Dude. You are arguing against ancaps strawmen. Your whole comment just confirmed what I had guessed.
If you truly did do your due diligence and read all about this stuff and consider yourself an anarcho-capitalist, I assure you, it all went over your head. You are not arguing against what we (or at least I) are/am arguing. You cannot sit here and blather on about: what would ancaps do about BP, and when they collude to charge $7 an hour wharblegarble! And pretend like you have even the most basic understanding of Austrian or even neo-classical micro econ. I'm not saying you're wrong, or that you are wrong to worry about that; I am saying that you can't possibly be coming back at me with that kind of retort, without at least qualifying it with something like: " now I know you guys think that cartels can't easily form in the absence of govt because of ...."
Don't you see what I'm saying? You dont, and never did understand what our arguments are. It makes your motives here suspect and your counter arguments and concerns unconvincing.
You're not getting even remotely close to helping me challenge my beliefs because you do not understand, or will not accurately restate the premises. You are not debating on the level. You are like a college undergrad who took a bunch of physics courses trying to argue with a string theory astrophysicist on the basis of general relativity.
I'm not saying string theory is correct...or that the college kid is dumb or wrong....but he's in a world he does not understand and is not arguing under the right paradigm to adequately address the assertions of the string theorist.
I don't have to accurately recite anything, because of the fucking internet.
Isn't that wonderful? But I remain unconvinced, then, of your arguments that we need a state or state-run healthcare.
i'm no expert on any one subject,
Maybe you should become one, before you argue against the experts on that subject.
I'd imagine the reason you see so many former ancaps,
Whoosh. That went over your head. Let me help. We don't see a lot of former ancaps. We are a fringe group, no doubt, but growing, if anything. What we do see is a lot of people like you come out of the woodwork who claim to have been an ancap...but mysteriously can't ever seem to be able to accurately restate the premise and then show why that's wrong.
I don't propose any intellectually challenging philisophies other than healthcare is too fucking expensive in the US and it should be subsidized ....
Right, WHY IS IT TOO EXPENSIVE?! You statists all, always completely ignore how much the u.s. government already funds healthcare and what an insane quagmire of fascist rules they've created. I AGREE THAT A CERTAIN IDEALISTIC VERSION OF THE U.S. GOVT IMPLEMENTING SINGLE PAYER COULD PRODUCE LOWER COSTS AND BETTER OUTCOMES IN HEALTHCARE THAN WE SEE NOW. But still far inferior to what freer (i.e. more efficient )markets are likely to produce. You have not shown (and are in conflict with time-tested economic wisdom) that monopolization is the best way to produce healthcare.
Again, the fact that you are arguing this way, in complete neglect of the free-market insights that you would be aware easily counter your assertions; shows me that you're full of shit about being an ancap once upon a time.
Again, you may have valid disagreements with that free market perspective....but you're not making those disagreements even vaguely clear, nor acknowledging even the basics of the free market perspective.
I think we're all aware of the follies of government/law. Why don't you show me why i'd want every service and good privatized, where everything has a price ...
Everything does have a price already. There's no escaping that. Not all prices are in monetary terms. The downfall of most other schools of economics is in not accounting for this, and the fact that massive swaths of economic activity are not even measurable. So, the question is: what price do you want to pay, and do you want to pay it all now, or finance it in some way, and maybe hide the costs or distribute them....and then complain when all sorts of other (to you seemingly unrelated) cosrs come back to you.
Which is essentially what you're doing when you assume that the free market, and only the free market alone, will correct society as a whole.
See, you don't even understand that there is nothing but the free market, and that society is the market, and that this market produces government as much as it produces iPad or insurance. What I'd like is simply for people (who are part of this market) to make more wise decisions in terms of the institutions we build to deal with certain societal problems, and to have a more prudent and low-time-preference outlook.
"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history.
Nice opinion. Back it up with logic and evidence which takes into account or acknowledges why we are reluctant to think as you do.
goes to the highest bidder.
You forgot the part about not wanting to live in a world where you must worship the effigy of Ayn Rand and ceremoniously kick puppies.
Show me how the world with states; indeed the metaphysical nature of reality; is such that the winnings don't already go to the highest bidder. How is that not everywhere and always the reality of things. Hint: with a state, there's only one provider, and they are going to cater to the highest bidder, who is a lot richer than you and me. Without a state, there is high likely hood, and at least always possibility for multiple providers, thus even if you're not the highest bidder with one, you will be with the next....and another hint: there's a lot more of these metaphorical auctions going on, and more often, without a state.
Best of luck to you.