Originally posted by Fishermage ahhhh where did you get THAT theory from? very convenient view though -- it basically allows you to claim to believe in private property, yet confiscate everything a man owns -- if it fits your utopian dream of redistribution and mutual enslavement. NOW we are getting somewhere. At any rate, try and prove that proposition, that money is not real property. Money is a medium of exchange. It is a fungible commodity that men covert their property into to facilltate trade. It is as real a property as a cow or land.
Amazing, isn't it? I would like to meet with him and nab his wallet. I will then only take the money and return the wallet. I will then unable to be prosecuted for theft as it is not real property.
Originally posted by Fishermage ahhhh where did you get THAT theory from? very convenient view though -- it basically allows you to claim to believe in private property, yet confiscate everything a man owns -- if it fits your utopian dream of redistribution and mutual enslavement. NOW we are getting somewhere. At any rate, try and prove that proposition, that money is not real property. Money is a medium of exchange. It is a fungible commodity that men covert their property into to facilltate trade. It is as real a property as a cow or land.
Amazing, isn't it? I would like to meet with him and nab his wallet. I will then only take the money and return the wallet. I will then unable to be prosecuted for theft as it is not real property.
Boggle. Nevermind...I forgot you don't even know what real property is.
Google real property. Google personalty...or personal property.
There is the distinction I was trying to make. Not that it isn't real...God...lol...are you guys seriously that...bah.
Originally posted by Fishermage ahhhh where did you get THAT theory from? very convenient view though -- it basically allows you to claim to believe in private property, yet confiscate everything a man owns -- if it fits your utopian dream of redistribution and mutual enslavement. NOW we are getting somewhere. At any rate, try and prove that proposition, that money is not real property. Money is a medium of exchange. It is a fungible commodity that men covert their property into to facilltate trade. It is as real a property as a cow or land.
Amazing, isn't it? I would like to meet with him and nab his wallet. I will then only take the money and return the wallet. I will then unable to be prosecuted for theft as it is not real property.
Boggle. Nevermind...I forgot you don't even know what real property is.
Google real property. Google personalty...or personal property.
There is the distinction I was trying to make. Not that it isn't real...God...lol...are you guys seriously that...bah.
Google doesn't decide what private property is and isn't. You are using shifty definitions here -- definitons that prove you will change the meaning of words to hide that you do not believe in sef-ownership or, by extension, private property.
Originally posted by Fishermage ahhhh where did you get THAT theory from? very convenient view though -- it basically allows you to claim to believe in private property, yet confiscate everything a man owns -- if it fits your utopian dream of redistribution and mutual enslavement. NOW we are getting somewhere. At any rate, try and prove that proposition, that money is not real property. Money is a medium of exchange. It is a fungible commodity that men covert their property into to facilltate trade. It is as real a property as a cow or land.
Amazing, isn't it? I would like to meet with him and nab his wallet. I will then only take the money and return the wallet. I will then unable to be prosecuted for theft as it is not real property.
What he is doing is shifting from a philsophical/political economic term to an accounting term. It's a pretty poor way to argue one's case, known as equivocation.
Originally posted by Fishermage ahhhh where did you get THAT theory from? very convenient view though -- it basically allows you to claim to believe in private property, yet confiscate everything a man owns -- if it fits your utopian dream of redistribution and mutual enslavement. NOW we are getting somewhere. At any rate, try and prove that proposition, that money is not real property. Money is a medium of exchange. It is a fungible commodity that men covert their property into to facilltate trade. It is as real a property as a cow or land.
Amazing, isn't it? I would like to meet with him and nab his wallet. I will then only take the money and return the wallet. I will then unable to be prosecuted for theft as it is not real property.
Boggle. Nevermind...I forgot you don't even know what real property is.
Google real property. Google personalty...or personal property.
There is the distinction I was trying to make. Not that it isn't real...God...lol...are you guys seriously that...bah.
Google doesn't decide what private property is and isn't. You are using shifty definitions here -- definitons that prove you will change the meaning of words to hide that you do not believe in sef-ownership or, by extension, private property.
Sorry, you are misappropriating the philosophical arguments that defended private property in the sense of REAL PROPERTY and not CHATTELS. You are the one constructing an argument out of faulty foundations by replacing arguments for private land ownership with arguments for personal property as a whole.
Therefore when you start using those arguments, I'm going to differentiate the two. So when you ask about an intangible like money I'm not going to place it in the same property subset as real property...because it simply is not.
