Yep. After studying healthcare systems all over the world, Taiwan modeled their system after... US Medicare. With incredible success, I might add.

It's past time for the ideologues on here and in government to realize that health insurance does not benefit from the free market.

6/15/2011 10:54:12 AM

eyedrb posted a pretty good list of just some of the structural inefficiencies within our health care model in this country:

Quote :

"1.Hospitals have to see anyone regardless of their chief complaint/ability to pay 2.Govt(FDR) sets price/wage controls during WW2, however they allow companies to offer health benefits and not be taxed. So in order to lure new employees, since they couldnt offer more money, companies offered health insurance. Thus our employer based system is born....out of GOVT policy/intervention. 3.In response to the "growing number of poor using the ER for routine care" we passed medicaid. Which INCREASED the numbers going to the ER for care.. imagine that. Medicaid is now the largest expense most states have, moving past education and still growing. Some states, like tenn, have tried to limit the amount of visits or payout per year to help control the rising costs. However, the fed and obamacare wont allow such steps. naturally 4.Govt basically grants a monopoly to some hospitals. In order to open a new surgery center or hospital a "certificate of need" has to be obtained. And who is in control of the CON? Well that would usually be the existing hospital. haha, no shit. 5.Federal govt doesnt allow one to shop policies between states. State govt can then mandate that their insurers cover whatever procedure they say. Thus driving up cost and limiting competition or the ablity for consumers to shop. So you would be FORCED to pay for hair transplants and massage therapy(true story) if you live in such state. 6.Would you like me to get into licensing and Medical school grants? eh, that is probably good for now."

I want you to force yourself to read that, because it's clear that you and Kris casually dismissed it without addressing a single one of the points.

Quote :

"It's past time for the ideologues on here and in government to realize that health insurance does not benefit from the free market."

Trust me, the "ideologues" in government agree with you 100%. They think literally every problem that faces the human race can be legislated away, and they're actively trying to do that, while never considering for a moment that their actions might make matters worse than if they had done nothing at all.

Quote :

"Taiwan modeled their system after... US Medicare."

"Hey guys, let's construct a health care system where there's three people paying in for every one person getting benefits. Seems pretty sustainable, right?"

[Edited on June 15, 2011 at 11:11 AM. Reason : ]

6/15/2011 11:06:38 AM

Quote :

"Trust me, the "ideologues" in government agree with you 100%. They think literally every problem that faces the human race can be legislated away, and they're actively trying to do that, while never considering for a moment if their actions might make matters worse than if they had done nothing at all."

Ideologues come from all across the political spectrum. You're a Librarian, free-market ideologue. I, and others on this board, know what your stance will be on a given issue before you bother to post. This doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, but you should recognize the hypocrisy that is flowing from your fingertips right now.

The true test of blind adherence to a particular ideology is comes when confronted with overwhelming evidence that your stance on an issue is wrong. This creates cognitive dissonance. You can take 1 of 2 routes when this happens; you can take a step back and reexamine the issue and possibly your core beliefs, or you can double down, blaming problems on an easy scapegoat (gubment) and claiming that we need to go farther in the wrong direction. You've obviously chosen the latter route.

[Edited on June 15, 2011 at 11:46 AM. Reason : 2]

6/15/2011 11:42:57 AM

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, you just dodged the opportunity to post anything of substance. I can understand why. For you to say that I'm taking the easy way out by "blaming the government," while you refuse the address the points (made by myself and others) that government intervention has actually caused problems, is incredibly transparent.

[Edited on June 15, 2011 at 11:54 AM. Reason : ]

6/15/2011 11:52:41 AM

Quote :

"health insurance does not benefit from the free market. "

It is amazing to me that people actually believe that our health insurance market is anywhere CLOSE to a free market. I mentioned some of the CLEAR examples that it is not.

btw fellas, medicare/medicaid are our biggest debt drivers. Opening them up to the majority of the population is probably the correct course. It is like suggesting that the Titanic go hit the iceberg again another 3-4 times all will be well.

6/15/2011 1:14:04 PM

Quote :

"I want you to force yourself to read that, because it's clear that you and Kris casually dismissed it without addressing a single one of the points."

None of them were relevant. I have asked the question "why have all of these governments done research and not arrived at the simplest and cheapest to implement system that you claim would work the best?". All he does is blame the government for the system we have now, which I don't disagree with. The government made many mistakes which lead to the high costs of health care we have now. This doesn't imply that removing them from it would make it better.

Quote :

"while never considering for a moment that their actions might make matters worse than if they had done nothing at all."

You know, for quite a few centuries we had health care similar to what you are descibing, I don't think it really impressed anyone.

Quote :

"while you refuse the address the points (made by myself and others) that government intervention has actually caused problems"

Many of them are not relevant, government intervention did help lead to the system and the high costs we are in, that doesn't neccesarily mean that removing them will fix all of them like you want to immediately assume. Why don't you answer the question I've asked probably 10 times? If the solution you are suggesting is the best, the cheapest, and the easiest, why haven't governments adopted them after doing a great deal of research on the subject? Taiwan has been no large proponent of government intervention in the market, yet they opted for that path as well.

