Wouldn't anarchy just re-create capitalism, totally meritocratic capitalism?

[cappiej]

Okay, a hypothetical situation for the anarchists among us to mull over.

In this anarchist society a farmer falls ill, he begs a Doctor to treat him, sensing an opportunity the Doctor says, "Yeah, of course, but its going to cost you your farm, your entire farm's produce and your farmhouse". This farmer can either die or agree to the Doctor's terms, the Doctor becomes rich doing this over and over again.

He and the other Doctors agree not to teach anyone other than their own sons and daughters the medical profession, to ensure you end up with a system of ultra-wealthy Doctors, who in addition to inheriting all that their parents have earned 'exploiting' sick people are able to do the same. This goes on for five or six generations and you end up with the Rockefellers and Oppenheimers of your new society.

How do you stop this system arising?

Surely its an even more extreme form of capitalism than anywhere else?

And the story will be true of anyone with scarce, in-demand skills, they will form cartels and become ultra wealthy.

You'll end up with a load of unskilled peasants who will be totally at the mercy of anyone with a skill necessary for their survival.

And out of interest, without a government to intervene won't people with guns and bombs and grenades and the rest of it just march in and take over other people's property. If you think buying property fair and square is theft, which you clearly have indicated that you do, wouldn't this be 10 times worse?

[Havet]

How do you stop this system arising?

if the doctors did that, they'd make it far more profitable for a doctor to not do that, which means they would lose their monopoly to better competition. And before you start, its impossible to maintain such monopoly on healthcare unless through government force, but we're talking anarchy aren't we?

[cappiej]

if the doctors did that, they'd make it far more profitable for a doctor to not do that, which means they would lose their monopoly to better competition. And before you start, its impossible to maintain such monopoly on healthcare unless through government force, but we're talking anarchy aren't we?

Is it? But couldn't they all agree to charge extortionate prices for their services? Whose going to stop them?

[Havet]

Is it? But couldn't they all agree to charge extortionate prices for their services? Whose going to stop them?

No one.

Who is going to stop other doctors from deviating away from the monopoly?

[F9]

Moved
Thats why OI learning exists, to make your questions...
On the question per se now, those are false and out of logic "cases", and those get out from your wrong understanding of Anarchism, and not knowing what you are talking about.
Its better to read about Anarchism first and then start criticizing.
What you wrote as an argument-question sounds more to me like a joke, taken from a cartoon..

Fuserg9

[cappiej]

No one.

Who is going to stop other doctors from deviating away from the monopoly?

No-one, but why would they want to?

[RebelDog]

Well the social vision of anarchy would not include markets and economic gain through bargaining power so the doctors would have no hold over those who worked the land and vice-versa. Each would offer their services and goods as part of their contribution to society. If we dismantle the economic conditions which allow the powerful to gain reward, with little or no correlation to contribution, like markets, and replace them with social institutions that ensure the best outcomes for all actors then me can have an economy that promotes and protects positive, altruistic contribution. Do doctors in the NHS turn away poor people? No, the NHS is not an institution that uses its power to gain in the market. Look and we can see that there are other ways outside markets and corporations for running an economy. Different ways give different outcomes.

[cappiej]

Well the social vision of anarchy would not include markets and economic gain through bargaining power so the doctors would have no hold over those who worked the land and vice-versa. Each would offer their services and goods as part of their contribution to society. If we dismantle the economic conditions which allow the powerful to gain reward, with little or no correlation to contribution, like markets, and replace them with social institutions that ensure the best outcomes for all actors then me can have an economy that promotes and protects positive, altruistic contribution. Do doctors in the NHS turn away poor people? No, the NHS is not an institution that uses its power to gain in the market. Look and we can see that there are other ways outside markets and corporations for running an economy. Different ways give different outcomes.

The NHS, or an instutition akin to it in an anarchist society, must be funded, often by unwilling people. One of the plus points of anarchy would be there would be no socialised medicine.