Originally posted by Fishermage ahhhh where did you get THAT theory from? very convenient view though -- it basically allows you to claim to believe in private property, yet confiscate everything a man owns -- if it fits your utopian dream of redistribution and mutual enslavement. NOW we are getting somewhere. At any rate, try and prove that proposition, that money is not real property. Money is a medium of exchange. It is a fungible commodity that men covert their property into to facilltate trade. It is as real a property as a cow or land.
Amazing, isn't it? I would like to meet with him and nab his wallet. I will then only take the money and return the wallet. I will then unable to be prosecuted for theft as it is not real property.
Boggle. Nevermind...I forgot you don't even know what real property is.
Google real property. Google personalty...or personal property.
There is the distinction I was trying to make. Not that it isn't real...God...lol...are you guys seriously that...bah.
Google doesn't decide what private property is and isn't. You are using shifty definitions here -- definitons that prove you will change the meaning of words to hide that you do not believe in sef-ownership or, by extension, private property.
Sorry, you are misappropriating the philosophical arguments that defended private property in the sense of REAL PROPERTY and not CHATTELS. You are the one constructing an argument out of faulty foundations by replacing arguments for private land ownership with arguments for personal property as a whole.
Therefore when you start using those arguments, I'm going to differentiate the two. So when you ask about an intangible like money I'm not going to place it in the same property subset as real property...because it simply is not.
So you are saying you do not have TITLE (meaning ownership, meaning private property) to the money in your bank account?
Originally posted by Libertasplz intangible like money
So, basically you are stating that intangible property and assets should be allowed to be redistributed simply because they are intangible?
As said above, you are simply using a definition to validate your support of redistribution.
I ask, because land is tangible, it should not be redistributed? Now, what if one sells their land? Does that intangible money immediately become subject to redistribution?
Originally posted by Libertasplz intangible like money
So, basically you are stating that intangible property and assets should be allowed to be redistributed simply because they are intangible?
As said above, you are simply using a definition to validate your support of redistribution.
I ask, because land is tangible, it should not be redistributed? Now, what if one sells their land? Does that intangible money immediately become subject to redistribution?
As I said, notice how he went from "private property," to "real property." It's a semantic game of equivocation. Money is not "intangible" it is fungible. that doesn't make it NOT private property. In accounting terms, ut is taxed differently, thus it is not considered "real property" in an accounting sense; but that has nothing to do with whether or not the money you own consititutes private property. Of course it does, He is just showing the bankruptcy of his argument.
Hey look, I used a financial term to show whether an argument has merit or not! See, I can do it too! Only, I have done so in a proper manner
The Government already has universal health care. It is an over bloated costly piece of legislation and I know first hand. You only receive the health care they say you can receive. It is a farce if you think the Federal Government is capable of providing the funds for health care to all. They can't even handle the health care for the ones they supposedly provide for now.
Being disabled, even I pay medicare insurance every month. My dads 78 years old and he pays nearly 400 dollars a month to medicare. If we fail to pay the rate they charge the next time you purchase it your rate is higher.
If any of you think a Government program will provide health care for you, free of you relinquishing cash for it then you are going to be sadly mistaken. Even after giving up your cash you won't get what you think or your doctor thinks you need. If it were possible they would be doing it with the program they have now for the few who can't afford it.
It will just be another reason to take your money and limit what you will get in return. Anyone can get heathcare right now. If you don't believe me then go to the emergency room and see if you don't get treated.
Originally posted by Libertasplz intangible like money
So, basically you are stating that intangible property and assets should be allowed to be redistributed simply because they are intangible?
As said above, you are simply using a definition to validate your support of redistribution.
I ask, because land is tangible, it should not be redistributed? Now, what if one sells their land? Does that intangible money immediately become subject to redistribution?
No that's not what I'm saying. My point is that arguments for private property in the real sense (nothing to do with title, but rather dealing with philosophical and tangible responsibilities of OBLIGATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS) cannot be compared to intangible chattels such as securities and money. The moral and practical arguments simply aren't as strong.
And these are legal and philosophical arguments...they have zero to do with accounting and finance.
As for Fishermage: Your pedigree in libertarian values and principles seems to be rooted in the internet and not in academic research. The internet is a piss poor substitute to a formal introduction to what you espouse. Perhaps you should skip your bookstore job and go back to university...you'd likely enjoy it.