6/15/2011 2:08:44 PM

^but we have answered your question several times. It is about power and influence. How many times do you see govt freely giving up its power?

You just admitted that the govt has caused the problem we are in, yet the solution is MORE govt? How many times have you heard ANYONE in govt admit this and do anything to change it? Of course not, it is a power grab. They dont have to live with it, and neither do their friends... they get waivers and govt contracts.

I think where you are misguided is that you assume that the govt and politicians are ALWAYS going to act in the best interest of the people. I just consider that very naive.

6/15/2011 2:19:18 PM

Quote :

"How many times do you see govt freely giving up its power?"

As I've pointed out Taiwan has done a great deal of just that by privitizing state-run entities, as have many of the other countries we are talking about. I want to know why they would be willing to privatize those but not this even though it is drastically easier and cheaper to implement, and you would say, better. This is the same question I have had to ask so many times without an answer.

Quote :

"You just admitted that the govt has caused the problem we are in, yet the solution is MORE govt?"

Well the solution isn't less government unless you can prove it is, which you haven't tried to do.
I am trying to prove why I, and pretty much any government that has put money into figuring it out, think that it is some sort of social insurance or socialization.

Quote :

"I think where you are misguided is that you assume that the govt and politicians are ALWAYS going to act in the best interest of the people."

I do not, but unlike you I do not assume that NO ONE in ANY government will EVER act in the best interest of their people. I just consider that very insane.

[Edited on June 15, 2011 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ]

6/15/2011 3:30:38 PM

Quote :

"The government made many mistakes which lead to the high costs of health care we have now. This doesn't imply that removing them from it would make it better."

It absolutely implies that. If the root cause of rising prices is specific pieces of legislation, then the solution is to repeal those pieces of legislation. The solution is not to treat the symptoms of the disease, it's to cure the disease itself.

Quote :

"I want to know why they would be willing to privatize those but not this even though it is drastically easier and cheaper to implement, and you would say, better. This is the same question I have had to ask so many times without an answer."

I thought the whole point was that Taiwan had a single payer system, not that they privatized their health care system. Taiwan's system isn't perfect or anywhere close. Everyone might have access to health care, but the system still isn't able to fund itself (same problem as Medicare), so borrowed money has to be injected. The solution offered up for this is to spend more on health care, but what Taiwan will find is that as they continue to subsidize health care, the costs will keep going up, and they'll need to spend more. They're on track to have the same problems that we have.

Quote :

"Well the solution isn't less government unless you can prove it is, which you haven't tried to do."

That's basically all we've tried to do. We've talked about the ways that legislation has resulted in higher costs and inefficiencies. The only logical conclusion to take away from that is to get rid of the legislation that's causing prices to go up. Your position is, "sure, legislation causes these problems, but the solution isn't getting rid of legislation, the solution is creating more legislation that addresses the problems caused by prior legislation."

The government very rarely will come clean with their people and say, "you know, our policy of the last few decades has been seriously misguided. We thought we were doing a good thing, but it looks like we've caused more turmoil than we prevented. We're going to reverse policy." That just doesn't happen. Legislation builds on more legislation, and no one ever admits they're wrong. This happens in basically every government, but it's especially prevalent here, because there's literally no mechanism in place to control government spending. The Fed will create as much money as they have to, and Congress will squabble about 50 billion in cuts over 10 years.

[Edited on June 15, 2011 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ]

6/15/2011 3:55:42 PM

^nice post. Well said.

Quote :

"It absolutely implies that"

EXACTLY. I think he just wants to argue. Sure the hole in my roof is ruining my carpet and walls, but you still havent convinced me that fixing the roof is the best way to go. Lets try a different color carpet first. hahah

6/15/2011 4:02:36 PM

Quote :

"It absolutely implies that. If the root cause of rising prices is specific pieces of legislation, then the solution is to repeal those pieces of legislation."

Wrong. You would have to prove that those solutions are not better than nothing.

Quote :

"Taiwan's system isn't perfect or anywhere close."

It's pretty than the US and pretty much everywhere else.

Quote :

"what Taiwan will find is that as they continue to subsidize health care, the costs will keep going up, and they'll need to spend more"

Proof?

Quote :

"The only logical conclusion to take away from that is to get rid of the legislation that's causing prices to go up."

No, that's illogical. In fact, it's a fallacy. It's a false dilemma, you're excluding the middle.

6/15/2011 4:25:39 PM

Quote :

""Hey guys, let's construct a health care system where there's three people paying in for every one person getting benefits. Seems pretty sustainable, right?""

So you're saying we should just extend Medicare to everyone? I think that's super neat

Anyways, how about that Ron Paul being against the Civil Rights act of 64? He sure does seem like a swell legislator until you hear about that.

