LGP Political Discussion Thread

[doublem]

45,000 is less than .015% of the US population. I think we can get them the care they need without enslaving the rest of us to a government bureaucracy.

Than why hasn't it happened yet, and the number of dead people keep going up? I'm sure the market would be able to figure an answer out by now.

WHAT MARKET!?!? Certainly not a FREE one...

Never said it was.

[doublem]

I'm saying that when a person that can afford health care seeks it out they can get it, when someone that can;t afford it, they get screwed and don't have have any other options. I'm saying the miracle of competition won't be able to fix that. I'm looking at this from the sick persons perspective and how much money they have, not the company.

What you're saying is that you actively wish to commit an actual injustice to somehow right a perceived injustice.

And I disagree solemnly with that...

By what? So people don't die? Okay, I'm all for that.

[Guinness]

And if the people wanted it so bad why wouldn't they have elected someone that thought like them. If this was such a popular movement that everyone wanted, why didn't it become so popular like in the 17th century, 18th century, 19th century, 20th century? If the theorized actions are so beneficial why haven't people stormed the streets. There were plenty of revolutions in the past say 400 years, I don't remember any Austrian/Liberty/ Libertarian ones. Seriously?

I never said that people "wanted it so bad". I've always implied only that it is just, and moral. By and large, people buy the bilge water the statists sell them. And they (statists) have been doing a better and better job - naturally enough - the more power they accumulate.

[Guinness]

What you're saying is that you actively wish to commit an actual injustice to somehow right a perceived injustice.

And I disagree solemnly with that...

By what? So people don't die? Okay, I'm all for that.

What does this mean?

[doublem]

What you're saying is that you actively wish to commit an actual injustice to somehow right a perceived injustice.

And I disagree solemnly with that...

By what? So people don't die? Okay, I'm all for that.

What does this mean?

I'm for not having people die when they could get affordable health care.

[Guinness]

I'm for not having people die when they could get affordable health care.

And for some reason, in light of all evidence to the contrary, you believe that can only be accomplished through the least efficient and most abusive and violent mechanism available to mankind. Oookay.

[doublem]

And if the people wanted it so bad why wouldn't they have elected someone that thought like them. If this was such a popular movement that everyone wanted, why didn't it become so popular like in the 17th century, 18th century, 19th century, 20th century? If the theorized actions are so beneficial why haven't people stormed the streets. There were plenty of revolutions in the past say 400 years, I don't remember any Austrian/Liberty/ Libertarian ones. Seriously?

I never said that people "wanted it so bad". I've always implied only that it is just, and moral. By and large, people buy the bilge water the statists sell them. And they (statists) have been doing a better and better job - naturally enough - the more power they accumulate.

I would think that they would go together. I would think people would react to theft by trying to take back what was rightfully there's.

[doublem]

I'm for not having people die when they could get affordable health care.

And for some reason, in light of all evidence to the contrary, you believe that can only be accomplished through the least efficient and most abusive and violent mechanism available to mankind. Oookay.

Right. I'm clearly supporting a totalitarian state in which all citizens are enslaved to the violent arm of the state. Actaully, if the "free market" could produce better results I would be all for it, I just see no way to would happen based on evidence . I value being alive pretty much higher than anything else, so if a live could be saved, or a sick person cured I would pretty much do anything for that, since the dead have no value.

[Guinness]

And if the people wanted it so bad why wouldn't they have elected someone that thought like them. If this was such a popular movement that everyone wanted, why didn't it become so popular like in the 17th century, 18th century, 19th century, 20th century? If the theorized actions are so beneficial why haven't people stormed the streets. There were plenty of revolutions in the past say 400 years, I don't remember any Austrian/Liberty/ Libertarian ones. Seriously?

I never said that people "wanted it so bad". I've always implied only that it is just, and moral. By and large, people buy the bilge water the statists sell them. And they (statists) have been doing a better and better job - naturally enough - the more power they accumulate.

I would think that they would go together. I would think people would react to theft by trying to take back what was rightfully there's.

And how do you think people would feel about "income taxes" if they had to cut a check every week rather than never seeing the money at all? This has been going on - coincidentally enough - since 1913. At this point, it almost seems like it's "always been this way"...

[Guinness]

I'm for not having people die when they could get affordable health care.

And for some reason, in light of all evidence to the contrary, you believe that can only be accomplished through the least efficient and most abusive and violent mechanism available to mankind. Oookay.

Right. I'm clearly supporting a totalitarian state in which all citizens are enslaved to the violent arm of the state. Actaully, if the "free market" could produce better results I would be all for it, I just see no way to would happen based on evidence . I value being alive pretty much higher than anything else, so if a live could be saved, or a sick person cured I would pretty much do anything for that, since the dead have no value.

Based on WHAT EVIDENCE?