Originally posted by Libertasplz intangible like money
So, basically you are stating that intangible property and assets should be allowed to be redistributed simply because they are intangible?
As said above, you are simply using a definition to validate your support of redistribution.
I ask, because land is tangible, it should not be redistributed? Now, what if one sells their land? Does that intangible money immediately become subject to redistribution?
No that's not what I'm saying. My point is that arguments for private property in the real sense (nothing to do with title, but rather dealing with philosophical and tangible responsibilities of OBLIGATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS) cannot be compared to intangible chattels such as securities and money. The moral and practical arguments simply aren't as strong.
And these are legal and philosophical arguments...they have zero to do with accounting and finance.
As for Fishermage: Your pedigree in libertarian values and principles seems to be rooted in the internet and not in academic research. The internet is a piss poor substitute to a formal introduction to what you espouse. Perhaps you should skip your bookstore job and go back to university...you'd likely enjoy it.
I was a libertarian before there was an internet; and I retired on my investments in real estate, stocks, and other stuff at 44. I have both academic training and have proven what I believe in the real world. You're a lawyer. I'll take my education and experience over yours any day.
But, thanks for finally resorting to personal attacks, as you always do.
Originally posted by Libertasplz intangible like money
So, basically you are stating that intangible property and assets should be allowed to be redistributed simply because they are intangible?
As said above, you are simply using a definition to validate your support of redistribution.
I ask, because land is tangible, it should not be redistributed? Now, what if one sells their land? Does that intangible money immediately become subject to redistribution?
No that's not what I'm saying. My point is that arguments for private property in the real sense (nothing to do with title, but rather dealing with philosophical and tangible responsibilities of OBLIGATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS) cannot be compared to intangible chattels such as securities and money. The moral and practical arguments simply aren't as strong.
And these are legal and philosophical arguments...they have zero to do with accounting and finance.
As for Fishermage: Your pedigree in libertarian values and principles seems to be rooted in the internet and not in academic research. The internet is a piss poor substitute to a formal introduction to what you espouse. Perhaps you should skip your bookstore job and go back to university...you'd likely enjoy it.
I was a libertarian before there was an internet; and I retired on my investments in real estate, stocks, and other stuff at 44. I have both academic training and have proven what I believe in the real world. You're a lawyer. I'll take my education and experience over yours any day.
But, thanks for finally resorting to personal attacks, as you always do.
I never said you were uneducated in other disciplinary fields. You said yourself that you were a libertarian before there was an internet...that doesn't mean your understanding of it was not developed and enhanced and indeed constructed later by it.
And I only dish what I receive...and even then only when it is warranted.
Originally posted by Libertasplz intangible like money
So, basically you are stating that intangible property and assets should be allowed to be redistributed simply because they are intangible?
As said above, you are simply using a definition to validate your support of redistribution.
I ask, because land is tangible, it should not be redistributed? Now, what if one sells their land? Does that intangible money immediately become subject to redistribution?
No that's not what I'm saying. My point is that arguments for private property in the real sense (nothing to do with title, but rather dealing with philosophical and tangible responsibilities of OBLIGATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS) cannot be compared to intangible chattels such as securities and money. The moral and practical arguments simply aren't as strong.
And these are legal and philosophical arguments...they have zero to do with accounting and finance.
As for Fishermage: Your pedigree in libertarian values and principles seems to be rooted in the internet and not in academic research. The internet is a piss poor substitute to a formal introduction to what you espouse. Perhaps you should skip your bookstore job and go back to university...you'd likely enjoy it.
I was a libertarian before there was an internet; and I retired on my investments in real estate, stocks, and other stuff at 44. I have both academic training and have proven what I believe in the real world. You're a lawyer. I'll take my education and experience over yours any day.
But, thanks for finally resorting to personal attacks, as you always do.
I never said you were uneducated in other disciplinary fields. You said yourself that you were a libertarian before there was an internet...that doesn't mean your understanding of it was not developed and enhanced and indeed constructed later by it.
And I only dish what I receive...and even then only when it is warranted.
But don't get me wrong...I like our talks.
Oh really, I went ONLY after your arguments and your shabby tactics -- I left YOU alone, YOU once again dragged it into the schoolyard, Thus showing your own admission of the bankrupt position you hold. You couldn't beat my argument, so you went after me. Thank you for your time. Game, set, and match.