6/16/2011 11:02:06 AM

This thread has convinced me that the state really is a religion. It's exactly like arguing with a fundamentalist. "But, you can't prove there's not a God, therefore there is a God!"

Quote :

"Wrong. You would have to prove that those solutions are not better than nothing."

No, I don't. All I have to do is show how legislation is harmful. Repealing it is not doing "nothing," it's doing something.

Quote :

"Proof?"

How would I have gone about proving to you 50 years ago that Medicare would end up just like it has? The Taiwan system is about 10 years in, and it's already having funding issues.

Quote :

"No, that's illogical. In fact, it's a fallacy. It's a false dilemma, you're excluding the middle."

There's no middle in this example. There's keep the legislation, or get rid of it. You remove the parts of the law that are causing adverse effects, or you keep those parts. You really are impossible to reason with.

Quote :

"So you're saying we should just extend Medicare to everyone? I think that's super neat"

That would ensure that it collapsed much sooner. You'd have the same number of people paying in but many, many more collecting benefits. Sounds like a perfect solution.

Quote :

"Anyways, how about that Ron Paul being against the Civil Rights act of 64? He sure does seem like a swell legislator until you hear about that."

I feel like I just responded to this yesterday:

Quote :

"Would you shop at a store that didn't allow black people? Would anyone here? There's a market solution for blatant discrimination: everyone would hate the asshole that ran the company and refuse to do business there. Legislation was necessary to eliminate unjust laws, but that's as far as it should have gone."

People have the right to be bigots. We have the right to not support their discriminatory business practices. The suggestion seems to be that, without the civil rights act, you'd have shops popping up that didn't allow black people. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Remember the Jim Crow Laws? Those were laws...passed by the government. The government had been encouraging and codifying discrimination/racism for years, and legislation was necessary to toss out some of those bad laws. If you know anything about Ron Paul, you know he refuses to vote for anything that is unconstitutional or violates personal liberty. A law telling people who they can and can't allow on their property is both.

6/16/2011 12:07:07 PM

Quote :

"It's exactly like arguing with a fundamentalist. "But, you can't prove there's not a God, therefore there is a God!""

That's close to the argument you are making. Your's is more "the government is bad, so no government is good" which is illogical.

Quote :

"All I have to do is show how legislation is harmful. "

No you don't. You have to actually prove YOUR argument, that being that no regulation is good. You are excluding the middle and creating a false dillema.

Quote :

"How would I have gone about proving to you 50 years ago that Medicare would end up just like it has?"

I don't know how you would prove the claim you made, that's why I asked you to do it.

Quote :

"The Taiwan system is about 10 years in, and it's already having funding issues."

Small funding issues are not really enough to explain the massive difference between the cost and benefits between the two.

Quote :

"There's keep the legislation, or get rid of it."

No. There's legislation A, legislation B, C, D, etc. There are millions of options, you can't reduce it to two options.

Quote :

"Would you shop at a store that didn't allow black people? Would anyone here?"

I would if it were nearby, cheap, nicer, etc. I'm not going to sacrifice money and convience for some larger moral argument.

6/16/2011 2:11:32 PM

Quote :

"That's close to the argument you are making. Your's is more "the government is bad, so no government is good" which is illogical."

No. The default position is that government should do nothing. In a state of nature, there is no government. To say that government should exist and do something is a claim in itself, and all claims have to be justified. Your response to that is that I have to prove that it would be better to not have government intervention in certain areas, yet that is literally impossible to do since we would first have to abolish the government. In your world, repeal of legislation can never be justified, because someone would have to prove that we would be better off without the law. The burden of proof is always on the person advocating the continuance of a law.

Quote :

"No. There's legislation A, legislation B, C, D, etc. There are millions of options, you can't reduce it to two options."

This is where you prove my point: that your solution is not to deal with the root causes of our societal problems, but to deal with the symptoms.

Quote :

"I would if it were nearby, cheap, nicer, etc. I'm not going to sacrifice money and convience for some larger moral argument."

You're a bad person.

6/16/2011 2:34:07 PM

Quote :

"No. The default position is that government should do nothing. In a state of nature, there is no government."

Define "a state of nature." We don't have cars in a state of nature either, is the default position that there should be no cars?

Quote :

"To say that government should exist and do something is a claim in itself, and all claims have to be justified."

I'm convinced of this claim given the history of our species pre-government. I'm not saying that the American form of government is ideal, but history has demonstrated that it's probably better than anarchy for everyone involved.

Quote :

"Your response to that is that I have to prove that it would be better to not have government intervention in certain areas, yet that is literally impossible to do since we would first have to abolish the government. In your world, repeal of legislation can never be justified, because someone would have to prove that we would be better off without the law. The burden of proof is always on the person advocating the continuance of a law."

Isn't advocating the continuance of a law essentially demonstrating that we would in fact not be better off without that law? This is the process that (presumably, not always in a non-perfect government such as ours) that our lawmakers go through when creating the laws so ostensibly has already been demonstrated. Not every law is unjust de facto until proven otherwise.