[doublem]

One, it's never been tried. Not a fully free market anyways. I would say that would be good enough. If something hasn't been point into place in 2009, I would think there must be a reason. Second, large scale privatization efforts have had mixed results at best. Finally, I think any system that thinks that it has ONE answer to a problem is largely going to fail. I would it is reasonable to think that the best role is what role government should play in the economy and what role the market should play, I think anything that goes either way(Communism vs complete free market with no intervention) would/has have awful results. I think the market can deliver results in phones or computers for example , don't you think that maybe health care, schools, roads, prisons should be public matters, not just what is best for the individual?

[Guinness]

One, it's never been tried.

Right. So there's no evidence that it doesn't work.

If something hasn't been point into place in 2009, I would think there must be a reason.

Yes, the existence of government and fear of "working without a 'net'". That's not proof that it cannot work. That's an entity empowered with sanctioned force expanding it's role in society, and being afraid of the dark (i.e., irrational).

I think any system that thinks that it has ONE answer to a problem is largely going to fail.

And again you don't seem to understand even on a basic level the ideas of free markets, liberty, etc. Government is the ONE solution. Free markets by definition not only provide a variety of solutions, but ever-evolving ones.

don't you think that maybe health care, schools, roads, prisons should be public matters, not just what is best for the individual?

I think that free markets are far superior to the politically motivated, inflexible, inefficient and forceful machinations of government.

[doublem]

And again you don't seem to understand even on a basic level the ideas of free markets, liberty, etc. Government is the ONE solution. Free markets by definition not only provide a variety of solutions, but ever-evolving ones.

What is not to get? I think it would suck. I've posted a ton of material on the subject. I've posted material about the success of government programs, government intervention, I've posted about how privatization efforts have failed in his country and in others. I've posted evidence, yet that is still not enough to show that government might or could do some good and get results. I've even made the point that the market is important to success of the country on some issues. You will just keep going back to the same moral issues and we could debate morals all day. We can't really debate morals, theft, and unknowns in a pragmatic way. Do you know the difference between positive and negative liberty? I think your type of liberty is very narrowing.You seem to only support liberty-when power is restrained, I want power to actually do something. That is the main difference.

[Guinness]

What is not to get? I think it would suck. I've posted a ton of material on the subject. I've posted material about the success of government programs, government intervention, I've posted about how privatization efforts have failed in his country and in others. I've posted evidence, yet that is still not enough to show that government might or could do some good and get results. I've even made the point that the market is important to success of the country on some issues. You will just keep going back to the same moral issues and we could debate morals all day. We can't really debate morals, theft, and unknowns in a pragmatic way. Do you know the difference between positive and negative liberty? I think your type of liberty is very narrowing.You seem to only support liberty-when power is restrained, I want power to actually do something. That is the main difference.

That's great. You "think" it would suck.

All the "successes" of government programs come at a cost - that's the point. And we most certainly can - and should be - debating the morality of those programs. I know the difference between real liberty and the untenable "positive" liberty, which doesn't exist without government. And that's really the point - our freedoms are inherent and do not come to us because of the existence of government. The idea that government can provide any freedom is literally dangerous.

It's funny how much criticizing of emotions and feelings you typically do, yet your position is entirely based on it - you think and feel that "my type of liberty" (liberty - full stop) is narrowing... you can't debate morals in a pragmatic way because you feel they're relative (I know you didn't "say" that - it's apparent). They're not relative. Theft is theft. Murder is murder. 2+2 is 4.

The pursuit of wealth and creature comforts should not be important to people - yet you justify implementing force against innocent people to provide it. Doing so is to let the fox guard the hen house.

[bh]

That's illogical. Why would one seek out care from a health care company whose patrons seem to always be sick? If a free market in HEALTH CARE existed, the single greatest selling point would be the efficiency of health care provided by said company.

Ok, this is all good and nice sounding, but how do you suppose that people gain this information? Let's say you are healthy your whole life and then one day you have a heart attack. Are you going to go on the web and research which hospital will treat you the best for the cheapest before you seek medical attention? No, you're going to call an ambulance and pay whatever it costs and be happy. Even if there was an independent rating agency that would rate the hospitals, how can you be sure that they aren't in the hospitals back pocket? Sure that's fraud, but how do you stop it when money is involved? Companies collude all the time. You know I'm a free society type of guy, but I;m seeing more and more holes in a total free market every day. The biggest obstacle to a total free market is "information". It's just not possible to have complete or perfect information. People hide facts, distort the truth, and block access to vital info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_information" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I still believe that the main problem (the cost) is being ignored and shifted to the people that can't afford those costs (everyone). If health care was cheap, no one would need to worry about having insurance. This bill is not going to cheapen the practice of medicine and probably will increase it. Why not get rid of tax breaks for company plans or let individuals get those same breaks? Then people could keep their plan from job to job, just like car or house insurance. Why do businesses get an advantage? why not allow for catastrophic plans? Do we really need insurance to pay for a simple office visit or tooth cleaning?

