[Suska]

How is a single-payer health-care system consistent with being an Anarchist?

I don't care at all about being consistent. But it's not inconsistent. If what you want is the smallest government possible, in my view it ought to be that everyone pitches in to have a doctor in their neighborhood, or along that lines -- What you call government most people would call specialization and community. Again with the side-issues. You're starting to look like a cartoon Libertarian Eran. Did you not follow my last two posts? My concern is for me and mine. Strangers, even when they were born in the same region of the world, speak the same language etc, are strangers. You want smaller government, I want community. In this context it doesn't matter what I want my people to be capable of, it's a distraction from the bigger issue of what votes really mean (squat), and what organizing is really about. It's not a game, it's not a competition, it means nothing by itself -- it does not entail hierarchy. You can't automate greatness (see Caligula... Nero...). I am an Anarchist because I refuse to be presumed into a system, the problem with system is system, not size, certainly not class of services.

[Eran]

Anarchists don't want "the smallest government possible". They want no government at all. That's what separates them from non-anarchist libertarians, for example.

A single-payer health-care system refers to a system in which a single organisation in the whole country pays for everybody's healthcare costs. You could, I guess, build such system entirely on voluntary contributions. But that's not what advocates typically have in mind. Much more likely, such single-payer would be funded through taxation, i.e. through government.

Such a system is inconsistent with libertarianism, not to mention anarchy.

[Suska]

Anarchists don't want "the smallest government possible

I did say "you" as in if what "you" want Eran, eg. what Libertarians want.

They want no government at all

Define government, I think we define it differently. I'm certain we define anarchy differently. Seems to me if that's your answer it's probably not possible for you to understand me Eran. That's not unusual, my vocabulary has been affected by a study of etymology and history and philosophy rather than by political science. I don't accept the terms as you have used them. Not even a little bit.

Anarchy is not a total lack of collective behavior, it'd be closer to say it is a total lack of socially habitual behavior, or a total rejection of bureaucratic authority.

[Eran]

I agree that getting our terms right is very important.

I define government as "the territorial monopoly over the legitimised use of force". In other words, government is the single organisation (within a given, large geographical territory) which is perceived to have the legitimate monopoly over use of force.

Anarchy I define as society without government.

Anarchy is not, indeed, total (or even partial) lack of collective behaviour. It is merely the lack of legitimised aggression. In other words, under anarchy (as I see it), all collective behaviour is voluntary.

[Suska]

Good, ok. How does a voluntary collective medical policy entail the use of force?

[RhetoricThug]

If we are going to deal with consent and volunteerism, we should take into account a community service. If you wish to be part of the collective society- you should exchange your skills for welfare.

Move away from the idea of any health care system should be an industry. It has to be a service available to the ones in need, no poor or rich standard.

During the Spanish Civil War, Barcelona’s Medical Syndicate, organized largely by anarchists, managed 18 hospitals (6 of which it had created), 17 sanatoria, 22 clinics, 6 psychiatric establishments, 3 nurseries, and one maternity hospital. Outpatient departments were set up in all the principal localities in Catalunya. Upon receiving a request, the Syndicate sent doctors to places in need. The doctor would have to give good reason for refusing the post, “for it was considered that medicine was at the service of the community, and not the other way round.” Funds for outpatient clinics came from contributions from local municipalities. The anarchist Health Workers’ Union included 8,000 health workers, 1,020 of them doctors, and also 3,206 nurses, 133 dentists, 330 midwives, and 153 herbalists. The Union operated 36 health centers distributed throughout Catalunya to provide healthcare to everyone in the entire region. There was a central syndicate in each of nine zones, and in Barcelona a Control Committee composed of one delegate from each section met once a week to deal with common problems and implement a common plan. Every department was autonomous in its own sphere, but not isolated, as they supported one another. Beyond Catalunya, healthcare was provided for free in agrarian collectives throughout Aragon and the Levant.