Quote :

"This is where you prove my point: that your solution is not to deal with the root causes of our societal problems, but to deal with the symptoms. "

The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" comes again to mind. You still haven't demonstrated either that government involvement is the root cause of our societal problems, and that's all that Kris is asking you to demonstrate before baldly asserting it. I think that it is demonstrable that no government is generally worse for the general citizenry than some government (see Somalia and northern Mexico for examples).

Wholesale abandonment of all laws as a response to some laws being unjust or unneeded suffers from a fallacy of composition.

Quote :

""I would if it were nearby, cheap, nicer, etc. I'm not going to sacrifice money and convience for some larger moral argument.""

What he's illustrating is essentially why we need things like civil protections. Sectarian bullshit will flourish in a society where the only limiting factor is whether there are other people that agree near me.

[Edited on June 16, 2011 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

6/16/2011 2:51:13 PM

Quote :

"In a state of nature, there is no government."

In a state of nature, there are no ant hills.
In a state of nature, there are no beaver dams.
In a state of nature, there are no birds' nests.

6/16/2011 2:54:27 PM

Huntsman ad:

6/16/2011 3:32:52 PM

wtf

6/16/2011 3:44:05 PM

Quote :

"The Taiwan system is about 10 years in, and it's already having funding issues.""

What funding issues?

Quote :

"People have the right to be bigots. We have the right to not support their discriminatory business practices. The suggestion seems to be that, without the civil rights act, you'd have shops popping up that didn't allow black people. That's absolutely ridiculous."

Why do people have the right to be discriminatory? The constitution? Thats debatable.

I can't think of any reason why people would have the right to be discriminatory, other than the notion that people have the natural right to do ANYTHING AT ALL and laws are just a list of rules we, as a society, agreed upon to make life easier.

And yes; I do think that without the civil rights act, discrimination would be tolerated in certain places. I think there are definitely some small regional markets for a discriminatory business.

But my biggest beef with Ron is that he actually thinks (and asserts) the act had a net negative effect on race relations. He doesn't want to amend it; he wants to repeal it wholesale.

6/16/2011 3:56:30 PM

Quote :

"wtf"

The guy that did the "6 Days" Huntsman ad also made this one:

6/16/2011 4:04:28 PM

Quote :

"Define "a state of nature." We don't have cars in a state of nature either, is the default position that there should be no cars?"

A state of nature can be thought of as the condition that existed before there was a state. This most certainly existed at some point in the past; organization has existed as long as life has existed, but the organization of a group that wields unquestioned power over the collective is a human phenomenon.

Cars are a manufactured item; government is a group of people that are given the authority to take action. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Quote :

"I'm convinced of this claim given the history of our species pre-government. I'm not saying that the American form of government is ideal, but history has demonstrated that it's probably better than anarchy for everyone involved."

I think you'd have to elaborate on this point. You're essentially looking at the only timeline that exists, or at least that we have access to, and saying "the way things happened was the best way." Governments started out as brutal dictatorships, and as time went on, they've gotten somewhat better, but they have always utilized force. Sometimes it was 1% forcing the 99%, sometimes it was 51% forcing the 49%, but coercion is necessary for any state.

It would be easy to look at history and say, "wow, look at primitive humans, they didn't have government. Look at us, we have government. Our success must be due to the presence of government." That requires you to ignore all the damage that has been done by government. You also have to make the assumption that it was government driving progress, and not just human creativity. We as a species arguably lost a good 500-1000 years of progress due to government over-extension.

Quote :

"Isn't advocating the continuance of a law essentially demonstrating that we would in fact not be better off without that law? This is the process that (presumably, not always in a non-perfect government such as ours) that our lawmakers go through when creating the laws so ostensibly has already been demonstrated. Not every law is unjust de facto until proven otherwise."

So, you're saying, "well, the politicians made the law, and I presume they thought about whether it was a good idea or not, and decided by majority vote that it was, so now the burden of proof is shifted to the people saying the law should go away." Problem is, the politicians never met the burden of proof to begin with, so it's still on them, they just ignored it and made the law anyway. The problem with policy is that there is, as Bastiat and Hazlitt talked about, the "seen" and the "unseen." The "seen" effects are the short-term or immediate effects of a given law. The "unseen," which is typically ignored, are the long-term distortions caused by policy.

Quote :

"The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" comes again to mind. You still haven't demonstrated either that government involvement is the root cause of our societal problems, and that's all that Kris is asking you to demonstrate before baldly asserting it. I think that it is demonstrable that no government is generally worse for the general citizenry than some government (see Somalia and northern Mexico for examples)."

I'm not talking about getting rid of all government in this thread, though. We were specifically talking about problems with our health care model in this country. Me and eyedrb have repeatedly gone over some of the structural issues that have been caused because of government intervention. We explain how the problems themselves were created by government, but Kris says that, even if the problems are caused by legislation, the answer is not to toss out the legislation, it's to make more legislation. There's nothing that anyone can say to that.