I like our talks, even when you start to act childish. You are bright, although wrong.
My libertarianism was developed by a lifelong study of history, the works of Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayak, adam Smith, David Ricardo, Bastiat, Schppenhaeur, Karl Marx, Hegel, Bruno Bauer, later marxist leninist 'sages' like Dale riepe and David H. DeGrood, Proudon, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Locke, Mill, jefferson, John Adams, the cato letters, being a member of the reason foundation, the cato instutute, helping libertarian candidates lose in elections, and making money by successfully and accurately predicting economic events for about twenty years. There's more, but that's a start.
I have on;y VERY recently even gotten into seeing libertarianism on the web; pretty much when I started blogging about a month ago.
Oh really, I went ONLY after your arguments and your shabby tactics -- I left YOU alone, YOU once again dragged it into the schoolyard, Thus showing your own admission of the bankrupt position you hold. You couldn't beat my argument, so you went after me. Thank you for your time. Game, set, and match. I like our talks, even when you start to act childish. You are bright, although wrong.
Heh, well I'll leave our exchange at that (on this topic at least). Cheers!
Except that you are indeed wrong and Enigma is correct. Your system would work better in smaller populated nations like Canada instead of asking for changes in a country with at least 300 million people who have at least 47 million without health insurance.
Gradual changes have to be introduced to a nation not drastic changes over quick periods.
Comments
Amazing, isn't it? I would like to meet with him and nab his wallet. I will then only take the money and return the wallet. I will then unable to be prosecuted for theft as it is not real property.
Amazing, isn't it? I would like to meet with him and nab his wallet. I will then only take the money and return the wallet. I will then unable to be prosecuted for theft as it is not real property.
Boggle. Nevermind...I forgot you don't even know what real property is.
Google real property. Google personalty...or personal property.
There is the distinction I was trying to make. Not that it isn't real...God...lol...are you guys seriously that...bah.
Amazing, isn't it? I would like to meet with him and nab his wallet. I will then only take the money and return the wallet. I will then unable to be prosecuted for theft as it is not real property.
Boggle. Nevermind...I forgot you don't even know what real property is.
Google real property. Google personalty...or personal property.
There is the distinction I was trying to make. Not that it isn't real...God...lol...are you guys seriously that...bah.
Google doesn't decide what private property is and isn't. You are using shifty definitions here -- definitons that prove you will change the meaning of words to hide that you do not believe in sef-ownership or, by extension, private property.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Amazing, isn't it? I would like to meet with him and nab his wallet. I will then only take the money and return the wallet. I will then unable to be prosecuted for theft as it is not real property.
What he is doing is shifting from a philsophical/political economic term to an accounting term. It's a pretty poor way to argue one's case, known as equivocation.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Amazing, isn't it? I would like to meet with him and nab his wallet. I will then only take the money and return the wallet. I will then unable to be prosecuted for theft as it is not real property.
Boggle. Nevermind...I forgot you don't even know what real property is.
Google real property. Google personalty...or personal property.
There is the distinction I was trying to make. Not that it isn't real...God...lol...are you guys seriously that...bah.
Google doesn't decide what private property is and isn't. You are using shifty definitions here -- definitons that prove you will change the meaning of words to hide that you do not believe in sef-ownership or, by extension, private property.
Sorry, you are misappropriating the philosophical arguments that defended private property in the sense of REAL PROPERTY and not CHATTELS. You are the one constructing an argument out of faulty foundations by replacing arguments for private land ownership with arguments for personal property as a whole.
Therefore when you start using those arguments, I'm going to differentiate the two. So when you ask about an intangible like money I'm not going to place it in the same property subset as real property...because it simply is not.
Amazing, isn't it? I would like to meet with him and nab his wallet. I will then only take the money and return the wallet. I will then unable to be prosecuted for theft as it is not real property.
Boggle. Nevermind...I forgot you don't even know what real property is.
Google real property. Google personalty...or personal property.
There is the distinction I was trying to make. Not that it isn't real...God...lol...are you guys seriously that...bah.
Google doesn't decide what private property is and isn't. You are using shifty definitions here -- definitons that prove you will change the meaning of words to hide that you do not believe in sef-ownership or, by extension, private property.
Sorry, you are misappropriating the philosophical arguments that defended private property in the sense of REAL PROPERTY and not CHATTELS. You are the one constructing an argument out of faulty foundations by replacing arguments for private land ownership with arguments for personal property as a whole.
