edit: nevermind wrong thread
You said that if people are being screwed by the insurance company, that the insurance company would fall.
You said, and I quote, “The company could pull that off with about one of their customers, but when the word gets out, would you or any other reasonable person become/remain a customer? I don’t think so. If they did such a thing, they’d be signing their own death warrant.”
Then you said, “Depends on what they’re ‘protesting’ it for, naturally.” So, they could continue screwing over their customers as long as they have customers to continue screwing.
That’s the one the reasons why government exists: To stop that kind of practice. You can still leave your insurance company, of course, but the government is there to help people that continue to patronize the business.
EDIT: And, no. If there’s a company that exists all over the country, and someone on the other side of the country gets screwed, will that really affect your purchasing decisions? Or would you even KNOW about it?
First of all, if somebody got screwed on the “other side of the country”, then yes, you’d almost certainly hear about it due to news and internet, just like you would and do today.
If those customers are stupid enough to remain customers, then I’m sure the company could screw them as well. What’s your point?
What exactly can the government do to help the situation any more? What do you actually mean by “protect” the people from lousy insurance? Use the tax money they’ve extorted out of the populace to pay the guy $5000? Or maybe they’d send their police to arrest… who?
Nothing can repay the company more for that injustice than losing business, and there is no way that the incident would never be told about. No company (especially an insurance company) would ever intentionally spread such bad publicity about itself, either.
I hope you don’t honestly think that today’s insurance companies would simply perpetually steal their customer’s money and get away with it, if it weren’t for the government to “protect” people.
I’m not sure why you posted this video, but I’m no socialist or anarchist who thinks capitalism is evil, and that we could all live in peaceful utopia if we through enough bricks at Starbucks and kill this guy.
I posted it because I found it interesting and informative, and relevant to this thread. There are also four more parts to it.
Ah, cool. 
I’m sorry, but I won’t answer that question because it’s a loaded question.
How else am I supposed to ask it?
How about, simply: what can a government do about the situation to make anything better?
I don’t know what to say if you claim that is somehow “loaded.”
Do you understand what a “law” is and why it’s there? Do you believe that all laws reduce freedom?
Let’s say you’re driving down the road and come to an intersection. The intersection has a traffic light. There is a law that states that you can’t go through the intersection if the red light is on. Is that “reducing your freedom”?
Also, your word “extort” is EXTREMELY loaded.
Laws are useless, people have the freedom to do what ever they want, for example I have the freedom to kill my neighbor, no one can stop me from killing him, but there is a law that says that if kill him I will be accountable for it.
see Laws don’t prevent people from doing things, they only tell you what will happen if you do them.
Yes, of course, that’s a silly question.
Any laws that regard anything more than encroachment upon others (murder, theft, rape, etc.) and not following through on agreements and contracts, are unnecessary restrictions on liberty. This is because no other laws are required to create a foundation for civilization.
Driving through an intersection without hitting anybody is no crime. Nobody was hurt. Driving through an intersection and hurting somebody is a crime, so you’d better make sure you don’t hit anybody. Simple as that.
A somewhat connected idea: statistics show that roundabouts, roads with no speed limits (see: Autobahn in Germany) and mountain roads without safety rails all actually have less accidents than intersections with stoplights and roads with speed limits and safety rails.
This is because of two main reasons: 1 - When drivers actually have to use their brains and pay attention to what they’re doing, they will. 2 - safety barriers, stopping lights, and speed limits create false assumptions. People will break them, and do break them every day. The first thing your parents teach you when learning how to drive is: “Don’t assume everybody else is following the rules. You have to watch out and make sure nobody is breaking the rules, even when you’re following them.”
You wanna know what the best part about this is? When you realize that you don’t need these “safety” features, if they are indeed actually detrimental, you also realize that you don’t need the part of the government that made them. Now you can keep that money you were going to have to pay as taxes for it, and go do something productive with it (or buy some candy, I don’t care, that’s none of my business ).
That’s how another piece of the illusion that the state is necessary is dismantled, and you gain security and liberty.
Oh hey guys, I’m just on my way through and I wanted to pop in and say this; capitalism is actually the system that goes against human nature, Anarchy is humanity’s natural state.
Alright, later!
I am up for dictature… !!! (I just like smashing bugs)
At my own personal level, I suppose I’m somewhat of an anarchist. I find anarchy to be highly contradictory and stupid as a legitimate way of “running” a society. At the same time, I would live most prosperously in that system.
As far as group political leanings are concerned, I really have to look at what provides the most benefit for myself and my peers in society (family, friends, etc) and what leads me most into living the kind of lifestyle that I wish to. In that sense I would advocate for some form of democratic socialism, leading by logic and reason and in the most efficient, least invasive way. I can’t find myself supporting libertarianism because it holds too much faith in human nature.
I’m an internet libertarian. I like most of what Ron Paul says.
I don’t align myself to any party or consider myself strictly liberal / conservative / etc. Republicans are idiots and in some cases, evil. And Democrats are way to passive and don’t get a lot of things done. I personally don’t vote because I don’t like either party, and don’t feel they represent me.
My views on things depend on the subject at hand, and sometimes even my mood. I guess I’m fairly liberal on some subjects, while others I can be conservative, and others even authoritarian.
I believe things like free healthcare for everyone, quality education for those who want it, and equal rights for nearly all people. I don’t believe harmful drugs should be legalised. However I also feel Law Enforcement and Punishment is key. In some ways feel rehabilitation is a better alternative than cold punishment to certain prisoners, while others should just simply be executed.
A couple of my more extreme views have been left out to avoid flaming.
I am a completely Democratic and somewhat liberal person, I like the laws that are placed in so far and believe in that equal rights to all people and that crap. though i do think that there should be a line between freedom of speech and holding picket signs saying “god hates fags”, I’m sure you people understand who I am refrencing to
Democratic Socialist.
(Not ‘Democratic’ as in the political party, if it need be said, though I often find myself voting for them, as it’s far easier to vote for the candidate who is NOT batshit crazy.)