What happens to the poor who have no insurance, not because they don't want coverage but, because they cannot afford it? Wouldn't it make them susceptible to exploitation by those who do have insurance? I am assuming here that the insured could make a property claim to the poors property and without the poor having recourse to security forces or arbitration services provided through an insurance policy, wouldn't this dispute make them susceptible to exploitation? If the wealthy were to bribe title of property records to either destroy or reverse title claims to property and then bring the dispute to court, could by this fraud the insured then manipulate the insurer to use its security forces to expropriate the property of the poor who have no representation through insurance coverage?
Who knows? That is what a market process creates. There is always someone out there with an ideal of how to make a product or service cheaper to the masses. Who in 1897 thought that you could make an automobile that the average person could afford? Who thought in 1927 that I could fly from Cleveland to Tampa for under $300 when the median individual income is over $30,000.
Also, burried in the vast number of pointless studies on the urban poor is that fact that it is government that keeps them that way through a myriad of laws, regulations and enforcement bureaucracies. The "War on Drugs" is by far the biggest and worst part that keeps the poor in their condition. But also licensing regulations on medical providers is a biggie, why spend 12 years after highschool to become a doctor with $200K of debts to set up services in a slum? What about zoning boards? What about rent control? What about a crappy education bureaucracy that can not teach kids to read over a 10 year period yet costs upwards of $15K per pupil? Do you think that precious savings wasted on education could be used for entrepreneurial activities?
My advice is to do the following: 1. End the War on Drugs. 2. End public education. 3. End licensing of all occupations. The ask the same question and you will get some realistic answers.
Lyle:I am assuming here that the insured could make a property claim to the poors property and without the poor having recourse to security forces or arbitration services provided through an insurance policy, wouldn't this dispute make them susceptible to exploitation?
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
What could a poor person possibly have that a rich person would risk his reputation by just snatching it instead of paying for it?
His life? Only kidding.
Andris Birkmanis:What could a poor person possibly have that a rich person would risk his reputation by just snatching it instead of paying for it? His life? Only kidding.
What if the poor doesn't accept the offer to sell but the title company accepts the bribe to change the property title?
The market is a place where innovation, creativity and motivation are encouraged to find solutions to problems. They are not stifled by the one-size-fits all policies of government. If there is a problem then the market can provide a solution which does not require the use of aggressive force against an individual’s property.
Let’s see if we can find our way to a market solution in the following scenario:
“What happens to the poor who have no insurance, not because they do not want coverage but, because they cannot afford it? Wouldn’t it make them susceptible to exploitation by the rich, or those who do have insurance? If a wealthy man were to bribe the title records company to destroy the old title and issue a new one in his favor, then bring the dispute of property ownership to court, couldn’t, by this fraud, the man manipulate the arbitration company and/or security forces to expropriate the property of the poor? Would the poor have any representation in court if he did not have an insurance plan?”
First, we admit that if, by fraud, an individual could employ the courts and security forces aggressively against the poor, he would be doing no different than what government already does. Here the market ceases to be the market and becomes government, private if not public.
Second, if a bystander feels a moral obligation to provide security and arbitration services on behalf of the poor at his own expense, he certainly welcome to do so. To aggressively force others to pay for these services on the behalf of the poor would infringe on property rights, replacing the market with government. Charity has been the traditional way that the poor have been able to receive the services that they could not provide for themselves.
Third, any property title company acting against the property rights of its clients is risking the disenfranchisement of its clients. A small bribe would prove to be extremely costly. A court or security company so easily duped would likely run a similar risk of disenfranchising its clientele by setting precedents that infringe upon property. Property title isn’t what makes property and it is unlikely a court would rule in favor of the individual on this evidence alone especially if the poor can demonstrate homesteading. The individual would also have to bribe someone to forge a bill of sale, if he could even find someone prior to the poor who owned the property and was willing to do so. This could become more expensive to the individual than the property is worth.
Fourth, premiums for the poor may not be as expensive as opponents to the market presume. In the market, there are no government regulations on business practices that prevent price discrimination in favor of the poor.
Fifth, it is unlikely an individual of poor character will long be able to sustain low premiums or even coverage where such an individual habitually aggresses against the property of others by defrauding the courts. “Why is this client always in dispute over property?” This could become very expensive to insurance companies who employ security forces in the expropriation of property as the individual in question habitually tries to externalize the costs of infringing on the property rights of others onto their insurance companies.
Sixth, companies often use humanitarian efforts as marketing points for their products. Lot’s of companies donate to charity or open their own charitable foundations. Arbitration companies may provide their services gratis because they get paid by whoever loses and so there would be no reason to prevent the poor from filing disputes of their own. The law would be much simpler than that which a bureaucracy, like government, creates and so the legal process would be easy enough so as not to require a lawyer for such simple matters as demonstrating homesteading or a bill of sale. Business may even provide property insurance as a perk to laborers.
Seventh, in the market such a scenario would be isolated as the general welfare of all individuals will increase. True cases of hardship would become rare as the productivity of the average individual increases due to market forces. The "poor" would have to willingly deny to carry coverage at some point or be completely unmotivated to be productive and, thereby, remain poor. Of course, with the possibility of exploitation looming over one's poor head, it is most likely any previous lack of motivation to be productive would be reversed.
The market is not without its disparities but it is the only system that holds them in isolation and offers the freedom for others or oneself to correct them of their own free will and choice. In comparison to government, the market is the better choice. Although not perfect, humans are not really equal afterall, the market is the least destructive dystopia. There is no government to perpetuate and aggravate those disparities through the employment of aggressive force in one-size-fits-all policies. The market is creative enough and innovated enough for motivated individuals to correct these disparities without necessitating government.
And that is the cool thing about the market: It provides an incentive towards community, where you get to do something about the hardships of others you are worried about, and not a tool, where you force others to do something about the hardships of others by infringing on their property rights.