Therefore when you start using those arguments, I'm going to differentiate the two. So when you ask about an intangible like money I'm not going to place it in the same property subset as real property...because it simply is not.
So you are saying you do not have TITLE (meaning ownership, meaning private property) to the money in your bank account?
fishermage.blogspot.com
So, basically you are stating that intangible property and assets should be allowed to be redistributed simply because they are intangible?
As said above, you are simply using a definition to validate your support of redistribution.
I ask, because land is tangible, it should not be redistributed? Now, what if one sells their land? Does that intangible money immediately become subject to redistribution?
So, basically you are stating that intangible property and assets should be allowed to be redistributed simply because they are intangible?
As said above, you are simply using a definition to validate your support of redistribution.
I ask, because land is tangible, it should not be redistributed? Now, what if one sells their land? Does that intangible money immediately become subject to redistribution?
As I said, notice how he went from "private property," to "real property." It's a semantic game of equivocation. Money is not "intangible" it is fungible. that doesn't make it NOT private property. In accounting terms, ut is taxed differently, thus it is not considered "real property" in an accounting sense; but that has nothing to do with whether or not the money you own consititutes private property. Of course it does, He is just showing the bankruptcy of his argument.
Hey look, I used a financial term to show whether an argument has merit or not! See, I can do it too! Only, I have done so in a proper manner
fishermage.blogspot.com
Most Americans supported the war in Iraq as well.
The Government already has universal health care. It is an over bloated costly piece of legislation and I know first hand. You only receive the health care they say you can receive. It is a farce if you think the Federal Government is capable of providing the funds for health care to all. They can't even handle the health care for the ones they supposedly provide for now.
Being disabled, even I pay medicare insurance every month. My dads 78 years old and he pays nearly 400 dollars a month to medicare. If we fail to pay the rate they charge the next time you purchase it your rate is higher.
If any of you think a Government program will provide health care for you, free of you relinquishing cash for it then you are going to be sadly mistaken. Even after giving up your cash you won't get what you think or your doctor thinks you need. If it were possible they would be doing it with the program they have now for the few who can't afford it.
It will just be another reason to take your money and limit what you will get in return. Anyone can get heathcare right now. If you don't believe me then go to the emergency room and see if you don't get treated.
So, basically you are stating that intangible property and assets should be allowed to be redistributed simply because they are intangible?
As said above, you are simply using a definition to validate your support of redistribution.
I ask, because land is tangible, it should not be redistributed? Now, what if one sells their land? Does that intangible money immediately become subject to redistribution?
No that's not what I'm saying. My point is that arguments for private property in the real sense (nothing to do with title, but rather dealing with philosophical and tangible responsibilities of OBLIGATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS) cannot be compared to intangible chattels such as securities and money. The moral and practical arguments simply aren't as strong.
And these are legal and philosophical arguments...they have zero to do with accounting and finance.
As for Fishermage: Your pedigree in libertarian values and principles seems to be rooted in the internet and not in academic research. The internet is a piss poor substitute to a formal introduction to what you espouse. Perhaps you should skip your bookstore job and go back to university...you'd likely enjoy it.
So, basically you are stating that intangible property and assets should be allowed to be redistributed simply because they are intangible?
As said above, you are simply using a definition to validate your support of redistribution.
I ask, because land is tangible, it should not be redistributed? Now, what if one sells their land? Does that intangible money immediately become subject to redistribution?
No that's not what I'm saying. My point is that arguments for private property in the real sense (nothing to do with title, but rather dealing with philosophical and tangible responsibilities of OBLIGATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS) cannot be compared to intangible chattels such as securities and money. The moral and practical arguments simply aren't as strong.
And these are legal and philosophical arguments...they have zero to do with accounting and finance.
As for Fishermage: Your pedigree in libertarian values and principles seems to be rooted in the internet and not in academic research. The internet is a piss poor substitute to a formal introduction to what you espouse. Perhaps you should skip your bookstore job and go back to university...you'd likely enjoy it.
I was a libertarian before there was an internet; and I retired on my investments in real estate, stocks, and other stuff at 44. I have both academic training and have proven what I believe in the real world. You're a lawyer. I'll take my education and experience over yours any day.
But, thanks for finally resorting to personal attacks, as you always do.
fishermage.blogspot.com
So, basically you are stating that intangible property and assets should be allowed to be redistributed simply because they are intangible?