Quote :

"Wholesale abandonment of all laws as a response to some laws being unjust or unneeded suffers from a fallacy of composition."

While I am essentially an anarchist, I'm not going to get into the theory behind that in this thread, because I'm talking about the repeal of specific laws, not all laws.

Quote :

"In a state of nature, there are no ant hills. In a state of nature, there are no beaver dams. In a state of nature, there are no birds' nests."

None of those structures resembles a government; they are dwellings for animals. A government is not a physical entity, it is the legalization of force against peaceful individuals.

Quote :

"What funding issues? "

I'm not going to do your homework for you, but the Taiwanese UHC program is underfunded and has required the issuance of debt to continue. This is a problem inherent to any nationalized program; without market forces to encourage competition and bring down prices, costs are unrestrained, and no amount of additional funding will provide a permanent solution. That's why our health care system is more botched than any other in the world - it's been building for 50-70 years, and now it's reaching a tipping point.

Quote :

"Why do people have the right to be discriminatory? The constitution? Thats debatable. I can't think of any reason why people would have the right to be discriminatory, other than the notion that people have the natural right to do ANYTHING AT ALL and laws are just a list of rules we, as a society, agreed upon to make life easier. "

People, by nature (we're talking about natural rights here), can discriminate. People do it all the time. Why don't you date really dumb, really ugly chicks? That's discrimination, is it not? Discrimination is bad, but it's not a violation of rights; other people are not entitled to your services, respect, or anything else.

No amount of legislation can eliminate discrimination, and in many cases, it will increase discrimination. If you aim to run a competitive business, you'd have to be an idiot to discriminate against customers. Discriminatory hiring practices will continue, but that's subject to way more than race - people are discriminated against based on age, sex, appearance, and many other attributes. I don't think the law has been an effective tool to eliminate that. We could just as easily outlaw "being mean."

[Edited on June 16, 2011 at 5:12 PM. Reason : ]

6/16/2011 4:46:04 PM

Quote :

"Did Mitt Romney Live In His Son’s Unfinished Basement Last Year? Jun. 15 2011 - 12:11 pm By BRENDAN COFFEY Did Dad spend last year down cellah? Mitt Romney lived in his son’s unfinished basement in Belmont, Massachusetts in 2010 – or at least that what he claimed to the state to be able to vote last year, says GOP candidate Fred Karger. If that’s true, Romney showed a true commitment to voting for Republican Senator Scott Brown in last year’s special election, since he owns a $12.5 million home in La Jolla, Calif. and a $10 million home in New Hampshire’s Lake Winnipesaukee – but no home in the state he was once governor. "

http://blogs.forbes.com/brendancoffey/2011/06/15/did-mitt-romney-live-in-his-sons-unfinished-basement-last-year/

Quote :

"Fraudulent voter registration in Massachusetts carries a penalty of $10,000 and up to five years in jail. And the law in Massachusetts is pretty clear about the residency requirements needed to vote in the state. The state defines residence as "where a person dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social, and civil life.""

Romney should be investigated and if found guilty, jailed.

6/16/2011 5:23:40 PM

Quote :

"The default position is that government should do nothing."

There is no default position. Suppose "law A" is our current healthcare system, "no law" is a lack of any healthcare regulation, and "law B, C, D" are healthcare legislation of places like the UK, Taiwan, or Germany. You are saying if law A is bad then we should not do law A. Therefore, not law A is no law, this is illogical. I am pointing out that that not law A is not necessarily no law, it could be law B, it could be law C, etc.

Quote :

"The burden of proof is always on the person advocating the continuance of a law."

Not parliamentary speaking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescind,_repeal,_or_annul

Quote :

"This is where you prove my point: that your solution is not to deal with the root causes of our societal problems, but to deal with the symptoms."

You can't just claim that your solution deals with the root cause and others deal with the symptoms, you need some actual reasoning to support why your solution is better.

Quote :

"You're a bad person."

I am just a rational consumer.

Quote :

"A state of nature can be thought of as the condition that existed before there was a state."

"The State" is just a simple term for the guy with the most guns. You could replace it with "warlord", "king", "chief", "dominant male", whatever you want. That person has always existed, one person was always the strongest, and that person or entity creates the rules. It sucks, but unless violence magically disappears, we're going to always have one.

6/16/2011 6:02:29 PM

^^^You're going to have to qualify those statements because they don't follow common knowledge or reasoning. You're just stating opinions like they're facts.

6/16/2011 7:29:45 PM

Quote :

"None of those structures resembles a government; they are dwellings for animals. A government is not a physical entity, it is the legalization of force against peaceful individuals."

A government is a social structure kind of like a flock of birds or an ant colony or a gang. Is it unnatural when geese fly in a V formation? Who cares if it makes the flock as a whole go faster. WHAT RIGHT DO THE GEESE IN THE BACK HAVE TO SURVIVE OFF OF THE SWEAT OF THE HEAD GOOSE'S BROW?!?!?