[bh]

And that's really the point - our freedoms are inherent and do not come to us because of the existence of government.

How are we inherently free? Sometimes I feel I don't really understand what this means. I know that only I am in control of my own mind and that I can move in any way that I wish as long as I am not restrained. What other freedoms are there? None of us can be independent all our lives even if we wished to do so. We are all born as dependents relying on some caregiver to nurture us into adulthood. What types/kinds of freedoms does inherently free refer to?

[dagny]

maybe you lose a few bucks and someone else gets to live. call the **** wahmbulance and cry me a river. i know which side you'd be on if you were a young vibrant, and without healthcare, terminal hospital patient.

[tjand72]

And that's really the point - our freedoms are inherent and do not come to us because of the existence of government.

How are we inherently free? Sometimes I feel I don't really understand what this means. I know that only I am in control of my own mind and that I can move in any way that I wish as long as I am not restrained. What other freedoms are there? None of us can be independent all our lives even if we wished to do so. We are all born as dependents relying on some caregiver to nurture us into adulthood. What types/kinds of freedoms does inherently free refer to?

Everyone is born free. You might be dependent upon your caregivers initially, but you're free to do as you please after that fact. I would say that you can't truly be free until the age of about 4 or 5 or so. After that, if you felt it was in your best interest, you could live in the woods and survive with few problems. Of course no one wants to do that, but I think that it is entirely possible.

This doesn't take into account the idea of private ownership of property, which screws up the entire idea of freedom. It just so happens that, at this time, almost all property in the world is controlled by someone. A person does have the ability to challenge this ownership, though, no matter how insignificant their contribution may be.

[Guinness]

Ok, this is all good and nice sounding, but how do you suppose that people gain this information? Let's say you are healthy your whole life and then one day you have a heart attack. Are you going to go on the web and research which hospital will treat you the best for the cheapest before you seek medical attention? No, you're going to call an ambulance and pay whatever it costs and be happy. Even if there was an independent rating agency that would rate the hospitals, how can you be sure that they aren't in the hospitals back pocket? Sure that's fraud, but how do you stop it when money is involved? Companies collude all the time. You know I'm a free society type of guy, but I;m seeing more and more holes in a total free market every day. The biggest obstacle to a total free market is "information". It's just not possible to have complete or perfect information. People hide facts, distort the truth, and block access to vital info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_information" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I still believe that the main problem (the cost) is being ignored and shifted to the people that can't afford those costs (everyone). If health care was cheap, no one would need to worry about having insurance. This bill is not going to cheapen the practice of medicine and probably will increase it. Why not get rid of tax breaks for company plans or let individuals get those same breaks? Then people could keep their plan from job to job, just like car or house insurance. Why do businesses get an advantage? why not allow for catastrophic plans? Do we really need insurance to pay for a simple office visit or tooth cleaning?

There are no guarantees in life at all, and no government program is going to change that. People will continue to die for all manner of unjust reasons regardless of whether we keep the current semi-free/semi-controlled system, or if we switch to a completely centrally-planned system, or if we move to a completely free system. I don't think I've ever posed freedom as being some kind of panacea wherein everyone gets everything they want and no one dies until they're ready to. Being free means that we're not *shackled* to society (we exist intentionally within it, rather), but it ALSO means that we have to accept the consequences of being free. We're not entitled to "privatize the gains, but socialize the costs". (I think I'm addressing both this and your next post, by the way, bh. ).

The costs of health care have been distorted both by the inflationary policy of the Fed and by regulations that mandate coverage for everything from a hang nail to open heart surgery, as you say. I'm not saying that we should keep the current system. A government program is only going to shift costs around, create scarcities, and decrease the quality of service across the board. You don't have to take my word for it - they fairly well openly admit that. Now, on top of the fact that this is objectively immoral, who would want that?

Edit to add: The problem of complete information is not solved by government action. For exhibit 'A', I refer you to the Federal Reserve and seemingly every politicos desire to keep its activities hidden. Indeed, government tends to worsen the problem of the communication of information.

[Guinness]

maybe you lose a few bucks and someone else gets to live. call the **** wahmbulance and cry me a river. i know which side you'd be on if you were a young vibrant, and without healthcare, terminal hospital patient.

Gub'mint gonna make it ALL better.

[Guinness]

How are we inherently free? Sometimes I feel I don't really understand what this means. I know that only I am in control of my own mind and that I can move in any way that I wish as long as I am not restrained. What other freedoms are there? None of us can be independent all our lives even if we wished to do so. We are all born as dependents relying on some caregiver to nurture us into adulthood. What types/kinds of freedoms does inherently free refer to?