OR how about this

After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, activist street medics joined a former Black Panther in setting up the Common Ground clinic in one of the neediest neighborhoods. They were soon assisted by hundreds of anarchists and other volunteers from across the country, mostly without experience. Funded by donations and run by volunteers, the Common Ground clinic provided treatment to tens of thousands of people. The failure of the government’s “Emergency Management” experts during the crisis is widely recognized. But Common Ground was so well organized it also out-performed the Red Cross, despite the latter having a great deal more experience and resources. In the process, they popularized the concept of mutual aid and made plain the failure of the government. At the time of this writing Common Ground has 40 full-time organizers and is pursuing health in a much broader sense, also making community gardens and fighting for housing rights so that those evicted by the storm will not be prevented from coming home by the gentrification plans of the government. They have helped gut and rebuild many houses in the poorest neighborhoods, which authorities wanted to bulldoze in order to win more living space for rich white people.

Capitalism simply makes health care an industry. Ancaps need to stray away from such fallacy.
Today in America, between job loss and health care costs- many people go bankrupt.
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Jul ... 070717.pdf

[Eran]

How does a voluntary collective medical policy entail the use of force?

It doesn't. And if what you are advocating is a voluntary single-payer system, by all means - I have no objection whatsoever.

Every other reference to single payer system, however, relies on (involuntary) tax revenues to fund that single payer, and is thus neither voluntary nor peaceful.

Move away from the idea of any health care system should be an industry. It has to be a service available to the ones in need, no poor or rich standard.

Actually, it can be both. We can have a for-profit health care "industry", living side-by-side with a voluntary effort to provide basic health-care to all. The latter is currently being hampered by a wide range of restrictive regulations stipulating who may deliver health-care and under what conditions.

[Nunt]

Even with the heavy government involvement in the healthcare sector you can still see quite a diverse healthcare sector in the US. Medical services are being provided by both forprofit and nonprofit organizations, using volunteer effort and voluntary donations.

[mum]

that seems to be an important point that the leftists keep forgetting about. They keep advocating equal healthcare for all, and yet the socialised healthcare systems we have today are not equal in any way.

[Pants-of-dog]

that seems to be an important point that the leftists keep forgetting about. They keep advocating equal healthcare for all, and yet the socialised healthcare systems we have today are not equal in any way.

How so?

[Suska]

Every other reference to single payer system, however, relies on (involuntary) tax revenues to fund that single payer, and is thus neither voluntary nor peaceful.

Taxation in itself is not certainly involuntary. Modern nations have not adjusted to the notion that there are no accessible frontiers left. The notion of united and staunch nationalism is either dead or going somewhere distinctly dystopian. The best way to handle the problem (which, while being serious is typically exaggerated) is - in America to recognize the real power for health provision in the State governments (this amounts to a reality check), that you have a democratic state government which you can influence - and this is not a grudge match (culture war). Failing an improving state government (increasingly direct democracy) and a popular perception shift, the bottom line is a necessity for a secession option. Modern nations are imperial holdovers, they are the property of armies. This must change primarily because federal systems are a part of that security apparatus and they are incapable of (not even mandated for) domestic governance.

The most typical and easily handled problem in this whole issue is the ignorance of the new right about the proper and legally mandated spheres of governance. There's this constant battle surrounding the federal government when that isn't the problem or the solution to the problem. It's just that several popular cultures in America see state governments as powerless and are vying for cultural control of the federal system. This is a matter of ambition to impose culture nationwide, it is not constitutional or practical and should either (any of the several) side succeed it would merely force the secession issue.

[Eran]

Taxation in itself is not certainly involuntary.

Do you mean that taxes collected today are not certainly involuntary, or that one can devise a (different) system within which taxes won't be involuntary?

[Suska]

Anarchism is not exactly synonymous with voluntaryism, the former mandates no authority for imperial force, the latter allows it. Currently America is voluntarily imperialistic, the genuine problem here is that it's silly to call our democracy voluntary - a majority vote for a representative will be anemic and is corrupted. We need to stop thinking a majority vote with an array of institutional "equality" watchdogs is the same thing as a strong veto (here I'm talking about secession or the effective improvement of a direct democracy at the state level) option which is every citizen's most sacred right.