No gods or kings.
Only geese.

6/16/2011 8:38:29 PM

Quote :

"A government is a social structure kind of like a flock of birds or an ant colony or a gang. Is it unnatural when geese fly in a V formation? Who cares if it makes the flock as a whole go faster. WHAT RIGHT DO THE GEESE IN THE BACK HAVE TO SURVIVE OFF OF THE SWEAT OF THE HEAD GOOSE'S BROW?!?!?"

To my knowledge, geese don't kill or imprison any other geese that choose not to participate. I'm not opposed to human organization, I'm opposed to a powerful, elite group of humans wielding a monopoly on force against the entire population of a given territory.

This is a great article that talks about out of control health care costs, and how specifically that resulted from government intervention: http://mises.org/daily/5359/The-Medical-Marketplace-Free-and-Unfree

[Edited on June 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM. Reason : ]

6/17/2011 2:26:31 PM

From the Obama credibility thread:

Quote :

"^ the way the GOP primaries are done, Paul would never win. They wouldn't let him win."

I actually don't have any idea about how the primaries are run. It seems that from reading comments like on this story about Ron Paul winning a strawman poll - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57274.html , the popular opinion is that he might be popular, yet has no chance of winning the primary.

A lot of what Paul is supporting - state determination for gay marriage, decriminalization of marijuana - it seems like he would be a very popular candidate to get Independents and socially liberal conservatives...like many people on this board.

Why the hate on him?

I can see a lot of his policies are damn near offensive to old crochety Republicans, but the guy seems to be all about getting the government out of everyone's business.

[Edited on June 18, 2011 at 6:29 PM. Reason : lkj]

6/18/2011 6:28:42 PM

He's not for getting the government out of people's business when it comes to abortion, and he IS into getting the government out of people's business when it comes to the right to keep black people out of your restaurant, for starters.

6/18/2011 9:41:37 PM

^^ on the gay marriage being a states' rights issue...

I am usually a proponent of decisions being made at the state level but I will disagree here. This is a civil rights issue that needs to be settled on the federal level. It is simply a form of discrimination. People should not be denied the civil rights that their neighbor's enjoy just because both people in the relationship have cocks and they live in a red state.
I realize that you could make the argument that people who want to get married will just move to a blue state where gay marriage is legal but that is an unfair burden to place on people who have done nothing wrong.

The other option is for government to completely remove itself from anything to do with marriage. No more licenses/JOP ceremonies. Erase all tax benefits, ss, veterans benefits, and anything else that comes up when you search for legal and economic benefits of marriage.

6/18/2011 10:05:00 PM

Quote :

"The other option is for government to completely remove itself from anything to do with marriage. No more licenses/JOP ceremonies. Erase all tax benefits, ss, veterans benefits, and anything else that comes up when you search for legal and economic benefits of marriage. "

after reading his book, I think Ron would agree with you on this.

Im curious what rights do you feel are violated currently?

6/19/2011 8:51:28 AM

6/21/2011 12:09:42 PM

6/21/2011 5:22:34 PM

Newt just needs to bow out...hell he can do it Trump style for all I care, just stop being a face of the GOP

6/21/2011 8:51:29 PM

Quote :

"Anti-socialist Bachmann got $250K in federal farm subsidies Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) — so fond of accusing the Obama administration of foisting socialism on an unwilling America — has apparently been the recipient of about a quarter of million bucks in government handouts. Liberal site Truthdig links to an Environmental Working Group analysis of federal agricultural subsidies and found that the Bachmann family farm, managed by her father-in-law until his recent death, received $251,000 in farm payments between 1995 and 2006. Bachmann’s financial disclosure forms indicate her stake in the Wisconsin farm is worth up to $250,000. Her income from the farm has grown from $2,000 a year a few years back to as much as $50,000 for 2008. "

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1209/Antisocialist_Bachmann_got_250k_in_federal_farm_subsidies.html

6/21/2011 9:24:09 PM

From what I've been able to gather from the local tdub socialists, farm subsidies have nothing to do with socialism. The means of production haven't changed hands, the government is just handing them other people's money for free.

Personally, I'd have no problem taking subsidies, not out of an attempt to "drain the beast," but just by virtue of the fact that I never consented to the taxation in the first place. It certainly makes Bachmann appear less principled that other candidates that have no received direct subsidies, though.

6/21/2011 10:33:29 PM

^so you are willing to suck on the fed tit huh? Wow, never thought I would see you type something like that....I guess as long as the fed handouts benefit you you are not in favor of cutting them? Your taxation bit is weak sauce.....

[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 12:47 AM. Reason : w]

6/22/2011 12:44:31 AM

Should a slave refuse to eat the food his master gives him, or should he take whatever he can for himself? The answer is clear to me.

6/22/2011 12:51:33 AM

Quote :

"Should a slave refuse to eat the food his master gives him, or should he take whatever he can for himself? The answer is clear to me."