There's no question that we are born dependent upon other people, and that at various times throughout our lives we are again dependent. But we have no right to use force or to outsource force to a third party (government) to *demand* that other people attend to us. We may appeal to others. Others may offer their assistance to us. But each individual may not declare a claim on other individuals. How are we inherently free? If you are not, then you are a slave. Do you get permission from another person to draw a breath? Does anyone seek your permission? Your thoughts are your own, and you are free to speak them. They may surely be the product of some combination of your own mind and of your interaction with society, but "society" has no right to make a claim upon them - there is no physical way it can. You do not seek permission for your thoughts - most of us can't even control them ourselves!

"Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth, and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences."

[youtube][/youtube]

[Guinness]

"Theorie des Geldes" did not become the playbook for policy makers. The 1920s were marked by the brave new era of the Federal Reserve system promoting inflationary credit expansion and with it permanent prosperity. The nerve of this Doubting-Thomas, perma-bear, crazy Kraut! Sadly, poor Ludwig was very nearly alone in warning of the collapse to come from this credit expansion. In mid-1929, he stubbornly turned down a lucrative job offer from the Viennese bank Kreditanstalt, much to the annoyance of his fiancée, proclaiming "A great crash is coming, and I don't want my name in any way connected with it."

Who wanted to know what the Austrians ever got RIGHT?

[Guinness]

In responding to such arguments, it is hard to know where to start. Let’s first consider Mr. O’Neil’s concept of rights, which seems to be informed more by the Beastie Boys than a natural rights tradition developed over the centuries largely by the Church that sponsors St. Vincent’s. This tradition identifies two categories of rights, one that is consistent with a free and virtuous society, and another that sows division that, taken to the extreme, threatens civilization itself. The first of these identifies rights that are inherent in the human person and therefore precede governments. Governments cannot grant them. They can only take them away. Sometimes referred to as negative rights, they are only partially enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and especially in its first 10 amendments. These include your rights to your life, liberty, and property.

Then there are other rights that no one is born with. In order to exercise these rights, individuals become claimants to the wealth and labor of others. Sometimes referred to as positive rights, these rights were not spelled out in the Constitution, which is silent on issues pertaining to education, housing, or even digital television. Nonetheless, the legitimization of these types of rights in the 20th century has contributed to the centralized and overweening welfare and warfare state that the federal government has become today.

On "negative" and "positive" rights: http://www.lewrockwell.com/westley/westley28.1.html

[Kaizer]

maybe you lose a few bucks and someone else gets to live. call the f***ing wahmbulance and cry me a river. i know which side you'd be on if you were a young vibrant, and without healthcare, terminal hospital patient.

Gub'mint gonna make it ALL better.

?

[doublem]

All the "successes" of government programs come at a cost - that's the point. And we most certainly can - and should be - debating the morality of those programs.

Okay, I have been debating the morality of the positions you take. The same theory applies. What actions would be cased for example if no one payed for schools or hospitals? It works both ways. It would be the same cost.

I know the difference between real liberty and the untenable "positive" liberty, which doesn't exist without government. And that's really the point - our freedoms are inherent and do not come to us because of the existence of government. The idea that government can provide any freedom is literally dangerous.

Put in the simplest terms, one might say that a democratic society is a free society because it is a self-determined society, and that a member of that society is free to the extent that he or she participates in its democratic process. But there are also individualist applications of the concept of positive freedom. For example, it is sometimes said that a government should aim actively to create the conditions necessary for individuals to be self-sufficient or to achieve self-realization.

refers to having the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential,

positive liberty is interested in action by citizens in the government.

Doesn't have to involve the G. This is a way of living. I have ga ve you different example of freedom, but you dismiss them because of some notion that the state is involved.

It's funny how much criticizing of emotions and feelings you typically do, yet your position is entirely based on it - you think and feel that "my type of liberty" (liberty - full stop) is narrowing... you can't debate morals in a pragmatic way because you feel they're relative (I know you didn't "say" that - it's apparent). They're not relative. Theft is theft. Murder is murder. 2+2 is 4.

Since I gave all that evidence stuff. Economic freedom is narrowing for what it means to be a person. "Freedom is the fundamental character of the will, as weight is of matter... That which is free is the will. Will without freedom is an empty word."No, I'm not a moral relativist. I don't know how you could think that. Theft is theft, taxation is not theft. I don't know when I ever said murder is acceptable.People are complex. I think that is what I always try and post. I can't debate morals with you becasue every-time I give you empirical evidence of the plus sides of taxation you start talking about the theory/morality of it, and the downside of the plus. Surely, the same would be true in a free market system, but I'm sure you would say that is morally just.