Comments (4)
sorted by:
3
AlFreeman 3 points ago +3 / -0

Nah, the situation is like that because of government intervention in the market in the 1st place. They'd never get away without prices otherwise. Maybe technically it's not exactly a consistent ancap position, but it sure as hell isn't a hill I'm going to fight on.

1
best_account 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is the correct take.

1
FuckRioters 1 point ago +1 / -0

Insurance in it's current state exists that way as a result of government (taxation, regulations, etc), to the point you essentially need insurance to afford healthcare. It's been a while since I looked at the history, but I seem to remember the whole way it got started, was because government capped how much employers could pay employees, so employers started offering "benefits" instead.

What does one do in a non-free economy and society? I'm not going to go out of my way to defend these corrupt institution. To be honest, this isn't our issue.

Consider it like the non-aggression-principle. You don't use violence against someone who has not initiated violence. Both parties respect the rules. Or neither party respects the rules. For only one side to respect the rules, creates an imbalanced (and often abusive) relationship.

Insurance companies don't respect the same rules we do. Neither does the government. So, why the fk should we care, from an AnCap values perspective?

It's like asking what AnCaps would do in the Afghanistan situation right now. The only real answer is "Ummm, we'd probably not be there?"

1
cutefroggy 1 point ago +1 / -0

What's your opinion on this?