You must know how crazy you sound for comparing yourself to a slave because you have to pay taxes.

[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 12:58 AM. Reason : quoted in case you try to remove it b/c people get pissed at your slave comparison]

6/22/2011 12:57:14 AM

It's a metaphor. If someone is born into a state of subservience that they did not consent to, why should they feel bad about taking advantage of the entity they are subservient to? You don't choose your circumstances in life, but you do make decisions that affect your quality of life. I don't choose to have my money taken and used to kill people, but that's what happens. Since I not only object to the collection of taxes but also to the way that the tax money is used, I have no problem trying to get some of the money back.

[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 1:26 AM. Reason : ]

6/22/2011 1:06:18 AM

Looks like others are seeing Romney for being a flip flopping appeaser:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/21/top-dem-picks-huntsman/

Quote :

"Washington (CNN) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ventured into the 2012 presidential waiting game Tuesday, offering up his pick for the Republican presidential nomination. "If I had a choice, I would favor Huntsman over Romney," Reid told reporters after a meeting on Capitol Hill. "But I don't have a choice in that race." When asked if the country is ready for a Mormon president, the Nevada senator said they are not ready for Mitt Romney. Reid, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Romney are all members of the Church of Latter Day Saints. "I think the frontrunner in the Republican stakes now, here is a man who doesn't know who he is," Reid said of Romney. The Nevada Democrat pointed to Romney's positions on gay marriage, abortion and health care as signs the former Massachusetts governor has flip-flopped on his positions. "We modeled our bill to a large degree about what he did in Massachusetts. Now he is trying to run from that," Reid said, referencing the health care reform bill Romney signed as governor. "If someone doesn't know who they are they shouldn't be president of the United States.""

6/22/2011 10:13:26 AM

Quote :

"Speaking at a Tea Party bus tour event in Indianola, Gingrich said mass resignations among his campaign staff stemmed from his "fundamental disagreement" with consultants. "Our campaign is going to survive and I'm going to be in it all the way and I believe I can win it... because people want substance more than baloney," he said. A former aide said the differences mainly involved the staff view that Gingrich should campaign heavily in the early primary states and Gingrich's view that he should instead go on a Greek cruise with his wife."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/25/us-gingrich-iowa-idUSTRE75O25720110625

That's kind of amazing.

6/26/2011 10:08:54 AM

looks like he has his priorities in order

6/27/2011 12:59:49 PM

No one wants to work for a losing campaign, and it's pretty obvious to me that Gingrich is not a viable candidate. I'm not sure why he's wasting his time.

6/27/2011 1:02:25 PM

How much of your political philosophy is based simply on self-empowerment and not having to fear that somewhere, there's someone you might be depending on for your life? In other words...individualist insecurity?

The more I read these anarcho-capitalists who worship Ron Paul, the more I'm convinced that it's like Tony Robbins self-empowerment crossed with Ayn Rand "fuck you, got mine".

Do you have friends that disagree with you on this stuff? Because I'll be you're a delight to be around as soon as you find out someone believes in government beyond whatever guy jails the person that violates YOUR property.

[Edited on June 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM. Reason : x]

6/27/2011 1:18:24 PM

Much as I am loathe to say it, Bachmann appears to be running a strong race. I don't think she'll win the nomination but she could be a strong contender for VP.

6/27/2011 1:53:36 PM

Quote :

"How much of your political philosophy is based simply on self-empowerment and not having to fear that somewhere, there's someone you might be depending on for your life? In other words...individualist insecurity? The more I read these anarcho-capitalists who worship Ron Paul, the more I'm convinced that it's like Tony Robbins self-empowerment crossed with Ayn Rand "fuck you, got mine". Do you have friends that disagree with you on this stuff? Because I'll be you're a delight to be around as soon as you find out someone believes in government beyond whatever guy jails the person that violates YOUR property."

You realize there's a difference between being anti-state and anti-organization/anti-collaboration, right? Literally everything I have in life, aside from my own body, was created by someone else. Individualism is not being selfish and saying "fuck you, got mine." It's a moral framework that starts with the idea of self-ownership.

Anyways, this is another one of your anti-libertarian tirades that has nothing to do with the topic, and I certainly don't expect you to approach what I've said with any sort of intellectual honesty. You've already formed your conclusion, and nothing I can say will keep you from attacking the caricature that you've so lazily constructed.

[Edited on June 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2011 2:23:25 PM

Quote :

"You've already formed your conclusion, and nothing I can say will keep you from attacking the caricature that you've so lazily constructed."

Hello pot, meet kettle.

I should probably mention that I've spent too much time arguing Rawls vs. Nozick with people in other forums before. I think I posted my belief in the proper balance of positive and negative liberty before. I think there's even a possibility that someone like Hayek accepted that there should be no absolute belief in one over the other (though he was heavily weighted towards negative). I think you're response was something along the lines of "no, Nozick made you irrelevant, you make no sense, there is no such thing as society so stop trying to make me a part of it through government, etc". Keep in mind that Nozick even admitted that he was more utopian in his belief later in life...well, and then he went back and forth on it, so if anything it proves that it was a complicated topic.

