Replying to TheOneWithAReallyLongName

On my given scenario, yes, it's specific, but no, it's not imaginary. It's something that happens fairly often to people with serious health issues. They live in constant fear of losing health coverage, and employers exploit that. Not every employer, but more than most of us want to admit. Even when managers don't do it intentionally, these workers are at a disadvantage in all negotiations, and they feel serious pressure to not rock the boat in ways that typical workers do not. I chose this example because it's relatively simple, realistic, and illustrative. It's difficult to call it anything other than exploitive, and while you don't explicitly agree that it is exploitive, you also notably don't say it isn't and have to try to downplay my example because it effectively makes my point. It's also on the more extreme side because once we agree that consent and exploitation aren't mutually exclusive, you can contemplate where the line should actually be drawn, which is impossible so long as they are considered mutually exclusive.

As for corporations and concentration of power, I fundamentally disagree. This presupposes that the state predates wealth and allows for its accumulation. I say it's the other way around, the accumulation of wealth bestows the power to create a state and entrench your wealth and power. And to be clear, the state DOES use its power to protect the status quo, including who has wealth and power. But it serves wealth in doing so, not the other way around. This is my biggest issue with ancap and agorism. They want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it's not an issue, but once someone gets rich enough to start hiring their own militia, they have a fucking problem. It's willfully ignorant of human nature. Most are good, but it takes fewer than most think to cause problems.

As for donations, I think it's simply a matter of return on investment. Libertarian Party doesn't win seats. They don't get power. Therefore, bribing them with campaign donations is meaningless. At least a bought off Democrat might spoil legislation for you.
Avatar
Pj 7mo ago

“On my given scenario, yes, it's specific, but no, it's not imaginary. It's something that happens fairly often to people with serious health issues.”

- I’m guessing that you’re from the US, as this situation does not occur anywhere else. I don’t know any other country where insurance is tied to employment. So this clearly is a problem of government regulation. I also know many people who are using private insurance from the global market and are very happy with it.

“while you don't explicitly agree that it is exploitive, you also notably don't say it isn't”

- That’s because “exploitation” is a very vague term. It cannot be clearly defined or measured. Is it exploitation to pay someone $1 a day? If so, should I check for the workers’ conditions anytime I buy coffee, t-shirt or anything else? Where does the responsibility lie? What if there’s no better alternative for the worker?

“As for donations, I think it's simply a matter of return on investment.”

- Just think about how much Musk did for Republicans in the last elections. Now imagine Bezos, Musk, Gates, Buffet and other super-wealthy would support Libertarians. That would be an easy win. The point is that free market doesn’t work for large corporations. They want government contracts, subsidies, patent protections and tailor-made tax loopholes, not free competition from smaller and foreign companies.

“As for corporations and concentration of power, I fundamentally disagree. This presupposes that the state predates wealth and allows for its accumulation.”

- No, I don’t think it does. In fact, it’s much easier to create wealth without the state. Also, if you’re concerned about concentration of wealth, you should check wtfhappenedin1971.com. It clearly shows how abolishment of gold standard (i.e. gov’t monopolization of money) created this exact issue.

“They want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it's not an issue, but once someone gets rich enough to start hiring their own militia”

- Do you think that no one ever heard this argument? Here you have David Friedman (the son of Milton Friedman, Nobel prize laureate in economics) addressing this objection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

“It's willfully ignorant of human nature.”

- It might seem that way to you, but that’s just because you don’t know much about underlying economic and social theories.

I’m ending the conversation here, because honestly, it’s tiresome to write answers that you can find with 5 minutes of googling. But feel free to post memes attacking a philosophy that you barely know anything about.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

4a
TheOneWithAReallyLongName 7mo ago

We can leave it here, but before we do, I'd like to clarify on insurance in the US. It's not a matter of regulation. This is a longstanding issue in the US that predates any requirements for employers by decades. Until the Affordable Care Act in... 2010ish, there was zero requirement to offer healthcare coverage, and even that's halfway to worthless in achieving that goal. Even today, many employers actually actively try to weasel out of their obligation to offer insurance with trash tier offerings nobody wants or can afford, or with tricks to skirt the triggering requirements like avoiding giving enough hours to workers and keeping them part time.

You can try to pin the blame on modern regulations, but that's just not the case. Businesses started offering it as a benefit during/after... I think WW2. So that's 60ish years between this starting and the government making any serious attempt to regulate the matter. And THEN, after 60 years of learning how this can be used to manipulate your workers and held over their heads, the government stepped in and... Enshrined the relationship in law. They at least attempted to make ALL employers offer it, which would have reduced the capacity to use it for exploitation but not eliminated it. Threat of unemployment is still at minimum a threat of lapse in coverage, and not all employers are obligated to provide.

Another reason I brought it up as my example is that it perfectly illustrates a way that the free market and lack of regulation FAILED people. People couldn't afford health care if things got serious. They couldn't afford insurance. Employers took advantage of this to make their most vulnerable employees extremely dependent on them.

And since I've said so much on the subject so far, do you know WHY this isnt a problem in just about any other developed nation? Because they all have fucking universal healthcare mandated by the government. So in your defense of ancap philosophy, you highlighted a great example of how the government can help you where the free market will fail you. But honestly, that sort of inability to capably grapple with cause and effect is pretty typical of ancaps, agorists, etc. They think the free market will save them when history has shown it would literally put them in chains and cages to sell them as chattel given the freedom to do so.

Avatar
Pj 7mo ago

US healthcare is heavily regulated, so I don't understand, why are you trying to use it as an argument.

Anyway, I happen to live in one of those countries with universal healthcare and anytime I need something from a doctor, I pay out of pocket, because otherwise I'd wait for months, possibly getting care of dubious quality. And I'm still forced to pay for government insurance!

But this debate is same shit all over, everytime a statist tries to excuse the government, it's always one nirvana fallacy after another.