Taxes are just payment for services, we need to allow people to have different ideas about the services they want even if it seems to allow people to move backwards or wreck the nation. This is not about national power - that is not even an intelligent connection, nation after nation have shown their capacity to cooperate militarily, that's all the federal government needs to be - a military treaty. As long as people look to the military authority to force local governments to comply with some set of onerous standards the matter of federal governance will be contentious and gridlocked. Communities are formed by like minded people, not forced by quasi-democratic military organizations.

[Eran]

I am not sure I understand your terminology.

America today certainly isn't a voluntary society. In fact, I don't see how any democracy can be voluntary (what about the minority?).

Taxes are certainly not payment for services in the normal sense of this expression. They aren't voluntary, and the amount levied is independent (often inversely correlated) to the services used.

Thus a person with dual (American and foreign) citizenship can leave outside the US for decades, and still be assessed taxes to the US government, despite using virtually none of its services.

[Suska]

In my view, not meaning any personal offence Eran, you're perspective (not being yours alone) is a big part of the problem. In as much as you represent the new right consistently and with fidelity (and in my experience you do this quite effectively) - you are the problem, your ignorance, and whatever extremist behavior or attitudes you can put into the mix will be even more detrimental than an explicit fascism.

Basically the problem, as I see it, is that Americans are confused about two important things. 1) They can't tell the difference between a social policy and an economic/military policy. 2) They can't tell the difference between local and federal government. I depict this as ignorance and malice depending on the level of extremism. It's destroying both the republic and the democracy.

As long as you're fighting or trying to co-opt the federal government you're making a play for an unconstitutional and impractical federal social policy. You suggest that government is force, well government is organization if you want to be general, it needn't be voluntary but it isn't force by itself. It is force because people, such as the new right (though more acutely the old right hawks, the imperialists; just as much the relatively new civil-right democrats), want to use it that way. You're all looking to the Executive Office, mostly because you want a position of advantage over other Americans.

The new right had some correct notions a few years ago, the moderate section of that movement seems to have dropped its interest. Now essentially the fight is about social policy and it is a fight between social conservatives and social libertines. The libertines argue economics and the conservatives argue religion and not only are they not even arguing the same things they are both hostile to moderates - and critically, to the notion of social policy being the domain of local government. It doesn't matter how many times the President says that these are local matters (Obama said this recently about same sex marriage) both sides mean to co-opt the force represented by the federal government against other communities within America, that race is well under way.

I don't agree with the notion of less government, what I want is direct democracy with a real individual (or at least communal) veto power for all policy including military expedition (very much including black ops). This is the anarchy I profess; if it cannot reach a consensus it has no mandate - there simply is no abstract authority, only functional organizing and state failure.

As an example: There is a very small, very new movement of moderate local governments organizing legal efforts. I recently heard about this (NPR I think). This link seems to refer to the most acute issue discussed (passage of coal trains through towns). I have to say this sort of thinking is one of the few political things going that stands a chance of understanding the actual problem and being able to do anything about it. They're not trying to conquer the world, just their own towns.

[Eran]

I am confused.

On the one hand, you consider me as representative of the "new right".

On the other hand, you write:

It is force because people, such as the new right (though more acutely the old right hawks, the imperialists; just as much the relatively new civil-right democrats), want to use it that way. You're all looking to the Executive Office, mostly because you want a position of advantage over other Americans.

How do you associate my views, as expressed consistently, I believe, on these forums, with a desire to use the government as force?

In what way do you think I am "looking to the Executive Office"?


I don't know exactly what you mean by the "new right" (Tea Party?). I am categorically opposed to government at all levels. If we do have to have government, I always prefer to see its power based on the most local level possible. Thus I tend to favour state to Federal governments, but I am strongly opposed to both.


I would like to better understand what you have in mind by "real individual veto power for all policy". It does sound like anarchy. In what sense is the organisation you see at the top "government"?

They're not trying to conquer the world, just their own towns.

This is a very important point, and I am glad you made it. Libertarians (unlike supporters of virtually any other ideology) aren't trying to conquer the world (or even their own country). They just want to be left alone in their own homes, and to be allowed to peacefully cooperate with like-minded people.