[Havet]

No-one, but why would they want to?

because people are much more likely to pay less and get a better service than to pay more and get a worse service (which i what a monopoly does)

bad services create a demand for better services, and if a business can provide that, even if at a cheaper price, they will get so many customers they will make tons of more profit than the monopolies could ever hope.

[Jack]

The NHS, or an instutition akin to it in an anarchist society, must be funded, often by unwilling people. One of the plus points of anarchy would be there would be no socialised medicine.

Yes there would. Your "points" have as much substance as "anarkeyz wunt work cuz teh pplz will riot n bomb n rape alot n stuff", they aren't valid because they're assumed, wrongly.

I'll tell you what, read this, then come back and attack anarchism, otherwise you make yourself look like a fool: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist...quest/toc.html

[RebelDog]

The NHS, or an instutition akin to it in an anarchist society, must be funded, often by unwilling people. One of the plus points of anarchy would be there would be no socialised medicine.

What makes you think an anarchist development of the conteporary NHS would not be funded or be socialised? You have mixed up views of what social anarchism is. Apart from the moral reasons to prevent, treat and cure illness and give comfort are the obvious reasons that a healthy society is a happier productive society. In an anarchist vision of economy, socialised healthcare would be paramount to the proper functioning of all the socialised, democratic economy. Such is the case in any economy but powerful interests are stopping socialised healthcare in the US right now. Privatised healthcare has enormous cost to society but the rights of private healthcare corporations, pharmaceutical corporations and insurance corporations are put above the population. The nightmare scenario you describe in the OP is happening right now in the land of the free.

[cappiej]

What makes you think an anarchist development of the conteporary NHS would not be funded or be socialised? You have mixed up views of what social anarchism is. Apart from the moral reasons to prevent, treat and cure illness and give comfort are the obvious reasons that a healthy society is a happier productive society. In an anarchist vision of economy, socialised healthcare would be paramount to the proper functioning of all the socialised, democratic economy. Such is the case in any economy but powerful interests are stopping socialised healthcare in the US right now. Privatised healthcare has enormous cost to society but the rights of private healthcare corporations, pharmaceutical corporations and insurance corporations are put above the population. The nightmare scenario you describe in the OP is happening right now in the land of the free.

I know it is and I'm a supporter of it, I heard Ron Paul speaking prior to the 2008 election and he convinced me socialised medicine is immoral and wrong and that its a violation of the rights of all of those who must fund it.

I'm dead set against socialised healthcare, its dangerous, it limits choice, there's no accountability.

Not all anarchists agree, I've communicated with some of what you would probably call right-wing anarchists and the central reason for them rejecting the government is that they don't want welfare and they don't want socialised medicine.

I can see both sides of the argument, but ultimately socialised healthcare requires coercion and its utterly unfair, why should the healthy pay for the unhealthy?

[Pogue]

I can see both sides of the argument, but ultimately socialised healthcare requires coercion and its utterly unfair, why should the healthy pay for the unhealthy?

Because at some point everyone is unhealthy and humanity works better when it operates collectively.

Next question.

[cappiej]

Because at some point everyone is unhealthy and humanity works better when it operates collectively.

Next question.

When one gets unhealthy one will have to pay for care, but what about if they never become unhealthy and what about the perpetually unhealthy?

[RebelDog]

I know it is and I'm a supporter of it, I heard Ron Paul speaking prior to the 2008 election and he convinced me socialised medicine is immoral and wrong and that its a violation of the rights of all of those who must fund it.

I'm dead set against socialised healthcare, its dangerous, it limits choice, there's no accountability.

Not all anarchists agree, I've communicated with some of what you would probably call right-wing anarchists and the central reason for them rejecting the government is that they don't want welfare and they don't want socialised medicine.

