Funny how you consistently say that I am ignoring the human element while you do the same yourself. Liability can be enforced in more ways than the guns of government.
But it won't be unless you have an entity more powerful than the people they're going after.
Haha wow, seriously? See, this is why I tell you should examine your own beliefs - because when you don't, you'll end up believing any old thing that supports them, no matter how ridiculous it is.
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I often see this ridiculous criticism of anarcho-capitalism that somehow if it were implemented, the poor would just starve and have no healthcare etc. So, let's do some maths based on some core assumptions that even you guys accept:
50% of the USA is left-leaning
These people want the poor to have essential services
OK, let's assume for now that all evil right-wingers won't donate a cent, and that income is split approx 30/70 in favour of the right (this probably isn't true as many high-paid jobs are mostly practiced by left-wingers, but just to use ridiculous maths), so you have 30% of the wealth between all of you lefties.
He assumes that because moderately liberal people make up about half the population that they have half (or even 30%) of the wealth. When then top 10% of this country owns 56% of the weath. Do I even need to point out how ridiculous these starting premises are?
Right now, this is somewhere in the realm of $1.4 trillion. Now, let's take a socialist country like the UK, and work out what $1.4 trillion (about £900 billion) could pay for. I'll multiply the budgets by 2.5, assuming that you're providing for the 50% of poorest Americans, as these services are currently provided to all of the UK.
You could pay for:
- The entire NHS service (free of charge healthcare which achieves a greater HALE than the US healthcare system) - £315 billion
- The entire state education service (free of charge education which achieves a reasonable global standard) - £200 billion
- The welfare state (provides up to $20,000 a year of welfare to the poor) - £290 billion
Ah yes, a socialist country like the U.K. where the workers clearly own the means of production!
Somehow we're supposed to buy the most expensive health care in the world for the same price as UHC. Love to know how that's going to work. The great thing about this post is that in trying to argue for free market capitalism, he admits that government-provided health care is cheaper and more efficient than private alternatives. Bravo! Well done!
It says a lot about your standards for evidence and logic that you'll trust some random pontificating teenager on a message board for your beliefs every time over the people who spend their lives studying these subjects. It also says a lot about your belief system and sense of morality when your solution to the problems of the underclass is literally "liberal nutjobs are the only ones who care about those poor losers, so let them pay for their health care!". You pay the problem as much lip service as is required for people not to call you a monster, and not a bit more. It's plainly obvious you don't give a damn about those people.