And why don't Austrian Economists believe in peer review beyond their like minded clique? Maybe I've missed something, but that Mises stuff seems pretty insular.

You're not going to accept any idea of justice as involving positive liberty so why should I waste my time trying to convince you it's a legitimate idea when you've made up your mind (like I have, obviously, but I'm not an absolutist, we need elements of both positive and negative liberty).

Libertarianism is great if all you care about is maximum personal freedom, but that isn't always synonymous with widespread prosperity. Of course, failing to maximize personal freedom to the highest degree doesn't mean someone supports fascism or something. That's just hyperbole.

Anyway, 2012...my thought for now on that is that Obama is a bad negotiator and likely outlived any usefulness he may have had in that respect. The question now is who is most likely to be able to sway enough lawmakers to take actions that won't deflate spending to a rate that it tanks the economy even worse than before. Another 4 years of high unemployment isn't going to help anything, even if the deficit narrows at a record level. I'm still optimistic about a deal coming up this summer that will reduce long term deficits and not create more unemployment either directly through government layoffs or indirectly.

I have no idea if anyone can do something and I'm just trying to figure out where the best shelter is for all of this.

6/27/2011 3:11:19 PM

Quote :

"Hello pot, meet kettle."

Yeah, right. Despite my best attempts, I've failed to pin down your particular ideological beliefs because you're extremely evasive. You rarely post your own positions, and when you do, they're reactionary in nature. It's become somewhat common for you to pop into threads, launch into a diatribe about Ron Paul supporters, and leave. I have no idea what you stand for, but I know you don't like Ron Paul's positions or Austrian-style libertarianism. It almost seems like you avoid posting in detail because you're afraid that we might agree on some (or many) issues, which puts you in the same camp as many others on this forum.

Quote :

"I think you're response was something along the lines of "no, Nozick made you irrelevant, you make no sense, there is no such thing as society so stop trying to make me a part of it through government, etc". Keep in mind that Nozick even admitted that he was more utopian in his belief later in life...well, and then he went back and forth on it, so if anything it proves that it was a complicated topic. "

Haha. I'm certain that wasn't my response, and if it was, I was wrong. I've read Anarchy, but Nozick's premise was faulty to begin with. He came to many of the correct conclusions, but using the wrong framework. Even in Anarchy, Nozick concludes that a minimalist, "night watchman" state is necessary for a free, functioning society, which is a serious departure from Rothbardian libertarianism, not that Nozick originated from that school anyway. He was a Harvard academic. If you start from the non-aggression principle, it's logically inconsistent to reach the conclusion that some aggression is necessary anyway.

Quote :

"And why don't Austrian Economists believe in peer review beyond their like minded clique? Maybe I've missed something, but that Mises stuff seems pretty insular."

Well known Austrian economists like Robert P. Murphy, Tom Woods, and Steven Kinsella routinely respond to criticisms of Austrian theory in detail. It's not like journalists launch these objections and writers at the Mises Institute just say, "Well, too bad...we're right."

On positive versus negative liberty, I already hinted at that, but I view positive liberty as an illegitimate concept. Other people are not your property. Positive liberty implies that you can force peaceful individuals to act, which violates the non-aggression principle.

[Edited on June 27, 2011 at 3:51 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2011 3:45:37 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/02/after-two-cain-staffers-resign-two-more-leave-his-iowa-campaign/?hpt=po_bn2

Quote :

"After two Cain staffers resign, two more leave his Iowa campaign Iowa City, Iowa (CNN) – Mere days after two top staffers resigned from Herman Cain's presidential campaign, two others have also called it quits. Tina Goff, the Iowa organizational director, confirms to CNN that she left the campaign on Friday. Goff also said that another Iowa staffer - Straw Poll coordinator Kevin Hart - resigned that day. The Cain campaign confirmed both developments."

Quote :

"Goff told CNN that the conservative businessman "wasn't willing to make the commitment to Iowa necessary to win the [Ames] straw poll." That contest is seen as an early test of success in Iowa. Goff added that she was concerned by the amount of money and time the Cain campaign was committing to that straw poll. However, she declined to discuss specifics. "I didn't want it to go this way," Goff said. "I'm very sad about it.""

Quote :

"The fresh defections follow those of two other Cain staffers who recently resigned. Matt Murphy left as the New Hampshire state director and Jim Zeiler resigned as Cain's regional director. In comments that echo those of Goff in Iowa, Murphy reportedly said that Cain refused to mount a serious effort in New Hampshire. The Cain campaign denied that assertion."

Not as serious as Gingrich, but a series of people quitting because they feel more than one early important state is being under addressed could be a problem. The 3rd debate is next month in Iowa so a strong performance there could help.

7/2/2011 4:21:00 PM