As said above, you are simply using a definition to validate your support of redistribution.
I ask, because land is tangible, it should not be redistributed? Now, what if one sells their land? Does that intangible money immediately become subject to redistribution?
No that's not what I'm saying. My point is that arguments for private property in the real sense (nothing to do with title, but rather dealing with philosophical and tangible responsibilities of OBLIGATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS) cannot be compared to intangible chattels such as securities and money. The moral and practical arguments simply aren't as strong.
And these are legal and philosophical arguments...they have zero to do with accounting and finance.
As for Fishermage: Your pedigree in libertarian values and principles seems to be rooted in the internet and not in academic research. The internet is a piss poor substitute to a formal introduction to what you espouse. Perhaps you should skip your bookstore job and go back to university...you'd likely enjoy it.
I was a libertarian before there was an internet; and I retired on my investments in real estate, stocks, and other stuff at 44. I have both academic training and have proven what I believe in the real world. You're a lawyer. I'll take my education and experience over yours any day.
But, thanks for finally resorting to personal attacks, as you always do.
I never said you were uneducated in other disciplinary fields. You said yourself that you were a libertarian before there was an internet...that doesn't mean your understanding of it was not developed and enhanced and indeed constructed later by it.
And I only dish what I receive...and even then only when it is warranted.
But don't get me wrong...I like our talks.
So, basically you are stating that intangible property and assets should be allowed to be redistributed simply because they are intangible?
As said above, you are simply using a definition to validate your support of redistribution.
I ask, because land is tangible, it should not be redistributed? Now, what if one sells their land? Does that intangible money immediately become subject to redistribution?
No that's not what I'm saying. My point is that arguments for private property in the real sense (nothing to do with title, but rather dealing with philosophical and tangible responsibilities of OBLIGATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS) cannot be compared to intangible chattels such as securities and money. The moral and practical arguments simply aren't as strong.
And these are legal and philosophical arguments...they have zero to do with accounting and finance.
As for Fishermage: Your pedigree in libertarian values and principles seems to be rooted in the internet and not in academic research. The internet is a piss poor substitute to a formal introduction to what you espouse. Perhaps you should skip your bookstore job and go back to university...you'd likely enjoy it.
I was a libertarian before there was an internet; and I retired on my investments in real estate, stocks, and other stuff at 44. I have both academic training and have proven what I believe in the real world. You're a lawyer. I'll take my education and experience over yours any day.
But, thanks for finally resorting to personal attacks, as you always do.
I never said you were uneducated in other disciplinary fields. You said yourself that you were a libertarian before there was an internet...that doesn't mean your understanding of it was not developed and enhanced and indeed constructed later by it.
And I only dish what I receive...and even then only when it is warranted.
But don't get me wrong...I like our talks.
Oh really, I went ONLY after your arguments and your shabby tactics -- I left YOU alone, YOU once again dragged it into the schoolyard, Thus showing your own admission of the bankrupt position you hold. You couldn't beat my argument, so you went after me. Thank you for your time. Game, set, and match.
I like our talks, even when you start to act childish. You are bright, although wrong.
fishermage.blogspot.com
My libertarianism was developed by a lifelong study of history, the works of Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayak, adam Smith, David Ricardo, Bastiat, Schppenhaeur, Karl Marx, Hegel, Bruno Bauer, later marxist leninist 'sages' like Dale riepe and David H. DeGrood, Proudon, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Locke, Mill, jefferson, John Adams, the cato letters, being a member of the reason foundation, the cato instutute, helping libertarian candidates lose in elections, and making money by successfully and accurately predicting economic events for about twenty years. There's more, but that's a start.
I have on;y VERY recently even gotten into seeing libertarianism on the web; pretty much when I started blogging about a month ago.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Heh, well I'll leave our exchange at that (on this topic at least). Cheers!
Odd that you are wrong.
Except that I'm not wrong. US has the most expensive health care in the world. US does not even have close to the best health care in the world.
But let me guess, you have faith and confidence that your free market economics can't be letting you down.
Bad news. They are.
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
Except that you are indeed wrong and Enigma is correct. Your system would work better in smaller populated nations like Canada instead of asking for changes in a country with at least 300 million people who have at least 47 million without health insurance.
Gradual changes have to be introduced to a nation not drastic changes over quick periods.
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth