One thing I found a bit alarming is that the FAQ page says advertising funds are held by the site. It's good they realize the threat though and say a multisig solution will be rolled out. I hope this multisig solution will be rolled out quickly, otherwise I don't see big advertisers trusting the site with a lot of money.
Well, Russia sold Alaska to the US. So who knows. But I agree states are actually very aggressive and territorial. They're not going to give up land easily, even if this land is a desert.
I think it's a great paragraph, actually. This described future is not that different from what we have now. You would still have licences and doctors checked and examined. However, it would be done not by one monopoly (state), but rather by various organizations. Don't you think this would actually increase professionalism? So imagine doctors would actually have to comply with various rigorous standards different accreditation agencies demand, since they want to be able to treat more patients (that is, have more customers). Isn't such a system better? And wouldn't it be more flexible since those accreditation agencies would be able to quickly adjust their standards according to what market demands? On the other hand, there are plenty of medical professionals that don't really need some standardized kind of training that state currently requires them to have. Thus, it's a waste of time and resources for them (and higher prices for consumers). In a free system, they could simply skip to what they believe best suits their specialty.
CoinMD may be at its infancy now, but I can totally see it becoming one of such agencies in the future. It's not gonna be like Amazon reviews of course, more like professional accreditation, audit and licencing - but on the free market.
How come you consider this not to be people's right? Simply because someone lost a war over this issue doesn't mean this issue is resolved. I and many people don't want states to tell us how to live our lives. On what grounds do you find it moral to impose your rules and tax burden on such a group of people if these people simply want to be left alone don't bother you at all?
So, do you think that if enough people want to peacefully live without government interference at all (e.g. without a government) they don't deserve to do so and they don't deserve, for example, to be sold a piece of land to completely secede from state?
That's not like that at all. As far as I understand all answers doctors give are open to the public on the site, so everyone else on the internet, including other doctors, can read them and say if it's a good answer or a bad answer. I imagine if this sites starts issuing bad advice, no one would want to go there. However, as of right now, it appears you are wrong and answers are getting paid for by willing customers.
Now, this idea may be far from perfect. But comparing it to the existing system while having a blind faith in it is wrong. In our existing system patients don't have many options of checking what their doctor tells them; they are referred to doctors by other doctors and very often have no way of checking on the reputation (% of successful operations this doctor conducted, for instance). The current system is very inflexible and not consumer oriented at all. Consumer interests are sacrificed in the name of their supposed safety, without first giving said consumers options to decide what they actually want and consider safe.