I can see both sides of the argument, but ultimately socialised healthcare requires coercion and its utterly unfair, why should the healthy pay for the unhealthy?

it can only be true in a twisted universe that using the collective resources of society for the welfare of its people is a "violation of rights." The whole idea of socialism is contributing to society and in turn that society looks after the well-being of its people. I make the food the doctors eat and without it they are useless. Doctors repair me when I am ill and in turn ensure I can continue to pruduce the food they need to survive. Each gives what they are capable off and each takes what they need. What you are taling about is groups, proffessions or corporations taking what their economic bargaining power permits. You are supporting the right of the powerful to claim greater economic reward simply by using their position without any correlation to contribution. Doctors are only economically different from workers in capitalism because they have greater bargaining power. My fellow workers and I could starve them with ours.

Your talk of choice is bullshit. The choice of what? To choose to have healthcare if you have the money? The political opposition to socialised healthcare in the US exists only among an elite minority and even elements of the business class in the US now seek reform for albeit selfish reasons. You are spouting Reaganite empty rubbish about choice whilst the US has the most inefficient, inequal, fragmented healthcare system in the world. What you support is the rights of corporations to make a fortune from rigged markets and public subsidy. Rights are OK if the right people benefit.

All social anarchists agree on socialised healthcare. The majority of the population in the US wants socialised healthcare, but they don't count.

[cappiej]

it can only be true in a twisted universe that using the collective resources of society for the welfare of its people is a "violation of rights." The whole idea of socialism is contributing to society and in turn that society looks after the well-being of its people. I make the food the doctors eat and without it they are useless. Doctors repair me when I am ill and in turn ensure I can continue to pruduce the food they need to survive. Each gives what they are capable off and each takes what they need. What you are taling about is groups, proffessions or corporations taking what their economic bargaining power permits. You are supporting the right of the powerful to claim greater economic reward simply by using their position without any correlation to contribution. Doctors are only economically different from workers in capitalism because they have greater bargaining power. My fellow workers and I could starve them with ours.

Your talk of choice is bullshit. The choice of what? To choose to have healthcare if you have the money? The political opposition to socialised healthcare in the US exists only among an elite minority and even elements of the business class in the US now seek reform for albeit selfish reasons. You are spouting Reaganite empty rubbish about choice whilst the US has the most inefficient, inequal, fragmented healthcare system in the world. What you support is the rights of corporations to make a fortune from rigged markets and public subsidy. Rights are OK if the right people benefit.

All social anarchists agree on socialised healthcare. The majority of the population in the US wants socialised healthcare, but they don't count.

I think its a fundamental component of freedom to be allowed to keep the fruits of your labour. You don't and that's fine, without a plurality of opinions we'll never reach the right conclusion.

You can buy your healthcare from any one of a number of providers, get a tailor made plan etc

Now there is the problem of the 40 million people in America who don't have health insurance, but while I'd love to see them helped I cannot get past the belief that the right to keep the fruits of one's labour is more important.

[RebelDog]

I think its a fundamental component of freedom to be allowed to keep the fruits of your labour. You don't and that's fine, without a plurality of opinions we'll never reach the right conclusion.

You can buy your healthcare from any one of a number of providers, get a tailor made plan etc

Now there is the problem of the 40 million people in America who don't have health insurance, but while I'd love to see them helped I cannot get past the belief that the right to keep the fruits of one's labour is more important.

You support the right of someone who has a mere deed in their pocket stating they own a healthcare insurance company or a pharmaceutical company to rob the labour of their workers and deny the right to life for the economically weak. Zero contribution for massive gain. If people had control over their labour we would not be having this conversation.

[cappiej]

You support the right of someone who has a mere deed in their pocket stating they own a healthcare insurance company or a pharmaceutical company to rob the labour of their workers and deny the right to life for the economically weak. Zero contribution for massive gain. If people had control over their labour we would not be having this conversation.

No, I support their right to operate their company within the confines of the law.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Is it? But couldn't they all agree to charge extortionate prices for their services? Whose going to stop them?

The fact that there's no economy to profit from.

[cappiej]

The fact that there's no economy to profit from.

Good point, why would anyone bother becoming a Doctor anyway? Why not just get an easy job instead?