[RhetoricThug]

Actually, it can be both. We can have a for-profit health care "industry", living side-by-side with a voluntary effort to provide basic health-care to all. The latter is currently being hampered by a wide range of restrictive regulations stipulating who may deliver health-care and under what conditions.

This defeats the point of the free health-care. Eran, you will still be dividing service between the rich and the poor.

[Suska]

categorically opposed to government at all levels

This entitles me to call you an extremist. But...

to peacefully cooperate with like-minded people

Under my definition of the term this is governance.

I always prefer to see its power based on the most local level possible

This is an ambiguous proposition. Do you mean military power? Economic policy? Do you mean authority over social policy? Judgment's regarding legal procedure? These are not a single thing called "powers".

They just want to be left alone in their own homes, and to be allowed to peacefully cooperate with like-minded people

The ambiguity here is problematic. There is a necessity for a division of powers mandated explicitly in our constitution. I may be expected to understand what you mean, but I do not, it is not explained by what you say, what does "alone" and "home" mean to you? The implications are enormous given the influence of wealth and the potential lethality of violence.

I would like to better understand what you have in mind by "real individual veto power for all policy". It does sound like anarchy. In what sense is the organisation you see at the top "government"?

Ideally everyone votes on everything and everyone has the power to withdraw from agreements, without the power to withdraw they would have a veto power so that nothing done in their name is something they don't actively support. Nothing would happen in this case which was not with the full consent of those affected. Realistically we can set up a wavefront of effort to progress toward that end, I don't think there will ever be an absolute expression of this - it will always be possible to argue for example that children and the mentally impaired and criminals should be allowed to vote (I support allowing it, but I recognize that as a very hard sell currently). I don't expect, even something which could by any stretch of terms be described like this, happening while wealth is such an effective advantage.

It would be very nice for me at this point to outline exactly how we can directly proceed toward this ideal. I can do that but you may find it a bit odd or impotent, especially with regard to the economic inequity. It is usual and common to approach the matter as a Marxist topic; I personally do not approach it as a matter of economic, but of spiritual decisions. When the contention stops we can move forward, the contention being essentially bigotry, the entirely uneccessary, but deliberate, active and dynamic cultivation of hatred which the Buddhist calls ignorance (avidya), what I profess is that when people learn that life can be pleasant, and that what it takes is to stop nurturing hatred, and to treat anxiety very seriously, your ideal political situation will be ripe and ready. Until then governance will be messy and alternately crippled or overweening. The question is really, are we sincere about wanting a good life, and the fact is most people are not. The compassionate approach allows this, it may take some time, until then I will continue to assert the true case; our politics is the music of bloated egos squabbling, the reason you make of it reflects on the amazing capacity of the imagination to see patterns in chaos (constellations in stars even). The truth is that aggressive force and social antagonism is unpleasant and therefore we must change, and build change upon the express purpose of the betterment of the individual quality of the experience, and the best tool for that is Zazen.

[lucky]

I define government as "the territorial monopoly over the legitimised use of force". In other words, government is the single organisation (within a given, large geographical territory) which is perceived to have the legitimate monopoly over use of force.

Anarchy I define as society without government.

That is a complete redefinition of the word "government".

Did occupied Poland in 1940 have a government in your language? Was the Nazi government "perceived as legitimate" or "illegitimate"? If it was "perceived as illegitimate", was the General Government therefore not a government? And if not, was Poland therefore in "anarchy", your dream state?

[mum]

That is a complete redefinition of the word "government".

Incorrect

Did occupied Poland in 1940 have a government in your language? Was the Nazi government "perceived as legitimate" or "illegitimate"?

So a newly occupied country is a normal common occurance is it ?
It might have been legitimate to a few... If the Nazi government was in power in Poland for long enough, it would soon have become legitimate, in the same way all legitimate governments today are, that is starting out as hostile/illegitimate then over time accepted by the people.

If it was "perceived as illegitimate", was the General Government therefore not a government? And if not, was Poland therefore in "anarchy", your dream state?

You Sir, are [mild flame deleted].