to douse my house in defense of their own.

There are already solutions available when there's no counter-party or the counter-party is unfit. i.e., uninsured motorist insurance, life insurance, etc.

And who's to say the extended family or community wouldn't step up to cover their expenses?

That's also assuming the costs would stay the same, which they wouldn't if government stopped intervening. With lower costs, more people could afford to pay for healthcare out-of-pocket, which would reduce the amount of voluntary money necessary to cover those who truly need it.

No, in fact, the ability for these institutions to choose who they help is key. A business being able to choose to help only its own workers makes it possible to even help them in the first place. If they had to help anyone, it wouldn't be feasible. Same for a church or any institution. Being able to discriminate is important; it's not a dirty word.

Now before you go and doomsay about all sorts of discrimination happening based on race, gender, sexuality, etc., I'd argue that lots of institutions wouldn't discriminate on those factors. Case in point: most of the major tech companies. And if one did, would you really want to be associated with them and/or have them paying for your healthcare?

In your example of Maryland and Virginia and universal healthcare, Maryland will continually need to ensure they're collecting enough money (i.e., through taxes of some sort) to pay for universal healthcare. If an influx of unhealthy people enter the state, they'll have to increase taxes to pay for the higher healthcare bills, which will in turn make them less competitive with other states, and cause people to leave. There's no way Maryland adds universal healthcare and remains equal in all other categories.

In your example of child labor, it's arguably better for everyone if Virginia can produce cheaper goods. (Please don't think I'm in any way arguing for child labor.) Maryland benefits from the cheaper goods as well, and is able to free resources for other pursuits that are economically advantageous for them. We already see this to a degree in places that have an abundance of a natural resource – it's cheaper and more efficient for them to export the resource than it is for other places that don't have the resource.

A salient distinction that's very important in the whole debate.

I agree that the existing system is completely out of balance in terms of supply and demand. Why is that? I believe it's because government has intervened in the healthcare market, and removing them will lead to a market that's much more aligned with consumer demand.

Even now, there are places like https://surgerycenterok.com/ that prove high quality healthcare can be provided at affordable prices (they even list them on their website!).